The President has on 21 November 2024 concurred with the following resolution on Government Securities and Treasury Bills passed by Parliament on 12 November 2024:
\"That this Parliament, in accordance with Article 144(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, resolves that a higher amount of S$1,515,000,000,000 be specified for the purposes of section 11(2) of the Government Securities (Debt Market and Investment) Act 1992.\"
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Explanation and Impact of Policy Change on Full NRIC Number and Further Measures on Public Education and Protection of Sensitive Identifiable Information","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Ms Tin Pei Ling –
1 To ask the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether an individual’s NRIC number is considered confidential requiring privacy protection; (b) if not, how does the Personal Data Protection Act reconcile with this; and (c) what measures are put in place by the Government to protect sensitive or personal identifiable information data.
2 Ms Usha Chandradas asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information how does the Ministry intend for its new standards regarding the appropriate handling of NRIC numbers to be applied across different sectors including public agencies, private enterprises and non-profit organisations.
3 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether NRIC, being data from which an individual can be identified as defined under the Personal Data Protection Act, shall be expressly excluded from the Act; (b) to date, how many complaints have been made to the Personal Data Protection Commission that is related to NRIC data being used or collected wrongfully and what actions are taken; and (c) what are the measures taken to mitigate against the risks of identity theft and scams from the use of NRIC which will be publicly available.
4 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Government’s move to unmask NRIC numbers can pose a risk in the rise of NRIC-related scams especially among elderly; and (b) how will the Ministry proactively combat NRIC-related scams, considering that public education takes time to be effective.
5 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) how will the Ministry update and strengthen guidance for private organisations on their authentication and verification processes to safeguard against identity theft in light of new policies to unmask NRIC numbers; (b) what additional measures will be introduced to reassure the public and mitigate heightened concerns about susceptibility to scams and identity theft; and (c) how will the Ministry enhance public education efforts and promote best practices in personal data protection amidst the evolving digital landscape.
6 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information how will the Government ensure that Singaporeans are not exposed to the risks of scams and identity thefts arising from the unmasking of NRIC numbers.
7 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what was the process by which the internal circular that was issued by MDDI, instructing Government agencies to stop using unmasked NRIC numbers in new business processes and services, was drafted and circulated; (b) when was it circulated; and (c) whether full text of the circular can be made public.
8 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Ministry will take into consideration Singaporean's concerns about their NRIC number being publicly available before making any further decision on the unmasking of the full NRIC number; and (b) whether the Ministry will respond to concerns from cyber security experts that NRIC numbers can be used by bad actors to trick victims into believing they are authority figures or to commit crime.
9 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Ministry was closely involved in the new ACRA Bizfile project conceptualisation and implementation; (b) whether the Ministry had raised any concerns regarding data protection and privacy prior to the project go-live; and (c) whether the Ministry can share its plans for any upcoming projects or initiatives where the unmasking of NRIC numbers is being considered.
10 Mr Ong Hua Han asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what is the timeline for the Government’s public education efforts about the purpose and safe handling of NRIC numbers; (b) how is the Government supporting healthcare and financial institutions in the shift away from NRIC numbers as a method of authentication; and (c) what additional steps can be taken to protect potential scam victims during this transition period.
11 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Ministry can provide the details of the circular issued to agencies to cease further planned use of masked NRIC numbers in new business processes and services; (b) whether sufficient clarity has been given to agencies to implement this new move; and (c) whether the circular addresses the readiness of the public to treat NRIC numbers as non-private unique identifiers.
12 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what is the rationale for phasing out the use of masked NRIC numbers; (b) whether the full availability of NRIC numbers to the public will pose security risks or individual privacy issues; and (c) whether private sector practices on the use of NRIC numbers are aligned with the Government’s latest policy position.
13 Mr Xie Yao Quan asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information what is the compressed timeline for (i) consultation with the private sector and updating of guidelines on the appropriate use of masked NRIC numbers and (ii) public education on the use of full NRIC numbers as a unique identifier.
14 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information what steps will be taken by the Government to ensure that the private sector will move away from using NRIC numbers as a means of authentication.
15 Mr Xie Yao Quan asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information whether the Government will consider (i) stepping up enforcement actions (ii) encouraging or mandating entities to adopt other measures such as conducting audits and (iii) enhancing punitive actions against entities in the private sector for the non-compliance and improper use of NRIC numbers as a form of authentication.
16 Mr Xie Yao Quan asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) why has the public service accepted and promulgated the masking of NRIC numbers in past years; (b) what has caused the change in thinking; and (c) whether all Government services will be reviewed for the possible use of other identifiers in lieu of unmasked NRIC numbers going forward, given the latest position that not using masked NRIC numbers does not mean unmasking all currently masked NRIC numbers.
17 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether, prior to 9 December 2024, the Personal Data Protection Commission had issued any directives to organisations against the use of NRIC numbers to authenticate an individual’s identity or as default passwords; (b) if such directives were issued, how did the Ministry ensure their enforcement and compliance during this period; and (c) how many organisations, including banks and large insurers, continued using NRIC numbers for authentication or default passwords despite these directives.
18 Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information as NRIC numbers are being used by many organisations including financial institutions to authenticate identity (a) what measures will be taken to ensure that security enhancement of Government systems are made before discontinuing with the masking of NRIC numbers; and (b) what measures will be taken to reassure and address Singaporeans' concerns about the cybersecurity risks associated with the unmasking of NRIC numbers within the Government.
19 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether any sanctions will be imposed on ACRA or its officers for the exposure of Singaporeans’ NRIC numbers through its Bizfile portal in December 2024; and (b) whether the continued exemption of Government agencies from the obligations of the Personal Data Protection Act needs to be reviewed.
20 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information whether the proposed change in policy to treat NRIC numbers as equivalent to the full names of individuals is justifiable.
21 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information in respect of the decision to unmask NRIC numbers (a) whether the Government has considered the data security implications of full NRIC numbers being made readily available; and (b) what is the Government’s assessment of the risk of NRIC numbers being potentially used to unlock large amounts of information relating to the individual.
22 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what inter-Ministerial consultations were conducted prior to the decision to unmask NRIC numbers; (b) when was the decision taken to unmask NRIC numbers; (c) how does this policy align with international best practices on personal data protection; and (d) what measures are being taken to ensure that other personal identifiers can remain secure.
23 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information with the move to unmask NRIC numbers (a) how will services such as telecommunication providers and banks be required to authenticate the identity of legitimate consumers moving forward; and (b) what is the timeline for updating the Personal Data Protection Commission’s 2018 guidelines that govern the collection and protection of NRIC numbers.
24 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information with regard to the Government’s intention to change the practice of masking NRIC numbers, (a) how can citizens understand the implications if their NRIC numbers were to be utilised by bad actors; and (b) why was the use of NRIC as an identifier versus authenticator in the private sector not considered earlier as a requirement to amend, given the strong push towards a digital-first society.
25 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) when was the Ministry’s circular that sought to change the practice of masking NRIC numbers dated and communicated to Government agencies; (b) when did the Ministry determine that such a change was necessary and begin planning for it; (c) whether any whole-of-Government discussions took place before and after the issuance of the circular; and (d) how many other agencies, apart from ACRA, misread or misunderstood the circular.
26 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what were the specific incidents that led the Government to form its view that masking NRIC numbers gives one a false sense of security; (b) how long ago did the Government adopt this stance; and (c) what will the Government do to restore public trust from the pre-emptive move by ACRA’s Bizfile ahead of a full and proper public consultation.
27 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the loss of individuals’ identification numbers through the actions of private organisations is still considered a data breach under regulation 3(1)(a) of the Personal Data Protection (Notification of Data Breaches) Regulations; and (b) if so, whether such private organisations will be penalised according to regulations before the unmasking of NRIC numbers by ACRA took place.
28 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) in the last 12 years, how many organisations have been investigated and fined under the PDPA for disclosing NRIC numbers; (b) what is the total quantum of fines collected; (c) whether there is any public concern about the fines previously levied and, if so, what is the Government’s response to such concerns; and (d) what is the projected cost of the public re-education campaign to desensitise citizens to information that organisations were previously punished for disclosing.
29 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) when is the policy to discontinue the use of masked NRIC numbers in new business processes and Government services planned to be implemented; (b) what plans does the Ministry have on educating the public regarding the policy change and the rationale behind the change; (c) whether public concerns on the policy change will expedite the initial public education plans; and (d) how will the Ministry address concerns regarding the potential misuse and abuse of unmasked NRIC numbers by scam syndicates.
30 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what are the Government’s and statutory boards’ obligations in relation to citizens’ personal data under the Public Sector Governance Act and their own internal rules; (b) whether ACRA’s release of unmasked NRIC numbers between 9 and 14 December 2024 breached any of these obligations; (c) what recourse does an affected individual have if there is a breach; and (d) what other actions will be taken to hold those involved in the release of the unmasked NRIC numbers accountable.
31 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) for what period has ACRA’s Bizfile online portal allowed searches to readily access an individual person’s NRIC number; (b) whether the Government has assessed the additional risks of identity theft and scams when NRIC numbers are readily searchable digitally such as via the Bizfile online portal; and (c) how is Bizfile’s public access, ease and rapidity of search considered against the whole-of-Government approach towards the handling of NRIC numbers as personal data.
32 Mr Don Wee asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what are the reasons for allowing ACRA's Bizfile platform to display full NRIC numbers of individuals searchable by name; (b) how does this align with Singapore’s data protection policies under the Personal Data Protection Act; and (c) how will the Ministry ensure that Government platforms do not prematurely launch features that may lead to privacy and cybersecurity concerns without adequate public and industry consultation.
33 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what are the reasons for ACRA’s decision to implement a feature that allows public access to full NRIC numbers despite established guidelines on data protection and privacy risk considerations; (b) how does the Government reconcile ACRA’s approach in treating NRIC numbers as a public identifier with Singaporeans’ expectations of privacy and the risks of identity theft; and (c) whether the Ministry will conduct a comprehensive review of all Government portals to ensure compliance with data protection best practices.
34 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether there are processes and checks in place for inter-agency coordination before a new initiative, like the refreshed ACRA Bizfile portal, is rolled out; and (b) whether the Ministry has considered that a publicly searchable database of all Singaporeans’ names and their NRICs can pose a risk or cause distress to people.
35 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether ACRA has taken into consideration the likely public concerns and reactions with regard to NRIC numbers being searchable on the Bizfile portal when deciding to allow the unmasking of NRIC numbers on the portal; and (b) whether ACRA is aware of the prevailing public understanding that NRIC numbers should be treated as private and confidential.
36 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance for Singaporeans whose NRIC were unmasked on ACRA’s Bizfile portal between 9 December 2024 and 13 December 2024 (a) what is the Government’s assessment of the likely risks and exposure that any of their NRIC numbers may have actually been accessed and downloaded by malicious actors for scams or onward sale during that period; and (b) if so, whether the Government is prepared to provide suitable compensation or remedy to such individuals.
37 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what is the exact number of unique NRIC numbers that were available to be viewed publicly on the ACRA Bizfile portal between 9 and 13 December 2024; (b) how many distinct users have conducted searches that returned these numbers; and (c) whether ACRA will contact individuals who have had their NRIC numbers returned in the results to inform them that their details have been disclosed and to educate them about the potential misuse and heightened scam risks.
Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Question No 1.
The Senior Minister of State for Digital Development and Information (Mr Tan Kiat How) (for the Minister for Digital Development and Information): Mr Speaker, Question Nos 1 to 37 in the Order Paper today relate to the Government policy on National Registration Identity Card (NRIC) numbers and the recent incident where the numbers were disclosed on the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) BizFile Service.
The Minister for Digital Development and Information Josephine Teo and the Second Minister for Finance Indranee Rajah have given notice that they will be delivering Ministerial Statements on these topics tomorrow, 8 January. As their Ministerial Statements will be addressing the issues raised in these Parliamentary Questions (PQs), I ask your leave for these PQs to be deferred for answer via the Ministerial Statements on 8 January.
\tMr Speaker: This will cover Question Nos 1 to 37. I give my consent.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Bus Connectivity Enhancement Programme's Improvements for Residents in Newer Housing Precincts and Key Towns","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"38 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Transport (a) how will the $900 million Bus Connectivity Enhancement Programme improve public bus connectivity for residents in newer housing precincts along Keat Hong Close, Choa Chu Kang Avenue 7 and Keat Hong Link; and (b) whether direct bus connectivity will be provided to key towns such as Teck Whye and Jurong East Central in particular.
\tThe Minister of State for Transport (Mr Murali Pillai) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, Sir, I appreciate the context of the hon Member Mr Wee's question, as in his constituency, there are a few new Build-To-Order (BTO) developments, including Keat Hong Verge which was completed in 2023, and there is one new BTO development Keat Hong Grange that will be completed in 2026. And the raison d'etre of the Bus Connectivity Enhancement Programme (BCEP) is to serve precincts which are further away from town centres and Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) stations.
Residents living along Keat Hong Close, Choa Chu Kang Avenue 7 and Keat Hong Link are currently served by eight bus services and Keat Hong Light Rail Transit (LRT) station, providing connectivity to major transport nodes and key amenities. Over the last few years, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has been increasing the bus services in tandem with the estate’s growth, with new connections to amenities and MRT stations in Choa Chu Kang and nearby towns. These include changes to bus services 301, 983 and 991. More recently, supplementary service 983M was introduced in March 2024 to provide a direct connection to the cluster of schools at Teck Whye Crescent.
Brickland residents also have direct access to Jurong East Central by taking service 188. To access amenities such as Choa Chu Kang Polyclinic and Teck Whye market, they can take services 172 or 991 to Choa Chu Kang Avenue 1 and continue with a short walk or transfer to service 307.
LTA will continue to engage community stakeholders as we review our bus services under the BCEP.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Don Wee.
\tMr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I have one supplementary question for the Minister of State. I thank the Minister of State for his positive update. I also thank LTA for improving the bus connectivity as well as the road safety of my Brickland residents over the past four years.
I have been receiving a lot of feedback from residents staying around Keat Hong Close. They feel that the connectivity can be improved upon because it is a closed loop and there is only one bus service that plies through Keat Hong Close. So, I wonder if a specific, thorough review can be conducted to improve the bus connectivity for residents staying around Keat Hong Close.
\tMr Murali Pillai: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Member for his endorsement of LTA's work to serve his residents better as far as transport is concerned. In relation to Keat Hong Close, we are happy to work with him to see how we can improve connectivity. I would give him the assurance that LTA will engage community stakeholders to review the bus services under the BCEP, particularly when new precincts come up.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of Workplace Safety Time-out at Construction Sites","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"39 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Manpower (a) in light of the number of workplace fatalities in 2024 and the implementation of the Safety Time-out in November 2024, how effective has this measure been in raising safety awareness within the industry; and (b) what additional steps can the Ministry take to further enhance safety awareness and ensure compliance with workplace safety regulations.
40 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Manpower with regard to the spike in workplace fatalities in the construction section in the second half of 2024 (a) how many active construction sites participated in the Safety Time-out called by the Ministry in November 2024; (b) whether the Ministry has analysed if there were any specific reasons behind the sharp rise in workplace fatalities; and (c) how does the Ministry intend to address this concerning trend.
41 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Manpower (a) of the 15 construction workplace deaths in the second half of 2024, how many have involved companies that have been allowed to resume work after only completing general safety reviews following earlier serious incidents; (b) whether the Ministry will automatically require external safety audits and specific structural changes to be implemented before work can resume at sites with fatalities given this stricter approach have successfully reduced deaths during the 2022 heightened safety period; and (c) if not, why not.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Zaqy Mohamad) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take three oral Parliamentary Questions (PQs), Question Nos 39, 40 and 41 in the Order Paper for 7 January 2025, together. In addition, I will address two oral PQs scheduled for the Sitting on 8 January 2025 by Mr Patrick Tay1 and Mr Louis Chua. These five PQs relate to construction workplace fatalities. I will respond to these questions together, so that I can give a comprehensive reply.
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad: Mr Speaker, of the 14 construction worksites where the fatalities occurred in the second half of 2024, nine were issued with stop-work orders because their safety management systems were found to be inadequate, posing imminent danger to their workers. These worksites were required to undertake measures, such as reviewing their safety management systems, before they can resume work. None of the 14 incident worksites had previously been issued with stop-work orders.
I share the Members' concern about the increase in workplace fatalities, especially in the construction sector. While the sector’s Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) performance is better than those of many developed countries like Japan, we are not yet on par with top performers such as the Netherlands. There is certainly scope for our construction sector to do better.
The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has continued to tighten our enforcement efforts for the construction sector. In 2024, more than 3,000 inspections were conducted, targeting key concerns such as Working at Height, Vehicular Safety and Struck by Falling Objects. More recently, we instituted a Safety Time-out in November 2024 to refresh workers’ awareness of WSH practices and reinforce the importance of adhering to safety protocols.
To improve industry-level WSH outcomes, the Multi-Agency Workplace Safety and Health Taskforce (MAST), which includes partners such as the Ministry of National Development (MND), Building and Construction Authority (BCA), and the WSH Council Industry Committees, has also introduced several measures to enhance WSH standards in the construction sector. These include: (a) subjecting all public construction projects to the Safety Disqualification Framework, which temporarily bars contractors with poor WSH performance from tendering; and (b) requiring all construction worksites with contract values of $5 million and above to install video surveillance systems. The requirement for external safety audits to be conducted following serious lapses remains in effect after the Heightened Safety Period. To strengthen accountability at the leadership level, we have also instituted measures such as requiring Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) and board directors in the higher-risk sectors, including construction, to attend the Top Executive WSH Programme.
Overall, our fatality rate has fallen over the years, averaging 1.1 per 100,000 workers, and is among the top performers worldwide. However, construction fatalities remain over-represented in Singapore with almost half our fatalities coming from the sector. So, the companies and the workers in the sector can certainly do better. On our part, we will monitor the progress of the measures implemented this year to further improve safety and accountability.
I urge all employers and workers to remain alert as we approach the Chinese New Year period, which is typically a time when companies face time pressures to complete projects. MOM will continue with enhanced enforcement efforts during this period. We must not compromise on safety. It is our collective responsibility to ensure that every worker returns home safely.
Mr Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.
\tMr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. While I appreciate the Senior Minister of State's reply on the multi-agency approach for the Safety Time-out, my question is more on the effectiveness, or at least, increasing the effectiveness of the Safety Time-out. In the MOM website, during a Safety Time-out, companies are strongly urged to review their risk assessment and debrief their workforce.
Can I suggest that during the Safety Time-out, companies are required to review their risk assessment, their safety management system and required to acknowledge that they have done so, especially at the leadership level, whether it is from the directors, and within the companies, flow it down, with their workers acknowledging that they have been debriefed and they are sure of the safe practices that are required?
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: I thank the Member for his question. Indeed, the Safety Time-out that was done was voluntary because this was meant to complement MOM's enforcement efforts overall. In terms of effectiveness, a Safety Time-out on its own is not going to be the panacea to solve the fatality issues. Having said that, we have also done more extensive measures, all introduced just last year, for example, requiring companies with projects above $5 million to put video surveillance systems. That has put a lot of companies on notice because they know that if something happens, there is record, there is video surveillance that is there as evidence for MOM to investigate. That has deterred many companies in terms of making sure that all processes and protocols are in place.
The other things which I mentioned earlier on include, we have now required CEOs and board directors in industries – not just construction but others as well – to refresh themselves to be very familiar. So, the accountability is not just at the worker level, but at CEO and board level, so that they cannot say, \"I didn't know. My safety officer was already hired to do this.\" Accountability starts from the top.
Within the construction sector, one of the key changes we also made in terms of the disqualification criteria was, for example, in the past, we only made the contractor and the two levels of sub-contractors accountable. Since last year, we have also now made it so for the contractor and all levels of sub-contractors accountable as well. So, there is none of this old business of telling us, \"This was some sub-contractor down the line, I have no sight, no visibility\". You have to be accountable for all your sub-contractors down the line.
We have made some measures, apart from just the Safety Time-out, that we think should enhance the safety protocols and procedures in the construction sector. We worked very closely with MND and BCA on this. I think one aspect would also be how we transform the sector, which MND and BCA are playing a very important role in this too, in terms of making our construction processes more productive, more safe. Today, you can see many of them performing quite well. Some of them have gone beyond just video surveillance and to include video analytics into the surveillance systems which are able to proactively predict or pre-empt some of these unsafe things in workers' conduct.
Overall, I think we have to not just rely on Safety Time-outs, but on the whole suite of measures that we introduced last year. And give us time, because it has been about six months or so for some of these measures and they need time to permeate and for us to evaluate their effectiveness. I assure Members that we are doing all we can, but the industry will also need to respond, and so, give them time to do so.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
\tMr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I agree with the Senior Minister of State that we must step up our efforts to improve safety in the construction sector. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State if MOM has analysed the profile of the construction companies that caused the unfortunate increase in the workplace fatalities in the second half of 2024. Were these primarily by large construction projects or by small- and medium-sized projects?
I recall that there was a period of time when there were many sub-contractors working within the same worksite. And if there is a clear trend, we should double down on our efforts to engage the specific sub-sector so as to better address the rise in the construction-related work fatalities.
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: I thank the Member for his question. I do not have the statistics off-hand in terms of the mix between large and small firms. I can tell the Member that based on our analysis in previous years for this particular group, there is a mix in terms of large and small firms. Small firms do form a significant portion of that number, which I think is about close to half or one third. If you think about it, many of these could have been avoided because many of them are in the addition and alteration (A&A) type of projects and renovation works, and some are doing maintenance works in facilities management. These are the areas in which we are working with BCA to see how we can encourage and better educate to create better awareness and procedures and protocols among our small and medium enterprises (SMEs).
So, yes, there are the larger firms but if you think about risk profile, larger worksites, bigger workforce, but the numbers are over-represented if you think about ratios in the SME sector. And that is one area in which we are working closely with BCA to try to manage.
\t
\tMr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Thank you, Speaker. Two supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. The first supplementary question is in relation to the point that he mentioned. I am not sure whether I heard correctly about there being a temporary bar from public sector projects should there be certain violations. In the context of workplace fatalities, for example, we all agree that it is one too many. So, would workplace deaths, for example, automatically trigger such a certain period of disqualification and how would these be assessed?
The second supplementary question is in relation to the SnapSAFE reports. I note in a news article that there was an increase in the number of such workplace safety violation reports. In terms of the level of resources that MOM has, is it adequately staffed, to ensure that these are properly investigated and, not just the investigation, but also the subsequent follow-up to make sure that the rectifications are done to prevent any incidents?
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: To the Member's first question on the demerit points system, we have enhanced it in the last year or the last couple of years, if I recall correctly. We brought down the debarment categories, in the sense that, now, it covers all Government Procurement Officers who procure construction work.
The debarment points system debars a firm for at least three months at 25 points and that gets triggered when you have one fatality. So, to some extent, if a company incurs more points, almost like the traffic demerit points system, whether it is MOM inspections, finding stop-work orders or other contraventions, even minor injuries, major injuries, that adds up the demerit points.
So, just to assure the Member that, yes, a fatality will trigger certain responses and it depends on demerit points over an 18-month period, for example, just like the traffic violation systems, it will debar them from public sector contracts.
I would say that we think this would be effective because the public sector does take on more than half of the construction projects in Singapore and therefore, I think that is a big, sizeable account for many of our construction firms, especially larger ones. As I said, one of the key things we got to look out for are the SMEs, because they may not rely on public sector works and typically, they are over-represented when we think about some of the A&A renovation projects or even facility management projects that result in fatalities or major injuries. So, I think that is one area in which the disqualification credit may not have happened and that is probably one reason why you find that many of our larger firms tend to do better too.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Manpower what further measures will the Ministry take to enforce workplace safety and health in the construction sector given that workplace fatalities have tripled from five in the first half of 2024 to 15 in the second half of 2024, even after a Safety Time-out in November 2024."],"footNoteQuestions":["39","40","41"],"questionNo":"39-41"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Entry of New Ride-hailing Operations and Impact on Private Hire Car Availability, Ride Fares and COE Prices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"42 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Transport in respect of the addition of another two ride-hailing operators in 2025 (a) what is the Ministry’s assessment of the impact on the availability of private hire cars on the road and ride fares; and (b) what is the Ministry's assessment of the impact on the availability of Certificates of Entitlement.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Transport): The supply of private hire cars and the fares for ride-hail services are driven primarily by changes in the underlying demand for point-to-point (P2P) trips. The entry of two new ride-hail service operators will offer drivers and commuters more choices of which platforms to be matched for a trip based on their preferences.
From 2022 to 2024, the bulk of the demand for Categories A and B Certificates of Entitlement (COEs) has been from local individual buyers. As highlighted previously, the COE supply for Categories A and B will continue to increase every quarter before reaching the projected peak supply from 2026.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
\tMr Desmond Choo (Tampines): I thank the Senior Minister of State for her reply. I have two supplementary questions. The first is, how does the Ministry balance the earnings of drivers or potential entrants and pre-existing ones, and the availability of public transport to the public? In determining the entry of new private hire operators, or ride-hail operators, is there an optimal number?
The second supplementary question, did the previous entrance of other operators over the last years cause any salient increase in COE prices?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. Firstly, P2P services complement the public transport sector. They provide an alternative option for commuters who do not own cars but may need access to car-like services from time to time, and commuters do choose, say, a P2P option for various reasons. But P2P is fundamentally a demand-driven transport mode and the amount of supply is ultimately based on whether there is actually sufficient demand and not just because of the number of platform operators. In fact, we have no plans to cap the number of platform operators. Fares too reflect the balance of supply and demand.
Why do I say that we do not have plans to cap the number of platform operators? Firstly, our regulations of ride-hail services seek to ensure that the P2P sector remains open and contestable. So, we require that drivers are allowed to multi-home, that they are not tied to a particular operator. As I have mentioned earlier, in the reply, the entry of two new ride-hail service operators actually means that there will be more choices for drivers and commuters, and it will benefit them. In fact, increased competition would drive innovation, as well as service improvements and help to improve the matching of demand and supply; and both commuters and drivers will benefit from this improved matching.
We also ensure that the operators are transparent about the fares and commissions, so that the drivers can make informed decisions about when to drive and what trips from which platform to accept, so that they can maximise their earnings based on the platforms they choose, as well as, of course, their driving habits or driving preferences.
As regard to the second question on COE prices, actually, there are many factors that affect COE prices, including, of course, macro-economic conditions and COE quota supply. So, based on our observations, we are not able to draw conclusions about a causal link between the entrance of new operators and impact on COE prices, simply because COE prices, as I have said, is really multi-factorial in its determination.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Probe in to Manual Manipulation of Delivery Status Codes for SingPost Parcels","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Mr Saktiandi Supaat –
43 To ask the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Ministry is aware of any manual manipulation of delivery status codes for any parcel deliveries within Singapore; (b) what further actions, investigations or audits have the Ministry or the Info-communications Media Development Authority ordered SingPost to conduct; and (c) considering the important role that postal delivery plays for the service of legal notices and court papers, how can trust be preserved in the reliability of postal services.
74 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information in light of the whistle-blowing report received by Singapore Post relating to its international e-commerce logistics parcels business which was also sent to the IMDA, whether the Government will (i) conduct further comprehensive reviews of the company to identify any non-compliance matters, including with IMDA's Universal Service Obligations and Quality of Service standards for postal service and (ii) relook its fundamental review of the postal sector.
\t
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Question No 43.
The Senior Minister of State for Digital Development and Information (Mr Tan Kiat How) (for the Minister for Digital Development and Information): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to address Question Nos 43 and 74 for oral answer in today's Order Paper? My response today will also cover the questions filed by Dr Tan Wu Meng1, Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim2 and Mr Pritam Singh for a subsequent Sitting. If the Members are satisfied with the response, they may wish to withdraw the questions after this session.
I will answer the following questions raised by Members. First, what is the substance of the whistle-blowing report? Second, are domestic postal services affected? Third, does this affect the review of postal services?
First, what is the substance of the whistle-blowing report? The report concerned the alleged falsification of e-commerce shipment data for a SingPost customer. The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) had assessed and was satisfied that the incident was confined to international transshipment parcel delivery overseas and did not affect regulated domestic postal services. This is a matter of corporate governance, which the SingPost board is dealing with.
Second, are domestic postal services affected? As mentioned, the answer is no. SingPost's board has assured the Government that postal service operations are not affected. Nonetheless, IMDA will continue to keep a close watch to uphold the public's interests. As the Public Postal Licensee, or PPL, we expect SingPost to meet its obligations for its regulated postal business. These include ensuring that domestic letter delivery meets IMDA's Quality of Service, or QoS, standards. SingPost's QoS performance is independently audited and the results are published on IMDA's website. Over the last four years, SingPost has performed within the QoS standards.
I would also assure Mr Saktiandi Supaat that postal services for legal notices and court orders are not affected. While the whistle-blowing report did not affect regulated domestic postal services, we were concerned, as Dr Tan Wu Meng was, about simultaneous dismissals of senior executives in a firm providing essential postal services. Hence, IMDA had issued SingPost an advisory to uphold proper corporate governance and processes, given its PPL status.
Third, on Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Louis Chua's questions on how this affects the postal sector review, the answer is that it has not and the review is ongoing. IMDA will continue to work closely with the CEO of SingPost's Singapore Business Unit, who remains in the role. Our postal services have to transform to remain sustainable and accessible while safeguarding the interests of the public and postal workers.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. I recall asking the Senior Minister of State last year if SingPost, the private company, have some de facto public service role, given the role of post offices in the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority passport collections today and distribution of masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. I have got two related questions for the Senior Minister of State.
Firstly, given what happened to SingPost's leadership, does the Senior Minister of State agree that the health of the brain and heart of a corporation can also affect other organs and other limbs of the corporation as well? And if so, is there any concern that what is happening to the unregulated international part of the business might eventually spill over to affect the regulated domestic part of the service business?
Secondly, can the Senior Minister of State elaborate on what IMDA is doing to find out what happened at SingPost, to ensure that SingPost's staff morale is maintained, especially on the ground and that management is not distracted from the essential services aspect of post office service provision in our heartlands, including for our Clementi residents?
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Sir, I gave a relatively more comprehensive reply to the Member's question last year on postal services, including the post office in Clementi, so I will not repeat some of those points but will focus my answer on the issue at hand and the Parliamentary Question that was raised.
As I had mentioned earlier, our primary concern as a regulator is that domestic postal services to the public is not affected. IMDA has ascertained that this was the case. The whistle-blowing incident involved overseas e-commerce parcel delivery and did not affect domestic letter delivery.
\t
That said, we are concerned with both the findings of the whistle-blowing incident and the subsequent dismissals, and are monitoring the situation closely to ensure that domestic postal services remain unaffected, especially during this period, where the new group chief executive officer (CEO) has yet to be appointed. And as I mentioned earlier, we are working very closely with the CEO of the SingPost domestic business unit to ensure that business continuity remains, staff morale remains and that they deliver their obligations under the licensing regulations. We are also monitoring very closely the QOS standards, and the various regulatory standards are still in place. So, we assure Members that we are paying close attention to the incident.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
\tMr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just one supplementary question. I asked about the review of the domestic postal licence and all that, but at the same time, given the incident that has happened, and I also note that the dismissed executives have disputed the claim, in such a regard, would the Government then consider conducting its own review, not just specifically for the domestic postal services obligations, but also as to the firm as a whole, in terms of giving the Government some assurance that whatever representations that the firm has made, in regard to its domestic obligations and other operations, that there is actually a proper process in place and that the firm is, as a whole, manage adequately?
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Sir, on the Member's question about the review of the postal sector, that review is ongoing. As I mentioned in my reply earlier, the structural factors that the postal service sector is facing have not changed. There is a decline in terms of the letter postal mail. More of us are not sending a physical mail and more are using digital means. So, the structural factors have not changed and we are still looking at how we can ensure that postal services remain sustainable, accessible and also cost-effective for all Singaporeans to meet our needs. So, that review is ongoing and we will continue to work with the SingPost team on those factors and reviews.
On the point about assurance that the domestic postal services remain unaffected, as I had mentioned earlier in the response to Dr Tan's question, we are closely monitoring the situation.
And the Member mentioned about some of the exchanges made publicly between the dismissed executives and the SingPost management and board. I will not talk more about it because there might be litigation action between the parties.
For IMDA as a regulator, our primary concern is to make sure that the domestic services continue and are not affected. And with this regard, we have also sent an advisory note to the SingPost board. We are glad to note that SingPost is taking this seriously. For example, they have taken steps to help ensure this. The chairman has indicated he will step up to provide closer guidance to management. The Singapore business unit's CEO, who directly oversees domestic postal services, remains in the role and the group CFO has been replaced by an experienced executive. SingPost has also newly created a group COO role and a person has been appointed to oversee the domestic operations. So, these are steps that SingPost has taken and IMDA as a regulator will continue to monitor this situation closely.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what is the substance of the whistle-blowing report raised to IMDA and SingPost in February 2024; (b) what is IMDA's assessment of it; (c) whether there is prior precedent of simultaneous termination of chief executive and multiple C-suite officers in a firm whose business subunits provide essential postal services; and (d) given SingPost's current circumstances, what is being done to ensure management attention on adequate Post Office access in our heartlands especially for seniors and the less digitally savvy.","2 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Digital Development and Information in respect of the whistle-blowing report relating to SingPost which was also sent to the Info-communications Media Development Authority of Singapore (a) what investigations are being taken by the Ministry to ascertain whether there are any breaches of standards or legislation including the Postal Services Act; and (b) whether any interim measures will be taken to ensure that the reputation and standards of postal services in Singapore remain unaffected pending the conclusion of investigations."],"footNoteQuestions":["43","74"],"questionNo":"43-74"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Instances of Non-compliance of Telemedicine Guidelines","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Dr Lim Wee Kiak –
44 To ask the Minister for Health (a) how many instances of non-compliance of telemedicine guidelines have been reported to or identified by the Ministry in the past year given the recent findings of potential lapses in telehealth consultations; (b) what are the primary reasons for these lapses; (c) what steps have been taken to minimise such lapses; and (d) whether there is a protocol for patients to seek support and advice if they have concerns and wish to report a telehealth consultation.
45 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Health (a) in light of the revocation of MaNaDr Clinic’s licence to provide outpatient medical services, whether the Ministry has observed any similar trends of unethical telemedicine practices by licensed providers of outpatient medical services, particularly of short consultations; (b) whether there is any evidence of misuse in the dispensation of drugs in this case; and (c) what other penalties or disciplinary actions have been imposed on the licensed medical practitioners associated with the clinic.
46 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Health (a) in the last year, how many medical clinics providing teleconsultations have been audited or investigated for irregularities; (b) of these, how many clinics have been issued warnings or subject to more severe penalties; and (c) what are the common irregularities committed by such clinics.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Question No 44, please.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to address Question Nos 44 to 46 together, please?
Mr Speaker: Please go ahead.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, arising from the Ministry of Health's (MOH's) regular audits and enforcement actions, eight telemedicine providers have been or are currently being investigated for non-compliance related to the provision of teleconsultation services. The issues of non-compliance fall largely into two categories: one, lapses in clinical care, such as doctors issuing prescriptions and medical certificates without proper clinical assessment or not conducting video consultations for first-time patients; or two, inappropriate advertisements, such as those promoting the unnecessary use of telemedicine services.
Investigations on three of these cases have been concluded and enforcement actions have been taken. One of the cases, which is MaNaDr, has had its outpatient medical service licence revoked. The others involve a short suspension and a stern warning, commensurate with the severity of the breaches. In addition, medical practitioners have also been referred to the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) for potential lapses in professional standards. SMC’s review is currently underway.
It is important to recognise that telemedicine can bring tremendous benefits to patients, especially those who are immobile or doing regular follow-ups. It makes healthcare much more accessible and convenient to our patients. However, as in any new service delivery model, there will be potential for abuse and misuse, especially in the initial period of implementation. MOH will take the necessary enforcement actions so that, over time, best practices become normalised. In the meantime, the public should raise concerns regarding the provision of telemedicine to MOH via the public feedback channels available on the Ministry’s website.
Mr Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.
\tMr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast): Thank you, Speaker, and thank you to the Senior Minister of State for the comprehensive reply. Can the Senior Minister of State also elaborate whether MOH can name the other two companies that provided telemedicine and where action has been taken, and for the remaining five, what is the status of the investigation? That is the first question.
The second question is, how many cases were there where the telemedicine consultations lasted less than a minute? And finally, whether there were cases where there were actually no patients, but they have recorded that there were patients?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, can I just ask Mr Ang to repeat his first question?
\tMr Ang Wei Neng: The first question is that the Senior Minister of State said three companies were investigated and actions were taken for their lapses. We know that one or two have been mentioned in the press. How about the other company? The second part is of the remaining five that were investigated, what was the status of the investigations?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, some of the investigations are still ongoing, so I do not think I can answer the second part of the first question that Mr Ang had asked.
There are a number of licensees involved and, indeed, there were some very short teleconsultations. As I said, the investigations are still ongoing, so we are trying to establish the exact number.
A short teleconsultation is not automatically incorrect, if it is a regular patient, if it is a follow-up, if the necessary information has been obtained. So, I think we have to look at the entire clinical care that has been provided and make sure it is appropriate. It is not the fact of telemedicine that is necessarily the problem. It is whether correct clinical care has been provided through this modality and that sometimes requires an inpatient consultation, sometimes it requires the appropriate breadth and time for the interaction so that the correct information is provided, and, in some cases, it is an issue of whether or not the correct documentation of the process has been carried out. So, all of these things are part of the investigation process.
Mr Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.
\tMr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Thank you, Speaker, and thank you to the Senior Minister of State for the reply, and I agree with the benefits of telemedicine.
I have two supplementary questions. The Senior Minister of State has shared that eight telemedicine providers are under investigation. How many clinics offer these services? This is just to get a feel of what is the percentage of the providers that are under investigation.
Second, some of my residents in Pasir Ris have brought up that the contacts of telemedicine clinics have been shared as a means to get easy medical certificates. In fact, a concerned parent shared that some students are using this as a means to avoid taking tests. So, how do we monitor that this modern convenience of telemedicine services is not abused? And how do we then proactively monitor it? What are the avenues for us to report such cases?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, to answer Mr Sharael Taha's first question, in 2024, we received a total of 59 complaints regarding telemedicine and this involved more than 20 licensees. So, that is the number that we are dealing with.
The monitoring of the quality of care is an important issue that Mr Sharael Taha brought up. There are a variety of ways that we can do this. Some of it is through the professional route and some of it is through public complaints. The issue of whether or not a clinical service is being abused for the purposes of a medical certificate that may or may not be necessary, again, is not a telemedicine issue. This type of inappropriate use can occur in-person as well. And so, there is a variety of things we look at, the metrics in terms of the numbers, the type of patient mix and the justifications for the medical certificate or any other therapeutic intervention. Ultimately, has a correct assessment been provided and is the treatment, whether it is medication, investigation or a medical certificate, appropriate to the clinical condition that has been detected and appropriately documented?
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Risk of Vaping Progressing to Drug Abuse and Classifying Vapes under Section 9 of Misuse of Drugs Act to Prevent Abuse","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"47 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what the Government’s assessment is regarding the risk of vaping devices and equipment being repurposed for the distribution and administration of substances prohibited under the Misuse of Drugs Act; and (b) whether there can be upfront closer collaboration between agencies to address issues arising from vaping devices.
48 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Ministry has studied (i) the relation of vaping with the increased risk of progressing to drug abuse and (ii) the risk of vapes as an apparatus for delivery mechanism for the consumption of a controlled drug; and (b) whether the Ministry will classify vapes as an apparatus or other article under section 9 of the Misuse of Drugs Act given the risk of vapes being misused for drug abuse.
49 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Ministry will consider categorising vapes containing controlled drugs and their associated paraphernalia under the same legal framework as the drugs themselves, imposing similar penalties for trafficking and consumption; and (b) what specific measures are being taken to raise public awareness, particularly among young people, about the dangers of consuming etomidate and other drugs through vapes.
\tThe Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 47 to 49?
Mr Speaker: Please go ahead.
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, several overseas studies have shown that vaping increases the risk of drug use. The Health Sciences Authority (HSA) and the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) have come across some cases of persons using vapes to consume controlled drugs. These currently form the minority of vape cases in Singapore.
CNB takes a zero-tolerance approach towards the consumption of controlled drugs, regardless of how the drugs are consumed. The trafficking, possession and consumption of controlled drugs using vapes are already offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA). The possession of any apparatus or article, including vapes, for the consumption of controlled drugs, is an offence under section 9 of the MDA.
The Ministry of Health (MOH) takes a multi-pronged approach to curb the illicit sale and use of vapes. HSA works closely with agencies, such as the Singapore Police Force, CNB, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority, the National Parks Board and the National Environment Agency, to enforce against vapes. If these agencies detect vaping-related cases in the course of their duties, the cases are referred to HSA. HSA and CNB work together on the investigations against offenders who use vapes to consume controlled drugs.
The Health Promotion Board (HPB) is also working with the Ministry of Education (MOE) to raise awareness about the harms of vaping and encourage our youths to lead a nicotine-free lifestyle. This complements CNB’s preventive drug education efforts, which aims to raise awareness of the harms of drugs, especially among youths, regardless of how they are consumed.
Mr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for his answer. Sir, a young Singaporean with family in Clementi wrote to me. She is 13 years old and is worried about vaping catching on in schools. A young Clementi resident, 16 years old, told me how they are worried about vaping pods having illegal drugs or even controlled drugs getting into Singapore, because there are advertisements online overseas for how it can be done. So, can I ask the Minister of State two supplementary questions?
Firstly, does the Minister of State agree, given what is happening around the world, that vaping devices are dual use? They can be used to fuel nicotine addiction or they could be used to administer controlled illegal drugs; and if so, will the Ministry consider gazetting vaping devices as gateway devices, given they could be used for both on the ground, which is happening in some parts of the world?
\t
Secondly, the Minister said that the MOH agencies, including HSA, and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) agencies, such as CNB, are working together and refer cases to one another.
Sir, can I ask the Minister, if you cannot be completely sure upfront whether a vaping device is going to be used for nicotine or for a controlled drug, why has MHA not taken more of a lead on this so that MHA resources can better support MOH and HSA, and ensure that we do not become a nation where gateway delivery devices are available widely? Because that will open us up to the risk of foreign drug dealers and foreign drug pushers getting into our heartlands and schools through vapes as a gateway device.
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for sharing his and his residents' concerns about the developments taking place with regard to the use of vapes related to drug consumption, possession or even trafficking methods.
Sir, as I shared earlier, the possession of any apparatus or article, including vapes, for the consumption of controlled drug is an offence under section 9 of the MDA. This is something that I have shared earlier. What is key is that we see globally, that there has been a rise in the liberalisation of attitudes and also decriminalisation relating to drug offences. However, in Singapore, we continue to have a strong stance.
Sir, I would like to thank Members here as well as fellow Singaporeans for working together with us in fighting the scourge of drugs. At the same time, we are not stopping there. Recently, we formed an inter-Ministry committee (IMC) on drug prevention for youths, where we work with the different agencies to go upstream so that our young people and our society not only are aware but know what to do when they come across issues or physically coming across drugs. These are important efforts that we must take on together.
Globally, for drugs, it has become a dangerous setting. But in Singapore, we are also working with like-minded countries to ensure that first, we keep our people safe from the harms of drugs. So, we work with counterparts and over time, you realise that even countries which have liberalised their policies, have come to realised that they are not able to control it. I have met my counterparts who shared with me that, it happened very slowly, but it has damaged and destroyed their people. So, they are also interested to work with us and we want to get more like-minded people and countries to work together to ensure that not only Singapore is safe but the world will be safer so that we can keep the harms of drugs from our people.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.
\tMr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister of State for answering and clarifying section 9 of the MDA. In June last year, there was a report in the United Kingdom (UK): one in six vapes confiscated in English schools contained illicit drugs. So, I share the concern of Members who raise Parliamentary Questions of vapes being used as a gateway for drug abuse. Has CNB seen an increase in trend of vapes containing illicit drugs? I understand in the Minister of State's clarification and answer just now, that it forms a small proportion of vapes that have been confiscated, but what is the sense of proportion?
Secondly, what kind of drugs are being used? Because in that UK report, street drugs were found, ketamine were found. What kind of drugs are commonly being used or found in vapes?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. For types of drugs, we have found cannabis and synthetic drugs. These are the main common drugs used in vapes. With regard to the numbers, like what I shared earlier, at this moment, it is small. We do not want to be complacent. We continue to work with agencies and our partners and counterparts overseas so that we can not only address this issue, but keep Singapore safe.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker and the Minister of State. I thought he gave a very clear response. I have two supplementary questions and both pertain to youths.
First, with reports indicating that youths are aware of the illegality and health risks of vaping, but continue to engage in the practice, what specific measures are the Ministry implementing to address the apparent disconnect between awareness and behaviour among young people?
Secondly, considering the evolving nature of substance abuse methods, what proactive steps are the Ministry taking to anticipate and address potential future trends in drug consumption among youths in Singapore?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. These are relevant issues that we need to address.
So, what we do is that we work together with our relevant agencies, not only here, but also our counterparts. In fact, we have very close relationships with our counterparts because drugs move from outside Singapore. So, we also want to understand how it moves and also what kind of strategies are being adopted.
My colleagues and I often meet our counterparts and we share intelligence. At the same time, we make sure that our main purpose is to protect Singaporeans and our country. But we know that it comes from overseas, as such, they are also interested to work with us to learn from us, how we do things. For example, recently, we had the drug Remembrance Day for the victims. Many of the countries have come forward, especially the ASEAN countries, and they want to learn from us and see how they can work together with us on this.
So, this is not only about us learning from them. They also want to learn from us. It is about a partnership, we want to ensure that we keep all people safe and secure. However, you also see that youths in most of these countries are the groups that are being affected by controlled drugs. And the reasons we see from our studies are that at that age, you are more curious, you want to try. I have met youths who told me that no one is at fault. It is just them. Because of their curiosity, they looked at social media and the Internet, and they wanted to experience what addiction is like.
We understand that these are the trends that youths are facing and that are coming into their mind. So, we have programmes and the IMC, which I have shared earlier, to see how, at the various fronts with the agencies as well as community partners, we can go upstream to share with youths the harms of drugs and what kind of pro-social activities and groups they can join to see how they can turn their lives towards positive avenues. Also, there are elements of peer pressure and there are inter-generational elements.
At the National Committee on Prevention, Rehabilitation and Recidivism, we look at the different efforts to see how we can prevent offending and re-offending and it is also for youths. We want to see how we can find new ways and understand the issues better to come up with policies and also, at the same time, work with partners to enhance our efforts in this. This is an ongoing landscape and trend that will always change because of the different facets, different directions taken by different countries.
But we are very clear in our stance. We have a strong stance against drugs and we want to make sure that we protect our people and we want to galvanise our stakeholders and resources within Singapore and outside Singapore, so that while we keep Singapore safe and secure, we keep the countries around us safe so that we are safe and we are able to provide more avenues for a good life for fellow Singaporeans.
\tMr Speaker: Last supplementary question. Dr Tan Wu Meng.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng: Mr Speaker, the Minister of State answered just now that a vaping device will come under section 9 of the MDA if it can be shown that the device is being used for a controlled drug or drug of abuse. Can I ask the Minister of State, how do agencies know in advance if a vaping device – which, by the way, is already illegal – contains nicotine or contains ketamine or some other controlled illegal drug? Does it depend on how prevalent the substance is?
Can I ask the Minister of State, should we not act now before these controlled drugs in vapes become more prevalent, before they reach the one in six that happened in another country that Member Mr Zhulkarnain highlighted, so as to keep our people safe and to keep our children safe for the future?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member again, for his deep concern about the issue. As I shared earlier, we are not waiting. We are already doing. We also understand the overseas landscape, so, we work together with our counterparts.
The nature of drug-related offences or even the kind of investigations we do depends on a lot of intelligence as well. So, it is not as simple as knowing what is controlled or not controlled drugs or nicotine. At the end of the day, it is about how we can work together with the agencies and how we work together with our counterparts.
And, as Members know, it is not easy to detect, but our CNB colleagues have worked very hard and they will continue to work hard to make sure that as much as we can, we will protect our shores, as much as the syndicates want to bring in, we also want to work hard to ensure that it does not come in. But if it comes in, we will take strict enforcement and we want to make sure that we disrupt as many syndicates or efforts to harm our people, as much as possible.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Staffing Adequacy with Additional 40,000 Infant Care and Childcare Places Coming Onstream","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"50 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how will the Ministry staff the additional 40,000 infant care and childcare places announced to be open over the next five years; and (b) how will other related sectors that are short of manpower be not negatively impacted.
51 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in view of the plan by the Early Childhood Development Agency to add 40,000 new infant care and childcare places by 2029 (a) whether the operators will face challenges in recruiting and training qualified early childhood educators; (b) if so, how does the Ministry plan to work with industry stakeholders to address this issue; and (c) whether the Ministry will put in place measures to ensure that the expansion does not compromise the quality of care and education provided.
\tThe Minister of State for Social and Family Development (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to address questions filed by Members Ms Denise Phua and Mr Desmond Choo together, as they relate to early childhood manpower?
\tMr Speaker: Please go ahead.
\tMs Sun Xueling: Our early childhood educator workforce grew from over 18,000 in 2018 to over 25,000 today. To expand Government-supported preschools to cater to 80% of preschoolers, the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) has been working with Government-supported preschools to grow their local and foreign workforce, as well as optimise manpower deployment to ensure that centres are adequately staffed. Notwithstanding these efforts, we estimate that another 1,500 more educators will be needed in the coming years.
We will grow the sector workforce while maintaining high standards of skills and competencies. All early childhood educators must complete pre-service training and meet professional, language and academic requirements before ECDA certifies them for deployment in our preschools. For in-service early childhood educators, ECDA has launched the Continuing Professional Development Roadmaps and the Leadership Development Framework to support educators in their career progression and professional development.
To attract and retain educators, ECDA has been working with preschool operators to make early childhood education an attractive profession of choice. We raised salaries of early childhood educators in Government-supported preschools to keep pace with market wages and professional skills. We also improved the well-being of early childhood educators by designating Teachers' Day and Children's Day as preschool holidays from 2024 and removing the requirement for childcare centres to operate on Saturdays from 2025.
To ensure that other related sectors, particularly the social service sector, have sufficient manpower, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) works closely with the National Council of Social Service (NCSS), as well as other Government agencies, to coordinate our efforts. Ultimately, the various sectors have to ensure that they offer competitive remuneration and good working conditions, while motivating their staff well.
MSF and ECDA will continue to monitor the planned expansion of preschool services and work closely with relevant stakeholders to ensure a sufficient supply of quality early childhood educators.
Mr Speaker: Ms Phua.
\tMs Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): I thank the Minister of State for the reply. I have mixed feelings when I received the news about the increase in preschool placements. On one hand, of course, I am very happy about the additional places. On the other hand, I am really worried about the manpower situation, especially if it is seen as a competition for talents or manpower and those who have deeper pockets will have the advantage, compared to others who have not.
So, my question is, at national level, who is MSF working with, beyond NCSS, because there are also other sectors that require such manpower. And also, is there an overall manpower kind of demand and supply masterplan which reflect on strategies to update the skills to grow the whole pie, or even to change immigration policies and so forth, so that there is less competition, while everybody is able to grow the pie, to meet national needs?
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for her supplementary question. I think, indeed, the reality that we see in Singapore is that we do have a manpower and \"women-power\" crunch. There are many industries out there who are looking for skilled talents to fill places.
So, in relation to the question that she asked, apart from MSF who holds discussions with NCSS, there are also regular discussions between MSF and the Ministry of Manpower, and the Ministry of Trade and Industry, to take a holistic look at what are the manpower needs of the entire economy. At the same time, the Ministries also touch base with the Institutes of Higher Learning to ensure that there are relevant courses for young students, so that when they graduate, there are meaningful jobs for them. So, there is this whole-of-Government effort to look at manpower planning.
Mr Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
\tMr Desmond Choo (Tampines): I thank the Minister of State for her reply. It is comforting to know that plans are afoot to support our early childhood educators.
When we want to bring in a lot more manpower to support the expansion, one of the key issues will be wages and wages will naturally have to go up, because there will be competition from other sectors to attract them into this space. How would the Ministry ensure that the fees continue to be affordable to young parents, even as they are better supported with more places? How do we ensure that for the providers, their margins are still viable for them to be sustainable, so that services will not be interrupted, even as fees via the increase in wages go up?
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. There are actually two tracks that are happening. First, on wages. In 2022, ECDA had conducted a review of the salaries of early childhood educators to ensure that their salaries are commensurate with their contributions as well as professional skills. We had announced this. This was greeted with much joy. I think many of the early childhood educators felt that their contributions were being appreciated. I also shared that, together with wage increases, there were also targeted moves at making sure that their working conditions are attractive as well.
The second part of the Member's question relates to the fees that are paid by parents with preschool-going children. Under the anchor operator scheme, the Government and MSF provide subsidies to the preschool operators for them to keep fee caps, which we have announced before. These fee caps essentially ensure the affordability of preschool education for parents. In fact, over the past two years, we have been steadily reducing those fee caps, meaning that parents actually pay less per year, per month, for preschool expenses, which also translates to less out-of-pocket expenses for parents.
So, both these tracks are ongoing: one, to uplift wages; second, to increase subsidies to preschool operators to make sure that they adhere to fee caps, which are decreasing, so that out-of-pocket expenses from parents are decreasing on a year-to-year basis. And what, in total, that actually means is that the Government is putting in a lot of money to subsidise the preschool sector for the educators as well as the parents.
Mr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
\tMr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for her response. I share Ms Denise Phua's concern about manpower manning. I have received feedback from some preschool educators that they are not being allowed to leave their centres to have their lunch. They are required to eat in and at the same time, keep an eye on their charges. I think this possibly due to manpower shortages.
Is ECDA aware of this situation, and if so, what is ECDA doing to help some of these operators to beef up their manpower? Because I think that working conditions are often crucial in retaining staff and I believe that having a proper meal break is important.
\tMs Sun Xueling: I totally agree with the Member that when we talk about working conditions, it also includes things like rest days, the number of hours they have to put into taking care of their charges and definitely, having their lunch in an appropriate environment.
One thing that ECDA has done is that, in October 2024, ECDA had appointed service providers to offer affordable and reliable relief staff services to all preschools. We recognise that for individual preschools, there may be situations whereby they may, on specific days or specific months, have a manpower crunch due to a variety of issues – it could be about allocation of staff between centres, it could be a key staff going on sick leave and so on and so forth.
So, when such incidents happen, it is very difficult for MSF to always react to individual cases, because we have close to 1,900 preschools across the whole of Singapore. Fundamentally, I think what we should do, as a matter of policy is to work with the industry to ensure that there is a relief pool of manpower that the preschools are able to call upon to plug short-term manpower shortages at individual centres.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessing Recent Knife Attacks and Additional Safeguards to Provide Safety Assurance","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"52 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the assessment of recent reported incidents of knife crime incidents where individuals use knives to harm others; (b) whether there has been an up-trend and, if so, what are the assessed reasons; and (c) what is being done to ensure that Singaporeans continue to have a safe and secure living environment.
53 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Home Affairs in light of the recent knife attack at a place of worship, what is being done beyond higher frequency in Police patrols to provide personal safety assurance at places of worship.
\tThe Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will address the questions in today's Order Paper. I believe these are in relation to Dr Tan's questions, and as well as a subsequent question filed by Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim1 which is scheduled for a subsequent Sitting. I also invite Mr Zhulkarnain to seek clarifications if needed and if the questions are satisfactorily answered today, it may not be necessary for Mr Zhulkarnain to proceed with his question subsequently.
As of November —
Mr Speaker: Sorry, Minister of State Sun, this will also cover Question No 53 in today's Order Paper, filed by Mr Christopher de Souza?
\tMs Sun Xueling: Yes, indeed, thank you. As of November 2024, there were 129 cases of murder, attempted murder, robbery, rioting and serious hurt involving knives in 2024. This is comparable to the number of cases in the preceding three years. Between 2021 and 2023, there was an average of 133 cases a year. None of these crimes occurred at a place of worship, with the sole exception of the knife attack at St Joseph's Church in November 2024. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) does not track the cases by whether the offenders had mental health issues. Our Police officers are trained and equipped to deal with crimes involving knives and will respond swiftly to neutralise the threat when alerted.
When there is information on specific threats or when the general threat level is escalated, the Police will step up security measures, such as increasing the frequency of patrols. They will also engage with relevant stakeholders to ensure that appropriate security measures are put in place.
To safeguard public safety, we also limit the sale of certain types of knives and similar offensive weapons, which have limited legitimate use. Through the Arms and Explosives Act, MHA currently regulates the sale of six of these daggers, swords, spears, spearheads, bayonets and dangerous bows and arrows. This will be expanded to include flick knives and knuckle dusters when the Guns, Explosives and Weapons Control Act is operationalised in the first half of 2025.
While the incidence of crimes involving knives is low, it is important, nevertheless, that we all know how to respond when such attacks occur. The November 2024 incident at St Joseph's Church is a case in point. Two men helped subdue the attacker, while other members of the congregation provided first aid to the priest. Their actions prevented further casualties and minimised the injury to the priest before the authorities arrived on the scene. We must therefore continue to systematically build up the resilience of our society to emergencies, and we have been doing this over the years.
The Police and the Singapore Civil Defence Force work with building owners and managers across Singapore via the Safety and Security Watch Group to conduct security audits, share best practices and deliver training on building safety and security awareness. Exercises are regularly conducted to test contingency response plans and ground readiness in the event of emergencies.
We also work closely with community and religious organisations, including places of worship, through the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth's Crisis Preparedness for Religious Organisations Programme, where religious organisations participate in security self-assessments, develop contingency plans and attend counter-terrorism seminars to understand the threat better.
Finally, MHA, together with our partner agencies, has also been engaging the broader public, through the SGSecure movement. Outreach efforts include sharing advisories, such as \"Run, Hide, Tell\" and \"Press, Tie, Tell\", as well as the importance of learning emergency preparedness skills, such as first aid, cardiopulmonary resuscitation and the use of automated external defibrillators. Together, these measures help ensure a high level of public safety, security awareness and contingency readiness in our society.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether there has been any increase in knife-related crimes in the last three years; (b) what proportion of such crimes involve stabbing or violence by individuals with mental health issues or conditions; and (c) whether the Ministry can consider increasing its public advisory or awareness initiatives for members of the public to be prepared when faced with the threat or risk of knife attack in a public area."],"footNoteQuestions":["52","53"],"questionNo":"52-53"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Examining Australia's Move on Social Media Ban for Those Aged 16 and Below","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"54 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information in light of the Australian government’s recent move to ban social media access for individuals under the age of 16 through legislation (a) what is the Government’s current assessment of the effectiveness of such bans in protecting young users from online harms; and (b) whether the Government has plans to consider similar measures, or alternative regulatory approaches, to further safeguard children and teenagers on social media platforms in Singapore.
68 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Government assesses that there are more advantages as opposed to disadvantages in legislating for an age limit on the use of social media access by young children and teenagers; and (b) if not, why not.
\tThe Minister of State for Digital Development and Information (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Minister for Digital Development and Information): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to address Question No 54, and Question No 68 filed by Leader of Opposition Mr Pritam Singh, scheduled for today's Sitting, together with the Parliamentary Question filed by Mr Saktiandi Supaat for tomorrow's Sitting, together?
Mr Speaker: Please go ahead.
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam: The stated objective of legislating age limits for social media access is to protect children and youths from its harms. We share the same objective and will continue to study the effectiveness of mandating age limits. For example, how will the authorities assess the extent of violation? Where will the line be drawn if younger users turn to accessing unregulated platforms or services? We are engaging our Australian counterparts in social media platforms to understand their views. This will help inform our thinking on the next steps.
\t
In the meantime, we have taken several steps to protect our children on social media. In 2023, we introduced the Code of Practice for Online Safety. It requires designated social media services to put in place measures to enhance the safety of Singapore users, including more stringent measures for children. Among other obligations, they must ensure children are not targeted to receive content that is detrimental to their physical or mental well-being. They must also have more restrictive account settings for children and provide tools for parents to manage their safety.
We have also taken decisive steps to require the implementation of age assurance methods, which have grown in availability and effectiveness, and can help to minimise children’s access to harmful online content. Such methods include age estimation using technology and age verification based on submission of official documents. Our upcoming Code of Practice for Online Safety for App Distribution Services will require designated app stores to put in place such measures to ensure that children access only apps that are appropriate for their age.
Even as we consider further steps to improve protection for children online, we are mindful that research findings on the impact of social media on children are not conclusive. While it has been linked to mental health issues, social media has also been shown to help children develop social skills and build connections with their peers.
This is why we have stepped up complementary efforts in public education to equip and educate parents and children on how to be safe online. We do this through Cyber Wellness lessons in the Ministry of Education’s (MOE's) Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) curriculum, as well as various initiatives such as Parenting for Wellness launched in 2024 by MOE, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF), the Health Promotion Board (HPB) and the Online Safety Digital Resource Kit on the Infocomm Media Development Authority's (IMDA's) Digital for Life (DfL) portal. These are complemented by efforts of industry and community partners, such as Google’s Be Internet Awesome Programme and Touch Community Services’ First Device Campaign.
We are constantly looking to do better, and I welcome Members and everyone’s suggestions. Ensuring online safety is a whole of society effort and everyone can play their part.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Foo.
\tMs Foo Mee Har: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions for the Minister of State. The first supplementary question relates to the assessment of the adequacy of the current framework. I think Singapore's implementation of the Code of Practice for Online Safety is our key legislative framework now. So, it depends on social media services such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok to enhance social safety by a series of things they have to do. So, I want to ask the Minister of State what key insights have been drawn from the compliance reports that they have to submit as part of this framework, Code of Practice for Online Safety? I believe this was due by end of July 2024, so, they would have submitted reports to say what are the things they are doing and how do you think they are doing.
Furthermore, I want to ask the Government whether you think these social media companies are investing adequately in infrastructure, resources, expertise and also leadership accountability to enhance their organisation's capacity to implement robust safeguards and also to respond effectively to incidents. So, this is all about depending on social media platforms doing their job.
The second supplementary question pertains to community involvement to nurture safe online practices. Given the importance of digital literacy and community involvement in nurturing safe online practices, how does the Government view the role of community, particularly parents and also educators, in fostering such practices? What specific initiatives or frameworks does the Government consider critical to achieving this effectively?
\t
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam: I thank the Member for her questions. On the first bucket of questions that she raised relating to the designated social media services, indeed, the whole intent of having them submit the annual online report is to provide transparency on their measures and levels of safety to see what they are already doing in the space and also help us to understand what are some of the features that can be put in place to provide the safeguards. These reports are in, but IMDA is still in the midst of assessing these reports. We plan to publish them, so that will be coming in soon. With this, indeed, we will be seeking to learn from this exercise and we will look to improve the safeguards and processes.
With regard to the second bucket of questions that the Member had in relation to the role of parents and the community, as I mentioned earlier, it is a whole-of-society effort. This is something that we need to do together. The Government is looking at how we can enhance regulatory measures, but we also are strengthening our public education efforts.
This gives me the opportunity to share some of the work that we have already been doing in this space. These efforts include the National Library Board's S.U.R.E programme. I think that is something that Members will be familiar with because that is something that had been launched in 2013 to strengthen Singaporeans' resilience to misinformation and online falsehoods.
We have also more recently launched the IMDA's Digital Skills for Life Framework, which was launched in January 2024. It identifies the set of skills to equip Singaporeans to carry out day-to-day tasks online, including staying safe and smart online.
We are also looking at equipping parents with the skills to guide their children on online interactions. IMDA offers many bite-sized resources on their DfL portal. So, one example is the Online Safety Digital Resource Kit, which was developed in collaboration with technology companies, and recommends the necessary parental controls and safeguards to protect their children's safety online.
We also work closely with other Ministries, with MOE, as I mentioned earlier in their CCE curriculum. The Cyber Wellness lessons are important to teach the children how to be safe, respectful and responsible users of digital devices.
The Ministry of Health also has the Guidance on Screen Use in Children which we will continue to update and revise.
To empower and equip parents further to build strong parent-child relationships, and strengthen their children's mental well-being, and emotional resilience through this digital journey, MOE, MSF and HPB also launched the Parenting for Wellness initiative in September of 2024. This also brings together resources to help support parents in this journey.
My Ministry, the Ministry of Digital Development and Information, will also introduce a Positive Use Guide on Technology and Social Media in the first half of this year.
So, these are the different initiatives and efforts that we were putting in place to hopefully strengthen community's ability to also walk together in this journey in safeguarding and protecting our children.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Foo.
\tMs Foo Mee Har: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for indulging. Since at this stage, the Minister of State is not able to reveal the findings now, I would just like to ask, depending on the outcome of the compliance report, whether the Government will consider insisting on a minimum standard of investment by these social media platforms in terms of the way they can respond your key performance indicators for them, leadership accountability, so that they do put in the necessary investment and capacity to take this obligation very seriously.
\t
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam: I thank the Member for the further question. Indeed, these are things that we can continue to review as we see what have been the efforts that are put in place.
But just to clarify, the Online Safety Code had already put in certain things that the designated social media companies need to comply with, and if they do not, they will be subject to penalties. These include putting in place systems and processes to minimise presence of harmful content in the services, particularly for children, and establishing community guidelines, enforcing them, providing users of access to tools to manage their own safety and proactively detecting and removing child sexual exploitation and abuse material, as well as terrorism content. So, there are already basic things that they have to do. They are also supposed to provide an effective and easy-to-use reporting mechanism for Singapore users to report harmful content or unwanted interactions on the platform.
So, as we continue to do this, there are already some stringent measures that we have put to the designated social media companies to comply with and we will continue to improve on these.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank the Minister of State for replying to a variation of the question that I asked.
The Minister of State referred to the Australian example and just a few weeks ago, the Australian Internet Commissioner who is overseeing this piece of legislation, which is supposed to come into effect this year, towards end of the year I understand, was quoted as saying, \"the onus to date has been falling on parents and the children themselves\" and \"this law is the government making a very definitive statement and saying, 'we need to put the burden back on you, companies, just like we did with car manufacturers 60 years ago with seatbelts'... and now there is so much life-saving technology in our cars that we take for granted. Back then, car manufacturers pushed back but now they compete on safety... The law is really aimed at making normative change that the onus should fall on platforms.\" This is one fragment of a larger interview she did and was reported on National Public Radio.
With regard to the Online Safety Code that the Minister of State spoke about vis-a-vis IMDA's conversation with social media platforms, is the Government of the view that in Singapore at least, these social media companies actually respond quite proactively to the requirements that the Government puts on them with regard to Online Safety? What is the position in Singapore vis-a-vis the relationship with social media companies?
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam: I thank the Member for the questions and the insight. Indeed, we are learning robustly from different countries. They are all having different experiences and some of the experiences are useful in informing us as to the actions we need to take in our space.
In Singapore, we have had a very collaborative approach that we have taken with the technology companies. We have been very stern and strict in making sure that they comply with some of the requirements that we have set forth. But we also want to ensure that this is something that can be sustainable and meaningful.
With regard to the question on whether they have been putting in the necessary safeguards, I think this is the whole point of the exercise with the annual reports because it is going to be a continuous iterative process. Based on what we have learned so far, we have put in the requirements that we think are necessary for the social media companies to put in place. We constantly engage them to make sure that they comply with these. And the reports actually provide transparency and give us that opportunity to assess whether they have done well. We are still in the midst of reviewing these and when we assess these, this is going to be the foundation of how we can then move forward in either strengthening levers or seeing what are the other measures that we can put in place to provide the necessary safeguards and protection for our children.
\t
Mr Speaker: Ms Jessica Tan, did you raise your hand just now. No? Okay, alright.
Order. End of Question time.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"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 Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs; 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":"Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to provide for the maintenance of racial harmony and to establish a Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony, and to make related and consequential amendments to certain other Acts\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Before I ask the Clerk to proceed to read the Orders of the Day, I just want to wish all Members a Happy New Year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Second Minister for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Sir, as the House may recall, the current Simplified Insolvency Programme (SIP) was first introduced in 2021 as a temporary measure as part of the larger package of measures to support companies during the pandemic. The SIP has since been extended thrice and will end on 28 January 2026.
The SIP assisted eligible micro and small companies (MSCs) facing financial difficulties by helping them restructure their debts, rehabilitate their business or wind up via a simpler, faster and lower cost insolvency process. The SIP was scoped to assist MSCs, because MSCs form a significant proportion of the enterprise ecosystem in Singapore and are the lifeblood of our economy and our communities. In 2022, for instance, small enterprises accounted for about 94% of Singapore's enterprise landscape.
The purpose underpinning the SIP was, thus, to provide a simplified process that was tailor-made for MSCs – simpler, faster and more cost-effective. We have found in the time that we have introduced the SIP, that it was, by and large, useful in assisting MSCs in severe financial distress. To give Members some indication of the numbers, as at 31 December 2024, a total of 116 applications for the existing SIP had been submitted and 77 of them were accepted. Of these, 61 MSCs in severe financial distress were successfully assisted.
For simplified winding up, the completion of cases was done with an average of nine months and some as quickly as a few months. This compares very favourably to a typical process, which could take anywhere between three to four years, especially where there is a longer tail of transactions and contracts to resolve.
This shorter process allowed non-viable companies to be liquidated quickly. The expedited process saves time and costs and lessens the impact on the principals behind the business while preserving the value of the insolvency estate for distribution to creditors.
For simplified debt restructuring, there were fewer cases compared to simplified winding up. A successful case was the restructuring of Axis Group Asia Private Limited. This was done with Court sanction in under six months, which was a very short period of time.
With the success of the SIP, this Bill now seeks to introduce a refined SIP, one which I shall call the SIP 2.0, to make it a permanent feature of our corporate debt restructuring and insolvency regime in the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (IRDA). As there is merit in making the SIP permanent as part of the insolvency and restructuring ecosystem, we explored further, over the course of the last couple of months, how the current SIP could be suitably modified to allow companies that are not MSCs to also benefit from it. We consulted with public agencies and stakeholders from the private sector and the industry was generally supportive of having the SIP as a permanent programme and provided helpful feedback for us to refine the framework. We have taken this on board, where possible, to improve the current SIP.
SIP 2.0 seeks to provide a simpler and more cost-effective insolvency process to benefit more companies. The Bill will, therefore, modify two existing processes under the SIP, namely the Simplified Debt Restructuring Programme (SDRP); and the Simplified Winding Up Programme (SWUP).
Unlike the current SIP, the processes in SIP 2.0 will be fully administered by licensed insolvency practitioners in the private sector who are experienced and have the relevant expertise. This approach, Members may know, is consistent with other corporate insolvency processes, such as the Court-ordered winding up and creditors' voluntary winding up, which are administered by private liquidators who are also licensed insolvency practitioners.
Members will also recall how our companies' winding up regime became fully administered by private liquidators when the IRDA came into force in July 2020. The approach for the SIP is, thus, consistent with existing debt restructuring and insolvency processes where the private sector currently already takes the lead.
With that, Mr Speaker, let me take Members through the key changes to the SIP, which this Bill proposes to implement.
Let me start with the changes relating to the eligibility criteria for the two programmes under the SIP, before explaining the key changes to each of the programmes. So, the eligibility criteria apply to both the SDRP as well as the SWUP.
Under clauses 7 and 32 of the Bill, which amend sections 72F(2) and 250F(2) of the IRDA, the current list of five criteria will be streamlined to just one, which is the general eligibility requirement that the company's total liabilities must not exceed $2 million. This will make it much easier for companies that are not MSCs to also benefit from the SIP.
Under the SDRP, a company will draw up a debt restructuring proposal for its creditors, which provides for a compromise or, otherwise, an arrangement to resolve its debts. The Bill will modify the existing SDRP in several key aspects.
To begin with, we will reduce the number of supporting documents accompanying the SDRP application to require only key supporting documents. A Restructuring Adviser, who is a licensed insolvency practitioner appointed by the company to advise the company in matters relating to its entry into the SDRP, will assess whether the company reaches or matches the requirements for the SDRP and request for further documents from the company, if necessary. This simplifies the entry process.
Companies failing to successfully complete the SDRP, including the current SDRP, will be barred for five years before they can, again, apply for the SDRP. This serves to protect the interests of creditors and prevents errant companies from abusing the SDRP by making repeated entry applications to avoid its obligations to creditors.
Under clause 6, the Restructuring Adviser has the discretion to assess whether the company meets both the requirements under section 72F(1) for entry into the SDRP. This refers to the general eligibility criteria that the company's total liabilities must not exceed $2 million and that there is no circumstance in existence that would render the company unsuitable for acceptance into the SDRP.
To give Members some colour into the second criterion, one such circumstance is prescribed in the amended section 72F(3)(h), which is when the company is unlikely to be able to formulate a proposed compromise with its creditors or to obtain the agreement of two-thirds majority by value of its creditors to the proposed compromise or arrangement, within the moratorium period after the company's entry into the SDRP.
While the company is in the SDRP, the company enjoys a statutory moratorium under the amended section 72K(1) of a period of 30 days, which is extendable once for another period of up to 30 days. So, you get 30 plus 30, a maximum of 60 days for a moratorium within which to frame the restructuring proposal.
This, Sir, balances the interests of the various stakeholders by providing reasonable breathing room to the company to propose a debt restructuring plan whilst, at the same time, protecting the interests of the creditors. Members will know that during the moratorium period, there will be no enforcement against the corporate entity.
Once the company has entered into the SDRP, its Restructuring Adviser will provide assistance in drawing up the debt restructuring proposal to its creditors. Unlike the current programme where the proposal requires Court sanction, clause 16 of the Bill provides that the proposal will be approved out-of-Court and by the company's creditors at a meeting summoned by the Restructuring Adviser under the new section 72M.
The notice to summon the meeting must contain such information as is set out in section 72M(3) and I will just quickly summarise what they are. It must include details of the proposal, a statement of the effects of the proposal on creditors' rights, a comparison of what the creditors would receive in the proposal and the most likely scenario if the compromise or arrangement pursuant to the proposal does not become binding on the company and its creditors. It must also contain information on the Restructuring Adviser's remuneration. This notice must be given to every creditor of the company.
In practice, as Members would know how such restructuring takes place is that the Restructuring Adviser would have engaged in informal discussions and talks with the creditors prior to the meeting. And depending on the outcome of these discussions, the Restructuring Adviser would, by then, already have a keen sense of how the creditors will expect to receive the proposal and whether any changes might need to be made, while the creditors would also have heard about the proposal's terms before formally receiving the notice.
Nevertheless, we believe that this is essential as the notice is a formal measure to provide substantive fairness to all creditors so that they are apprised of the terms of the proposal and know ahead of the meeting what they are going in for, prior to the meeting. The proposal is approved by a majority of at least two-thirds in value of creditors present and voting at the meeting. This threshold remains unchanged from the existing programme.
There will be one voting class consisting of all unsecured creditors, ordinary and preferential, if applicable. Secured creditors will only be bound by the proposal if the value of the security interest is less than the value of the secured creditor's admissible debts or claims, only to the extent of the difference between the values, and that means the undersecured portion. In other words, for Members' clarity, the difference between the value of the security for a secured creditor and the unsecured portion. So, the differential is the only portion that will apply.
The secured creditors will also be bound by the proposal if the value of the secured interest is equal to or more than the value of the secured creditor's admissible debts or claims, but only to the extent that the creditor consents to be bound. So, in some cases, a creditor might well have sufficient security but might decide that the restructuring proposal makes sense and wants to participate and take part, in which case, the creditor can support the restructuring arrangement. This means, therefore, that a secured creditor is free to realise or deal with his security interest unless he has voted in favour of the proposal and consented to be bound and the proposal's terms prevent him from realising or otherwise dealing with his security interest.
Sir, there are judicial safeguards for creditors with legitimate concerns arising from the approved proposal.
A creditor who is bound by the proposal can apply to Court to object to the proposal on specified grounds under section 72N(3), where there is a material procedural irregularity in relation to the meeting of the company and its creditors to approve the proposal or in relation to the approval of the creditors at the meeting; for the proposal to be fair and equitable to all creditors bound by it, a substitution or splitting of classification of creditors is necessary; or the approved proposal is contrary to the interests of the creditors of the company as a whole.
The Court hearing this application may make any order it thinks fit, including revoking or suspending the compromise or arrangement of the proposal and giving directions to the Restructuring Adviser, including a direction to put to the creditors for consideration any modifications to the compromise or arrangement, except, the material commercial terms of the proposal may not be modified. So, that speaks to the SDRP.
I will now touch on the key proposals for the SWUP. This Bill modifies the existing SWUP in the following key aspects.
First, clause 30 provides that if the company resolves to enter into the SWUP, but has insufficient or incomplete financial records, the company may submit a Directors' statement to the nominated liquidator that the eligibility criterion has been met. This new feature simplifies the application process and encourages non-viable companies to be wound up instead of remaining dormant.
There may be situations where members of the company are uncontactable and the company is, thereby, unable to pass a special resolution to enter into the SWUP. In these situations, a Directors' resolution can be accepted as long as the company is satisfied that: despite exercising reasonable diligence, the company is unable to contact enough members who, together, hold a majority in value of its shares for at least three years prior to the date of the Directors' resolution; consequently, the company is unable to obtain the necessary quorum for the extraordinary general meeting to resolve to wind up the company; and finally, the company's operations have been dormant for at least three years prior to the date of the Directors' resolution. All these are factors which speak to the company's dormancy and we believe it is in the interest to have these companies wound up rather than remain on the books.
In the current SWUP, there are four platforms on which notices are published: the Official Receiver's website; the Government's e-Gazette; the local newspaper; and the Registrar of Companies' BizFile under the Accounting, Corporate and Regulatory Authority or ACRA. To reduce the cost of administration, only two platforms will be used in the new SWUP for the publishing of notices, namely, the Official Receiver's website and Bizfile.
Clause 38 modifies section 180 and section 210 of the IRDA to streamline the final or early dissolution processes of a company, respectively, by requiring only one lodgement with ACRA to effect the dissolution of the company. This will save time and costs.
Clause 42 provides that the liquidator may switch to other liquidation processes, such as a Court-ordered winding up or a creditors' voluntary liquidation, if the liquidator's assessment is that the company is unsuitable for the SWUP.
Additionally, where a liquidator requires funding from creditors to conduct investigations to recover assets but no such funding is forthcoming, the liquidator may complete the simplified winding up of the company and dissolve the company without taking further investigative steps. This ensures that unviable companies, which will have no other assets and, sometimes, no other identifiable members, can be liquidated and dissolved efficiently without having to restart or unnecessarily protract the liquidation process. Sir, these are the key changes proposed to the SIP. The rest of the SIP, as I said at the outset, will remain unchanged.
Sir, let me now conclude. This Bill aims to modify the SIP and make it a permanent feature of our insolvency regime in the IRDA modifying the existing processes in the current SIP. This will make the SIP permanent, or as I call it, SIP 2.0. One which is simpler, more cost-effective and will also facilitate better access to insolvency processes and, with these changes, benefit a larger group of companies. With that, Mr Speaker, I seek to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Don Wee.
Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Bill, which updates SIP. This programme has been an important lifeline to micro and small companies facing financial difficulties, helping them to restructure or wind up efficiently.
The amendment to reduce the general eligibility criteria to just one, which is a $2 million liability threshold, will make SIP accessible to more companies. However, I would like to raise some concerns on behalf of Singaporean business owners, creditors and employees who may be affected by these changes. Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Although the inclusion of larger companies in the SIP is well-intentioned, it can potentially disadvantage creditors and employees, particularly when the winding up process is expedited. For small creditors, this could mean reduced chances of recovering debts owed to them. Employees may also be left in limbo if unpaid salaries and benefits are deprioritised.
Can the Ministry clarify how these stakeholders will be protected, especially when the larger companies avail themselves of the scheme?
Sir, the proposed change to allow a Director's declaration of eligibility, especially when a company's records are incomplete, raises concerns about the potential for abuse. While enforcement measures exist to penalise false declarations, these may not adequately deter bad actors seeking to exploit the scheme to expedite winding up processes. I urge the Ministry to strengthen safeguards, such as requiring third-party audits or additional supporting documentation to ensure the integrity of the process.
(In English): The removal of the requirement to publish notifications in newspapers may also pose challenges. Local newspapers remain a trusted medium for many Singaporeans, particularly small and medium enterprise (SME) owners and sole proprietors, who may not closely monitor the digital channels. I appeal to the Ministry to retain this requirement or ensure alternative notification methods are as effective in reaching out to all the stakeholders.
Lastly, the proposed reduction of the grace period during which creditors cannot enforce their rights from 90 to 30 days may adversely impact businesses in financial distress. While protecting creditors' rights is essential, some businesses may require additional time to sort out their affairs, particularly for SMEs managing limited resources. Would the Ministry consider a compromise, such as a 60-day grace period, to balance the needs of creditors as well as distressed businesses?
Sir, the amendments to SIP are a positive step towards enhancing Singapore's insolvency framework. However, as we extend its accessibility, we must ensure that safeguards remain robust and that the interests of all stakeholders, creditors, employees and business owners, are adequately addressed. I urge the Ministry to take these considerations into account.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, I had previously spoken about our nation's bankruptcy regime in the context of the 2020 amendments to IRDA. The Bill that is currently being debated seeks to render permanent the centerpiece of the previous amendments, the SIP.
Along the way, it further streamlines two parts of the SIP, namely the SDRP and SWUP. As Minister Edwin Tong has already elaborated, these include a number of appealing and commonsensical refinements, such as shortening the moratorium period in SDRP, limiting the eligibility criteria to just one for SWUP and reducing the number of required supporting documents for both processes.
Today, in addition to touching on three elements in the present Bill, I will also address two broader concerns that align with the spirit of the issue: first, how much bang for the buck we are truly gaining by further simplifying corporate bankruptcy in this manner; and second, whether there is a pressing need to also consider whether individual bankruptcy proceedings can be simplified more as well.
On the present Bill, I will note, first, that clause 38 will now require the notification of the dissolution of the firm to be published on the designated website only, without also doing so in the Government's e-Gazette or newspapers. The permanent record will also be available on ACRA's Bizfile.
This move is, as I understand it, an effort to reduce the costs of the new SWUP. While I understand the motivation to reduce costs, especially for newsprint, I wonder why the publication on the e-Gazette, which should be the most complete official journal of the country's public and legal notices, is precluded. After all, notices there are already electronic in nature and a half-page entry costs a little more than $100. If this is prohibitive, perhaps, a waiver or fee reduction can be considered for such instances.
Second, clause 20 shortens the moratorium period from 90 to 30 days. The justification appears to be a desire to strengthen creditor rights. The natural question here is, if this \"30 days\" is reasonable and sufficiently balances creditor protection with debtor difficulties. Would the Government be willing to share with this House the historical mean and median times for restructuring plans to be completed in Singapore? If it does not have this information, how was the decision to reduce the moratorium from 90 to 30 days ultimately arrived at?
Third, clause 16 now requires only a supermajority vote of two-thirds of the creditors for SDRP to be approved and binding for all creditors. This is a seemingly simple but important step to ensure that restructuring can proceed expeditiously without one or two low-key creditors preventing an efficient resolution of the debt. This so-called holdout problem has been an affliction, especially in sovereign debt restructuring instances and has led to significant problems due to the presence of so-called vulture investors. This move essentially embeds a collective action clause as a means of ensuring post-default resolution and is one way to usher negotiations or renegotiations to a close.
While I do not necessarily disagree with the approach here, I would like to know if the two-thirds majority will be weighted by each creditor's exposure, since I believe that this would be fairer than a one-creditor-one-vote system.
I would also add that another way to try to bring about the outcome is through exit consents. These allow the majority to alter the non-financial terms of the debt in a way that would make the debt shares of holdouts effectively worthless. This strategy may be even more preferable insofar as ensuring that even initial holdouts ultimately deliver a consensual, even if acquiescent, vote, rather than one where a supermajority alone may ram through their preferred outcome.
In my earlier speech on the 2020 IRDA amendments, I had expressed my support for less onerous, appropriately designed resolution procedures since doing so would have helped bolster a more entrepreneurial mindset, especially in a knowledge and information-driven economy. This was especially important then, when the shadow of COVID-19 and the associated spike in business failures may have led to heightened risk aversion among small business owners.
Yet over the intervening four years, the record on the actual usage of SIP does not appear to suggest that the issues addressed by SIP were major binding constraints. The total number of applications for SIP, as at the end of October 2024, amounted to 116. Given the total number of bankruptcies since SIP came into force, this is a usage rate of about one in 10.
Admittedly, the SIP applies only to small and micro enterprises. But given how around two-thirds of companies in Singapore are actually small firms and how small firms are, typically, much more likely to fail, this does not seem to be too poor an estimate. If indeed the need for simplified insolvency is so pressing, why would the take-up rate be so limited?
This is a more general point. According to the World Bank, the strength of Singapore's insolvency framework scored 74.3 out of 100 in 2020, placing it 27th in the world. While this may suggest ample room for improvement, the reported weaknesses had little to do with speedy bankruptcy resolution or high costs, both of which our nation ranked among the best worldwide. Rather, they relate more to the management of debtors' assets, limited creditor participation and the poor involvement of creditors in re-organisation proceedings. Future revisions of the corporate bankruptcy framework may wish to bear these lessons in mind.
To be clear, any reduced costs of doing business for our small and medium enterprises are welcome. Still, one is left to wonder if we are focusing on meeting a genuine business need with SIP or dancing around other insolvency concerns that may matter more.
This is especially relevant when one considers how, over the same period, personal applications for bankruptcy were an order of magnitude higher, amounting to almost 15,000 cases. Applications hit an 18-year high in 2023 and are on track to significantly exceed that number in 2024.
This begs the question, then, of whether the resolution regime for individual bankruptcies can be further expedited and simplified, much like what we are doing here for companies in this Bill. Doing so may even improve our business climate, since the nature of entrepreneurship today is that many individuals take on personal debt to pursue their dreams of starting their own companies.
To be fair, there have been some advances on that front. The Debt Repayment Scheme (DRS), modelled after Chapter 13 of the United States (US) Bankruptcy Code, offers a debt resolution alternative that is more flexible and forgiving than traditional bankruptcy, at least for debts below a certain threshold. But after more than a decade and a half, DRS appears to be fraying at the edges.
As my Sengkang colleague Mr Louis Chua recently pointed out, third-party consultants are being engaged to help with the administration of the programme and the fees they charge may be a concern. Yet, the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) does not regulate third-party debt consultancies or the fees that they charge, which potentially allows such consultancies to take advantage of distressed Singaporean borrowers, thereby worsening their debt burden at a time where they least need it.
It is undeniable that there should be some nominal fee for the administrative costs incurred by the Official Assignee (OA). The 1.5% collection and 3% distribution fees by OA may be seen as punitive, especially if the debt amount turns out to be rather significant. The DRS hearings also, currently, exempt creditors from attendance, which may introduce inadvertent delays in the process of discharge, especially in instances where the repayment schedule also needs to be re-negotiated.
In addition, Singapore remains somewhat of an outlier among advanced economies where there is no automatic discharge from bankruptcy. The United Kingdom (UK) wrote this out in its Insolvency Act 1986 while Hong Kong did the same at the end of the 1990s; Germany and France followed a few years after and even neighbouring Malaysia started in 2017.
Moreover, even the elapsed duration before a discharge may even be considered by OA here, is a long three years. Contrast this to Canada, where the duration for automatic discharge is nine months for first timers with no surplus income, and 24 months for second timers; or the UK, where bankrupts only have to wait for a year after the order is first issued; or the US, where debts under Chapter 7 bankruptcy occurs four months after filing.
Sir, while automatic discharge and expedited exit from bankruptcy must not be regarded as a magical panacea for encouraging risk-taking and entrepreneurship, it, nevertheless, underscores how a more consumer-friendly regime seems to be warranted, especially since we are doing so for businesses. Surely, we do not wish to leave tens of thousands of Singaporeans in debt purgatory for longer than they need to be.
It may also be time to revisit the bankruptcy threshold, which is currently set at a fairly low level of $15,000. This was last raised in 2015 from $10,000. However, taking inflation into account means that that would be equivalent to about $18,000 in today's dollars. Notably, the threshold was also temporarily raised in the aftermath of the pandemic to $60,000 and accompanied by an increase in the eligibility threshold for the DRS to $250,000.
While we are here debating a permanent extension of the pandemic-era accommodations for corporate bankruptcy, I would urge the Ministry to also do the same for individual bankruptcy. The possibility that we face a tide of even more personal bankruptcies in the year ahead is very real. Rising cost of living have placed immense pressure on many households. Retrenchment spiked in 2023 and are likely to remain high for 2024. Interest rates on debt worldwide, including Singapore, have remained stubbornly high, even after the more recent rate cut cycle by the US Federal Reserve. This portends, yet, more challenges for Singaporeans who are struggling under the burden of debt.
Hence, while I support this Bill, I urge the Government to also consider analogous improvements to the insolvency regime that applies not just to firms, but also for our households.
Mr Speaker: Mr Neil Parekh.
Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on the Insolvency Restructuring and Dissolution (Amendment) Bill, a critical step in ensuring that our insolvency framework remains responsive to the needs of businesses, especially the micro and small enterprises that form the backbone of our economy.
This Bill builds upon the SIP which was introduced in 2021 as a lifeline during the challenging days of the COVID-19 pandemic. Over the years, this programme has proven its value, offering businesses a faster, simpler and more cost-effective way to restructure the debts or wind-up operations. With a focus on efficiency and fairness, the proposed changes are designed to provide businesses with the tools they need to navigate financial distress while preserving value for creditors. This simplified framework will be of great help to SMEs in some financial stress, while supporting others to wind down with dignity.
This amendment seeks to do more than just extend the programme. It aims to refine it. By consolidating eligibility criteria, streamlining processes and reducing costs, the Bill ensures that these mechanisms remain accessible to firms of all sizes, including our SMEs, which sends a powerful message that Singapore remains committed to supporting entrepreneurial risk-taking.
Sir, I have 12 clarifications for the Minister.
The Bill's provisions outline the eligibility criteria for businesses seeking to enter the simplified debt restructuring programme. I would seek the Minister's views on whether companies with complex ownership structures qualify for the programme, such as those with multiple layers of ownership or significant cross-border operations. SMEs with international operations face unique challenges, especially dealing with creditors across jurisdictions. Will the SIP framework accommodate the specific complexities these businesses face, especially regarding validating the debts or assets in multiple countries?
Number three, when a business faces financial distress due to factors beyond its control, such as global supply chain disruptions or international trade restrictions, will such companies be considered eligible for SIP assistance, even if their financial difficulties stem from external, non-operational factors?
Number four, given the current economic climate of relatively high inflation and interest rates, can the Minister please clarify, if the SIP's entry requirements will be sufficiently flexible to accommodate businesses facing these external challenges? Specifically, will the criteria consider the impact of these economic pressures on a company's financial position, ensuring that otherwise viable businesses are not unfairly excluded from accessing this crucial support?
This question is particularly pertinent, given the findings of the recent Singapore Business Federation's National Business Survey 2024/2025. The survey revealed that customer demand uncertainty has risen sharply from 30% in 2023 to 45% in 2024, becoming the second top challenge for businesses today. Additionally, 51% of businesses have had to implement cost-saving measures to offset rising costs. These statistics underscore the need for flexibility in our insolvency framework.
Number five, one of the key elements of the proposed amendments is the role of the Restructuring Adviser in guiding businesses through the simplified debt restructuring process. Given the importance of this role, does the Bill include safeguards to prevent conflicts of interest? Will there be clear guidelines for how Restructuring Advisers are selected and will there be a mechanism for businesses to challenge or request a change of advisors if they feel that the current advisors are not acting in their best interest?
Number six, I now turn to the compliance and penalties under clause 6, section 72E(4). The proposed amendments also introduce new compliance and penalty provisions. While these provisions will help ensure that businesses follow the proper procedures, I seek the Minister's clarification on what constitutes materially false or misleading statements under the Bill and how these will be assessed. It would also be helpful to understand whether businesses will have the opportunity to rectify any misstatements before penalties are imposed.
Number seven, will there be specific thresholds or guidelines for penalties and will there be proportionality between the nature of the offence and the consequences for the company involved?
Number eight, an important aspect of this Bill is the support for SMEs with limited access to restructuring professionals under its general provisions. Will there be financial assistance or subsidies for smaller businesses to help them engage professional advisors, such as restructuring specialists or legal counsel, during the insolvency process?
Number nine, how can the Government partner with industry bodies or trade associations to create awareness and provide training for SMEs on navigating the insolvency process? Would the Minister consider setting up a dedicated SME advisory panel to provide ongoing feedback and suggest improvements?
Number 10, will there be any provisions to protect employees and other stakeholders, such as suppliers, who may be affected by a company's closure? Since SMEs often rely on close personal relationships with local suppliers and employees, these parties must be treated fairly during a simplified winding process.
Finally, I touch on this Bill's emphasis on digital-first processes for filings and notifications. While this is a welcome development, how will the Government ensure that SMEs, particularly those without significant digital infrastructure, be able to adapt to this new approach? Will assistance or training be available for businesses that may face challenges in transitioning to these digital systems?
More broadly, what comprehensive plans are in place to educate our SME community about the SIP and its benefits, particularly on the new changes?
Sir, this Bill is a plus for SMEs, especially in battling the next major economic crisis whenever it happens. Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, this Bill has my full support.
Mr Speaker: Minister Edwin Tong.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Sir, I thank the three Members who have spoken in support of the Bill and for their considered speeches as well as suggestions. I thought I would start with a few broad overarching points which underpin the proposed amendments – overarching in the sense that these are the purposes and the broad principles that underpin why we have decided to introduce SIP 2.0. They also answer some of the points that Members have raised.
First, I think we all agree, it is not economically viable or desirable for companies that are not operating, dormant for a period of time and not financially sustainable, to remain on the books. Technically alive, but, effectively, dormant and not operating. These amendments seek to lower the threshold for these companies to find it easier to exit. And, in some ways, there will be individual personalities behind these companies as well. So, the simplified process allows them to get out of a business that has failed, through perhaps no fault of theirs, in a straightforward manner and get on with a different business; an exit that is fair to all creditors, and find the business transactions under a different model and perhaps, one which may be more viable. So, it also helps the individuals behind each of these corporate entities.
Second, we all agree that, in reality, the practical challenges and realities facing smaller companies in financial distress would be very different from the larger companies. Here, I want to emphasise a few points. First, we are dealing with a scenario which is a small subset in terms of the type of cases. Although I said, at the start, that MSCs form the bulk of our enterprise landscape, but the type of cases that we are dealing with is a subset of the broader ones.
So, my first point to many of the issues raised by Assoc Prof Jamus Lim as well as by Mr Neil Parekh and Mr Don Wee, is that the parties have a choice. They can assess for themselves. In fact, they should assess for themselves how suitable their case is for a SIP 2.0 process and decide whether they fall under this framework. Otherwise, the entire framework in the IRDA is completely available to any of these companies as well. So, it is not as if they are locked into or pigeonholed into having to select SIP 2.0, if they qualify as an MSC. That is the first point I would make.
Secondly, to address Assoc Prof Jamus Lim's point about whether the SIP was \"pressing\", I think that was the word that the Member chose to use. The numbers speak to the cases that have come under SIP 1.0 in the immediate post-COVID-19 enactment of this Bill. But as I said, this is a choice that we are offering as an add-on to a corporate entity to decide whether they fit within this profile and, if so, whether they want to avail themselves of a shorter, more simplified process. Effectively, it is giving more options rather than taking away or requiring some companies to fit within this framework without having a choice.
The third point I would make is that we see, therefore, value in having insolvency processes that are in the context of these cases, simpler, more straightforward, more streamlined, easier to get entry into, not so document-intensive and allows the companies to decide: I fit within this framework, let us get onto this quickly so that I can simplify, reduce cost as well as use up less time to exit a failed business.
So, we envisage that SIP 2.0 will have this impact and overall, in these cases, translate into better returns for creditors, which is one of the key aims. Because sometimes, and Members might know that I have spent some time in practice doing restructuring, we see a very viable, very good restructuring plan, but it takes time. It takes a lot of effort. And at the end of the day, a lot of the cost would eat up the balance assets of the company after the restructuring is completed.
We hope that in these cases, for the MSCs in particular, that when they avail themselves of this framework, there will be bigger savings in time and costs. Therefore, resulting in better returns for creditors.
With this in mind, let me address some of the specific points that Mr Wee, Assoc Prof Lim as well as Mr Parekh had raised. As I said, I thank Members for the carefully considered speeches.
To Mr Wee's point, the proposed framework seeks to balance the various considerations, providing a streamlined insolvency process and also, we understand, the interests and expectations of the stakeholders. I think it is important, while this is streamlined, for Members to know that we are not compromising on rights that creditors will have and should have in any insolvency.
As mentioned in my opening speech, public agencies and private sector stakeholders have also been consulted widely as part of the design process. We will continue to engage them on an ongoing basis to ensure that this framework that we have proposed in SIP 2.0 remains accessible and evolves with the times to keep up with the needs of corporate entities in financial distress.
By taking into account industry feedback and streamlining the requirements and processes, we have also sought to reduce the cost and time burdens on companies.
The liability threshold of $2 million in many ways acts as a proxy to right-size the kind of companies that can use or benefit from the SIP. Broadly speaking, and I say this in the context of the fact that we have amended the requirements from just an MSC alone to looking at the nature of the insolvency itself, I would say that larger companies with a more sophisticated set-up and larger debt sizes where you have complexity in disputes across different jurisdictions would typically not be suitable for such a simplified process.
For all companies eligible for this SIP 2.0, there will be no changes to the existing priority of debts in section 203 of the IRDA. This applies to both simplified as well as non-simplified processes. The priority scheme amongst creditors, between creditors, will remain unchanged. To summarise, in a winding up, the costs and expenses of liquidation are paid out first, followed by employees' claims for wages or salary. Unsecured debts rank lower in terms of priority. This was the position when we first introduced the SIP as well and will continue to be so in SIP 2.0.
What is envisaged to change under SIP 2.0, however, is that we believe, as I mentioned earlier, the remaining pie for distribution is expected to be larger. This is because the costs and expenses of the liquidation should reduce. As such, rather than employees or creditors having to feel disadvantaged from this, if this is made out, then in fact, the distribution at the end of the process would be expected to be higher.
At the same time, various safeguards exist to prevent potential abuse as the directors' statement will facilitate more efficient entry into simplified winding up. For example, the nominated liquidator has the ultimate responsibility for assessing whether this company satisfies the eligibility requirements or not. In particular, if there is complexity or if there is a suggestion that there is wrongdoing or fraud, the company may be transited into a non-simplified insolvency process. If such fraud or wrongdoing is discovered only after the company has entered into simplified winding up, in other words, midstream and whilst the process has already started, then the liquidator can likewise transit the company into a non-simplified process. So, it facilitates the transfer between the schemes quite seamlessly.
Mr Wee, Assoc Prof Lim and I think Mr Parekh also talked about notifications. Let me say that as it is, notifications under the current SIP are already being published on the Official Receiver's website. Only one notice must also be published in at least one local English daily newspaper, namely, the notice of acceptance into the scheme itself under the current section 250J(c) of the IRDA.
To Assoc Prof Lim's point about notices, and I think he made an appeal whether we could consider other forms, at the end of the day, it is not our intention to deprive creditors and other stakeholders of notice. We felt that this would be the best balance between costs, time taken and the burden on the companies seeking the simplified process and notification.
In our feedback sessions with the industry, we felt that they were already familiar with the current process – publication on the website and so on. Having this as the sole mode of publication will reduce costs and not at the same time cause undue concern to stakeholders.
To Assoc Prof Lim's point, I will make two further responses. First, we will continue to study this. As I said, it is not the intention to deprive proper parties with stakeholder interest or any interest from knowing that this has commenced or has started. We will evaluate the efficacy of the notice and make changes where appropriate. The other, of course, as I said in my opening speech, if there is a process of procedural irregularity or defect, the party affected by that under the SDRP says, \"Look, I wasn't aware there was a notice and now I find myself bound by the SDRP\", that individual creditor can apply to Court. One of the grounds of relief, as I stated, is process irregularity, which includes notice.
Next, let me deal with the length of the moratorium period. I think all three Members spoke about that. I want to emphasise that, as I said in my opening speech, it has gone from 90 days, to 30 plus 30. Let me explain the rationale behind this.
First, these cases are self-selected and scoped. They are simplified, straightforward and ought to be dealt with quickly. I also mentioned in my speech that by and large, in many of these processes, one expects – in fact, it happens in practice – the Restructuring Adviser to already engage the parties, the stakeholders, the creditors, in particular, on the proposed plan and the scheme. Once that happens, you will trigger the process, you start the 30 days for you to work out the details, you might get a further extension if you are not able to satisfy that and then within this framework, you must find a solution.
We believe this to be a proper balance between the fact that you are dealing with a $2-million debt, probably in as much as these are MSCs, you probably also find that the countervailing parties, the creditors themselves, are probably also MSCs or perhaps individuals and there is an interest in ensuring that their rights are also not compromised. Because during the moratorium period, you are not able to enforce any of your rights against the debtor. We felt that this would balance the interests of the parties, moving from a 90-day blanket to a 30-day blanket plus if you need more time, a further 30 days, so 60 days in total.
One further point to Assoc Prof Lim is that this period will be prescribed in subsidiary legislation as set out in clause 20 of the Bill. So, if we find, as this evolves that it is actually insufficient time, we can make adjustments along the way quite easily.
Mr Parekh sought clarifications on various points. I think I have addressed some of them, so I will deal with the rest of Mr Parekh's considerations.
First, we made the eligibility criteria for SIP 2.0 simpler and more flexible so that more companies can participate. We moved from defining the eligibility from \"Are you an MSC?\" – in other words, looking at the identity of the applicant – to \"Are you owing $2 million or less?\", focusing on the nature of the insolvency at hand. The key consideration is that the insolvency should be straightforward and not something that is mired in complexity or disputes.
Depending on the circumstances, some types of companies that Mr Parekh has mentioned may be eligible for SIP 2.0. He mentioned a company may have complex ownership structures or international operations. But for those companies, if the circumstances surrounding the particular debt is straightforward and it is $2 million or under, then SIP 2.0 could apply. For more complicated cases – cross-border elements, disputes that are contentious, fraud, wrongdoing, fraud with disputes between parties, maybe challenges between creditors for priority and so on – then the non-simplified process is still available and in fact, would be more suitable.
To Mr Parekh's point on conflict of interest, Restructuring Advisers are professionals and they must deal with this issue in the course of their work, as they do all the time. In fact, as Mr Parekh knows, it is one topic that comes up from time to time. The introduction of SIP 2.0 does not take away that obligation to evaluate their personal position relative to any conflict of interest that they might have. Only licensed insolvency practitioners who are chartered or public accountants can be Restructuring Advisers. They are bound by their licensing conditions and regulated by their respective accountancy professional bodies. I think we all know that if they do not act professionally, complaints can be made and the Official Receiver or the Licensing Officer or the professional bodies can look into that. In addition, the law provides for the company to appoint Restructuring Advisers and does not restrict the companies to only one such appointment. In appropriate cases, the company may appoint a new Adviser but obviously, the company will have to balance that against the increase in time and cost that might bring about.
Next, Mr Parekh asked about the scope of the offences in the Bill. Like those in other laws, they will be determined by the Courts based on established principles. This includes the new section 72E(4), which is materially identical to the existing section 72E(5). We are not changing the threshold or, in fact, the substantive ingredients behind the offences proposed in section 72E(4). Based on the evidence and circumstances of the case, the Courts will determine whether a specific statement is \"false or misleading in a material particular\".
We put that framework and formula in – and I think Mr Parekh asked to give examples – because what is false and misleading in the context of a statement may well differ from case to case. They may differ in the context of one type of business or another or one form of representation or another. We wanted to keep it situational and contextual, so that the Court has the ability to evaluate, based holistically on the circumstances of each case, whether it is false or misleading in that particular circumstance.
The Court will also determine the applicable penalties to be imposed in the context of sentencing discretion, which is not unusual; while the Government will consider the circumstances of cases, including rectification by companies, before deciding whether to prosecute.
On Mr Parekh's concerns about digital filings and notifications, SIP 2.0 does not introduce any new processes that are not already part of the current SIP. As I mentioned earlier, publishing notifications on the Official Receiver's website already exists under the current SIP. While this process will be enhanced for the convenience of Restructuring Advisers and liquidators under SIP 2.0, significant digital infrastructure will not be required for that.
Before I conclude, let me also make two assurances.
One, to Mr Parekh, my Ministry will monitor the implementation of SIP 2.0 and, in due course, to his point about further education, work with the SME community on the features of SIP 2.0 and review how to partner industry stakeholders to provide better assistance downstream, if necessary. As I mentioned to Assoc Prof Lim, we will also continue to monitor the efficacy of the thresholds and the framework that we put in and make adjustments where necessary.
Finally, to Assoc Prof Lim's point about personal bankruptcy and the Debt Repayment Scheme, he would appreciate that this is not within the scope of this Bill. Nonetheless, the points are well made. I want to assure Assoc Prof Lim that this is something that my Ministry has already started looking into. We understand the points that he has made. We have in fact started work on this, consulted, internally, some stakeholders before going public subsequently. It is an issue that we are studying and we will come back to this House in due course.
Sir, the simplified regime proposed in this Bill is designed to provide tailor-made insolvency processes for smaller companies. As I said, this adds to and does not take away the options that are currently available in the IRDA for all companies – big, small, MSC or otherwise – and whatever is the threshold of the debt for that matter.
We believe that this Bill strengthens Singapore's restructuring and insolvency regime by giving additional options to support companies through financial distress. Besides benefiting stakeholders of the affected companies, this, we believe, will support the broader economy by facilitating the reallocation of resources towards more productive businesses. With that, Mr Speaker, I seek to move.
Mr Speaker: We have time for clarifications. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Thank you, Speaker, and thank you to Minister Tong for his comprehensive responses.
Just a quick follow-up on the issue of educational efforts. I am wondering if there will be additional guidance or advisory by MinLaw that would at least usher MSCs that qualify for SIP to pursue this route when shareholders make the difficult decision to restructure or wind up? Or is this left to corporate bankruptcy lawyers? I ask because, of course, not to deprive legal practitioners such as Minister Tong in his previous life, but MSCs do not always have access to such expensive legal counsel.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I am not sure if it is expensive legal counsel, but legal counsel.
Yes, we will work with professional bodies, trade associations, organisations and various business associations to make sure that this is something that is on their radar, in their frame of mind. We will also, of course, work with the insolvency professionals. As you know, there are about 150 to 160 odd insolvency professionals. They would be the ones who perform the role of the Restructuring Advisers. We will work through these different mediums and forum to get the message across.
But I also want to emphasise that, as I have said, this is a refinement of SIP 1.0. It is not as if it is a completely new creature. We have taken what we thought would work, modified it, and now, this is SIP 2.0 about four or five years on from the original SIP. So, it is something that has already been socialised with the relevant MSCs and business communities. But we will take further steps to enhance it, should there be a need to.
Mr Speaker: Any other clarifications for the Minister? 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 Edwin Tong Chun Fai]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee. (proc text)]
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
The Chairman: The citation year \"2024\" will be changed to \"2025\", as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.
[(proc text) Clauses 1 to 48 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill 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":"Protection from Scams Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs, I move that, \"The Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Sir, the scams situation continues to be of grave concern in Singapore. Preliminary indicators show that the number of scam cases and losses would have increased by about 10% and 40% respectively, in 2024, compared to 2023. Over the past few years, Government agencies have worked closely with banks to put in place measures to safeguard the public from scams. For example, we have the Money Lock, which allows bank customers to set aside a portion of their funds in their bank accounts that cannot be transferred digitally; and we also have the Kill Switch, which allows bank customers to suspend their accounts quickly if they suspect that their bank accounts have been compromised.
Despite the safeguards and extensive public education efforts, we still see a high number of scams involving self-effected transfers, where individuals willingly transfer monies to scammers. From January to September 2024, self-effected transfers accounted for 86% of all scams reports and 94% of losses. These include government official impersonation scams, investment scams and Internet love scams. Such scams rely on social engineering and prey on respect for authority, greed and the human desire for companionship and love.
In some cases, the Police have observed that the victims were so taken in by the scammers' deceit, that they refused to believe that they were being scammed, despite being repeatedly advised by family, friends, their bank and even the Police. By the time these victims realised the truth, the scammers had siphoned their monies out of Singapore. Let me give you a few examples.
In a love scam case, a 64-year-old female victim befriended the scammer on a social media platform and entered into an online relationship with him. The scammer claimed to be working on an offshore oil rig project outside Singapore and told the victim that once his project was completed, he could come to Singapore to marry her. Over the course of about two years, the scammer repeatedly asked for money from the victim, claiming it was to buy equipment for the project or to pay his workers' salaries. Each time, the victim transferred the money to various bank accounts designated by the scammer. Despite attempts by the Police and her family to convince her that she was being scammed, she continued to make money transfers to the scammer. It was only after multiple engagements by the Police that the victim was finally convinced that she was being scammed. And by that time, unfortunately, the victim had already lost about $400,000 to the scammer.
In another case and this is an example of a love and investment scam, a 33-year-old male victim met the scammer on an online dating platform. The scammer slowly gained the victim's trust, eventually deceiving the victim into believing that they were in a relationship. The scammer then introduced the victim to a fake investment opportunity promising substantial profits. Believing that the investment opportunity was legitimate, the victim made several transactions to multiple bank accounts on the scammer's instructions. The transactions amounted to a total of $200,000. Despite being engaged by both banks and the Police, the victim remained unconvinced that the person was a scammer. He subsequently even attempted to borrow money from his parents to fund the \"investment\". It took multiple attempts by the Police before he was convinced.
These are but two examples of the cases of victims that the Police have encountered. In these cases, the Police and the banks have no legal powers to stop the victim from making further transactions. The victim would continue to lose more money to the scammers until he or she is eventually convinced that he or she is being scammed. In some of these cases, the victims have appealed to the Government for financial assistance.
Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not just the victim who suffers. Their loved ones – spouses, children, parents – suffer too. They often have to support the victim emotionally and financially as he deals with the loss, sometimes amounting to a lifetime of savings. These family and friends, they feel frustrated and helpless. They wish that more could have been done to protect their loved ones.
In such situations, the authorities should have powers to intervene decisively. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has, therefore, tabled this Bill to introduce new powers for the authorities to step in and stem further scam losses.
This Bill empowers Specified Officers, including Police Officers and Commercial Affairs Officers, to issue a Restriction Order (RO) to banks to restrict the banking transactions of an individual, if there is reason to believe that he will make money transfers to a scammer, withdraw any money and give it to a scammer or apply for a drawdown from any credit facility with the intention of benefiting a scammer. The intent is to buy the Police more time to engage and convince the individual that he is being scammed, including through enlisting the help of his family members. ROs will only be issued as a last resort, if all other efforts to convince the individual has failed.
Clause 2 of the Bill defines a scammer as a person who has interacted with the scam victim substantially via remote communication, for the purposes of committing or facilitating the commission of a scam offence. MHA has filed a Notice of Amendment, to remove the word \"substantially\" from the definition of a scammer in clause 2, as well as to remove the words of \"conducted remotely\" from the long title.
The MHA's policy intent in introducing the power to issue ROs is primarily to protect victims from remote scams. However, the Police have observed some cases where scammers introduce elements of physical interaction to strengthen the deception. These amendments will remove ambiguity over whether ROs can be issued in such cases.
Clause 3 empowers a Specified Officer to issue an RO to a bank. The RO will direct the bank not to execute any banking transaction from an individual's bank account and not to allow any drawdown of credit facilities. In other words, an individual who is subjected to an RO will have his bank accounts, automated teller machine (ATM) facilities and credit facilities suspended. Nevertheless, the individual will be provided access to his monies for daily living expenses. This will be covered in clause 5 of the Bill, which I will elaborate on later.
Operationally, the RO will be issued to the seven Domestic Systemically Important Banks, or DSIBs in short, which account for the vast majority of consumer bank accounts in Singapore. The RO will also be issued to a non-DSIB, if there is reasonable suspicion that the victim will effect transfers to a scammer from a non-DSIB account or withdraw money from it to give it to a scammer.
Clause 4 specifies the threshold that must be crossed before an RO can be issued. First, the Specified Officer must have reason to believe that the individual will transfer money to a scammer, withdraw money and give it to a scammer or apply for drawdown from a credit facility with the intention of benefiting a scammer. Second, the Specified Officer must determine that the RO is necessary for the protection of the individual.
With the amendment to remove the word \"substantially\" from the definition of a scammer in clause 2, the legal power to issue ROs would, technically, extend beyond remote scams to more traditional cheating cases, which involve mostly physical interactions and where the other party is known to the individual in real life. Traditional cheating cases are more complex. They require deeper investigation to establish if there is, indeed, an offence.
For example, in a case of cheating alleged to be committed by a real friend or real lover, it is not always clear at the outset whether a criminal offence is disclosed, unlike in remote scams. Hence, the threshold to issue ROs in such cases will be higher. A Specified Officer will only issue an RO in an exceptional case when there is clear and incontrovertible evidence that a relevant offence is disclosed. Similarly, the Specified Officer must determine that the RO is necessary for the protection of an individual.
The decision to issue an RO will be made solely by the Police, based on a holistic assessment of the facts and circumstances of each case. While the wishes of the individual and his family members may be taken into consideration, the Police will make the final decision.
MHA is mindful of the need to strike a balance between protecting an individual from further harm and not unduly inconveniencing him. The Bill takes this into consideration and has put in place four sets of safeguards.
First, clause 4 of the Bill requires that an RO be issued only if necessary for the protection of the victim. An RO is, thus, issued as a last resort. Where there are still other options available for protecting the victim, the Police will first explore these options. Let me give you an example.
The Police are notified by the bank that a person is making large transactions to an account linked to a love scammer. Despite multiple engagements by the Police, the victim refuses to believe the Police and continues to make transfers to the scammer. As part of their engagements with the victim, the Police find out that the victim has a sibling whom he is close to and he trusts. A Specified Officer may not issue an RO to restrict the victim's banking transactions or use of credit facilities, if the victim and the sibling agree to an arrangement where the sibling will monitor the victim's transactions via a joint account and can advise the victim against making further transfers to the scammer.
Second, clause 5 of the Bill limits the duration of an RO to a maximum of thirty days at the outset. This provides assurance that the restrictions will not be imposed for longer than is necessary to protect the individual, while ensuring that the Police have sufficient time to further engage and convince the individual.
During this period, the Police may work with the individual's friends or family members and gather further evidence. The individual may also be referred to a counsellor or a social service agency for support. A Specified Officer may cancel the RO ahead of the 30-day limit if the officer assesses that the individual is no longer at risk of making money transfers to the scammer.
Clause 5 also empowers a Specified Officer to extend the RO for up to 30 days at a time, up to a maximum of five extensions, if the officer assesses that more time is required to persuade the individual. The initial RO and five potential extensions will last up to a maximum of 180 days. After this, the RO must lapse.
The RO will not be extended further, even if the victim is still at risk of transferring more money to the scammer and may well do so after the restriction order lapses. MHA takes a practical approach to this. We cannot handhold the victim indefinitely, nor do we have the resources to do so, but we will do all that we can, while the RO is enforced, to bring the individual to his senses.
Third, clause 5 empowers a Specified Officer to vary the RO temporarily to allow the individual to have access to the money in his bank accounts. For example, upon application by the individual, a Specified Officer will allow him to withdraw a fixed amount of money for the purposes of daily living or to pay medical bills or insurance premiums.
Fourth, clause 7 provides for an appeal process so that an individual can appeal against the issuance of an RO to the Commissioner of Police, whose decision is final. Given that the RO will remain active pending the assessment of the appeal, MHA will ensure that the appeal process is expeditious.
MHA has conducted public consultations on the Bill. Around 90% of the respondents expressed support for the proposals. Some recounted past experiences, where their family members or friends were scammed and commented that the RO would have been useful in those situations. A minority of the respondents, however, highlighted the need to respect individual autonomy and were concerned that such powers would be intrusive.
MHA acknowledges these concerns. As I explained earlier, the RO will only be issued temporarily and only as a last resort. Specified officers would have conducted investigations to satisfy themselves that the individual is indeed being targeted by a scammer and would have futilely engaged the individual before issuing the RO. We will also put in place safeguards to ensure that the powers are used judiciously.
Mr Speaker, the Police have a duty to protect the public from harm and to prevent crime. The cost of falling prey to scams does not only affect the scam victim. Often times, their family members and even Government finances are needed to support scam victims in the aftermath. We thus have a collective responsibility to protect potential scam victims. This Bill allows the Police to act decisively and close a gap in our arsenal against scammers. While this Bill alone may not significantly dent the total number of scams, it will save some individuals and their loved ones much agony and pain. I hope the Members of this House will support the Bill.
But even as we continue to work on providing protection to scam victims, we must remember that scam prevention and mitigation is not the responsibility of the Government alone, nor can we succeed alone. Combating scams requires the whole-of-society, and we must all continue to work together to protect ourselves and our loved ones from scams. Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I would now like to speak in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] From January to September 2024, cases where victims willingly transferred monies to scammers accounted for 86 percent of all scam reports and 94 percent of losses. Such scams exploit an individual’s respect for authority, human desires and longing for companionship and love. In some cases, the victims were so taken in by the scammers’ deceit that they refused to believe that they were being scammed, despite being repeatedly advised by their family, the banks or the Police.
The Police and the banks have no legal powers to stop victims from making further transfers, so victims may continue to transfer money to scammers until they finally realise that they have been scammed, or until they have lost their life savings. Not only are the victims affected, their families, spouses, children and parents may also need to support the victims financially and emotionally. In some of these cases, families have to appeal to the Government for financial assistance.
The authorities need the powers to intervene decisively, which is why the introduction of the Protection from Scam Bill is necessary. This Bill allows the Police to step in and stem further scam losses. Through ROs, if there is reason to believe that an individual will transfer money to a scammer, the Police can work with the banks to restrict the individual's banking transactions and use of credit facilities.
The RO will only be issued as a last resort, after all other efforts to convince the individual have failed. According to the Bill, the RO is valid up to 30 days at the outset and can be extended up to five times. The total duration will not exceed 180 days. During this period, the Police will work with the individual’s friends or family to gather more evidence. The individual may also be referred to a counsellor or social service agency for support. The individual can also apply to withdraw a fixed amount of money for the purposes of daily living, or to pay medical bills and insurance premiums.
We believe that this Bill is necessary as it enables us to stem scam losses and prevent scam victims from losing their life savings due to a moment of impulse or fear.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe this Bill is a necessary step forward. But I have some clarifications to ensure it works as intended.
First, Mr Speaker, Sir, when it comes to scams, speed is everything. Every minute counts. This Bill lets officers issue ROs to block suspicious transactions. But how fast can this happen?
Imagine if someone's life savings were on the line. Minutes, even seconds, could make the difference. Can we move fast enough?
Then, there is the question of scale. Scams today do not target one person – they hit hundreds, sometimes thousands, at once. Can our systems handle such a surge? Or will delays cost victims dearly?
In Yio Chu Kang, I have had residents come to me, frustrated that their cases have not been followed up for weeks, even after the Police assured them that they would. Perhaps this is a symptom of the system being overwhelmed. If so, how do we address it? Delays like these can erode trust in our ability to protect victims.
And what if the wrong account gets blocked? Mistakes can happen. How quickly can we fix them, so that innocent people are not left stranded?
Prevention is just as important. Can we do more to educate the public? Let us make every Singaporean scam-wise. Let us turn them into scam-fighters who can protect themselves and their loved ones.
Next, Mr Speaker, Sir, the appeals process in clause 7 is critical. But it needs to work for everyone. What about seniors who are not tech-savvy? Many seniors in Yio Chu Kang do not even use smartphones. If their account gets blocked, how can they appeal? Community networks, like grassroots organisations, must step up to help them.
Then, there is fairness. Clause 7(5)(b) allows appeals to be decided based on documents alone – no hearings. While that saves time, what about those who struggle to explain their case in writing? Should they not get a chance to speak, especially for complex cases? And under clause 7(6), the Commissioner's decision is final. To build trust, could we introduce regular reviews? Or publish anonymised outcomes to show that the system is working fairly? Transparency matters.
Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill places heavy responsibilities on banks, and rightly so. But we must be careful not to overwhelm them.
Clause 6 imposes a $3,000 fine for non-compliance. Is that enough to deter negligence? Or do we need stricter penalties? More importantly, banks need resources. It is not always easy to distinguish a scam from a legitimate transaction. Can we provide clear guidelines, training or support, especially for smaller banks?
Penalties alone would not recover lost savings. Prevention is the real solution. Let us work closely with banks to stop scams before they happen.
Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, scams do not stop at our borders. Many originate overseas, where our laws have no jurisdiction. What can we do about that? Could Singapore lead efforts to create a regional task force? A shared intelligence system could make it harder for these syndicates to operate. What if we built a global registry of known scam accounts? This could help authorities and financial institutions block scammers faster.
And while clause 9 protects banks acting in good faith, we must ensure this does not lead to complacency. Especially for overseas transactions, we cannot leave any gaps.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is a necessary and timely step in addressing the scam crisis. However, it is also highly intrusive, as it temporarily removes personal agency by restricting access to accounts.
We must therefore act with care. Temporarily freezing someone's account is a serious measure. It should only be justified by the need to protect vulnerable individuals. To mitigate this, we must prioritise robust training and resources for bank employees and artificial intelligence (AI) systems to minimise errors in account restrictions. A streamlined, human-centered appeals process is also vital to address disputes swiftly and fairly.
We must also be mindful of unintended consequences. Victims who feel unsupported might turn to unsafe alternatives, like loan sharks, out of desperation. Furthermore, disputes involving family members over money can escalate and create long-lasting tensions. This is why safeguards are essential. Neutral support systems, such as community networks and counsellors, must be in place to guide victims and help them recover from such experiences.
For many seniors, the impact of scams goes beyond financial loss. They often suffer a loss of dignity and confidence, leaving them too ashamed to seek help. Young people, too, have not been spared. In some tragic cases, falling prey to scams has led to severe mental health issues and even suicide.
To truly protect Singaporeans, we must act fast, be fair and address the root causes of scams. Loneliness, financial insecurity and lack of support create vulnerabilities that scammers exploit. These underlying issues must also be tackled to build resilience in our society.
Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill must be supported by a strong commitment to act swiftly, fairly and wisely. It must protect the most vulnerable segments of our society, while ensuring interventions are timely, precise and carefully managed. Together, we can create a society where scams find no foothold and every resident feels safe, supported and empowered to protect themselves and their loved ones. Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, scams are wreaking havoc on lives and the life savings of many Singaporeans. In just the first half of 2024, 26,587 scam cases were reported, with losses exceeding $385.6 million.
Behind some of these numbers are residents of Aljunied Group Representation Constituency, a number of whom have sought my help to recover their hard-earned money. Sadly, in most cases I have seen, recovery has been minimal as the funds have been transferred out of Singapore and the burden of preventing scams still rests heavily on the shoulders of the end-users.
The Protection from Scams Bill is an important step forward towards combating this scourge. However, it introduces a significant change to the legal relationship between banks and their customers. Traditionally, banks have acted as fiduciaries with a singular duty of loyalty to their customers, including following specific instructions for financial transactions. This Bill, however, empowers the Police to issue Restriction Orders to banks, enabling them to temporarily restrict an individual's banking transactions if there is a reasonable belief that the customer is about to transfer money to a scammer. I believe that this is a justifiable shift, given the grave risks posed by scams, including the potential for victims to lose their life savings.
However, its effectiveness is contingent upon timely identification and intervention by the authorities, which may not be feasible in all cases. Many scams are executed within minutes, even seconds, leaving no time for third parties to intervene. This makes the Bill less effective in these increasingly common high-speed scenarios.
May I ask the Minister of State, based on the scam cases that came to the attention of the Police over the past year, has the Ministry modelled how many ROs would have been issued if this Bill had already been in effect?
To better combat scams, we need more systemic safeguards that stop scams before they start, hold financial institutions, telecommunications companies, social media companies and messaging providers more accountable in preventing scams from taking place on their platforms and compensate victims if they fail to put in place adequate measures.
Some safeguards are captured in the Shared Responsibility Framework (SRF), which took effect on 16 December 2024. However, SRF focuses solely on phishing scams that lead to unauthorised transactions. It assigns a few specific duties to banks and telecommunications companies to mitigate such scams and requires compensation for victims when these duties are not fulfilled.
While SRF improves protections against phishing-related threats, it does not cover the full range of scams affecting consumers today. Many scams, such as investment scams or romance scams, rely on social engineering to deceive victims into authorising payments under false pretences. Unlike phishing scams, these involve victims being misled about the purpose of the transaction, rather than unauthorised access. Addressing such scams requires tailored strategies and frameworks, which I will come back to later.
I am concerned about the SRF's reliance on banks to conduct the initial investigation into scams, including assessing whether they have fulfilled their responsibilities. This presents an inherent conflict of interest, as banks are both the investigator and an interested party with a financial incentive to conclude that they met their obligations. This also creates a significant disadvantage for scam victims who lack access to key evidence, such as system logs or fraud detection records and often do not have the expertise to effectively challenge the bank's findings.
Consider this scenario: a bank customer falls victim to a phishing scam, where their funds are fraudulently transferred out of their account. The customer raises a claim under SRF, asserting that the bank failed to meet its obligations, such as sending real-time notifications or flagging a suspicious transaction through its fraud detection systems. The bank conducts the initial investigation and concludes that it fulfilled all its duties under SRF, including providing the required alerts and adhering to the cooling-off period. It informs the customer of its findings and denies reliability for the losses. The customer, lacking access to system logs or detailed evidence of the bank's actions, is unable to independently verify whether these obligations were indeed fulfilled.
Although the customer has the option to escalate the matter to the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (FIDReC) or the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), these bodies may also face limitations in their ability to access critical evidence. If these bodies are called upon to adjudicate disputes or review banks' investigations under SRF, do they have direct access to the necessary evidence, such as system logs, fraud detection records and notification timestamps? If these bodies rely solely on banks to supply this evidence, there is a risk that the information provided may be selective or incomplete, especially when the findings could impact the bank's liability. For oversight to be truly effective, these adjudicating bodies must have the authority and technical capability to directly access and verify evidence rather than depend on the banks' representations alone. Without this, the impartiality and robustness of the review process may be compromised.
To address these shortcomings, an independent investigative body should be established to handle scam-related cases pertaining to banks' fulfilment of their SRF obligations. This body would examine evidence provided by the bank, the customer and any relevant third-parties to ensure impartiality and transparency. Such a body would act as a neutral arbiter, removing the inherent conflict of interest in having banks investigate cases where they are the interested party.
Additionally, victims should be informed of their rights and available recourse options as part of the investigation outcome report. This includes clear guidance on how to escalate disputes to independent bodies, such as FIDReC. Providing this information upfront will ensure victims are aware of their options and are not left without avenues for redress if they disagree with the findings of the investigation.
I would like to make several more proposals for regulators to require platforms to put in place enhanced protections against a wider range of scams. These complement the proposals I put forward in my speech during the Second Reading debate on the Online Criminal Harms Bill on 5 July 2023.
A recurring scam that my residents have brought to my attention involves the misuse of digital wallets, like Apple Pay and Google Pay. Scammers set up a digital wallet linked to the victim's bank account. While multi-factor authentication is typically required during set-up, scammers exploit social engineering techniques to manipulate victims into unknowingly approving the setup. Once the wallet is linked, subsequent payments often bypass additional authentication, allowing scammers to rapidly deplete funds without further victim involvement.
This highlights several possible vulnerabilities in the current system. First, the reliance on multi-factor authentication alone is insufficient when victims are tricked into authorising fraudulent setups. Second, once the digital wallet is authorised, there is a lack of effective monitoring to detect and flag suspicious transactions. Third, the absence of clear accountability between banks and digital wallet providers exacerbates the issue, leaving victims with little recourse.
To address this gap, banks must be required to work with digital wallet providers to deploy real-time fraud detection algorithms that monitor all digital wallet transactions for anomalies, including transactions that occur after the initial digital wallet set-up. These algorithms should integrate behavioural analysis, such as device changes, unusual transaction patterns or foreign Internal Protocol (IP) addresses, to flag high-risk activities. This will enable proactive intervention to block unauthorised activities before the funds are lost.
Bank should be held liable for losses if they fail to meet these duties. Financial institutions should be required by the regulator to enhance back-end fraud detection by integrating account data, behavioural analysis and anomaly detection to identify high-risk payees. These are the possible scammers or their agents. This approach minimises reliance on customers' judgement alone and strengthens fraud detection.
Many platforms, including social media, email and messaging services, as well as telecommunications companies and mobile handsets already offer mechanisms to block and report suspected scams. However, these reports are often siloed, remaining on the user's device or with the platform concerned. There is no centralised scam database to consolidate and share this information.
Currently, many scam reports only enter the scam database managed by the Singapore Police Force (SPF) if the user installs the ScamShield app and submits a scam through it. This approach is insufficient to crowdsource the collective knowledge of a broader pool of users to identify and report scams as they emerge.
To address this, the scam database currently managed by the Police, should be allowed to receive real-time updates from the banks, telecommunications companies, social media platforms and messaging providers based on user reports, while incorporating robust safeguards to protect privacy. These platforms should then use this shared data for monitoring and proactively blocking scams on their own platforms.
MAS and the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) should assess and rate financial institutions, telecommunications companies, social media companies and messaging platforms on the robustness of their anti-scam measures and their implementation of the systemic safeguards mentioned earlier. To promote accountability and incentivise improvements, these ratings should be clear, fair and standardised, with transparency to consumers. However, vulnerabilities identified during the assessment should not be publicly disclosed until the entities have had a reasonable opportunity to address them to ensure security is not compromised.
Mr Speaker, scams are an evolving threat. This Bill takes an important step forward with its focus on \"emergency brakes\" to mitigate harm in individual cases.
However, its scope remains narrow. To effectively combat scams, we need more systemic safeguards that address root causes and build resilience across platforms. These systemic safeguards include, deploying real-time fraud detection for digital wallet transactions, enhancing Know Your Payee mechanisms to flag suspicious payees and creating a centralised scam database accessible to banks, telecommunications companies and social media companies for real-time monitoring and blocking. Together, these measures will ensure more robust prevention, swift enforcement and shared responsibility in protecting Singaporeans from scams.
Sir, I support this Bill but urge the Government to consider these proposals and look forward to the Minister of State's responses to them.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa? Not here. Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Scam cases have become more rampant in recent years. From 2019 to 2023, the number of scam cases increased almost five times, with losses reaching $650 million in 2023 alone. Despite the government and banks' continuous public education activities and measures to protect bank accounts, the number of victims voluntarily transferring money to scammers remains high. What is worrying is that some victims still insist on transferring money to scammers despite the scams being exposed by relatives, friends, bank employees, or even the police on the spot.
In this case, I support the Protection from Scams Bill by the Ministry of Home Affairs. It offers certain protection and restricts victims of online and telecommunications fraud cases from conducting bank transactions to better protect them.
Those who receive a restriction order will not be able to transfer money from their accounts, take out loans, and use ATMs or credit cards. I would like to ask the Minister, if it is found during the police investigation that a third party assisted the party in transferring money to overseas scammers, will the authorities also issue a restriction order to him?
The effectiveness of the bill depends on the police's quick response and investigative capabilities. Can the government consider giving the police stronger powers to reduce losses?
Finally, it takes a while to wait before remittance. Can the minister ask the bank to add a checking procedure to give the police and the bank more time to try to contact the person involved and make the necessary confirmation and explanations.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, the Protection from Scams Bill is the Government's latest legislative efforts to tackle the scourge of scams which, as we all know, almost doubled between 2022 and 2023, and amounted to more than $650 million in losses. The key idea embedded in the Bill is the granting of powers to issue ROs to banks to stop transactions as a last-ditch effort by the Police to prevent what has clearly adjudged to be a scam.
I will make two main points. First, given the eroding distinction between fraud and scams, I wonder whether the definition of scams covered by the Bill alone is sufficient. Second, in light of how the Bill represents a significant intrusion into private transactions, I wonder if there is room to further constrain the specific application of ROs.
Let me start by explaining how many observers perceive a difference between frauds and scams. Fraud, for them, is a result of deception. A malicious actor obtains personal information without the victim's knowledge or consent and proceeds to use said information for financial gain. Scams, in contrast, occur when an unwitting victim is manipulated to either release such information voluntarily or, in the most egregious cases, abet the process altogether with active cash transfers or withdrawals.
As observers, we are often inclined to place the blame for fraud on the provider and scams on the consumer. Hence, we think of how financial institutions or telecommunications companies (telcos) can step up their surveillance of fraudulent schemes or ads, or to plug security holes in their back-end systems, or to contain fraudulent activity.
This has, indeed, been the focus of the SRF, where guidelines underscore how the duties and responsibilities of the bank or telco tend to be limited to actions taken when fraudulent activity is detected and ascertained. If the consumer subsequently authorises the transaction, however, then these institutions tend to be absolved of their share of any losses since they would have already taken reasonable steps to stop said transaction.
There is often less sympathy for those who fall victim to scams. Many claim that victims are either too naive, or too greedy, or too careless. Surely, if they had simply stepped back and thought through the moment more carefully, they would not fall prey to wily scammers. Or worse, they are frequently viewed as willing, if unwitting, participants who should be punished to learn their lesson. They need to recognise that 20-year-olds who connect with 80-year-olds, if they truly are even 20-year-olds, are not really there because of true love, or that it is not possible to double your money in the span of a few months by lending it to a cash-strapped entrepreneur, returns guaranteed.
The problem, however, is that this distinction, while appealing in theory, is both artificial and misleading in practice. Let me offer a few real-life examples to illustrate my point.
Those holding credit or debit cards may have inadvertently used them at a terminal with a skimmer installed or exposed their card to radio frequency identification (RFID) devices. The card then gets cloned and the clone is either used directly to make purchases or the relevant information is sold on the dark web.
Syndicates have also become sophisticated in testing the waters, effecting one or two small transactions that could easily have been missed in a sea of transactions or by sending packages to the actual address. Verified \"live\" cards are then used for large purchases, usually in foreign jurisdictions with weak scammer laws.
Has the consumer truly been defrauded here, as one could argue, since they never approved these purchases? Or is it more akin to a scam since it could be argued that their indifference in response to the testing of transactions implies their acquiescence to the larger scheme?
As another example, consider an investment scam disseminated as an ad through a social media platform. The scammer would have paid for the ad – and in many cases, an ad that is targeted at a potentially vulnerable demographic – and the text of the ad may well include disclaimer language about the \"opportunity\".
So, it seems straightforward. Surely someone who \"invests\" in, say, a villa in Cambodia or a business in Thailand understands the associated risks. But these scammers do not always propose overt gambles of this nature. In our Meet-the-People Sessions, we have encountered residents who were duped by offers of, say, a tour in Malaysia, offered at a discount, or the promise of a job, which involves specialised pre-training for a fee.
From the vantage of the social media platform, these may well seem legitimate and, unsurprisingly, the social media company would have a financial interest to classify them as such. Yet, when revealed to be a scam, the provider is often reluctant or outright refuses to take down the ad.
Is this a scam or a fraud? It exploits the victim's desire to secure a good deal or a job, which makes it closer to a scam. Yet, it embeds elements of deception, such as hidden fine print or bait-and-switch tactics, which makes them more akin to fraud.
Of course, there is yet another third possibility often cited by defenders of the status quo – that scammers may pose as victims to try to defraud financial institutions. Such conspiracies are, of course, criminal. But what if the line between collaborating to deceive and a plea for assistance is far less clear? We are certainly acquainted with cases where in the name of love or compassion, someone is asked to help with hospital expenses for a friend or their child. Is this a scam, or a cry for help, or something in between?
While it is an empirical question whether such activities are actually as widespread as feared, or would become so if a more robust consumer protection framework were put in place, it is nevertheless true that practices of this nature tend to blur the line between scams and fraud and the sort of give-and-take that is common to human relationships.
The artificial line between frauds and scams therefore places an even more pressing onus on the formulation of laws that adequately protect Singaporeans from the scourge of both. We should not simply default to the necessary – but absolutely insufficient – calls for consumers to simply exercise more cyber hygiene while standing pat with more robust legislation.
Sir, relatedly, the current treatment of scams in the ambit of the law appears imperfect. Scams are defined in the Schedule as offences falling under sections 416A, 417, 418, 419, 420, 420A and 420B of the Penal Code 1871. We can cross-reference this against the guidelines issued by the Sentencing Advisory Panel for scam-related offences, which touch on sections 51 and 55A of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes Act, sections 8A and 8B of the Computer Misuse Act, and section 420 of the Penal Code. The overlap is section 420 of the Penal Code.
If we treat this as encompassing the full scope of how scams will be addressed by this proposed law, then the sort of scams that would trigger the issuance of restriction orders are those associated specifically with cheating behaviour.
The key question, then, is whether this definition is sufficient for prosecuting the sort of scams experienced in the real world, given the examples I have cited above. After all, as already mentioned, scams could be designed such that the fraud intent is either not immediately evident or is somehow justifiable. Love, job and investment scams could be framed as genuine pursuits, with the perpetrator even undertaking actions, such as disclaimers to risky investments, or a nominal amount of useless training, or providing a genuine medical bill, that would justify the request for money and its subsequent transfer.
Furthermore, the most successful scams often involve confidence-building measures that exploit known weaknesses in human psychology or emotion to an extent that the scam victims may even refuse to acknowledge or believe that they are being duped even when the scam may appear evident to external parties. Undoubtedly, this is one of the focuses of the present Bill, yet many remain well in denial after the fact or refuse to face losses head-on. Is this cheating any more? If an individual truly wishes to proceed with an action even when confronted with evidence to the contrary, is this indeed something that constitutes cheating?
When even experts and professionals that do this for a living may be duped, how can we be assured that the Police will have special insight or clarity, in advance, into what does or does not constitute a scam? Will the RO only be activated when the Police is able to successfully peg the case to a known scammer or organisation?
If we accept this inherent uncertainty, how will we be certain that ROs will also be effective in circumstances where scammers are not immediately recognised, especially in an age of AI, where the online signature of a potential scammer may easily be masked by extreme personalisation and customisation, otherwise known as \"deep phishing\"?
What if the 30-day freeze period activated by clause 5 of the Bill simply postpones the inevitable? Would the knowledge that a scammed victim plans to remain resolute in their insistence on a monetary transfer ultimately undermine the good-natured intent of the law?
To be clear, existing laws and regulations are always going to be somewhat incomplete, which is precisely why efforts like the current Bill are necessary. Even if we focus more narrowly on the notion of fraud, the existing framework offers scant protection for the consumer.
This is a matter that the Workers' Party has previously spoken up about. In particular, we believe that the way the SRF doles out the burden for dealing with fraud and scams remains incomplete at best, and ineffectual, at worst.
For instance, the responsibilities of telcos in the SRF are currently only limited to texts via SMSes, perhaps due to known vulnerabilities in that system. But can telcos do more? After all, I am sure that many of us have received calls from what appears to be local numbers, phishing for details in a foreign accent. If indeed these are locally registered numbers rather than spoofed ones and these numbers have previously been reported to ScamShield, could the Police use registration documentation to preemptively pursue these scammers?
Moreover, scams are often disseminated via alternative communications channels, such as WhatsApp messages, social media post or ads, as mentioned previously, and direct messages on social media platforms. So, while phishing texts that seek to prod potential victims into clicking malicious links or fake websites do indeed exist, the more nefarious scamming attempts of late are reliant on social engineering and establishing relationships – much more scam than fraud.
Perhaps more concerning is how the SRF relieves financial institutions from solely bearing the burden of fraud so long as they fulfil a checklist of seemingly reasonable actions. These include instituting cooling-off periods, real-time notifications of risky transactions, a self-reporting tool for freezing accounts and a fraud detection system.
These are, surely, valuable measures, but they cannot cover reasonable eventualities where the customer does not appear to be very much at fault at all. One example, based on an experience that I believe many in this House would share, is when a resident encounters an unrecognised transaction in their account. Typically, when they discover such charges on their credit card or debit card, they would simply call the bank. The institution would typically freeze the card, issue a new one and perform an investigation into the matter, after which, in most instances, the errant transaction would be struck off.
Unfortunately, when the charge is on a debit card, things get far more complicated. In principle, such transactions would have required some sort of additional personal identification number (PIN) verification, which would make fraud far more unlikely. But the rise of contactless payments, as mentioned by my friend Mr Gerald Giam, means that the embedded RFID chip in the card performs the same security function, which negates the need for any additional PIN. This has permitted fraud of this nature to emerge via RFID skimming. While the cardholder could certainly take additional steps to protect their phone or cards from such skimming attempts, to me, it is a stretch to claim that the fault solely lies with the customer and that they should bear the full burden of such unauthorised transactions.
As another example, consider how many banks deal with unrecognised transactions that are reported. The process will usually entail a freeze and an investigation, as I explained earlier. But the investigation itself is opaque. I am sure Members will also have residents who have reported erroneous transactions expeditiously – only to be subsequently told that the appeal was unsuccessful and that they would need to carry the cost of these charges even if they had no clue as to how they incurred them.
As a final example, think about how often we receive calls from individuals claiming to be officers from a legitimate financial institution. These days, many such calls are fraudulent and seek to illegitimately obtain the accountholder's personal information. But when customers do not have telephone banking set up, they are often asked a series of security questions, in lieu of the passcode or PIN. Even if these questions do not rely on the NRIC, which, as the recent Bizfile fiasco has demonstrated, is clearly insecure, the answers to these questions may potentially be obtained by any sufficiently motivated investigator. And on the flip side, it is far from clear how, as customers, we can verify that the caller is indeed from a financial institution. I have, on more than one occasion, challenged an actual call from an officer from my bank and the absence of equivalent mechanisms to verify the legitimacy of the caller was made amply clear.
All this to say that SRF, as currently conceived, has offered accountholders scant protection from even instances of fraud, even when customers make good-faith efforts to protect themselves. What more scams, which are much more sophisticated in design and target the most vulnerable among us.
Hence, there is clearly much more work to be done to protect consumers and, hence, the driving motivation for this Bill. Even so, there are reasons to have reservations about the manner by which the proposed Bill goes about the task. One may be uncomfortable, specifically, with how the Bill grants law enforcement an enormous amount of latitude to intervene and restrict what is, ultimately, a private transaction.
While there is no perfect solution and, to be clear, I recognise the well-meaning nature of what is embedded in the Bill, I wonder if the law could also exercise flexibility in its application. In particular, is it possible for banks to offer individuals the right to designate a trusted administrator, perhaps, a close friend or relative, the full authority to freeze transactions for up to 30 days, in lieu of the Police? This would be similar in spirit to a grant of a letter of administration, albeit in a more limited sense. It would also essentially be an extension of the existing Money Lock feature, which already covers 61,000 accounts and $5.4 billion in savings, to designate a third-party as an authorised person with the ability to corroborate a genuine withdrawal intent.
Sir, the blurring lines between scams and fraud means that efforts to tackle the scourge of online and offline thievery requires more innovative mechanisms that account for human psychology and behaviour. The ROs put forward by this Bill are one way forward. I have expressed some reservations over their intrusiveness and hope that there will be some exit option for those who, ex ante, insist on opting out. I also urge this Government to not be content with the measures in this Bill alone, but to continue refining the SRF to build an ecosystem that is more resilient to scams and fraud. That said, on balance, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, scams have proliferated in recent years and appear to be increasing in number. In the first six months of 2024, scam victims in Singapore lost a record high of over $385.6 million.
The Bill we are debating today is a groundbreaking one. If passed, we could be the first country in the world to allow the Police to restrict bank accounts and an individual's banking transactions, if there is reasonable belief that the individual will make money transfers to a scammer.
The Bill is well-intentioned. Eighty-six percent of scams in the first half of 2024 involved the voluntary transfer of monies by the victim to the scammer. By allowing the Police to restrict a potential victim's bank account for 30 days in the first instance and up to 180 days in total, we will provide the Police, banks or family members with more time to convince potential scam victims that they may be at risk of being manipulated into sending money to scammers.
That being said, the money in the bank accounts belong to the account holders and to uphold the principle that they have the right to determine its use. We suggest introducing a provision for individuals to opt out, subject to some safeguards. These safeguards can include a 30-day period before the opting out takes effect, the opting out must be done in person and after a compulsory counselling session.
Additionally, an RO may run the risk of pushing emotionally-vested victims into desperation. For example, a victim of a romance scam may be emotionally devastated if they are prevented from sending money to the scammer, who has also become their lover. Such victims may need emotional support. How does the Police intend to support such victims?
The Progress Singapore Party's (PSP) suggestion is for an explicit provision to be added to clause 4(b) that the Police must take into account the views of a social worker before issuing the RO. Scam victims should be counselled by a social worker and be provided mental health support. With the assistance of family members, the social worker can determine whether an RO would be to the victim's benefit or might instead cause harm. This would better help the Police decide whether an RO would benefit the victim.
PSP would like to raise several further clarifications about the Bill.
The Government has said that it will put in place a mechanism for an individual who is the subject of an RO to have access to his monies for legitimate reasons, such as sustaining daily living and paying bills. Will this mechanism be extended to all RO subjects automatically, or will they have to submit appeals to withdraw monies for legitimate reasons? If it is the latter, can the Police consider streamlining the mechanism, because it is likely that almost all RO subjects will submit such an appeal? RO subjects may face significant hardship if they are unable to access their money for legitimate reasons for an extended period.
Additionally, how will the Police determine the quantum of these withdrawals? How much proof will the Police require the individual to show? Will the Police also subject these monies to restrictions or monitor whether individuals are also sending these withdrawals to scammers?
Next, will the RO extend to joint accounts owned by the individual? If so, while this may protect the other joint account holder from financial losses caused by another joint account holder who is being scammed, we must also ensure that there are mechanisms to avoid unduly inconveniencing joint account holders.
During the public consultation by Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry @ Home (REACH), members of the public suggested that individuals should be allowed to continue with General Interbank Recurring Order (GIRO) payments, including bill payments to legitimate organisations, while an RO is in force. PSP supports such a suggestion.
The Government has said that the banks are unable to exempt selected transactions, such as GIRO payments and bill payments, from the RO, without significant system changes. However, a freeze on such legitimate payments may add to the inconvenience and confusion faced by scam victims during an already difficult time. In addition, they may face financial penalties for any late or unsuccessful payment. We urge the Government to work with the banks to set up the system changes and enact this suggestion as soon as possible. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, Sir, the Protection from Scams Bill being read the second time today is an unprecedented piece of legislation. Once passed, we may become the first country in the world to allow the Police, under reasonable circumstances, to restrict bank transactions to prevent fraud.
PSP believes that the intention behind this Bill is good. In recent years, scam cases have been on the rise and it is necessary for us to take to strong measures to protect our citizens from the threats posed by scams.
However, PSP also believes that the money in the bank accounts belongs to the users as their assets. An important principle of private property rights is that users have the right to decide how to dispose of their assets.
To uphold this important principle, PSP proposes that we should establish an opt- out clause, allowing bank users to opt out of this restriction. To ensure that users are not invoking this opt-out clause under the influence of scammers, we propose setting a 30-day cooling off period. The opt-out clause would only take effect 30 days after the user invokes it, during which time the Police can restrict bank accounts to prevent fraud.
Furthermore, Restriction Orders (Ros) may drive some emotionally vested victims to desperation, for example, victims of romance scams who are forcibly prevented from remitting money to their lovers may make impulsive or foolish choices. These victims need emotional support. How does the Police plan to provide such support?
PSP proposes that the Bill should stipulate that the Police must consider the opinions of social workers before issuing ROs. Scam victim should receive counselling from social workers who can, with the assistance of the victim's family members, determine whether the RO would cause harm to the victim. This will better help the Police decide whether the RO is beneficial for the victim. Guarding against scams is everyone's responsibility. We hope that after the implementation of this Bill, we can prevent more people from voluntarily transferring money to scammers, thereby reducing Singapore’s attractiveness to scammers.
(In English): Sir, a whole-of-society effort is required to prevent the scourge of scams from spreading. The Government can only do so much to protect Singaporeans from scams. The onus is also on Singaporeans to remain vigilant and take steps to protect themselves from potential scams. We hope that after this Bill is enacted, we will be able to prevent more victims from voluntarily transferring funds to scammers, which will hopefully reduce the attractiveness of Singapore as a target for scammers. Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, PSP supports the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Usha Chandradas.
Ms Usha Chandradas (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill but I have some clarifications that I wish to seek from the Minister of State.
The proposed Bill seeks to protect targets of ongoing scams by empowering the Police to issue ROs to banks. These ROs have the effect of restricting the banking transactions of scam victims and they will be issued if there is a reasonable belief that the victims concerned will make money transfers to scammers or utilise credit facilities to benefit them. Joint account holders of scam victims are also affected by these measures. While the intent of the proposed law is to protect individuals from losing their money, the law also grants very wide-ranging powers to the Specified Officers as they are defined at clause 2 of the Bill.
My first question for the Minister of State is, on the experience of these Specified Officers as defined at clause 2, they presently include any Police Officer or Commercial Affairs Officer as defined under the Police Force Act 2004. Since the Bill grants these Specified Officers very wide-ranging and serious powers, and these are powers that impinge greatly on the personal autonomy of scam victims, can the Minister of State elaborate on the expected qualifications of these Specified Officers? For example, will there be a minimum work experience requirement for these officers? Will they be required to undergo specialised training before assuming their roles?
In her speech earlier, the Minister of State referred to certain safeguards being put in place. Could the Minister of State explain how the public can be reassured that ROs will only be issued by experienced and qualified officers?
The definition of a scam victim as provided in clause 2 of the Bill includes an individual against whom a scam offence is intended to be committed. Read together with clause 4, this, theoretically, has the effect of enabling the issuance of an RO, even before the intended victim has suffered any actual financial loss.
So, my second question to the Minister of State is this: can the Ministry provide some examples of what would make a Specified Officer think that a scam victim will act in the manner as described in clause 4(1)(a)? While the Minister of State referred to incontrovertible evidence that the scam has taken place but, if for example, no actual financial loss has taken place, how will the Specified Officer be satisfied or have reason to believe that the acts in clause 4(1)(a) of the Bill will actually take place?
Clause 4(1)(b) states that ROs may be issued when necessary to protect scam victims. This provision takes into account the time that is required by Specified Officers, relatives, or other persons to implement preventative measures. Accordingly, it is hoped that these measures will mitigate the risks of victims continuing to fall prey to scam-related offenses. Clause 4 (1)(b)(ii) also refers to \"all other relevant circumstances\" being taken into consideration. However, there is no indication in the Bill as to what these circumstances might be.
As the Bill already gives very wide powers to Specified Officers, could the Minister provide some more examples of the kinds circumstances that are envisaged here? The criteria for issuing ROs seems to rely heavily on the judgment of Specified Officers. The exercise of this discretion really does need to be guided by very clear regulations to ensure that we do not see errors in judgement being committed or even worse, an abuse of power.
My fourth question has to do with the definition of a relative in relation to a scam victim. I note that parents are left out of the definition and could I ask the Minister why this is the case? What would the recourse be if the parent of a scam victim wishes to be involved in the risk mitigation measures outlined in clause 4(1)(b) of the Bill? Can they or can they not be involved in these processes?
My fifth question has to do with the amount of time that will be taken for the consideration of an appeal against an RO. The explanatory statement to the Bill acknowledges that there is a need to ensure that appeals are made and determined expeditiously, but is the Minister able to provide an indication on the length of time that the Commissioner will take to review an appeal?
My sixth question is on the appeals process laid out in this Bill. At clause 7(4)(b) we see that appeals against decisions related to ROs can be decided without a hearing and in the absence of the scam victims themselves. The absence of a formal hearing denies individuals the opportunity to present their case or to challenge evidence. Victims or affected individuals might also feel disenfranchised by an appeals process that does not allow them to participate actively. In light of these concerns, could the Minister clarify why clause 4(b) is required? Could the Minister also explain or provide examples of the kinds of circumstances that will result in an appeal being decided without a hearing?
My final question has to do with what the Government is doing to address the underlying causes of the perpetuation of scams. While the Protection from Scams Bill is a blunt tool that curtails the freedoms of scam victims, ROs may also not be extended indefinitely. The very fact that this law is required is testament to the core problem at hand and, that is, why are we in Singapore so susceptible to scams in the first place? It has been reported quite widely that scammers manipulate victims into making poor decisions by using deep-seated psychological tactics. They often use strategies that exploit fundamental human emotions, such as the desire for love and friendship or the instinct to make quick and guaranteed financial gains, whether through jobs or investments. These are all very powerful motivators that can override rational thinking.
Many Members in the House had spoken about these factors but I would like to approach the matter from a slightly different perspective and, here, I would like to take the opportunity to remind the House that art can really be a very powerful tool In addressing the root causes behind the perpetuation of scams. First, it can be used to raise better awareness about scams; and secondly, it can help people to form communities of trust and care that they can lean on, instead of becoming easy prey for scammers looking to exploit their emotional vulnerabilities.
In last year's Motion on Building an Inclusive and Safe Digital Society, I mentioned the example of HSBC in Hong Kong, which organised an art exhibition aimed at promoting public awareness on fraud prevention and online scams. In December last year, Singapore art, animation and design educational platform Eyeyah partnered Meta, SPF, the National Crime Prevention Council and the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore to come up with a 44-page, a very artistically designed magazine for students which was focused on scam prevention. Eyeyah's resources are completely free for Singapore educators and it uses creative approaches to demystify up to 13 different scam types. The publication includes interactive activities, such as word searches and mazes, and encourages readers to slow down and make observations. These are critical skills in identifying potential scams. I understand that 40,000 hard copies of the magazine will be distributed for free to students through primary and secondary school art clubs. In addition, educators from any institution may request an e-book version to distribute schoolwide. I am so incredibly heartened to see this successful collaboration and the important recognition given by the Government to the power of the arts. I hope that the Ministry can continue to engage more with the arts community in its educational outreach on scam prevention.
Mr Speaker, there is also plenty of evidence to show that engagement with the arts, whether as an observer or a creator, helps to mitigate feelings of isolation. They help us to forge new social connections as well as recapture ones that may have been lost. There are plenty of reports and statistics on this and I will highlight just one for today. According to a 2012 report by the Baring Foundation in the UK, entitled \"Tackling Loneliness in Older Age – The Role of the Arts\", older participants frequently noted that their first significant benefit from arts projects was meeting new people, forming friendships and feeling less isolated. This is just one example of how social engagement through the arts can be particularly effective in countering loneliness that scammers often seek to exploit when they are targeting their victims.
I have another example I would like to talk about from this past weekend. This past weekend, terminally ill artist Jun Yang Pow held an exhibition entitled \"Canvas of Memories\" at Suntec City celebrating his artistic and personal journey. Crowds gathered to view the show, share their support and engage with the works on display. The event organised by Art Outreach and Ambulance Wish, who worked very hard over Christmas and New Year breaks, brought together practising artists and various members of the public. It really showcased how art can create a strong sense of community and shared purpose. The atmosphere of solidarity and connection at the show was really just as moving as the art itself.
Events like this highlight how the arts can do more than just combat isolation. They build networks of care, trust and empathy. By fostering meaningful relationships and creating environments where people look out for one another, art strengthens social bonds. This makes individuals more resilient to scams and manipulation, which often prey on those who are isolated and who lack a supportive community. When people feel connected and cared for, they are less likely to fall victim to exploitation. To put it another way, a community which is rooted in care and connection is one that is so much harder to exploit.
I hope that the Government will consider my suggestions for a deeper and more meaningful involvement of the arts community in our broader collective fight against scams. Notwithstanding my suggestions and clarifications, Sir, I support this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Ng Ling Ling.
Ms Ng Ling Ling (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, the scam and cybercrime situation in Singapore has become a cause of concern, with an increase of 18% to 28,751 cases from January to June 2024, compared to 24,367 cases in the same period in 2023. Over the first half of last year, victims lost more than $385.6 million, which is a substantive sum of losses that impact victims very significantly, some of whom are my residents in Jalan Kayu.
Given the extensive impact and losses of scam cases in Singapore, I am supportive of the introduction of the Protection from Scams Bill, which will enable the Police to better protect targets from ongoing scams who refuse to believe that they are being scammed. Nevertheless, I believe that the protection of individuals from scam should not solely rest on the Government, but there is a shared effort by the financial institutions, telecommunication companies and the public at large, in minimising the likelihood for people to fall prey to scam tactics.
I will raise considerations on three key aspects of the Bill. First, on the scope of the ROs to support effective implementation; secondly, on how the Government needs to balance between safeguarding individuals' assets with fostering shared responsibility; and finally, on strategies to minimise unintended consequences, such as efforts in reducing inconvenience, maintaining public trust and enhancing public awareness.
Firstly, I am seeking to understand the effectiveness and the scope of RO in addressing evolving scams. The Bill currently only allows for the issuance of ROs for scam cases conducted substantially via digital or telecommunication channels. Under clause 3 of the Bill, RO is limited to the extent of directing banks in: one, to prohibit a transfer or withdrawal of money from any bank account of a scam victim maintained with that bank; or two, to prohibit the granting or allowing a drawdown of any credit facility to the scam victim.
Nonetheless, scammers today have become innovative in exploiting newer platforms, such as cryptocurrency exchanges, remittance companies or e-commerce and e-wallet providers. Scams involving crypto assets are also not easily recovered as the asset can be quickly transferred overseas, with limited jurisdiction oversight, from Singapore. This makes it easy for scammers to use such for anonymous transactions to untraceable accounts in their scam exploits. Similarly, remittance services also play a role in cross-border scams, such as the recent investigations into the suspected fraudulent transactions by a remittance company operating in Chinatown. Without restricting potential victims access to these platforms might result in scammers shifting their operations from traditional banking transfers to the use of crypto-assets or remittance services, for example.
As such, I would like to ask if MHA will consider expanding the scope of ROs to include platforms, such as cryptocurrency exchanges, remittance companies or e-commerce and e-wallet providers? Also, what mechanism could be in place to ensure the adaptability of the Bill in protecting victims when scammers shift to less-regulated financial platforms to conduct their scams?
The key aspect of this Bill is to protect the victims through empowering Police Officers to issue ROs to banks in Singapore to prohibit certain bank transactions and the use of credit facilities temporarily. I support the issuance of ROs to protect individuals from losing their money to scammers. As scam victims are often manipulated or pressured into acting against their own interests, such intervention can help prevent further harm.
While the Bill seeks to safeguard individuals from scams, there are practical concerns about the balance between protecting victims and respecting their autonomy. For instance, making decisions for victims, especially before a thorough investigation can be initiated, could lead to the possibility of misjudgement for ROs to be applied. I understand that an RO can be issued if there is a reasonable belief that the individual will make money transfers to the scammer. I would like to ask MHA, how \"reasonable belief\" will be determined when assessing the risk of transfer to scammers? Will there be thresholds for evidence or is the judgement based on an Officer's discretion?
Furthermore, if the Police are unable to convince a potential victim to halt a particular transaction, should the responsibility, ultimately, rest with the individual if they fall victim to a scam? How would MHA ensure that the issuance of an RO balance between protecting scam victims while respecting their autonomy and personal responsibility?
I also hope that the Government can consider expanding the current SRF for phishing scams to include a broader range of stakeholders and measures. Aside from financial institutions and telecos, to include e-commerce and e-payment platforms, remittance companies and social media companies. These entities can contribute to scam prevention by enhancing account verification process, monitoring suspicious activities and implementing robust measures to safeguard users from fraudulent schemes.
Additional scam types, such as malware-enabled fraud and cryptocurrency scams, should also be included in a broader framework to address evolving tactics of scammers. This will allow stakeholders to robustly implement targeted measures to reduce the vulnerabilities in digital ecosystem and allow for collaborative efforts between law enforcers and technology platforms to disrupt fraudulent activities at source.
Lastly, I understand that clause 5 of the Bill allows for ROs to be in force for up to 30 days; and clause 7 provides for appeals against the decision to issue a RO. On this aspect, I am keen to understand the unintended consequences that may be caused by the issuing of RO, on how we can mitigate the potential risks of the ROs while minimising inconvenience. I hope to clarify if there would be mechanisms to allow individuals issued with ROs to access limited funds for daily expenses, for example, up to a reasonable cap while investigation is underway.
Currently, the Government has worked with banks to provide mechanisms, such as the Kill Switch and Money Lock, as safeguards to protect the public. These measures provide banks' customers with proactive options to secure accounts through either freezing their bank accounts if they suspect their accounts are compromised or set aside a sum of monies that cannot be transferred out of their bank account via online means. It is a positive sign when more than 181,000 customers have used the Money Lock to protect their money to set aside close to $15.8 billion in savings, out of reach of potential scammers.
If greater public awareness and education on Money Lock and Kill Switch can help to support the effectiveness of these safeguards, we should do more to help our Singaporeans to safeguard their assets. I hope the Government can further encourage adoption across different demographics, especially among the elderly. These mechanisms can complement the issuance of ROs to address cases where scams progress despite these safeguards. Greater collaboration between financial institutions and law enforcement agencies, through public education campaigns, will be essential to maximise the impact of these tools in protecting individuals from financial harm.
Mr Speaker, to conclude, this Bill represents a proactive step in protecting Singaporeans from the undue impact of scams, which could result in irreversible losses for individuals. I believe that its success depends on our ability to ensure ROs are implemented effectively, strike a delicate balance in protecting individuals without overstepping into personal autonomy and responsibility and minimise unintended consequences that may burden victims while enhancing public awareness and education.
Moving forward, we must adopt a collective approach, involving financial institutions, telecommunications companies, technology platforms and individuals themselves to combat scams comprehensively. This Bill must, thus, serve not only as a legal safeguard, but also inspire a broader culture of vigilance and resilience against scams. Together, we can protect the vulnerable from the risk of scams and strengthen our society against such evolving threats.
Sir, notwithstanding my considerations raised, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Neil Parekh.
Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, for the past decade, scams have escalated into a pressing issue, significantly impacting families and businesses in Singapore. The urgency of this problem is underscored by the fact that just in the first six months of 2024, a staggering $385 million was lost to scams, which is a 25% increase from the previous year.
Disturbingly, 86% of these scams involved victims willingly transferring money despite repeated warnings from banks, law enforcement and loved ones. These figures are not just numbers, they represent real people and their heartbreaking stories of retirees losing their life savings, individuals manipulated by false promises of love and people driven to financial and emotional despair.
One recent case involved a man on the brink of losing all his $600,000 in savings, but was saved by the quick intervention by a diligent bank officer. Unfortunately, not every story has a happy ending. Even when faced with undeniable evidence, many victims remain steadfast in their trust in scammers, sometimes to their ruin.
The escalating scam landscape also poses a multifaceted threat to Singapore's business ecosystem, with small and medium enterprises particularly vulnerable to sophisticated cyber threats that can inflict severe financial, operational and reputational damage.
Beyond direct monetary losses, businesses face increased cybersecurity investment costs, potential operational disruptions and erosion of customer trust, whilst employees handling financial transactions become prime targets for scammers seeking to compromise both personal and corporate assets. These challenges not only jeopardise individual companies' sustainability but also undermine the broader confidence in Singapore's digital economic infrastructure, necessitating comprehensive protective strategies that extend beyond individual victim protection.
The Protection from Scams Bill addresses this urgent and escalating challenge by empowering the Police to issue temporary ROs as a last resort to protect potential victims. This Bill represents a pivotal step forward, balancing the need to respect individual freedom with the collective responsibility to shield our citizens from irreparable harm.
Today, as we discuss this Bill, let us remember that this is not just legislation. It is a lifeline for those caught in the psychological grip of scammers. It reflects a commitment to safeguarding the vulnerable in our community and a testament to our determination to combat this escalating issue.
The Bill aims to empower law enforcement, specifically, the Police, to intervene more effectively by enabling them to issue temporary ROs to prevent further victimisation of individuals at risk of falling prey to scammers. Sir, these temporary ROs are a central feature of the Bill. They will allow the Police to intervene before financial damage occurs, providing a crucial window of protection for potential victims who may be transferring money to scammers.
These Orders can be issued to freeze or restrict certain activities that may lead to further victimisation, such as freezing bank accounts or restricting certain financial transactions. While we recognise that implementing these measures may pose operational challenges for our financial institutions, requiring system adaptations and staff training, this investment in infrastructure will, for sure, strengthen our financial ecosystem against fraud.
Moreover, this legislation presents significant opportunities for innovation. We anticipate increased demand for advanced fraud detection and prevention technologies. This opens new avenues for Singapore-based companies to develop cutting-edge solutions, potentially creating a new export market for our cybersecurity expertise. Our fintech sector stands to benefit greatly, too, from these developments.
Though we need to strike a balance between regulatory effectiveness and technological innovations, I do believe stronger protections will increase public confidence in the banking and financial systems.
We must also consider the cross-border implications of this Bill. As we implement these measures, we need to ensure that they do not unduly hinder legitimate international financial relationships and cross-border transactions, which are vital to our economy. The enhanced trust in a system, our well-oiled cross-border processes, coupled with a proactive stance against scams, will reinforce Singapore's reputation as a secure financial hub, potentially attracting more international investment.
Sir, at this point, I have six clarifications for the Minister of State. One, at this juncture, what would be the minimum threshold for issuing these Orders? Two, could the Ministry spell out clear timelines and documentation requirements for scam victims or joint account holders appealing against the ROs? Three, could additional details be outlined on the limits of immunity granted to banks and their staff, particularly in cases of unintentional errors? Four, what will be the criteria and processes for including new offences to ensure transparency and consistency? Five, could I request the Minister of State to outline the process for scam victims to apply to lift or modify restrictions, ensuring timely resolution of legitimate concerns? Lastly, would it be useful at this time to establish a single regulatory body to coordinate the mechanisms between banks, regulatory authorities and officers to streamline the implementation of the Bill's provisions?
In conclusion, public education is a key element in ensuring that the importance of this Bill is communicated to the common man and the business community. The importance of the Protection from Scams Bill cannot be overstated. It is a crucial step towards protecting our citizens and businesses and ensuring a safer, more secure society. Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, this Bill has my full support.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Razwana Begum.
Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Protection from Scams Bill. This Bill empowers the Police to issue ROs to banks to restrict an individual's banking transaction if there is reasonable belief that the individual will make money transfers to scammers. The aim of this authority is to enable the Police to better protect targets of ongoing scams, who refuse to believe that they are being scammed.
Mr Speaker, the Bill is an important addition to Singapore's existing suite of initiatives designed to identify, prevent and prosecute financial scams. However, I have four issues of concern that I would like to clarify. Before I do, I would like to make some introductory comments to reinforce the need for these changes. I would also like to note that I am currently the head of the Public Safety and Security programme at the Singapore University of Social Sciences and cybercrime is an issue of primary concern.
Mr Speaker, in the first six months of 2024, scam losses in Singapore amounted to over $385.6 million, an increase of 24.6% from the previous year. These figures are concerning, as they reflect not just credit and debit balances on a bank statement, but the life savings and associated financial, social and emotional health and well-being of thousands of fellow Singaporeans.
Mr Speaker, there is a common misconception that only the elderly are susceptible to scams. However, data shows that 72% of the scam claimants are between 31 and 60 years of age. Scamming is a crime that can and does impact people of all ages and genders and all social, cultural and economic backgrounds.
Mr Speaker, the concept of digital trust underpins our modern economy. According to the World Economic Forum, digital trust is an expectation that digital technologies and services will protect the interest of their stakeholders. Scammers are aware of this trust and use increasingly sophisticated and believable psychological and emotional techniques to manipulate it in their favour.
In the first six months of 2024, 86% of scams involved victims voluntarily transferring funds based on false but sincere trust, including love scams, investment fraud and impersonation schemes. Mr Speaker, despite what we may think of ourselves, we are all susceptible to such deceits. Scamming is not something that only impacts others. It impacts all of us.
Mr Speaker, I will now return to my four issues of concern. First, on autonomy of individuals. Overriding the decision-making authority of a competent adult is a significant step and one that should not be taken lightly. In Singapore, we already have guardianship and financial management legislation to protect adults who are legally considered incompetent to make decisions in their own best interest. These provisions do not, however, apply in the context of this Bill, as the adults in question are still legally competent.
We are, in fact, saying that we know better than them and that despite their legal competency, we are going to stop them doing what they want to do with their own money. Mr Speaker, I understand and support the rationale for these provisions, yet, suggest that in those circumstances where an involuntary RO is issued, that the affected adult be automatically referred for independent legal advice and that there be provisions for that adult to appeal the RO if they so choose.
Mr Speaker, my second issue is related to the first, and concerns the provision in the Bill that note that ROs will be issued only as a last resort and after other options to convince the individual have been exhausted. I support this approach, yet, seek clarification about who is responsible for attempting to convince the individual and what is meant by those attempts being exhausted. Perhaps guidelines need to be developed to ensure transparency and consistency in forming a view that what all reasonable attempts have been exhausted?
My third issue relates to the training and support to be provided to bank officers to enable them to comfortably and competently recognise issues that may require intervention, determining if and when a customer is seeking to make a transaction that may be scam-related or not, in the customer's best interest, is not as straightforward as it sounds. We do not want to inadvertently create a situation where banks either over-refer or under-refer customers and, again, perhaps, guidelines need to be developed to ensure consistency in referral process.
Mr Speaker, perhaps, it may also be helpful for banks to develop formal relationships with a selected group or community organisations, specifically trained to provide age, gender, religious and culturally appropriate support to customers at risk. That is, instead of banks contacting the Police, they contact a nominated community organisation, who can work with the customer to determine if an RO is actually needed.
Mr Speaker, my fourth and final issue relates to victim support. Many victims of scams experience significant and ongoing issues after being or almost being scammed, including financial loss, emotional distress or trauma, relationship difficulties and housing or employment issues. Perhaps the Ministry could establish dedicated support services to provide free and confidential support to victims or near-victims of scams, including those subjected to ROs.
Mr Speaker, Singapore's digital future is bright but there are also risks. This Bill addresses one of those risks and, in doing so, aims to protect the financial, social and emotional health and well-being of thousands of fellow Singaporeans.
Mr Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.
Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, the alarming rise in the number of scams is deeply concerning. Even more shocking, is the staggering amount of money lost to such scams. In 2023 alone, in Singapore, an astonishing $650 million is lost to scams. Alarmingly, in just the first half of 2024, 86% of reported scams were the result of self-effected transfers.
What is particularly troubling is the significant amounts lost in individual cases. During the same period, government officer impersonation scams (GOIS) and investment scams stood out as the most financially devastating. On average, victims of GOIS lost more than $100,000 per case while investment scams saw average losses of over $40,000 per case.
This issue is not confined to any one demographic. In my conversations with residents of Pasir Ris-Punggol, I have met scam victims of GOIS, love scams and investment scams. Contrary to popular belief, the victims are no longer just the elderly or the digitally inexperienced. Increasingly, they include younger professionals – educated and digitally literate individuals – something which was mentioned by Assoc Prof Razwana earlier.
While the statistic that 86% of scams involved self-effected transfers may suggest a level of voluntary action, the reality, Mr Speaker, is far more insidious. A common modus operandi involves seemingly innocuous messages, such as a notice from the Land Transport Authority claiming an underpayment of 10 cents for parking or a fine. The message contains a link to settle the fine and while the initial transfer appears minor, it serves as a gateway for scammers to drain much larger sums from victims' accounts.
Let me illustrate this with a specific case shared by a resident. She received such a message, prompting her to make a small initial payment. Shortly after, she received an alert from her bank about several overseas transactions. She immediately informed the bank that she had not authorised these transactions and was a victim of a scam. Yet, to her dismay, the bank allowed the transactions to proceed, citing the fact that she had already initiated the first transfer as part of an e-wallet. As a result, she lost close to $3,000.
Allow me to share another distressing case involving a Pasir Ris-Punggol resident who fell victim to a love scam. This case came to my attention when her family, in sheer desperation, sought my assistance. The victim, a 60-year-old woman, had already transferred more than $50,000 to an overseas acquaintance. Shockingly, this sum included loans that she had taken from her own family members. Despite her family's repeated efforts to intervene and persuade her to stop, she remained resolute in her actions, believing in the legitimacy of her relationship. Her family approached me to talk to her, hoping I could help her see the gravity of the situation.
This case underscores the deeply manipulative nature of scams, which prey not only on victims' financial resources, but also on their emotions and trust.
Hence, Mr Speaker, I stand in support of this Bill, which seeks to empower the Police to issue ROs to banks, enabling them to limit banking transactions for individuals when there is reasonable belief that these funds may be transferred to scammers.
This is undeniably a significant step, granting the Police substantial authority over an individual's access to their own financial resources. Such powers are, by nature, intrusive and it is imperative that we approach this matter with utmost caution. We must strike a delicate balance between holding individuals accountable for their financial actions and ensuring that authorities do not overreach in matters of personal autonomy.
While I support the intent and direction of the Bill, I have several clarifications and concerns that I hope the Minister of State will address: firstly, on the issuance of the Restriction Order; secondly, on the scope of the RO; and thirdly, on minimising the inconvenience to individuals affected.
Mr Speaker, in Part 2, clause 3 of the Bill specifies that an RO is an order issued by a Specified Officer to one or more banks in relation to a scam victim. I seek clarification from the Minister regarding the definition of this Specified Officer. Will this Officer be the one reporting the case, the investigating officer or someone from a specialised branch of the Police Force focused on scams?
This provision grants significant authority to the Police over an individual's financial assets. How do we ensure that such powers are not subject to abuse and that there is accountability in their exercise of power?
At the same time, to make this measure truly effective, how do we ensure an efficient process that prevents victims from transferring further funds to scammers? In the love scam case I cited earlier, the victim was rushing to transfer money and without immediate intervention, the transfer would have already been completed.
As an additional safeguard, since such cases often involve family members who act as the primary complainants to the Police in their efforts to stop further transfers, should the issuance of an RO be contingent on a valid complaint lodged by a credible party, such as a family member?
Furthermore, clause 6 of the Bill stipulates that banks which contravene an RO shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $3,000. Just $3,000. However, considering the significant sums often lost in scams, a penalty of $3,000 appears disproportionately small when weighted against the devastating financial impact on the victims.
In addition to imposing a heftier fine, I urge that banks be held liable to the victims for any losses incurred as a direct result of their failure to comply with the RO. Such accountability would ensure that banks take their obligations under this Bill seriously and act decisively to protect victims from further harm.
In addition, there is also something that we need to address on how scam cases are investigated by the banks. Scam investigations by banks require closer scrutiny. Currently, when a victim reports a fraudulent transaction, the bank handles the investigation internally and issues their findings, leaving victims with limited recourse. To better protect victims, we should consider appointing an independent arbitrator to review such cases, ensuring a fair and transparent process for redress.
Moving to my second point regarding the scope of the RO, I seek clarification on whether banks can also be mandated to halt transactions if victims explicitly acknowledge that the transactions are fraudulent. In such cases, should banks not also bear the responsibility to recover the lost funds if they proceed with the transfer despite the victim's warning?
In the first case I highlighted earlier, the victim had shared that, apparently, they had already informed the bank that the transactions were fraudulent. Yet, the bank allowed the transfer to proceed, citing that it was self-effected as she had already set up the e-wallet with the scammer's bank details. This raises serious concerns about the level of accountability expected from financial institutions in safeguarding their customers, particularly in situations where fraud had already been flagged.
Moving to my third point, individuals subjected to an RO may face limitations on their ability to transfer or withdraw money as well as restrictions on their credit facilities. While it is mentioned that mechanisms will be in place to allow access to funds for legitimate purposes, such as daily living expenses and bill payments, this access will be determined on a case-by-case basis upon application to the Police.
Given that applications can take time and investigations into scam cases may span several months, I propose that the default position should be to ensure individuals affected by an RO have immediate access to sufficient funds to sustain their daily living. This would provide a safety net while investigations are ongoing. It would be deeply unfair and disproportionate to cut off an individual from their own financial resources without prior notice or a mechanism for immediate relief. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, the alarming increase in scam cases and staggering financial losses are worrying. In 2023, Singapore lost $650 million to scams, and in the first half of 2024, 86% of cases involved transfers made by the victims themselves. Such scams are not confined to specific groups but are increasingly targeting individuals who are educated and digitally literate. The modus operandi in scam cases is becoming more sophisticated. Sometimes, they impersonate government officials, starting with fake messages, such as fines or overdue payments, which ultimately lead to much greater losses.
For example, a Pasir Ris-Punggol resident lost $3,000 despite reporting the fraudulent transaction to the bank, which still allowed the transfer to be made. Another fell victim to a love scam, losing over $50,000 despite her family's attempts to stop her. These cases demonstrate the manipulative nature of scams that exploits victims' emotions and trust.
I support the Bill that empowers the Police to issue Restriction Orders (ROs) to stop such transactions. However, safeguards are needed to prevent misuse and ensure accountability. Banks must act swiftly when notified of scams and be held responsible if they fail to comply with the order. Additionally, independent arbitrators should oversee banks' investigations into scams cases to ensure justice for victims. Finally, victims under an RO should be given access to daily funds while investigations are ongoing.
This balance is important to effectively combat scams and deliver justice for scam victims.
(In English): Mr Speaker, scams not only rob individuals of their hard-earned money but also erode trust and confidence in our financial institutions. This Bill is a crucial step in addressing these challenges, but it must be implemented with precision, transparency and fairness. Safeguarding victims while balancing the powers of authority and personal autonomy is no easy task. However, by refining processes, ensuring accountability and minimising undue inconvenience to individuals, we can make meaningful strides in combating this growing threat.
Notwithstanding the clarifications above, I stand firmly in support of this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Sun Xueling.
Ms Sun Xueling: Mr Speaker, I thank Members for their support of the Bill and their suggestions. They have raised important questions, which I will now address. First, on the scope of the Bill.
Ms Ng Ling Ling asked if the RO could be expanded to include other entities, such as cryptocurrency exchanges, remittance companies and e-wallet providers, should scammers shift their tactics to exploit these platforms.
MHA recognises that there is a risk that such entities can also serve as intermediaries in the scam chain. However, as a start, we will impose restrictions only on bank accounts and credit facilities, which would address a significant number of scam cases and reduce the risk of fund flows to scammers. We will continue to work with MAS to monitor the scam situation and consider expanding the scope of the Restriction Order in future, if necessary.
Mr Neil Parekh asked about the criteria and process for including new scam offences into the Schedule to the Bill. We will consider including a new offence into the Schedule if it has nexus to scams, such as offences related to cheating or fraud. The Minister for Home Affairs can amend the Schedule to include the new offences.
Mr Neil Parekh also asked what the minimum threshold for issuing an RO would be. Ms Ng Ling Ling and Ms Usha Chandradas asked how the threshold of \"reasonable belief\" would be established, when assessing whether an RO should be issued, renewed or cancelled.
An RO can be issued once two conditions are satisfied. First, there is reason to believe that the victim is likely to make a monetary transfer to a scammer, withdraw money and give it to a scammer, or apply for a draw down from a credit facility with the intention of benefiting a scammer. Second, an RO is necessary to protect a scam victim, having regard to the time required to engage the victim and implement risk mitigation measures. Officers will assess every case based on the specific facts and circumstances. This is what the Police are trained to do in the course of any investigation. As an example, in their assessment, the Police will consider factors such as: one, whether the victim is still in communication with a scammer; two, whether the victim has transferred monies to the scammer; three, whether the victim continues to believe the scammer; and four, whether the victim is likely to transfer money to a scammer.
Assoc Prof Razwana asked about what it means for the attempts by the Police to convince the individual having been \"exhausted\". Ms Usha Chandradas asked whether parents can be involved in the risk mitigation measures and what \"other circumstances\" we have in mind when determining whether an RO is required to protect the victim. Our policy intent is for the RO to be issued as a last resort. By extension, this means that wherever feasible, we intend to explore other interventions first, and to only issue an RO if these other interventions fail. These interventions could include engaging the relatives of the victim or other persons, which could include the victim's parents where appropriate. We have drafted the legal provision broadly to empower the Police to take into account the specific circumstances of the case, which can vary significantly, when making their assessments.
Ms Ng Ling Ling asked whether the responsibility should ultimately rest with the victim, if the Police are unable to convince the victim of the scam. Ms Hazel Poa suggested to allow individuals to opt out of the RO regime, given that they have the right to determine the use of their monies. As pointed out by Ms Ng and Ms Poa, it is indeed our policy intent to balance between protecting an individual from harm and respecting the individual's autonomy and personal responsibility. And this is why the RO is meant to be a measure of last resort and is only issued temporarily – for a maximum of 30 days at the outset and extended up to five times if necessary. The RO will lapse after the maximum number of renewals, even if the individual remains set on transferring monies to the scammer.
As I had mentioned in my opening speech, we cannot handhold the victim indefinitely. But we will do all that we can while the RO is in force to bring the individual to his senses. If the individual persists in making transfers to scammers after the maximum RO period, the responsibility must lie with the individual.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked if the Government would consider lowering the threshold to issue an RO, in order to minimise scam losses. He also asked if a third party would be subject to an RO, if the third party assists an individual who is subjected to an RO to transfer monies to the scammers.
Indeed, the authorities have to intervene decisively in scam cases, in order to protect the individual and minimise losses. However, imposing an RO entails causing significant inconvenience to the individual subjected to the RO. It is therefore important for officers to carry out due diligence so that they can assess whether an RO is warranted and avoid, or at least minimise, the mistakes in blocking an account that Mr Yip cautioned against. Our view is that the current threshold stipulated in the Bill is appropriate. Officers will issue an RO if they have reason to believe that the individual will make monetary transfers to a scammer, withdraw any money and give it to a scammer, or apply for or draw down from any credit facility with the intention of benefiting a scammer.
The RO will only restrict banking transactions and credit facilities of the individual, but not that of a third party assisting an individual to make monetary transfers. However, if the third party is also an unwitting victim of the scammer and similarly, at risk of making monetary transfers of his or her own to the scammer, then the officers may similarly consider whether that individual should be the subject of a separate RO.
Mr Sharael Taha asked how ROs can be issued in an efficient manner, such that it is effective in preventing victims from transferring further funds to scammers. We recognise that speed is of essence in preventing losses, but the Police must also conduct the necessary investigations to determine if a case has met the threshold for issuance of an RO. The Police will also work closely with the banks, which are co-located at the Anti-Scam Command (ASCom), in their investigations and in effecting the restrictions on the victim’s bank account.
Ms Hazel Poa asked if ROs would be applicable to joint accounts and noted that doing so would inconvenience the joint account holders who are not subject to an RO. There are two types of joint accounts: Joint-Alternate accounts where each account holder can perform banking transactions without the consent of the other account holders and Joint-All accounts where all account holders must give their instruction for any bank transaction.
MHA would prefer to take a risk-calibrated approach by imposing the ROs on Joint-Alternate accounts and exempting Joint-All accounts given their lower risk of being depleted through scams. However, the banks have informed us that it would be operationally challenging for them to implement such a proposal. Hence, we have decided to impose the ROs on both types of joint accounts for a start. This is not ideal, but we have decided to go ahead with the Bill at this juncture to provide victims with the necessary protection at the soonest. We will continue to work with the banks to explore the possibility of putting in place technical solutions to facilitate such exemptions in the future. We will notify all joint account holders should an RO be imposed. We will also facilitate their access of monies in the joint accounts.
Members have asked how family members of individuals would be involved and consulted when an RO is being issued, cancelled or renewed, and whether family members or banks can initiate for Police to consider issuing an RO. Mr Sharael Taha asked if the issuance of an RO should be contingent on a valid complaint lodged by a credible party, such as a family member.
Members of the public, including a victim’s family members, can make a Police report, when they suspect that an individual or their family member has encountered a scam. The Police will conduct investigations and assess if an RO should be issued. In determining whether an RO should be issued, the Police may engage the victim’s family members, to assess if there is reason to believe that the victim is being scammed, and to explore whether it would suffice for the family to intervene and convince the individual that he or she is the victim of a scam without the need for an RO. Family members may also bring in social workers and counsellors to help convince the victim.
That said, the issuance of an RO is not contingent on a police report by a family member or other third parties, as this may not be necessary and may even delay our efforts to protect our victim. For example, the Police may uncover potential scam victims in the course of investigating mule accounts, or the Police may be alerted by bank staff of an individual who is suspected to be a scam victim. For such cases, it is not necessary and may be less efficient to require a family member or other third party to file a police report. The Police are required to perform due diligence checks and will issue an RO if the threshold for issuance is met.
Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked if a trusted friend or relative could be empowered to freeze transactions, in lieu of the Police. Earlier in my opening speech, I had provided an example where if the victim and the sibling agree on an arrangement where the sibling will monitor the victim's transactions via a joint account and can advise the victim against making further transfers to the scammer, the Specified Officer may not issue an RO.
That said, I would like to reiterate that the decision to issue an RO will be made by the Police. The Police would have been engaging with the individual and his family members for some time, and the Police will be in the best position to make an objective and informed decision.
Mr Gerald Giam asked about the estimated number of ROs that would be issued in a year and the potential losses that could have been avoided if we had implemented this earlier. The Police do not currently track the number of cases where Police officers have been activated to engage potential victims, as well as the number of successful and unsuccessful interventions. Notwithstanding, based on the Police’s experience, we expect to issue five to 10 ROs per month, mainly for scam victims. The actual number will depend on the cases that are brought to the Police’s attention and their assessment of each case.
Ms Hazel Poa and Assoc Prof Razwana noted that some victims may be emotionally affected when being prevented from sending money to the scammer and asked how the Police intend to support such individuals in course of them being subject to an RO. She also suggested for MHA to require the Police to take into account the views of a social worker before issuing an RO.
As I have mentioned, speed is of the essence in order to protect these individuals and minimise losses, which in some cases might involve all of the victim's life savings. Hence, an RO will be issued once the Police have assessed that the conditions for an issuance is satisfied. Notwithstanding, victims who require emotional support during the process may inform the investigation officer, who will arrange for them to speak to a victim care officer. MHA will work with the Police on the operational details to ensure that victims are adequately supported.
I have made available copies of a pamphlet with frequently asked questions for victims of scams and avenues for them to consult mental well-being counselling and other financial assistance channels. This copy, a resource guide, is available for Members at the entrance and exit for the Parliamentary Chamber. Members can see that there is a section called \"Where can I seek support?\" that directs victims to support from victim care officers and to community support in the form of mental well-being and counselling support.
Mr Neil Parekh asked about the process for individuals to apply to lift or modify an RO. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked how quickly a restriction on an account can be lifted, especially if a wrong account gets blocked. Ms Ng Ling Ling asked if there would be mechanisms to allow an individual who is subjected to an RO to access limited funds for his daily expenses while investigations are underway. Mr Sharael Taha and Ms Hazel Poa suggested for an individual subjected to an RO to have immediate access to sufficient funds, instead of having to apply for it.
We understand the need to minimise inconvenience to the affected individual. However, we are also mindful that the scammer may exploit any channel through which the individual can gain access to money. We will therefore take a risk-calibrated approach, by allowing an individual who is the subject of an RO to apply to the Police for access to a fixed amount of monies for living expenses. MHA and MAS are working with the banks on the operational details, including the amount of time required to impose or lift an RO. Our intent is to ensure that this is done as quickly as possible – we are talking about hours, not days. Notwithstanding, if the bank makes a mistake in complying with the RO and blocks a wrong account, the bank should rectify the mistake immediately.
Ms Hazel Poa asked if an individual can be exempted from certain legitimate facilities, such as GIRO bill payments, or have any financial penalties arising from late bill payments waived, during the period where the RO is in effect. Ms Poa also asked what proof an individual would need to show for withdrawals, how will the Police determine the quantum of the withdrawals and whether the amount withdrawn would be subjected to further restrictions or monitoring.
If the individual requires additional amounts of money, the individual can apply to the Police to vary the RO to allow a specific transfer or withdrawal by showing proof of the need to access these amounts. This could include, for example, bill statements, such as for medical expenses, utility and rental payments, or any documentation as requested by the Police. Every request will be assessed on a case-by-case basis, based on the needs of each individual. This amount will not be subjected to further restriction or monitoring, since it has been assessed to be necessary for the individual.
MHA agrees with Ms Poa's suggestion and has, in fact, considered exempting individuals from certain legitimate facilities, such as GIRO bill payments. However, the banks have informed us that it is not feasible to exempt selected transactions from the RO without significant system changes. Again, this is not ideal but we have decided to go ahead with the Bill at this juncture, given the importance of providing victims with the necessary protection at the soonest. But we hear your feedback and we will continue to work with banks towards allowing for these exemptions.
On the question of lead time required before an individual can access his funds, once the Police have assessed if the individual should be allowed access to funds, the Police will work with the banks to arrange for the individual to make the withdrawal at a bank branch. We are working with the banks on the operational details and our intent is to ensure that this is done as quickly as possible.
Ms Usha Chandradas and Mr Sharael Taha as well as Assoc Prof Razwana Begum had asked who the Specified Officers engaging the individuals would be, including their seniority and qualification, and how MHA would ensure that these powers are not subject to abuse. Mr Neil Parekh, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Ms Usha Chandradas asked about the documentation requirements for an appeal, how long it would take for the Commissioner of Police to review an appeal and whether hearings should be allowed for appeals. Mr Yip also asked if the Government would conduct regular reviews on the decisions regarding appeals or publish anonymised outcomes of such appeals.
I trust that Members will agree with me that our officers can be expected to perform their duties professionally and impartially. The Police will institute internal controls such that the initial approving authority for ROs will reside with the Director of the Commercial Affairs Department or, in his absence, a Deputy Director of the Commercial Affairs Department.
To ensure no conflict of interest in the appeals process, appeals will be decided by the Commissioner of Police, whose decision is final. The appeal process has been designed with speed in mind to ensure that an appeal can be decided expeditiously, issued judiciously and officers are held accountable for the exercise of this power.
MHA will prescribe in subsidiary legislation, the documents and information an individual will need to provide when submitting an appeal. These would include, but are not limited to: one, any evidence that the individual has taken up additional safeguards willingly and, therefore, the Restriction Order is no longer required for his protection; and two, any evidence that the individual is not a target of scams, such as proof that the other party is legitimate.
On Assoc Prof Razwana's suggestion for individuals subject to an RO to be automatically referred for independent legal advice, individuals are free to seek their own legal advice and avail themselves of the appeal mechanism.
In operationalising the Bill, we will ensure that victims are adequately supported and appeals are fairly assessed. I would also like to remind Members that the Police will always try to engage the victim before deciding whether to proceed with an RO, since the RO is intended to be a lever of last resort. So, we will not have a situation where the Police decides to proceed with the RO without trying to find out the perspective of the victim first.
Mr Neil Parekh asked about the limits of immunity granted to banks and their staff, particularly, in cases of unintentional errors. A bank and its officer, employee or agent will be protected from criminal and civil liability for any act or omission in complying with an RO. The immunity applies only if the act was done or the omission was made with reasonable care and in good faith.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked if imposing a fine of up to $3,000 on banks for contravening an RO without reasonable excuse is sufficient. This is in line with section 35(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which is in relation to banks being ordered by the Police to seize property held in their account or safe deposit box. Thus, it is a close approximate to the current order to freeze the bank account of the suspected scam victim. Mr Sharael Taha suggested for banks to be held liable for losses incurred resulting from their failure to comply with an RO, in addition to a heftier maximum fine quantum. He also asked if banks could, additionally, be mandated to stop transactions, if informed by a victim that the transactions were fraudulent.
I would like to say that there is a strong level of cooperation between the Police and the banks at the ASCom and this partnership has helped to stop many scams, even without the RO regime. As I have mentioned, MHA shares the desire to minimise inconveniences for the affected individual. However, to guard against the risk of abuse, any request for funds will have to be assessed based on facts and circumstances of each case. Upon application by an individual to the Police, he will be allowed to withdraw a fixed sum of money, which will be reasonable and sufficient for basic sustenance, including their bill payments, which I had mentioned earlier. Should the individual request for more money, thereafter, the Police will require him to show proof of the need to access the money. This is to avoid the risk of scammers exploiting this mechanism to obtain monies from the individual.
Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked if the definition of scams covered by the Bill is sufficient, given that it may be difficult to distinguish between scams and traditional cheating cases. The Police regard scams as cheating offences that are conducted remotely, online or over telecommunications. Traditional cheating, on the other hand, involves mostly physical interactions, where the other party is known to the individual in real time. That said, however, as pointed out by Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, the Police have, indeed, observed cases where scammers introduced elements of physical interaction to strengthen the deception and, hence, we have amended the Bill to ensure that the ROs can be applied in such cases.
The offences in the law include, cheating and offences under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1992 and the Computer Misuse Act 1993. These offences cover the full range of acts that constitute or facilitate scams. And to send a stronger deterrent signal, guidelines issued by the Sentencing Advisory Panel have recommended higher sentences for acts that facilitate scams.
I will now cover other issues and suggestions from Members and as these matters fall outside the scope of this Bill, I will address them very briefly.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked if MHA would consider getting the banks to increase the number of checks required before a fund transfer can be allowed, to buy the authorities more time to engage and convince the individual. Banks have improved their real-time fraud surveillance in detecting possible fraudulent transactions. Today, bank staff may call up their customers to verify their transactions, if suspicious activity is detected. Cooling periods, such as those for the activation of digital tokens and other high-risk activities, will help to slow down selected transactions and give individuals more time to think about the transfers. Ultimately, banks will have to balance between fraud prevention and customer experience, as they consider ways to enhance their anti-scam measures.
Mr Yip Hon Weng and Assoc Prof Razwana Begum asked if the Government could provide banks with the necessary guidelines, training or support to ensure that banks are able to distinguish a scam from a legitimate transaction. Members had also asked if MHA would consider having periodic reviews of bank processes or to facilitate sharing of best practices among banks, to ensure implementation effectiveness across the board. Mr Neil Parekh also asked if it would be useful to establish a single regulatory body to coordinate the processes among the banks, the regulatory authorities and the officers. Mr Gerald Giam also suggested for real-time coordination between the Police, MAS, the banks and other platforms to enhance enforcement against scams.
There are ongoing efforts to do so. Since 2022, the ASCom and MAS have worked with the major retail banks in Singapore to co-locate the banks' staff with ASCom. This has greatly enhanced the banks' real-time coordination with the Police to distinguish a scam from a legitimate transaction, trace fund flows and freeze bank accounts suspected to be involved in scammers' operations. We welcome other stakeholders, including social media platforms, to co-locate within ASCom, to improve real-time coordination. The Police also regularly share observations with banks to improve their fraud detection capabilities. This model has worked well and we will continue to build upon it to strengthen enforcement against scammers and recovery of scam proceeds. We agree with the suggestion to facilitate the sharing of best practices amongst banks and we are considering how to do so efficiently and effectively.
Ms Ng Ling Ling and Mr Gerald Giam raised a number of suggestions to tackle scams, including on SRF, Money Lock and Kill Switch. These are outside the scope of the Bill and Members may wish to file Parliamentary Questions on these. Ms Usha Chandradas also suggested for MHA to consider including art as a tool to address the root causes behind the perpetration of scams by victims. We note Ms Ng's and Ms Chandradas' suggestions and will take them into account, as we review our overall approach to tackle scams.
Mr Yip Hon Weng suggested for the Government to strengthen cross-border enforcement against scams and do more to educate the public on scams. Cross-border enforcement is indeed a priority, given the transnational nature of scams. The Police have strong operational ties with their counterparts in key jurisdictions and work with international organisations, such as the INTERPOL, to exchange information and conduct joint investigations.
But, importantly, it would be even better to prevent such scams from materialising in the first place and this is why we fully agree with Mr Yip Hon Weng that public education is a critical area of work. We recently launched the ScamShield Suite to make scam resources easily accessible to the public. The new 1799 helpline, which operates 24/7, offers the public an easy option to check with whenever they are unsure if a situation they are facing is a scam. MHA will share more on our public education initiatives at the upcoming Committee of Supply debate.
Mr Speaker, Sir, fighting scams is a whole-of-society effort. The threat will keep evolving and we must ensure that we have the appropriate tools to deal with this threat, as this Bill aims to do. We will continue to evolve our methods, evolve our laws, to continue our fight against scams. I thank the Members for their support for the Bill. I seek to move.
Mr Speaker: Any Members have clarifications for the Minister of State? Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, can I seek some clarifications from the Minister of State? I thank her for responding to some of my proposals just now. The Minister of State mentioned that the Police expect to issue five to 10 ROs a month. So, that is about 60 to 120 a year, but this is negligible compared to the approximately 50,000 scam cases reported annually. Does the Minister of State agree that this Bill will have limited impact on combating scams overall and that more systemic safeguards are needed?
Secondly, I thank the Minister of State for responding to my proposals on sharing between the Police and the banks and social media platforms. However, I was not proposing just the sharing of best practices but sharing and collecting data from these social media platforms and requiring them to use that data to prevent scams from taking place in the first place. So, is that something that the Police are prepared to do?
Ms Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his two points. Firstly, in my opening speech, I had shared that the Bill alone will not significantly dent the total number of scams. I also mentioned that we require a whole-of-society effort and we will have to work with stakeholders collectively to fight the scourge of scams.
That said, when we look at the cases we have encountered, because the cases we are targeting right now are those that involve social engineering. And the cases I had cited – government official impersonation scams, love scams, investment scams – we have observed that the losses from these categories of scams, especially if they are over a long period of time, can lead to quite large amount of losses. So, while in terms of the number of scams that could be deterred through this Bill which we approximate to be between five and 10 cases a month, I think we should not neglect the fact that actually, the absolute amounts arising from these losses could be substantial. And definitely, when we look at it on an individual basis, we could be talking about the loss of lifetime savings.
But that said, this is but one of many other methods and many other initiatives we are undertaking to fight the scourge of scams. We should not downplay the importance of public education because at the end of the day, when it comes to socially-engineered scams, the best defence really is a discerning public.
Sorry, could I ask the Member to repeat the second question?
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: It was to seek a response to the proposal about sharing data between the banks, social media companies and the Police – so, consolidating all that crowd-sourced data to be able to prevent scams from taking place in real-time.
Ms Sun Xueling: Thank you. There is a mechanism whereby different stakeholders share trends that they observe. The only thing I would say is that for some of the social media companies, they have certain data protection laws. So, while they have not disagreed with the sharing of information and data that they see and observe, sometimes, there is a certain lag time, because they need to process the information on their end, make sure that the information is in the form that can be shared with external parties. Therefore, we see that there could be a lapse in terms of timing when it comes to the sharing of information.
But definitely, the key principle of sharing information and data between platforms, between stakeholders to tackle the scourge of scams, that principle is something that we all collectively agree with.
Mr Speaker: Mr Derrick Goh.
Mr Derrick Goh (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, the question to the Minister to State would be in two parts. The first question is, although the numbers may not be significant, would the Minister of State clarify if, in dollar terms, the Bill would have a significant impact and therefore, reduction to the current scams amount that happens every year?
The second question would be, if this takes place, in terms of this policy and if it is effective, would the Minister of State be thinking that this may be extended to other platforms, such as crypto companies and institutions of that sort, beyond banks?
Ms Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for the two points that he raised. When we looked at the cases, in particular, when we looked at government official impersonation scams, we looked at investment scams, we looked at love scams, we are looking at losses per case of between, on average, $150,000 and $1 million. We have also had a couple of outliers when we are talking about a couple of million dollars. So, it is very hard for me to be able to pinpoint a number to say that because we now have this RO regime in place that \"X\" amount of scam losses will be prevented every month. All I can say is that when we looked at the cases that the Police have encountered, when we looked at the cases that the Police have to be activated, where they have gone down, to their best efforts, together with family members and friends and try and convince scam victims that they are scam victims and still, unfortunately, the victims continued to believe that they are not scam victims – when we look at those cases, in particular, because it happens over a period of time, the losses are pretty substantial.
On the second point that the Member raised, I mentioned in my speech that the RO could be expanded to include other entities, such as cryptocurrency exchanges, remittance companies and e-wallet providers, should scammers shift their tactics to exploit these platforms. So, we recognise that there is a risk that such entities can also serve as intermediaries in a scam chain, but for a start, we are imposing restrictions only on bank accounts and credit facilities. But we will continue to work with MAS to monitor the scam situations and we will consider expanding the scope of the RO in future if necessary.
Mr Speaker: Any other clarifications? 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. – [Ms Sun Xueling]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee. (proc text)]
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
The Chairman: The citation year \"2024\" will be changed to \"2025\" as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.
[(proc text) Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
Clause 2 –
The Chairman: Clause 2. Minister for Home Affairs.
Ms Sun Xueling: Mr Speaker, I move the amendment* to clause 2 as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.
[(proc text) *The amendment read as follows: (proc text)]
[(proc text) In page 4, line 5: to leave out \"substantially\". (proc text)]
[(proc text) Amendment agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Clauses 3 to 11 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
Long Title –
The Chairman: The Long Title. Minister for Home Affairs.
Ms Sun Xueling: Mr Speaker, I move the amendment* to the Long Title as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.
[(proc text) *The amendment read as follows: (proc text)]
[(proc text) In page 3: to leave out \"conducted remotely\". (proc text)]
[(proc text) Amendment agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill reported with amendments; 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":"Electronic Gazette and Legislation Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister of State for Digital Development and Information (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Minister for Digital Development and Information): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Digital Development and Information, I move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Sir, the Government Gazette is the official public record of legislation, appointments and other official acts by the Government and other public bodies. It is also used by private entities to issue notices in fulfilment of statutory requirements. The Gazette is published by the Government Printer on the authority of the Government or pursuant to statutory requirements. In a way, one can think of the Gazette as a \"public noticeboard\".
Digitalisation has transformed the manner through which we publish, obtain and access information. The Gazette is no exception. The electronic Gazette was first created in 1998. Today, it is published every working day, while the print Gazette is published only once a week. In other words, the electronic Gazette is published earlier and more frequently than the print Gazette. The electronic Gazette has become the main form of the Gazette used by most of us today. From October to December 2024, the electronic Gazette website saw a monthly average of over 8,000 unique visitors, whereas the print Gazette only has 15 subscribers.
Recognising the public's greater reliance on the electronic Gazette, the Government has been leveraging digital technology to improve and enhance the Gazette. In this regard, I am pleased to share with Members that we rolled out a new electronic Gazette website last September, with significant improvements in useability, reliability, security and resilience.
The law must also move in tandem with the trend toward greater reliance on the electronic Gazette. Today, under section 48 of the Interpretation Act 1965, only the print Gazette is authoritative, in the sense that only the print Gazette is prima facie evidence of its contents. This status is not accorded to the electronic Gazette. This is not compatible with how the Gazette is published and used today.
Hence, the key objective of the Bill is to confer authoritative status on the electronic Gazette, as well as electronic versions of revised editions of legislation. Similar to the Gazette, revised legislation can be published both in print and electronically.
Hence, even as we make the electronic Gazette authoritative, we should also move in alignment to make electronic versions of revised legislation authoritative. We are also taking the opportunity to make related amendments to other aspects of the law relating to the Gazette. Let me now take Members through the Bill.
Clause 2 replaces the current section 48 of the Interpretation Act 1965 with a new section 48. The key effect of the new section 48 is to accord authoritative status to the electronic Gazette in the following ways.
First, electronic Gazettes published on the prescribed website will be treated as prima facie evidence of the matters published within. Second, to the extent of any inconsistency, the electronic Gazette will prevail over all other versions of the Gazette. Third, the courts will be required to take judicial notice of the electronic Gazette, in addition to the print Gazette. This means that both print and electronic Gazettes need not be formally proved before they can be relied on in court.
Taken together, this means that, going forward, the electronic Gazette will be the authoritative version of the Gazette. Users can therefore rely on the electronic Gazette with confidence. Other existing provisions relating to the Gazette are also consolidated in the new section 48.
Clause 3 amends various sections of the Revised Editions of the Laws Act 1983. A new section 17A will provide for electronic versions of revised legislation to prevail over print versions, to the extent of any inconsistency. This is in line with what we are doing for the electronic Gazette. The amendments will also do away with the outdated requirement for revised legislation to be published in print before they can be published electronically. In addition, clause 3 will delete provisions and language that are peculiar to print versions of revised legislation or premised on the primacy of such printed versions.
Clause 4 amends various Acts to abolish the use of the Gazette as an instrument of statutory appointment. Today, various Acts require that statutory appointments be made via Gazette notifications. However, the use of the Gazette in such a manner is inconsistent with its function as a public record. Hence, clause 4 will amend the relevant Acts to cease the use of the Gazette to make statutory appointments. Going forward, these statutory appointments will be made via other means, such as the issuance of an appointment letter.
Nonetheless, these statutory appointments are often of public interest. Hence, clause 4 will generally impose requirements for these statutory appointments to be published in the Gazette. The new requirements are directory in nature and are not meant to affect the validity of the appointments.
Clause 5 makes amendments to various Acts where references are made to materials printed by the Government Printer. As these materials could be published electronically in the electronic Gazette as well, the references are amended accordingly. Other consequential and related amendments are also made.
In conclusion, the Bill will bring the law in line with the digital age and enable the public to rely on the electronic Gazette and electronic legislation with greater confidence. Sir, I seek to move.
[(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. – [Ms Rahayu Mahzam]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee. (proc text)]
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
The Chairman: The citation year \"2024\" will be changed to \"2025\", as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.
[(proc text) Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.40 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.19 pm until 3.40 pm.
Sitting resumed at 3.40 pm.
[Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Minister for Home Affairs.
The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mdm Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs, I move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
The last comprehensive review of the Road Traffic Act, or RTA, was conducted more than five years ago, in 2019. It is timely that we do another review. The Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) 2024 Bill seeks to: firstly, recalibrate the balance between deterrence and proportionality for RTA offences; and secondly, enhance powers to enforce against errant motorists.
Let me start by setting out the context.
The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) works closely with the Ministry of Transport (MOT) to keep our road users safe. Our strategy is underpinned by five pillars. First, stiff penalties for irresponsible driving offences. Second, firm enforcement against errant motorists. Third, regulations, such as the demerit points regime, to discourage risk-taking behaviour. Fourth, appropriate road infrastructure to ensure road safety, such as red-amber-green arrows restricting discretionary right turns, as well as Silver Zones and School Zones. Lastly, public education and engagement, including targeted initiatives for vulnerable road users.
We regularly take stock of our efforts and make further improvements where necessary. Most recently, in 2024, we commenced the mandatory installation of speed limiters in lorries and activated the speed enforcement function in red-light cameras. We have also assessed that refinements are required in relation to certain offences and penalties in RTA. Members will recall that in 2019, we made comprehensive amendments to RTA, of which, three are relevant to today's Bill.
First, we enhanced the punishments for two classes of irresponsible driving offences, that is, dangerous driving and careless driving. Dangerous driving refers to driving a motor vehicle on a road recklessly or at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public. Careless driving is less serious than dangerous driving. It refers to driving on a road without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road. Dangerous or careless driving offences are punishable with a longer maximum imprisonment term and a higher maximum fine, than the corresponding Rash Act or Negligent Act offence in the Penal Code.
Second, we introduced a tiered approach for the penalties for these offences, based on the level of harm caused. In addition to circumstances where there has been no hurt caused, the three levels of harm are death, grievous hurt and hurt. The more serious the harm, the more severe the penalties. Additional penalties apply for repeat offenders of certain driving offences and those who drive under the influence of drugs or alcohol, whom we refer to as \"serious offenders\".
Third, we introduced mandatory minimum sentences and minimum disqualification periods, for offences causing death and grievous hurt. For these offences, the law requires the Court to impose a minimum imprisonment term and minimum period of disqualification from driving, save for the exceptional circumstances, such as when responding to a medical emergency.
The 2019 amendments sent a clear message: irresponsible driving will not be tolerated. This message has not changed. We remain committed to deterring and punishing irresponsible driving behaviour. That said, MHA has observed the impact of the 2019 amendments and identified areas where we should recalibrate the balance between deterrence and proportionality, particularly in cases where the circumstances of the offence indicate that the offending motorist might have a lower level of culpability.
I will first speak about the amendments to recalibrate the balance between deterrence and proportionality. These are reflected in clause 5 of the Bill.
First, the Bill will remove mandatory minimum sentences and disqualification periods for first-time offenders. This will give our Courts greater discretion to determine the appropriate sentence based on the circumstances, instead of the current situation where there are prescribed mandatory minimum sentences. To be clear, first-time offenders will still face penalties. These penalties will be determined based on factors including the nature and severity of the harm caused to the victim, and the level of culpability of the accused.
Members will be aware that the vast majority of criminal offences in our laws do not prescribe any minimum penalty. The Courts have discretion to impose a just sentence up to the statutory prescribed maximum. These amendments therefore bring the approach for first-time traffic offenders closer to the norm.
Let me illustrate with an example, which is adapted from an actual case. A taxi driver, who is a first-time offender, beat a red turning arrow signal and collided into an oncoming motorcyclist who was speeding across the junction on an amber signal. As a result of the accident, the motorcyclist had pain, scratches and abrasions to the neck and shoulder, and received a total of 25 days of medical leave. If the taxi driver is convicted for dangerous driving causing grievous hurt, the current law requires the Courts to impose a minimum of one year imprisonment and a minimum disqualification from driving of eight years. However, it can be argued that the taxi driver is not as culpable because the motorcyclist had been speeding across the junction on an amber signal. The accident might not have occurred if the motorcyclist had slowed down and prepared to stop when the traffic light turned amber.
The Government's view is that the Court should have the discretion to decide if a lesser sentence would be more proportionate to the culpability of the taxi driver and the extent of injuries suffered by the motorcyclist. Put simply, in circumstances where the victim had also contributed to the accident, the Court should have the flexibility to impose a sentence lower than the current statutory minimum.
For the avoidance of doubt, these amendments do not necessarily mean that the offending motorist will face a sentence lower than the current mandatory minimum of one year imprisonment. The Court, having full regard to the facts of the case, will ultimately decide the sentence, which may even be higher than the current statutory minimums. The key point is, with the amendments, the Court will not be constrained by the statutory minimums.
With the removal of the minimum sentences for first-time offenders, we will make corresponding changes to lower the mandatory minimum imprisonment term for repeat offenders. Specifically, for dangerous driving offences causing death for repeat offenders, the mandatory minimum imprisonment term will be lowered from four years to two years. For dangerous driving offences causing grievous hurt, it will be lowered from two years to one year. This adjustment aims to create a more gradual progression in sentencing between first-time and repeat offenders under the new regime.
The intent of these amendments is not to signal a more lenient stance towards repeat offenders. Repeat offenders will continue to be subject to mandatory minimum imprisonment terms and disqualification periods, and where warranted on the circumstances, the Courts may in fact impose sentences higher than these mandatory minimum terms.
I want to also emphasise that there is no change to the way we are treating serious offenders, especially those who drive irresponsibly while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. They will continue to receive severe penalties, as well as mandatory minimum penalties where grievous hurt or death is caused.
Let me illustrate a case for which the current proposed amendment will have no impact. The driver failed to stop when ordered by a Traffic Police officer. In the subsequent pursuit, the driver drove dangerously by filtering lanes rapidly and collided into a pedestrian crossing the road at a pedestrian crossing. The pedestrian sustained multiple fractures. The offending driver is charged with dangerous driving causing grievous hurt. He is a first-time offender. After the proposed amendments to the RTA are operationalised, there would be no mandatory minimum imprisonment sentence or disqualification period applicable to this offender. However, given the aggravating factors in this case, including the failure to heed a Traffic Police officer's instructions and engaging in more egregious behaviour that increased the risk of harm to the Traffic Police officer and other road users, the offender can expect to be sentenced to imprisonment and disqualified for periods that are longer than the mandatory minimums today.
I emphasise that there are no changes to the maximum penalties for dangerous or careless driving offences, which could include lifetime imprisonment and lifetime disqualification from driving in highly egregious cases. The Sentencing Advisory Panel, chaired by Justice of the Court of Appeal Tay Yong Kwang, is looking at issuing guidelines for dangerous and careless driving offences, to enhance sentencing consistency and public understanding of the range of sentences that may be imposed under various scenarios.
Second, the Bill will provide the Prosecution flexibility to proceed on a \"hurt\" charge, even where \"grievous hurt\" has factually been caused. Because of the manner in which the dangerous and careless driving offences are presently structured in the RTA, the High Court has ruled that where an injury designated as \"grievous hurt\" was factually caused as a result of the accused's driving, the Prosecution can only prefer a charge of dangerous or careless driving causing \"grievous hurt\" and not a charge of causing simple \"hurt\". As a result of this ruling, if a driver drove carelessly and caused a pedestrian to sustain a fractured finger, the Prosecution presently does not have the discretion to proceed on a charge that is anything less severe than a \"grievous hurt\" charge.
The Government's intent has always been to allow the Prosecution to exercise its discretion to prefer the appropriate charge – be it a \"hurt\" or \"grievous hurt\" charge – after taking into account the circumstances of each case. This amendment restores the policy intent, and in my example, allows the Prosecution the discretion to proceed on a simple hurt charge if it assesses that it is in the public interest to do so. It also promotes consistency with our other penal provisions, by clarifying that \"hurt\" has the same meaning in the context of both the RTA and the Penal Code. This will also align the position for road traffic accidents with the Penal Code, where the Prosecution has the discretion to proceed on a \"hurt\" charge even if the assailant had, in fact, caused \"grievous hurt\".
Third, the Bill will adjust how a motorist's track record will count towards being classified as a repeat offender for a dangerous or careless driving offence. Being classified as a repeat offender leads to enhanced penalties for the offence. Today, a motorist is classified as a repeat offender if he has a prior conviction of dangerous driving, careless driving, speeding or illegal speed trial offence, colloquially known as illegal street racing.
Specific to a prior conviction of a speeding offence, we will amend the RTA such that a motorist will only be classified and charged as a repeat offender if he satisfies two criteria: first, the motorist had at least two prior speeding convictions in which he had sped in excess of 40 kilometres per hour (km/h) of the road or vehicle's speed limit; and second, at least two of those prior speeding convictions occurred within the five years preceding the motorist's current dangerous or careless driving offence.
The threshold of 40 km/h in excess of the relevant speed limit is not new. Today, most speeding offences are minor in nature and typically resolved with composition sums. Typically, only those who sped in excess of 40 km/h of the speed limit are charged in Court.
This amendment allows us to focus on offenders who have exhibited a pattern of risk-taking driving in recent times, without overly penalising offenders for mistakes committed more than five years ago. For the avoidance of doubt, any relevant antecedents from more than five years ago can still be taken into account by the Court as an aggravating factor when deciding on the sentence, but it will not attract the enhanced penalties that the RTA provides for those classified as repeat offenders. There is no change to how prior convictions of other offences, such as dangerous and careless driving, will count towards a motorist's classification as a repeat offender.
Let me now move on to the other proposals in the Bill. Clauses 3, 11 and 14 of the Bill streamline the commencement date of the disqualification period for both the RTA and the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act. Today, for some offences, the commencement date of the disqualification period starts from the date of conviction, whereas for others, it starts from the date of release from prison. In yet other cases, it may not be specified in the law.
The Bill will make clear that: if the offender is imprisoned for any offence, the disqualification period will commence from the completion of the sentence. If the offender has an existing disqualification order and is imprisoned for any offence, the disqualification order will be suspended during the term of imprisonment and will resume immediately after the date of release from the sentence. If the offender does not receive an imprisonment term, the disqualification period will commence from the date of conviction. This will ensure consistency and parity across the various disqualification regimes and remove irresponsible drivers from the roads in a timely manner.
Clause 4 will also enhance the Traffic Police's immediate suspension powers by ensuring that a motorist's licence remains suspended until he is fully convicted or acquitted, including during the period of appeal.
Today, the Traffic Police can immediately suspend the driving licence of any motorist under specific circumstances. This includes where there was serious injury or death to a person or serious damage to buildings and structures. However, the suspension automatically lapses by law once the motorist is convicted or acquitted by the Court. This means that if the motorist appeals, he can resume driving pending the determination of his appeal. As the suspension automatically lapses upon conviction, and he has been convicted, his suspension lapses by law, even though his appeal is pending. The same can happen if the disqualification order against the motorist is deferred by the Court to start at a later date.
Clause 4 of the Bill will ensure that the motorist's licence remains suspended, until the final decision is made on the sentencing, or until the disqualification order has commenced, whichever is later. This will close the above gaps. To be clear, if a motorist has been acquitted by the Court, regardless whether the Prosecution appeals against the acquittal, the suspension order will no longer be in force.
Clause 9 will empower an immigration officer to administer breath tests at the border checkpoints and their vicinity, to detect and take prompt preventive action against errant drink-drivers driving into our checkpoints. This will enable the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) to more holistically discharge their protective security functions at the land and sea checkpoints, which they have taken over from the Police.
Clause 10 will amend the RTA to incentivise owners to collect their seized vehicles in a timely manner and streamline the subsequent disposal process. The RTA currently only allows the Traffic Police to dispose of any vehicle within one month of its detention, if no owner comes forward to claim it. However, there are vehicles that cannot be disposed of, as the vehicle owners have laid claim to them but have delayed collecting them.
To address this issue, the Bill will require a vehicle owner to take delivery of a seized vehicle within a specified period. The Traffic Police can recover storage costs from the owner if the owner fails to collect the seized vehicle within the collection period. The Traffic Police will be able to dispose of the seized vehicle one month from after the expiry of the collection period.
There are also several miscellaneous amendments to improve the Traffic Police's operational efficiency, such as clause 12, which amends section 131A of the RTA to allow summonses which are not punishable with imprisonment to be served by email. The summons may only be served by email if the person on whom the summons is to be served gives prior written consent and specifies in the written consent the person's email address to which the summons is to be sent.
Lastly, clause 15 repeals the School Crossing Patrols Act 1955. The Act is obsolete and the policy intent to ensure safe school crossings has been met by other means.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, the amendments proposed in this Bill are the result of careful consideration. They are necessary to make our laws fairer while ensuring that those who engage in egregious road behaviour continue to be punished severely. Madam, I seek to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I have a few clarifications on the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill to ensure that the changes serve our residents effectively and achieve their intended outcomes.
First, Mdm Deputy Speaker, dangerous driving has no place on our roads. It is not just a rule of law. It is a matter of life and death. The proposed amendments aim to strike a balance between deterrence and proportionality, giving the Courts more flexibility in sentencing. This is a good step forward, but it raises some questions.
When this Bill was announced, Yio Chu Kang residents have asked me, \"Are we sending the wrong message? Are we going soft on offenders?\"
Removing mandatory minimum sentences might unintentionally be perceived as leniency even if that is not the intent. This could undermine public trust and undo years of effort to foster safer driving habits.
Residents are also concerned about consistency and fairness. How will the Ministry ensure that sentencing decisions are equitable and reflect the severity of offences? How will our Courts be guided on the minimum sentences for offences, now that it is removed? Could lighter sentences also embolden risky behaviour? Could they lead to more repeat offenders? These are real risks that we cannot ignore and may be exploited by offenders. The Ministry must monitor the impact of these changes to ensure they do not compromise public safety.
Education is just as critical as enforcement. Stronger penalties should go hand in hand with public campaigns to hammer home the message – reckless driving destroys lives. Let us make it clear that dangerous driving will not be tolerated. Clear communication about the gravity of penalties is essential to maintain public trust in our justice system.
Second, Mdm Deputy Speaker, empowering immigration officers to conduct breath tests at checkpoints is a logical and necessary move. Drunk driving is a menace that knows no borders. But as with any enforcement, the devil is in the details.
How will officers be trained to exercise their powers impartially? Residents have expressed concerns about potential profiling, which could erode public trust. Clear guidelines and robust training must be non-negotiable.
Another worry is the perennial issue of delays at checkpoints, especially since our Woodlands Checkpoint is one of the busiest land crossing points in the world. Many people commute across these borders daily for work or family obligations. Adding breath tests could slow things down. Can the Ministry leverage technology to speed up the process while ensuring strong enforcement? The goal must always be to achieve safety without undue inconvenience.
Likewise, how does the Ministry plan to deal with foreign vehicles that may have been caught committing traffic offences, especially speeding, illegal parking or beating the red light? How many foreign vehicles have been caught with traffic offences in 2023 or 2024 alone?
Clause 2 allows for ICA to deny entry or exit for vehicles which have offences. How does the ICA plan to enforce these fines and ensure that they are paid? Across the border, our neighbours have already used various methods to ensure that Singaporean drivers pay up their fines. Are we doing something similar considering that our roads also have a number of foreign vehicles plying them? Do we similarly enforce our laws on these foreign vehicles?
Third, Mdm Deputy Speaker, digitalising summons delivery may be a step into the future, but we must ensure no one is left behind in this transition. Not every resident has email or the digital literacy to navigate online systems. Seniors, in particular, are at risk of being excluded.
Using email for those ready and physical mail for others ensures fairness during the shift to a digital process. This dual system approach would be a practical way to cater to the diverse needs of our population.
Scams is another significant concern. Fraudulent summonses could trick people into revealing sensitive information or paying bogus fines. We need robust safeguards to protect against this. Equally important is clear communication with the public about how to identify legitimate summonses.
In conclusion, Mdm Deputy Speaker, this Bill addresses three critical aspects of road safety: deterrence, enforcement and modernisation. Each is essential to creating a safer and fairer road traffic system for all.
On dangerous driving, we must ensure penalties serve as a real deterrent while giving the Courts the discretion to impose sentences that match the severity of the harm caused. This flexibility recognises that driving is a complex task requiring skill, focus and experience, and that mistakes can happen even to the best of us. By striking this balance, we strengthen the rule of law while upholding fairness.
On enforcement, empowering officers at checkpoints to combat drink driving is a necessary move. But it must be implemented with care, ensuring fairness, impartiality and efficiency. Clear guidelines and robust training are non-negotiable to maintain public trust. Leveraging technology can help minimise inconvenience for commuters.
On modernisation, transitioning to digital summons delivery is a step forward, but we must ensure inclusivity. Seniors and the digitally disadvantaged must not be left behind and cybersecurity measures must be in place to protect residents from scams. A hybrid approach during this transition is not just practical, it is essential to maintaining public confidence.
Ultimately, this Bill is more than a collection of amendments. It is a commitment to protecting lives and livelihoods, especially those most vulnerable – our elderly, our low-wage workers – and those who depend on the road for their daily bread.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, we owe it to our residents to get this right. Behind every traffic law is a family waiting for their loved ones to return home safely. Behind every enforcement action is a promise to uphold justice. And behind every decision we make here is the opportunity to build a road system that does not just move people but safeguards lives. I support this Bill.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Deputy Speaker, road traffic regulations play a very important role in protecting the safety and well-being of our vulnerable road users in our neighbourhoods, including the elderly and young children. As such, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) has some concerns with the proposed amendments to the Road Traffic Act that we hope the Government can address today.
Members of the public have expressed concern about the removal of the mandatory minimum jail term and mandatory minimum disqualification period for first-time offenders, even in cases of reckless or dangerous driving leading to death. PSP agrees with these concerns.
The Government's justification for making these amendments is that the current mandated minimums are too harsh and may cause some drivers to be overly punished as a result. However, it is important to note that section 64 on reckless and dangerous driving already carries a higher level of culpability than driving without due care and attention in section 65. Drivers who run red lights or drive recklessly at dangerous speeds are knowingly and wilfully putting other road users at risk.
In justifying the amendment, MHA have shared several examples where the current laws as applied would be too harsh. Two can be found in Annex A from MHA's press release on the Bill published on 11 November 2024. Another can be found in MHA's response on 29 November 2024 to letters from the public on The Straits Times Forum.
As it is currently not clear if these cases are purely hypothetical or based on actual cases, can the Minister clarify whether these examples are based on actual cases?
Furthermore, none of these cases mentioned involved fatalities as a result of dangerous or careless driving. Will the Minister be able to share with this House some recent cases of dangerous driving leading to death where they believe the mandated minimum jail term of two years was too harsh?
Many Singaporeans are baffled by the timing of this decision to do away with mandatory minimum penalties. Online and offline, many members of the public have shared that the proposed changes would make the roads feel less safe for themselves, especially pedestrians and cyclists, and are concerned that the change would lead to a rise in the number of dangerous driving cases. These concerns are understandable given that there has been an increasing trend in the number of fatal accidents in recent years.
The mandatory minimum sentences for dangerous driving causing death or grievous hurt had been introduced in 2019 in order to increase the sentencing norms for irresponsible driving offences and to avoid manifestly inadequate jail sentences for egregious offences.
During the Second Reading debate, then Second Minister for Home Affairs, Mrs Josephine Teo, said that irresponsible driving remained a big concern. She said, \"Why is this a problem? Because irresponsible driving can have deadly consequences. Even if victims survive the accident, they or their families may suffer long-term problems – sometimes, medical, sometimes, permanent disabilities.\"
From time to time, we hear of terrible tragedies on the road. Last year, on 22 April, a driver sped and ran a red light in Tampines. Six vehicles were involved in the accident and two people died. Mdm Norzihan Juwahib had just bought a new flat and celebrated Hari Raya there the day before the accident. Afifah Munirah Muhammad Azril was a 17-year-old student at Temasek Junior College who was described as a high flier in school. Their lives came to a tragic end because of irresponsible driving.
Strong deterrence is needed against irresponsible driving behaviours leading to death, which is irreversible.
In 2019, Mrs Teo said, \"motorists who have a blatant disregard for the safety of other road users should be severely punished\" and \"to make our roads safer, we need stronger deterrence against irresponsible driving\". So, why is there an apparent policy U-turn by the Government today with the removal of mandatory minimum jail terms for first-time offenders even in cases of reckless or dangerous driving leading to death?
Based on figures from the Singapore Police Force (SPF), the number of fatal accidents dropped in 2020 when compared to 2019, but thereafter increased every year from 2021 to 2023. In its mid-year report in August 2024, it was revealed that when comparing the first half of 2024 with the first half of 2023, the number of traffic accident fatalities increased by 2.8% and the number of fatal speeding accidents almost doubled from 13 to 25.
Last year, we debated the issue of dangerous driving in this House after the six-vehicle crash in Tampines on 22 April 2024 where a driver sped, ran a red light and caused the tragic deaths of two persons. At the time, the Government rejected calls to consider introducing stiffer penalties for road traffic offences. Now, we hear that the Government is, in fact, going to do the opposite, by removing the mandatory minimum penalties for first-time offenders.
As we work towards a car-lite society, where the privilege of owning and driving a car is for the minority, we must consider the interests of road users who are not motorists. By retaining mandatory minimum jail terms, we send a clear message to motorists that they have the responsibility for helping to keep other road users safe and there would be serious consequences should they wilfully fail to do so.
We support the other amendments in the Bill, which include, streamlining the commencement dates of disqualification periods and strengthening the Traffic Police's suspension powers. However, PSP cannot support the amendment to remove mandatory minimum sentence and mandatory minimum disqualification periods for first-time offenders at a time of rising traffic fatalities and fatal speeding accidents. We urge the Government to maintain the current mandatory penalties in cases of reckless or dangerous driving leading to death. Mdm Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill being read for the Second time today seeks to remove the mandatory minimum jail term and mandatory minimum disqualification period for first-time offenders who commit dangerous or reckless driving leading to death or grievous hurt. PSP cannot support this change.
According to Police data, there has been a significant increase of fatal traffic accidents from 2020 to 2023. If you compare the first half of 2024 to the first half of 2023, the number of fatalities from traffic accidents increased by 2.8% while fatal speeding accidents nearly doubled from 13 to 25 cases. Many citizens are, therefore deeply concerned about road safety.
In 2019, the Government implemented mandatory minimum sentences for reckless driving behaviour.
Then Second Minister for Home Affairs Josephine Teo said that drivers who blatantly disregard the safety of other road users should be severely punished. She also said to make our roads safer we need to strengthen deterrence against irresponsible driving behaviour. So, why is the Government now reducing the deterrence effect of this policy at the time when our road safety is in fact deteriorating?
PSP opposes this amendment.
(In English): Madam, we oppose the Bill in its current form, but will support the Bill if amendments are made to retain the current mandatory penalties for reckless or dangerous driving leading to death.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. The Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendment) Bill today proposes to amend the Road Traffic Act 1961 and the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks and Compensation) Act 1960 and to repeal the School Crossing Patrol Act of 1955.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill but I would like to speak on the proposal to remove or lower mandatory minimum sentences. Essentially, today's amendments will remove the mandatory minimum sentence and disqualification period for first-time offenders who are convicted of dangerous or careless driving offences. The mandatory minimum sentence for such repeat offenders will be halved.
In justifying the reason for the amendments, MHA has, in its advisory in November 2024, explained that today's amendments were part of their regular review, the last being done in 2019. We are told that the amendment is required as there is a need to adjust the Act to balance deterrence and proportionality, which applicable sentencing principles which the Court will abide by. Importantly, MHA has explained that the changes will ensure that behaviour that is relatively less egregious is not overly penalised, while the law can still be used to penalise egregious offenders. For example, the Court will be able to give lighter sentences where other road users have also behaved irresponsibly.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, I think there are different responses from Singaporeans to the proposed changes. On one hand, there are Singaporeans who are concerned that the removal of the minimum sentences will represent a relaxation of the laws on careless or reckless driving. Such concerns are understandable, especially bearing in mind recent high-profile serious road traffic accidents, such as the road accident at the junction of Tampines Avenue 1 and Tampines Avenue 4 in April 2024, where a driver failed to stop at the traffic junction and caused an accident involving five other vehicles and leading to the unfortunate death of two persons.
It was also reported, more recently on 18 December 2024 that a driver was sentenced to a year's imprisonment and disqualified from driving for eight years after he pleaded guilty to three charges of causing death of a pedestrian in October 2022 by driving without due care and attention, failing to render assistance and obstructing the course of justice. The driver was previously fined $500 and handed 12 demerit points for speeding just a month before the fatal accident. The victim was a 26-year-old pharmacist and who was a Hougang resident of mine.
In fact, in light of similar serious traffic accidents in recent years, some Singaporeans have asked whether we should enhance our laws to deter reckless driving and serious road accidents. Following the accident at Tampines Avenue 1, I and some other Members of this House have asked questions, and the Government addressed some of such concerns in Parliament. I trust that the Government will assure Singaporeans today that the proposed changes in this Bill will not lead to a relaxation of the law or the enforcement efforts against careless or reckless driving and result in a worsening of the present situation.
Under this Bill, the prosecution will be able to proceed with a charge of causing hurt and are not grievous hurt if the victim's injuries meet the legal definition of grievous hurt. Grievous hurt is defined under section 320 of the Penal Code and it can include fractures or dislocations and when the victim cannot follow his or her ordinary pursuits for at least 20 days.
MHA explained that the change under this Bill will better allow the Prosecution to take into account the nature of the injury caused and whether other road users share responsibility for the incident. The definition of repeat offender will also be narrowed. Currently, a motorist is a repeat offender if he or she has been convicted previously of any one of the following: dangerous or careless driving, conducting illegal speed trials or speeding.
The Bill proposes that a motorist facing a dangerous or careless driving charge will only be considered a repeat offender vis-a-vis his speeding convictions only if he or she has: one, at least two prior speeding convictions in which the driver sped in excess of 40 km/h of the roads or the vehicle's speed limit; and two, at least two of the prior speeding convictions occurred within the past five years before the motorist's current driving offence.
May I ask the Minister of State to explain the rationale for the limit of previous speeding in excess of 40 km/h? I ask this as some Singaporeans will regard speeding in excess of lower speed ranges, such as between 20 and 39 km/h, or 30 and 39 km/h, to be already excessive and deserving of the current minimum punishment under the present law.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, such concerns are understandable. Singapore still suffers from a significant number of deaths and injuries from road traffic accidents. According to the SPF's Annual Road Traffic Situation 2023 report, Singapore suffered about 136 deaths in 2023 due to road traffic accidents. Road traffic accidents in 2023 also caused 8,931people to suffer non-fatal injuries. According to the Annual Road Traffic Situation Report 2023, road traffic fatalities have increased year-on-year since 2020, from a low of 83 during COVID to 136 in 2023. The current number of annual fatalities are also higher than the pre-COVID numbers: 136 in 2023 versus 118 in 2019. Similarly, the traffic accident cases involving injuries have similarly increased year on year since 2020, from 6,669 in 2020 to 8,931 in 2023.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would also like to ask the Minister: beyond the proposed amendments, do the authorities have any other plans to curb the continuing increase in the number of accident cases involving fatalities and injuries in the next few years? MHA also mentioned two past cases justifying the Government's intention to remove minimum sentences.
Two examples: the first case involves a taxi driver who fails to conform to a red-light signal at a T-junction and collides into an oncoming motorcar, which has the right of way. The victim sustained neck and shoulder pain with numbness in one half of his body and received a medical certificate (MC) for 25 days. But a subsequent medical assessment finds that the victim has made a full recovery. Because the victim has received at least 20 days of MC and section 320 of the Penal Code defines grievous hurt as, among other things, any hurt that causes the victim to be unable to follow his or her ordinary pursuits during the space of 20 days.
This meant that the injury to the victim in the cited case was regarded as grievous hurt under the law. This is notwithstanding that the overall injury sustained, suffered, was not actually that severe, having regard to the initial injury report and the victim's full recovery. The driver who caused the injury was, upon conviction, subject to a mandatory minimum of one year's imprisonment and eight years' disqualification.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, there are also critics who feel that the removal of the mandatory minimum sentencing should be objected to on other grounds. For example, the driver in the first example may be regarded as objectively reckless in running the red light and it may be argued that whether the victim is more or less injured is just a matter of fortuity.
Another criticism is that the problem may not be the minimum sentence itself, but the definition of grievous hurt under section 320 of the Penal Code, especially as we now see how it has applied to the Road Traffic Act. For example, the factual scenario seen in the first example cited by MHA. Further, there is also the issue of whether the length of an MC necessarily commensurate with the seriousness of the injury caused and has a definitive bearing on, say, permanent incapacity.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, there are also Singaporeans who agree with the proposed amendments and take the view that the Court should have a wider judicial discretion which would enable the Court to punish more appropriately in accordance with the circumstances of each case. A more restricted discretion may result in drivers being penalised unnecessarily or unnecessarily harsh. In some cases, the punishment may have more serious consequences or resulting in loss of jobs and/or deprivation of employment income and resulting financial hardship.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, as a lawyer, I have full confidence that our Courts will ultimately be able to achieve that desirable calibration between different cases when exercising their discretion. It is, however, important for the Courts to create clear guidelines after the law is amended so that drivers are punished more appropriately according to what they have done and are not overly punished.
I am, therefore, heartened to hear the Minister of State sharing just now to the House that this will be carried out by the Courts. I also agree with MHA's explanation in their second example where a driver collided with a cyclist who failed to give way to the driver and cross the road. I am of the view that in accidents where both a driver and the other road user, could be a motorist, failed to give way to each other or were both guilty of different traffic offences, resulting in a collision. MHA should not over penalise one party merely because another party was physically injured.
Using the second case example given by MHA, the primary consideration upon which punishment should be imposed should first be the primary wrongfulness, if any, of both parties leading to the accident, rather than merely of the cyclist being injured. In MHA's example, there is the failure of the cyclist to stop and give way and there is also the failure of the driver to keep a proper lookout for a cyclist in breach of the cyclist's own legal obligations. There should be greater and appropriate proportionality given to both road users for their respective breaches.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, we do see many cyclists breaking the law by not following traffic lights or road traffic rules and this is something I have spoken about in the past. If they are more seriously taken to task when they are found to be in breach, this may encourage a change in our riding culture on the roads and enhance the safety of our roads and accidents can be minimised or prevented.
Further, it is also not uncommon for parties involved in accidents to latch on to the Traffic Police's charges against particular motorists to argue that their opponent's case may be weaker. If successful, this, together with the law of contributory negligence, may mean that in the ensuing civil claims, a motorist may be the ultimate paying party in such a case where another road user who also blatantly breaks the law is injured.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would next like to share some feedback from our residents. One of our residents, a first-time offender with 45 years of unblemished records shared that he was charged for careless driving causing grievous hurt under section 65(1)(b) of the RTA. The accident involved a side swipe with a motorcyclist, resulting in the latter suffering a fracture. Our resident was fined $4,000 and sentenced under the mandatory disqualification regime to 60 months and still has to serve a remaining period of about 29 months.
Our resident would like to know whether people like him who were previously sentenced to the mandatory disqualification regime under the existing law will be allowed to have their period of disqualification reduced once the law is passed.
Another resident said that with the change, there may be the anomaly arising from those who were more recently punished under the RTA 2019 coming out from their disqualification period even later than those who may be sentenced under the RTA 2024, assuming that this will be passed in the near future.
Given the change in law and the rationale given by MHA for the change, there may be an issue of fairness. As such, will the Government address the above concerns?
Mdm Deputy Speaker, we also have feedback from residents regarding the harshness of such offence being a registrable offence and for a five-year period. The argument is that such offences should be distinguished from other crimes if such offences arose purely as an accident, that there was no deliberate intent to break the law or to commit the offence, and there was no premeditation. There may be consequences or burdens on the convicted in terms of employment or travel when declarations for such convictions are required. I hope MHA will consider this feedback.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding the concerns and feedback I have raised as well as the clarifications I have sought, I support 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 Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill.
The proposed amendments have two primary aims: first, to recalibrate the balance between deterrence and proportionality; and second, to enhance powers to enforce against errant motorists.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, to assist to achieve the first aim, the Bill seeks to remove mandatory minimum sentences and disqualification periods for first-time offenders. This proposal reflects a positive shift from current practice and demonstrates a more sophisticated approach to justice and sentencing.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, no two crimes are alike and not every offence fits neatly into predetermined sentencing brackets. Context matters and judges should always have discretion in sentencing. Defendants before a Court should always be allowed to present and have considered mitigating circumstances.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, we do, however, need to be vigilant to community attitudes and perceptions. Roads are public and shared spaces where mistakes can have devastating consequences. We all know of someone who has been impacted by the behaviour of other drivers or even ourselves. It is understandable that the community want to see justice done if and when a crime occurs.
I am not saying that court processes, including sentencing, should be determined by community outrage or preference, but the views of the community need to be acknowledged and considered. Perhaps it would be appropriate for these proposed amendments to be accompanied by a public awareness campaign, reinforcing the message that the removal of mandatory sentences for first-time traffic offenders is not going soft on crime or letting people get away with things, but is instead an evidence-based sentencing practice that leads to greater desistance and reduced recidivism. We need to inform the public that the primary aim of these changes is to make our roads safer.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, we also need to ensure that the removal of mandatory sentences for first-time traffic offenders does not inadvertently result in unwarranted leniency or inconsistency between courts. MHA has highlighted that they would monitor and report on sentencing patterns. However, it would be good if it could look at the trends over time and look at the trends because courts as well. Alternatively, perhaps the Ministry could consider establishing dedicated traffic courts, presided over by specialist magistrates. This would assist to ensure that the sentencing of traffic offenders is nationally appropriate and consistent.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, it would also be useful to understand the short- and long-term impact of the proposed changes on offending driver behaviour. Perhaps the Ministry could commit to an evaluation of the impact of the proposed changes after, for example, one, three or five years.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, the World Health Organization predicts that by 2030, traffic accidents will rank as the fifth leading cause of death globally. Traffic accidents are already the top killer of children and young people aged between five and 29 years. In Singapore, while the number of road traffic accidents overall decreased in the first half of 2024, casualties and fatalities have continued to rise and, concerningly, fatal accidents related to speeding and drink driving have risen over the last three years.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, we need to do to everything we can to slow or ideally, reverse these trends. Our roads should be safe for everyone and just like Singapore has zero tolerance for drug use, we should also have zero tolerance for injury and fatality caused by traffic or road accidents.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, the causes of traffic and road accidents are complex and require a multi-pronged response. Some accidents are simply mistakes – a momentary lapse of reason and judgement by an otherwise responsible driver. Others are a lack of awareness about traffic and driving safety or an over confidence or lack of awareness about personal skill and competence. Far too many others are the result of predominantly young men showing off in front of their friends, thinking that reckless driving or behaviour is cool or exciting or that they are invincible to such harms on the road. Some are the result of deliberate, repeated and purposeful behaviour.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, the enforcement of road rules and issuing penalties are central elements in deterring and changing offending behaviour and are strategies that continue to be used across the world to modify driver behaviour.
According to deterrence theory, individuals make behavioural choices based on their perceptions of the threat posed by penalties. This perceived threat is influenced by the likelihood of being caught, or perceived risk of apprehension and beliefs about the certainty, severity and swiftness of punishments.
A penalty-based system can be very effective in many cases, however, not all. Fining, imposing disqualification periods or even imprisonment can have little short- or long-term effect on an alarming number of road users. We also need comprehensive education programmes that provide drivers and other road users with age, gender and culturally appropriate information and messaging about road and traffic safety. These programmes also need to target different categories of road users, including motorcyclists, motorcycle passengers, peddle or electric cyclists, companies transporting foreign workers, children and young people, and elderly pedestrians.
Ideally, we need to convince people to stop wanting to do or choosing to do the many things on the road that can get themselves or someone else killed or seriously injured.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would therefore welcome advice from MHA about existing or proposed driver education programmes, including target audience and intended outcomes.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, another approach that has had some success internationally at reducing recidivist road and traffic offending are post-conviction behaviour modification programmes. In these circumstances, instead of – or sometimes as well as – a fine or other punitive consequences, convicted drivers are referred to alternatives aimed at changing future behaviour, including driving courses, awareness programmes, rehabilitation support or community service. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would therefore also welcome advice from MHA about existing or proposed post-conviction behaviour modification programmes, including target audience and intended outcomes.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, Sweden's Vision Zero initiative is a model of international best practice that exemplifies how a comprehensive approach to road and traffic safety can significantly reduce traffic fatalities. When the concept of Vision Zero was introduced in 1997, it transformed the view of road safety work. Instead of trying to prevent all accidents, the goal is for no one to die or be seriously injured in a road accident. The initiative has led to a halving of deaths on Swedish roads.
Vision Zero regards the road transport system as an entity in which different components such as roads, vehicles and road users must be made to interact with each other so that safety can be guaranteed. To prevent serious consequences from accidents, it is essential for roads and vehicles to be adapted to match the capabilities of the people who use them.
Countries like Canada and New Zealand are also adopting similar road safety strategies, aiming for zero fatalities and reduced road trauma by 2025 and 2030 respectively.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, before I conclude, I would like to discuss two other issues: first, victim support; and second, transport arrangements for foreign workers.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, several other jurisdictions have established programmes and services to assist victims of road or traffic incidents, including counselling or trauma support, legal assistance and victim participation in the justice process. Related is the use of restorative justice procedures to provide meaningful resolutions and support for all parties involved in serious driving offences.
I understand that restorative justice procedures can be particularly useful in resolving those matters involving young drivers who have caused injury or death to a third party as a result of speeding, reckless driving or drug and alcohol misuse, and who show genuine remorse and are prepared to accept responsibility for the consequences of their behaviour.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, again, I welcome advice from the Ministry about existing or proposed restorative justice procedures for road and traffic offences, including target audience and intended outcomes.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, I will now make some incidental comments about transport arrangements for foreign workers. This topic has been discussed a number of times in Parliament and advocacy groups have been calling for a ban on unsecured open vehicle transport for several years. The safety and well-being of foreign workers should be considered no differently to the safety and well-being of other Singaporeans. I remain puzzled as to why it is still legal to transport multiple foreign workers in open vehicles and without seatbelts, whereas all other drivers and passengers on Singaporean roads are required to wear seatbelts at all times. I understand that the Government is currently considering changes to these arrangements and I welcome an update on the status and timeline of these changes.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, road and traffic safety transcends laws and penalties. It involves fostering a culture of responsible driving and road use and ensuring that our justice system balances accountability with rehabilitation. As we proceed with these amendments, let us commit to regular evaluations of their impact and remain open to further refinements. Our goal should be not just to punish offenders but to prevent accidents, support victims and enhance safety for all road users in Singapore. By doing so, we can create a safer environment for everyone who calls Singapore home.
Clarifications notwithstanding, I support this Bill.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I agree in principle with the need for our road traffic legislation to maintain a balance between deterrence and proportionality. I also strongly support the provision of enhanced powers to our Traffic Police to enforce our regulations against errant motorists.
It is understandable that the authorities want to adjust penalties to be more proportionate to particular offences. They are concerned about over-penalising motorists who commit traffic infractions which result in relatively less harm.
However, the removal of the mandatory minimum sentences and disqualification periods in the cases of careless or dangerous driving offences causing death or grievous hurt does not seem to be sending the correct message of deterrence. This reduction is too lenient, even for first-time offenders.
We have to remember that in these cases, lives had been, or could have been endangered, or lost, and the offenders did exhibit dangerous or careless driving behaviour in causing the accidents. The penalties need to be severe enough to act effectively as a meaningful deterrence. As it is today, as many drivers observe on our roads, there are quite a number of motorists speeding, tailgating or driving carelessly. We cannot afford to reduce the penalties further to send the wrong message to such motorists.
Another amendment that I hope to obtain more clarification on is the proposal for a motorist to be considered as a repeat offender only if he had sped in excess of 40 km/h of the road's speed limit, or the vehicle's speed limit, at least twice within the last five years.
Let us consider our demerit points system today, where exceeding the speed limit by more than 40 km/h would cost the motorist 12 demerit points and will be prosecuted in court. Why do we need a motorist to have committed such offences at least twice, while continuing to drive irresponsibly, before we consider him or her a repeat offender? This is not the behaviour of an average motorist at all. I am concerned that most will perceive that the Ministry is becoming lenient on such offenders. While giving second chances is important, we have to weigh against the deaths and serious injuries arising from the behaviour of such irresponsible motorists. I urge the Ministry to reconsider this amendment.
Finally, I wish to conclude, with my support, for the enhancement of powers for our regulators to enforce against errant motorists, including the streamlining of the commencement date of the disqualification periods and to close up various loopholes involving suspensions. I support the Bill.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Minister of State Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim.
Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank Members for their support for the Bill. I appreciate their frank views and feedback. They raised important questions which I will now attempt to address.
Members raised concerns over the removal of mandatory minimums. Ms Hazel Poa asked for the reason for the proposed amendments. As explained in my earlier speech, MHA reviews the offences and penalties in the RTA from time to time. Following the 2019 amendments, we have given some time for the laws to take their course and we now assess that amendments are necessary to recalibrate the balance between deterrence and proportionality. As pointed out by Ms Poa, we have provided some examples to illustrate the need for these amendments. These examples are adapted from actual cases.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked how the Ministry will ensure that sentences are equitable and reflect the severity of offences, and how our Courts will be guided on the minimum sentences for offences, given the removal. Assoc Prof Razwana suggested establishing dedicated Traffic Courts to ensure sentences are consistent and appropriate.
Regarding Mr Yip's concern, it is precisely because of the need for fairness that we are moving these amendments. Our intent is indeed to ensure that the RTA penalties reflect the severity of the offence, as well as the culpability of the offender. Sentencing decisions are made by the Courts, which will consider the facts and circumstances of every case. The Bill will give the Courts more flexibility to decide on the appropriate sentences, rather than be constrained by the statutory minimums.
Regarding Assoc Prof Razwana's suggestion of dedicated Traffic Courts, it is already the case today, in practice that if the motorist faces only traffic charges, his case will generally be heard in the Traffic Court. To enhance sentencing consistency and transparency, the Sentencing Advisory Panel is also looking at issuing guidelines for dangerous and careless driving offences. This will provide guidance to the Judges on the sentencing approach for such offences, while allowing them to decide the exact sentence for each case depending on its own facts.
Mr Yip asked if lighter sentences could embolden risky behaviour and lead to more repeat offenders. Ms Joan Pereira, Assoc Prof Razwana, Mr Dennis Tan and Ms Hazel Poa were also concerned that the amendments would send the wrong message to offenders. I wish to reiterate that the intent of these amendments is not to signal a more lenient stance towards egregious motorists, nor to let them off with lighter sentences. We will continue to punish those who exhibit irresponsible driving behaviour. The maximum penalties are stiff and remain unchanged. Judges will have full flexibility to decide the appropriate sentence up to the maximum sentence prescribed in law, depending on the facts of each case.
Ms Hazel Poa asked if there were any recent cases of dangerous driving causing death, for which we believe the mandatory minimum imprisonment of two years is too harsh. There are no such cases because in the appropriate circumstances, the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) had exercised its prosecutorial discretion to prefer a lesser charge, for example, to proceed on a careless driving charge, even though there was dangerous driving involved, or a charge involving hurt, even though grievous hurt was caused.
However, this is not a fully satisfactory approach. Moreover, as mentioned in my opening speech, the High Court has recently ruled that the Prosecution presently does not have the discretion to prefer a hurt charge where grievous hurt is factually caused. The proposed amendments to the RTA, including the removal of mandatory minimums, will allow the Prosecution to proceed with the charge that most appropriately reflects the offence committed and the offender's culpability, without impeding the Courts' discretion to mete out an appropriate sentence. So, it goes back to about balancing the discretion and also the proportionality.
Mr Dennis Tan also asked about the rationale for only taking into consideration a prior conviction of speeding in excess of 40 km/h. The existing practice is that any offender who has sped in excess of 40 km/h of the relevant limit will generally be prosecuted in Court. This is not new, and is part of the calibrated approach that MHA takes towards speeding offences, such that more egregious speeding is dealt with through prosecution, and less egregious speeding is generally dealt with through our demerit points and the composition regime. The amendment simply formalises this approach in law.
Ms Joan Pereira asked for the rationale of having at least two counts of prior speeding convictions before the motorist is considered a repeat offender. The amendment we are introducing today is part of the recalibration of the balance between deterrence and proportionality. It ensures that less serious offences are not overly penalised, while still allowing the Courts to take egregious offenders to task.
Specifically, the RTA explicitly provides for heavier penalties, including mandatory minimum sentences, in the event that the motorist meets the legal definition of a repeat offender. Where the motorist is currently being charged for a dangerous or careless driving offence and is a repeat offender within the meaning in the Act, the Courts must, if it finds the motorist guilty, impose heavier penalties that are specified in the RTA, including a minimum mandatory disqualification period ranging from five to 10 years. The proposed amendment reserves the heavier prescribed penalties for recalcitrant and egregious offenders who show a deliberate and blatant disregard for road safety.
To be clear, a motorist with prior speeding convictions, but who does not satisfy the legal definition of a repeat offender, may not necessarily be sentenced as if he had a clean record. In such a case, the Court can continue to take into account his prior speeding convictions, when deciding on the sentence for a current dangerous or careless driving offence. In other words, such a motorist can continue to expect heavier penalties to be imposed.
Mr Tan asked if those who were previously sentenced to the mandatory disqualification under the existing law will be allowed to have their period of disqualification reduced accordingly. The answer is no. This law does not apply retrospectively. The new set of penalties will only apply to offences that are committed after the amendments come into force. Concluded cases would have been sentenced under the previous offence provisions. That being said, for cases where the offender committed their driving offences before this amendment, AGC will consider the facts and circumstances of these cases, and adjust their sentencing position where it is fair to do so.
Mr Tan asked about our plans to curb the increase in road traffic fatalities and injuries. Assoc Prof Razwana asked about existing efforts to shape motorists' behaviour, including education or rehabilitation programmes. We adopt a multi-pronged approach to keep our roads in Singapore safe. In addition to our reviewing laws and regulations, other key prongs include enforcement, education and engagement.
In terms of enforcement, the Traffic Police deploys a suite of enforcement tools to detect and deter against road traffic violations, which includes fixed speed cameras, red-light cameras, as well as routine patrols by Traffic Police officers. The speed cameras are deployed at speeding-prone and accident-prone locations, where the terrain is suitable.
For education and engagement, the Traffic Police raises awareness on good road safety habits through online and in-person events such as talks, exhibitions and carnivals. In 2024, these engagement efforts reached around 150,000 attendees.
The Traffic Police also worked with the Singapore Road Safety Council and other stakeholders to organise campaigns targeted at different groups of road users. These include the \"Road Safety Carnival for Families\", \"Anti-Drink Drive Campaign\" and \"Singapore Ride Safe\" event that is targeted at motorcyclists. When there are egregious cases of reckless and dangerous road behaviour, the Traffic Police will issue media releases to educate the public on the facts, charges and sentences for these cases.
As for rehabilitation programmes, the Traffic Police has introduced the Safe Driving Course for motorists who have accumulated demerit points, but are not yet liable for suspension. The course educates these motorists on safe driving practices and corrects their risky behaviours. Upon completion of the course, the motorist will have some of their demerit points expunged.
Assoc Prof Razwana spoke about support for accident victims and the use of restorative justice procedures. The Police may refer families who require support to Social Service Offices or Family Service Centres, depending on their circumstances and needs. For those requiring mental health support, the Police may refer them to mental health helplines and counselling services, which are run by trained professionals or the Institute of Mental Health. While there are no specific restorative justice programmes for traffic offences, certain features of our sentencing regime, such as criminal compensation orders, are restorative in nature and seek to redress the harm to the victim.
Assoc Prof Razwana also suggested monitoring sentencing trends and the impact of the amendments on driving behaviour. I thank the Member for her suggestion and assure her that MHA regularly reviews our laws to ensure they meet our policy intent.
Assoc Prof Razwana asked for an update on the transport arrangements for foreign workers. The Ministry of Transport has given a comprehensive reply in July 2023 on this issue. Given that these are not the focus of this Bill, we invite the Member to file a separate Parliamentary Question on this matter.
I will now deal with questions pertaining to the enhancement of our enforcement powers.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the training of immigration officers to exercise their powers and whether the Ministry could leverage technology to speed up the process and avoid potential delays at checkpoints. Today, immigration officers already assess if there is any suspected drink-driving violation at the checkpoints. The key difference is that today, the immigration officer has to activate a Police officer to conduct an alcohol breath test, as only a Police officer is legally empowered to conduct the test.
With the amendment, immigration officers will be empowered to conduct breath tests directly and immediately, should they detect any suspected violation. So, there should be no impact on congestion. On the contrary, traffic flow may even be enhanced, since these tests can be conducted more quickly. Officers deployed at the frontline will undergo the appropriate training to administer the tests.
Next, Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about our approach for foreign vehicles with outstanding fines for traffic and illegal parking offences, as well as the number of foreign vehicles caught for traffic violations in 2023. In 2023, about 14,000 foreign vehicles were caught for traffic violations. Foreign motorists who enter Singapore must abide by Singapore's laws. They should settle any outstanding fines for traffic, parking or vehicular emissions offences promptly. We take violations by foreign motorists just as seriously as we do violations by local motorists. To strengthen enforcement against foreign motorists who violate our laws, since 2019, we have denied foreign vehicles with outstanding fines entry into Singapore.
The authorities also regularly conduct operations against foreign motorists who commit offences in Singapore and do not settle their fines. In July 2024, the Traffic Police led a multi-agency operation where 188 foreign motorists were stopped and directed to settle their outstanding fines for vehicular and traffic offences when they entered Singapore via the Woodlands and Tuas checkpoints. We also issue public advisories regularly to remind foreign motorists to check the AXS website for any outstanding fines and to settle them promptly.
On Mr Yip Hon Weng's concern about seniors who are not digitally savvy, I wish to clarify that summons will only be issued by email if there is prior written consent from the individual. The Police will also put out advisories on how to identify legitimate summonses. Members of the public who are unsure about the legitimacy of any communication from the Police can call the ScamShield hotline at 1799.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, this Government is determined to keep our roads safe. But laws alone cannot prevent all accidents. I call upon all road users – motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, Members of the House and others – to uphold a culture of vigilance and courtesy on our roads. One distraction, one careless mistake, one temptation to speed, is all it takes to cause an accident and lead to a life of regret. I thank the Members again for their support and suggestions for the Bill, and seek to move.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Are there any clarifications? Ms Hazel Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa: I thank the Minister of State for answering my questions. I asked for an example of actual cases where the accident resulted in death and MHA felt that the penalty was too harsh and the reply was no. So, the reason for removing the mandatory minimum penalties was for judicial discretion.
Given that the mandatory minimum penalties were introduced in 2019, I would like to ask what has changed. Why was judicial discretion not an issue in 2019 but is now an issue in 2025?
Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: I thank the Member for the clarification. As I shared earlier, we review our law from time to time. From 2019 to now, the Traffic Police, as well as the agencies have been working together and also there have been cases whereby, as I shared in my answer, where the current amendment that we are proposing would provide a better option, more flexibility as well as avenues for a fairer sentence regime than what it is available today.
I also want to assure the Member that even though we will remove the minimum element of it, the Court will look at the facts of the case and it will enable more flexibility and a fairer outcome in the judgment.
[(proc text) Question, \"That the Bill be read a Second time\", put. (proc text)]
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Are there any Members who wish to have their dissent recorded? Ms Hazel Poa, you did mention earlier that you did not support the Bill. So, would you like for your dissent to be recorded? For two of you? Okay, thank you.
[(proc text) Hon Members Mr Leong Mun Wai and Ms Hazel Poa indicated for their dissent to be recorded. (proc text)]
Mdm Deputy Speaker: I think the \"Ayes\" have it. The \"Ayes\" have it.
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee. (proc text)]
[Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair]
The Chairman: The citation year \"2024\" will be changed to \"2025\", as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.
[(proc text) Question, \"That Clauses 1 to 16 stand part of the Bill\", put. (proc text)]
The Chairman: Would Members who wish for their dissent to be recorded, please stand?
[(proc text) Hon Members Mr Leong Mun Wai and Ms Hazel Poa rose in their place for their dissent to be recorded. (proc text)]
The Chairman: If Members want to say no, you should say no. I think the \"Ayes\" have it. The \"Ayes\" have it.
[(proc text) Clauses 1 to 16 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill reported without amendment. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question, \"That the Bill be now read a Third time\", put. (proc text)]
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Do any Members wish to record their dissent?
[(proc text) Hon Members Mr Leong Mun Wai and Ms Hazel Poa rose in their place for their dissent to be recorded. (proc text)]
Mdm Deputy Speaker: The \"Ayes\" have it.
[(proc text) Bill 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":"Communicable Diseases Agency Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister of State for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Minister for Health): Mdm Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Health, I move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
In March 2023, during the Parliamentary debate on the White Paper of Singapore's response to COVID-19, the Minister for Health announced that Singapore will set up the Communicable Diseases Agency, or CDA.
Our current capabilities in managing communicable diseases reside in several entities. For example, the Ministry of Health (MOH) sets policy, the National Centre for Infectious Diseases (NCID) administers the public health control measures as part of the national programmes and the Heath Promotion Board (HPB) does public education. By consolidating into a dedicated agency, it will help us systematically build up strong public health expertise and organisational capacity and establish international linkages, to better tackle future pandemics.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
Over the years, we have seen severe infectious disease outbreaks occur with increasing frequency. Since the 2003 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) global outbreak, the World Health Organization (WHO) has already declared seven Public Health Emergencies of International Concern (PHEIC). These included the 2009 Influenza A (H1N1) pandemic, COVID-19 pandemic, 2022 mpox global outbreak, 2016 Zika global outbreak, all of which affected Singapore.
This increasing frequency of infectious disease outbreaks takes place amidst a complex ecological environment, with external forces driving the emergence and re-emergence of infectious diseases.
First, unplanned environmental encroachment has resulted in an increase in interaction between humans and animals, including the diseases they might carry. This has increased the risk of infections crossing the species barrier and infecting humans, sparking outbreaks of zoonotic diseases like Ebola Virus Disease and Marburg Virus Disease in Africa. Urbanisation has contributed to more dense human-to-human interactions and increased the risk of spread of infectious disease within communities.
Second, globalisation and cross-border travel greatly accelerates the speed at which infectious diseases spread internationally. Singapore, as an aviation air hub, is especially vulnerable.
Third, climate change is influencing and changing our environments. Increases in temperature allow disease vectors like the Aedes mosquitos which spread dengue fever, to expand their geographical range, placing more regions and people at risk of infection. Aedes aegypti, present in Singapore, becomes more efficient at transmitting dengue at higher temperatures.
Fourth, inappropriate antibiotic use drives the development of antimicrobial resistance, which render previously-effective drugs useless against these resistant forms. An example of such drug-resistant disease is multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis, which is much harder and takes much longer to treat than normal tuberculosis. When these drug-resistant diseases spread, they may cause more severe disease and even death because they are more difficult to treat.
Finally, the vaccine hesitancy movement undermines vaccination efforts to protect the population from infectious diseases that could cause severe illness and death. As a result, some countries where vaccine-preventable diseases like measles were previously eliminated have seen resurgences and outbreaks due to the declines in vaccination uptake. For example, measles has resurfaced in the United States since 2019 and in European countries since 2023, despite ready access to vaccines in these countries.
We are fortunate that our vaccination coverage for diseases like measles and diphtheria remain sufficiently high to maintain herd immunity, but we must not rest on our laurels. We must do what we can to maintain these high rates of vaccination coverage, such as addressing misinformation and disinformation on vaccines and provide evidence of their safety, efficacy and importance to individual and public health.
It is against this backdrop that CDA is being set up. CDA will be the frontline agency to safeguard Singapore by preparing for, preventing, detecting and responding to infectious diseases.
The COVID-19 White Paper put forth a few key recommendations to consolidate our learnings and better prepare ourselves for future pandemics.
First, we must systematically build strong expertise and organisational capacity to tackle future pandemics. During the COVID-19 response, we developed and deepened capabilities in areas like data analytics and epidemic modelling to support policy decisions and response. These must not be lost and must be maintained and developed to better prepare Singapore to manage future pandemics. CDA will do this by bringing together the expertise in the Ministry of Health (MOH), the Health Promotion Board (HPB) and the National Centre for Infectious Diseases (NCID), and leveraging academia and international technical networks to further develop CDA's capabilities.
Second, the White Paper recommended that we institutionalise the use of science and technology in responding to infectious disease threats. This involves tapping on the research ecosystem to coordinate and promote public health research that inform and guide public health actions and policies. With rapid technological advancements, new tools are continuously being developed, which must be evaluated and adopted to better prevent, prepare for, manage and respond to infectious diseases.
Lastly, we must strengthen the structures and capabilities for forward planning and preparedness to respond to the next pandemic in a more agile and fluid manner. In consolidating the public health functions for the control of infectious diseases, CDA will oversee end-to-end disease prevention, surveillance and risk assessment, preparedness and response, and disease and outbreak management. This will allow the Government to quickly respond to disease outbreaks as one concerted public health effort.
CDA is the response to the three key recommendations above. It will bring together public health functions under one roof. There are five areas of responsibility: prevent, prepare, detect, respond and enable.
First, prevent. This combines public education with robust vaccination policy and implementation, building and promoting infection prevention and control capabilities and practices across different settings, and combating the threat of antimicrobial resistance through a collaborative One Health approach. CDA seeks to prevent infections from taking root in the first place.
Second, prepare. Our COVID-19 experience has reinforced the need to invest in preparedness and readiness measures. The next pandemic can occur at any time and we must be prepared and stand ready to respond swiftly, flexibly, decisively and effectively. The groundwork for this must be laid during peacetime, drawing upon lessons from past experiences and anticipating future ones; developments and learnings from across the world; and, continuously reviewing and updating our plans and strategies so that they remain relevant.
COVID-19 demonstrated that pandemics can last much longer than previously anticipated. It lasted three years, much longer than the three-months-long response for 2003 SARS and H1N1. It also caused massive societal and economic disruption, far beyond the health sector. We must, therefore, prepare and be ready for a protracted, inter-sectoral, whole-of-Singapore response.
To do this, CDA will lead and coordinate public health preparedness and readiness efforts. It will work with stakeholders from various sectors and agencies to build sectoral readiness against infectious disease crises and to safeguard national interests, such as vaccine and therapeutics development and access. CDA will also work with MOH and healthcare institutions to build capabilities and capacity in key areas, such as laboratory testing and clinical management.
Third, detect. Surveillance is key to this, as continuously monitoring the infectious disease situation locally and internationally allows us to sense-make and identify unusual developments. Early detection of warning signs allows us to respond promptly to mitigate the impact of an outbreak. CDA will strengthen our surveillance capabilities, including exploring the use of new modalities of surveillance, such as through genomic testing and wastewater testing to supplement traditional surveillance approaches, and explore data analytics and artificial intelligence to enhance our ability to make sense of large volumes of data.
Fourth, respond. CDA will investigate and respond to cases and outbreaks of infectious diseases in Singapore. This takes place routinely for endemic diseases and during potential crisis. During a pandemic, the approach and strategy will be driven by MOH, or the equivalent of a Multi-Ministry Taskforce during COVID-19. CDA will provide policy and scientific recommendations, and also work with MOH and other agencies to carry out the operations. These will include a calibrated combination of public health and social measures that include case investigation, contact tracing, masking, physical distancing and border control measures.
Finally, CDA needs to support its function with strategic enablers. One important enabler is research. Research is an important aspect of preparation to ensure a scientifically robust, data-driven response to infectious diseases. For instance, research conducted during COVID-19 allowed us to determine the duration people infected by COVID-19 were likely to remain infectious. This, in turn, informed the duration of isolation for these individuals so as to prevent transmission. CDA will coordinate and conduct public health research. It will make use of the findings from local and international studies and translate research findings into public health and clinical actions and policies.
Another key enabler is international cooperation. The next pandemic is likely to come from abroad. CDA will also engage overseas stakeholders and counterparts to enable Singapore to respond swiftly to rapidly evolving global disease situations. This allows us to access and share information, expertise and the latest developments and best practices in infectious diseases control. This will also allow us to detect international emerging situations of concern earlier and buy us invaluable time to prepare for and implement mitigating measures.
I will now highlight the significant elements of the Communicable Diseases Agency Bill.
Part 1 of the Bill introduces the terms used in various provisions of the Bill. Part 2 establishes CDA as a body corporate with a structure similar to major statutory boards. Within it, clauses 5 and 6 describe the functions and powers of CDA, which are based on what the consolidated MOH, HPB and NCID units do today and what we envisage CDA will do after it is established, which I have described earlier.
Parts 3 to 6 lays out CDA's governance structures and requirements, which are aligned with the requirements under the Public Sector (Governance) Act 2018. They cover the membership, appointment and decision-making procedures of CDA's Board as well as personnel and financial matters.
Part 7 covers miscellaneous provisions necessary for the administration and enforcement of the Bill. Part 8 allows for the transfer of assets, liabilities and employees from relevant MOH and HPB departments or divisions, as laid out in the Schedule, to CDA. As NCID today is part of Tan Tock Seng Hospital, which is a corporate entity, NCID assets, liabilities and employees will be consolidated under CDA through other means, such as via contract novations or direct employment by CDA.
Part 9 will make consequential amendment to other Acts. The key amendment will be to the Infectious Diseases Act 1976, where relevant provisions on vaccinations notifications and vaccination exemptions will be amended to replace HPB with CDA. This reflects the transfer of these functions related to the National Immunisation Registry from HPB today to CDA, after it is established.
Mr Speaker, the Bill presented today sets out the legislative framework to establish the Communicable Diseases Agency. If the Bill is passed, the CDA will be established in the first half of 2025. It will be the lead agency in Singapore to prevent, prepare for, detect and manage infectious diseases and will play a pivotal role in safeguarding Singapore from infectious diseases threats. Sir, I seek 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 to seek clarifications on the Bill establishing the CDA, a move aimed to bolster Singapore's defences against infectious diseases.
First, Mr Speaker, Sir, how can Singaporeans be assured that the CDA will achieve results greater than the sum of its parts? By consolidating critical public health functions from three key institutions under one agency, we aim for efficiency and effectiveness. But the question remains. Will this restructuring translate into tangible public health benefits?
Each of the existing entities hold deep expertise in areas like policy development, surveillance and operational responses. What mechanisms will ensure that the strengths of these institutions are fully leveraged under the CDA's umbrella?
The CDA’s role as a coordinating authority is critical. On-the-ground work will continue to involve multiple players, including public institutions and private contractors. How will the Ministry ensure that CDA has the authority, resources and the tools to harmonise these efforts?
Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have queries about the transfer of employees to CDA. A disruption in essential health services during this transition could have severe repercussions, especially if a disease outbreak occurs. What measures are in place to retrain and upskill employees for the broader mandates of CDA? Ensuring that the workforce is equipped with new skills will be vital for tackling emerging and complex diseases.
The preservation of institutional knowledge is equally important. Employees who have led critical public health initiatives, such as vaccination drives, carry invaluable experience. How will their expertise be retained and their morale maintained during this transition? Additionally, how will union representation be addressed as employees move from the civil service to a statutory board? How many will be affected? What safeguards are in place for those who may decline the transfer? Will their benefits be matched with continuity? How will the National Trades Union Congress be involved?
Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, public health is not the sole responsibility of a single agency. It requires a whole-of-Government approach. CDA must work seamlessly with other agencies, like the National Environment Agency (NEA) to tackle challenges like dengue, which has both environmental and medical dimensions. How will the CDA and NEA collaborate? Could we see the formation of joint task forces or integrated data systems to enhance early detection and coordinated responses? Clear public communication is also critical during outbreaks. Will there be a single, unified messaging platform to ensure that Singaporeans receive accurate and timely information without confusion?
Fourth, Mr Speaker, Sir, infectious diseases know no borders. We know from SARS and, most recently, COVID-19. I am glad to hear from the Minister of State just now that CDA will play an active role in global health initiatives to protect Singaporeans from external threats.
How will the CDA work with international organisations, like the WHO, to share insights and access critical information? Will it participate in joint surveillance systems to identify emerging threats directly and early? Beyond immediate measures, will CDA advocate for stronger international regulations and lead global efforts in pandemic preparedness, including vaccine research and diagnostics?
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, the COVID-19 pandemic and other crises have taught us the devastating impact of infectious diseases on lives, healthcare systems and economies. Resilience in public health is not just desirable, it is essential. The establishment of the CDA offers an opportunity to elevate Singapore’s public health defences. However, we must ensure it delivers on its promise.
The CDA must unite and strengthen public health functions to benefit Singaporeans, ensure a smooth and morale-boosting transition for employees, retaining their expertise, collaborate effectively with agencies, like NEA, to address multi-dimensional health challenges and engage globally to stay ahead of emerging threats.
The current health situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo underscores the urgency of proactive measures. Stricter health screenings and quarantine protocols for travelers from Africa or transit hubs in the Middle East are critical in shielding Singapore from potential risks. Over the past week, an outbreak of HMPV in China and Malaysia have also raised alarms globally.
Most importantly, CDA must prepare Singapore to face \"Disease X\", a potentially unknown pathogen with pandemic potential. Our goal should not just be to respond effectively when the time comes but to anticipate, plan, and build a robust system which mitigates the worst outcomes. CDA must act with foresight, anticipate risks, coordinate responses and build trust with Singaporeans. This agency should not merely serve as a safety net, but as a proactive force that protects lives and inspires confidence. Let us seize this moment to set a new standard in public health. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Sir, the CDA Bill will establish a combined body to oversee communicable diseases. It was one of the key recommendations of the Government's COVID-19 White Paper and its formation was already alluded to in Health Minister Ong Ye Kung's speech during the related debate. I do not propose to revisit the arguments that were made by the Workers' Party then but let me state at the outset that we support this present Bill. We will, nevertheless, offer three additional suggestions on the scope and objectives of the new institution as it commences its service to Singapore.
First, we believe that the emergency preparedness and response mandate of CDA has to be sufficiently broad. This means that the institution should not only be focused on the most stereotypical public health emergencies, which have to do with disease outbreaks like epidemics and pandemics. The CDA should also regard disaster management as a key part of its scenario planning parameters.
While Singapore, thankfully, rarely encounters the standard range of natural disasters, such as earthquakes, tsunamis or wildfires, flooding remains common in spite of advances in our water management infrastructure. While communicable waterborne diseases, such as cholera, are, thankfully, very rare in modern Singapore, cases do sporadically arise as they did in 2009. By a similar token, man-made disasters, such as chemical or, perhaps in the future, radiological incidents, would also potentially have associated disease transmission risks and have to be planned for.
Perhaps more crucially, CDA should also consider the implications of bioterrorist threats, such as smallpox or engineered virus strains. While the Ministry of Defence or the Ministry of Home Affairs would undoubtedly be tasked with how best to counter such attacks, the management of the aftermath of a bioweapons outbreak would logically fall under the scope of the new CDA.
But CDA should not confine its mandate to emergencies alone. Many communicable diseases are ongoing and, possibly, seasonal, such as dengue or influenza. Their routine nature should, however, not diminish their risks. After all, recorded dengue cases island-wide amounted to 13,564 in 2024; and in 2009, an outbreak of the H1N1 strain let to an estimated 270,000 infections and 18 deaths.
This would mean enfolding seemingly mundane tasks, like the provision of educational and informational advisories on communicable disease prevention, into the priorities for the new agency. CDA should be leading public informational campaigns ranging from things that seem mundane like annual flu shots to prevention strategies for HIV. Indeed, it is sometimes the non-clinical aspects of such diseases – ensuring the undisrupted supply chain of masks and other critical medical supplies or regulating appropriate safeguards for close quarter living spaces, which was an acknowledged oversight in our COVID-19 response – that may be the most critical.
We understand, of course, that many of these roles currently fall to different agencies and Ministries. Dengue and Zika, for example, are overseen by NEA; while the various strains of influenza are currently monitored directly by MOH. The Ministry of Trade and Industry will almost inevitably be involved in supply chain matters and foreign worker dormitories currently fall under the purview of the Ministry of Manpower. Research funding for vaccine research would be naturally administered by the National Research Foundation.
Perhaps the Minister of State would be willing to explain how the different roles will be re-allocated going forward if, indeed, the new CDA will have frontline oversight over all communicable diseases. If the new agency will draw on expertise across the whole breadth of Government functions, should clauses 51 through 53 of the Bill, which currently limit employee transfers to only MOH and HPB, should it be more general?
Sir, the mixed tapestry of interlinked Government agencies will mean a whole-of-Government effort. And this, in turn, will mean the need to establish constant channels of communication and coordination, insofar as infectious diseases are concerned. The new CDA must be proactive in this process.
Most evidently, this would be within Singapore, both between Government bodies, but also with allied institutions, such as clinics and hospitals or university research centres. It would also entail coordinating the process of international knowledge and information exchange, an important objective that the Government itself acknowledges and Minister of State Rahayu just alluded to, so that we do not necessarily re-invent the wheel or go down unproductive paths in our scientific and policy decisions.
One common complaint during the COVID-19 pandemic was how information and guidance from MOH seemed to change by the week and releases were often confusing. While we appreciate that the management of an ever-evolving disease is necessarily dynamic, it should not preclude the deployment of simple and reliable communication strategies.
After all, successful communication and coordination was, directly or indirectly, a theme for four of the seven main lessons from the COVID-19 White Paper. With recent lapses in interagency communication surrounding the failed Allianz-Income deal, multiple MRT service disruptions and the most recent Bizfile NRIC leak, it behooves us to ensure that similar breakdowns do not recur in times of crisis when we can least afford it.
Mr Speaker: Dr Wan Rizal.
Dr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. The Bill represents a significant step in strengthening our nation's capabilities to prevent, manage and control infectious diseases. Its importance is underscored by the growing complexity of global health challenges as we saw during the COVID-19 pandemic and the ongoing need to combat diseases, like dengue and influenza.
During COVID-19, for instance, the rapid spread of the virus and the pressure on our healthcare system highlighted the critical need for a robust, centralised agency to manage such crises effectively. The Bill aims to establish CDA, a centralised body coordinating infectious disease management, research, surveillance and public health education.
While I fully support the intent behind this Bill, I would like to raise some questions and seek clarification on key provisions.
First, I would like to address the potential impact of this transition on our existing public health services. The transfer of functions from MOH and HPB to CDA is a significant organisational shift. What measures will the Ministry put in place to ensure that critical services, such as vaccination programmes, epidemiological studies and disease monitoring, continue seamlessly during this period of change? Can the Ministry share a detailed transition plan to mitigate any disruptions or any risks of disruptions? These services are the backbone of our public health framework and any gaps, even temporary ones, could have severe implications for our citizens' health and well-being.
Second, on transparency and accountability. The Bill outlines broad powers for CDA, including managing significant resources and overseeing critical public health functions. Transparency will be essential for maintaining public health in this new agency. What systems will be implemented to ensure CDA operates transparently and is held accountable for its decisions and use of public funds? Secondly, will CDA be required to publish regular performance reviews, financial audits and annual reports for public scrutiny? Public trust in CDA is paramount, especially when it is new and these measures will go a long way to ensure accountability and trust.
Third, on budget allocation and resource prioritisation. CDA's broad mandate raises important questions about the prioritisation of its resources. Balancing immediate needs with long-term growth is critical. I would like to ask: how will the Ministry ensure that CDA allocates resources effectively to meet both immediate outbreak responses and long-term objectives, such as vaccine research and public health education? Could the Ministry provide an outline of its initial funding allocations and provide for CDA to align public expectations with operational realities. Effective resource management will be critical to the success of this agency and clarity in this regard will help in aligning public expectations with operational realities.
Fourth, on employee welfare and transition. I also wish to highlight the importance of protecting the welfare of employees who will be transferred from MOH and HPB to CDA. Our healthcare workers have been instrumental in safeguarding our nation's health, especially during the pandemic.
Beyond the assurances provided in the Bill, what steps will the Ministry take to address long-term concerns around career progression, job security, work benefits and the morale of these employees? Will there be a structured consultation process to address employees' concerns during this transition? These employees are the foundation of CDA's operations and their welfare should remain a top priority to ensure a smooth transition and continued excellence in public health services.
Finally, on international representation. The Bill empowers CDA to represent Singapore internationally on matters related to infectious diseases. This international engagement is crucial for fostering global partnerships and ensuring our policies are aligned with best practices worldwide.
During the pandemic, a multi-agency task force was set up to coordinate responses across various sectors. How will CDA's international engagement impact or complement such multi-agency efforts? To avoid overlap or misalignment with existing strategies, could the Ministry clarify how CDA's international engagements will complement ongoing work by MOH and other agencies? Could the Ministry also share the specific coordination mechanisms that will be established to ensure streamlined communication and unified representation on the global stage? Such protocols will enhance our credibility and effectiveness in global health matters.
Mr Speaker, in closing, CDA represents a significant step in enhancing our public health infrastructure. The establishment of CDA offers an opportunity to not only strengthen our infectious diseases management capabilities but also reaffirm our commitment to transparency, accountability and the welfare of those who will serve in this critical agency.
Let us take a moment to acknowledge the dedication of our healthcare workers who have tirelessly protected our nation. Their resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic exemplifies the spirit we aim to preserve and enhance with CDA.
Notwithstanding the clarifications raised, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Rahayu.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam: Mr Speaker, I thank Members for their support and for their comments and questions on the Bill.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the mechanisms to ensure that CDA will be able to leverage the strengths of MOH, HPB and NCID fully, given that each of these entities already hold deep expertise in various aspects of public health.
CDA will harness the collective expertise of MOH, HPB and NCID, fostering closer teamwork and synergy. We will create an ecosystem where public health practitioners can share knowledge and solve problems together. We will also be strengthening both our capabilities and capacities for communicable disease prevention, control and response. Under CDA, these talented professionals will have greater opportunities to grow, learn from one another and raise standards in public health practice.
We are focused on continuity of operations. As Dr Wan Rizal rightly pointed out, critical public health functions must continue seamlessly.
Since the Minister for Health's announcement of CDA's formation in March 2023, we have ensured a smooth transition, with our public health operations remaining robust and effective throughout this period of change. In end 2023, we established the interim CDA as a pre-operations structure, where critical functions, including disease surveillance, monitoring and investigations, can steadily transit and continue to operate effectively. We have also worked on refining our work processes to enhance critical public health functions and activities.
Next, I will move on to other questions posed by Members.
Dr Wan Rizal and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the measures in place to protect and develop staff. We have been conducting regular engagement sessions with staff and unions to provide information and seek feedback. Throughout this transition, we have consulted with the respective organisations and the Public Service Division.
The new CDA scheme is designed to support the professional growth, career progression and development of CDA's officers. To grow expertise, CDA will provide structured learning opportunities to equip officers with the relevant competencies to perform their jobs effectively. CDA officers will also be given opportunities to rotate to other roles and functions within CDA, across the wider healthcare or public service family, and even obtain international exposure.
Dr Wan Rizal, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim also asked about CDA's role in multi-agency coordination. As part of the transition, we have ensured that CDA's work aligns with national policies. CDA will continue to work closely with MOH and other public agencies. For instance, today we work closely with NEA to mitigate the impact of vector-borne diseases like dengue fever, with the Singapore Food Agency on food safety and with the National Parks Board on diseases that may affect both animals and humans.
These collaborations are part of a multi-agency cooperation framework termed \"One Health\". CDA will continue to work with the One Health agencies as part of a multi-sectoral, integrated approach to prevent, detect and respond to new and emerging public health threats.
Our preparedness and response plans for \"Disease X\", as asked by Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, also includes tapping on the whole-of-Government agencies. This recognises the wide impact of outbreaks and pandemics, and the need for a multi-pronged effort.
Working with other Ministries and agencies is not just during a crisis, but also during non-crisis periods. This is part of our efforts to enhance Singapore's preparedness and readiness for pandemics, and also for the control of endemic diseases.
To enhance communication and coordination, CDA will build upon existing platforms and strengthen information exchanges with all stakeholders, including timely sharing of important information with the public.
Both Dr Wan Rizal and Mr Yip Hon Weng have asked about CDA's role in the area of international engagement, including working with organisations, such as WHO to advance our public health interests. As diseases know no borders, CDA will represent Singapore on infectious diseases at relevant fora to establish strategic collaborations with our bilateral and multilateral counterparts, and to bolster global disease preparedness and response.
CDA will also contribute actively to international scientific and surveillance networks to facilitate the exchange of disease information and sharing of expertise. This will allow Singapore to detect and understand novel pathogens faster, which can buy us time to respond. For instance, as the National Focal Point for WHO's International Health Regulations, CDA will be the primary point of contact for WHO and other countries on disease outbreak, notification and information sharing.
Upon establishment, CDA will also be a national member of the International Association of National Public Health Institutes to closely engage and collaborate with other national public health institutes worldwide.
On Assoc Prof Jamus Lim's point about expanding to disaster management, the CDA's aims is to focus on communicable diseases, as its expertise is in this area. For natural or man-made disasters, MOH and other Ministries already have the capabilities to respond to them. CDA will work together with these Ministries and agencies on the communicable disease issues that will arise.
Given CDA's mandate for end-to-end disease prevention, preparation, detection and management, it will need sufficient support for its manpower and resources to achieve its objectives. As a Statutory Board under MOH, the CDA will be accountable to the Minister for Health in the performance of its functions. CDA will also comply with the financial governance requirements under Public Sector (Governance) Act 2018.
Mr Speaker, to conclude, CDA will play a vital role in strengthening our nation's preparedness and resilience against future infectious diseases threats. With that, Sir, I seek to move.
Mr Speaker: Any Members have clarifications for the Minister of State? None.
[(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. – [Ms Rahayu Mahzam]. (proc text)]
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
The Chairman: The citation year \"2024\" will be changed to \"2025\", as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.
[(proc text) Clauses 1 to 55 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill 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":"Workplace Fairness Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng): Mr Speaker, I move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
We currently address workplace discrimination complaints under the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices, or TGFEP, through the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices, or TAFEP. This framework has worked well for us thus far. Most employers have fair employment practices and our surveys show a declining trend of workplace discrimination over the years.
However, we are also contending with an ageing population and economic headwinds. Amidst these demographic and economic realities, a complementary foreign workforce remains important to Singapore's continued economic success as well as ensuring good jobs and good wages for locals. But we are also clear that these benefits will only accrue to Singaporeans if there is a level playing field that prevents discriminatory practices. This allows all employees to grasp the opportunities in our vibrant economy.
So, even as we have made progress, we must not take our generally harmonious and fair workplace conditions for granted. Instead, we should take proactive steps to ensure that employees and jobseekers in Singapore continue to be assured of fair treatment in the workplace.
This Workplace Fairness Bill has therefore been designed to improve protections against workplace discrimination, while preserving our fair and harmonious workplace norms. It is the result of close cooperation amongst tripartite partners – the Government, the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and the Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF) – to develop a balanced approach. We have taken in the Labour Movement's feedback, such as through the Professionals, Managers and Executives, or PME, Taskforce and Every Worker Matters Conversations.
At the same time, we have taken note of SNEF's views on the need to provide operational flexibility for employers, so they can apply fair employment practices while meeting genuine business needs. The Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness also consulted widely. We have held more than 70 in-person engagements, with more than 2,000 individuals from all walks of life – including unions, workers, employers, human resources (HR) and legal professionals, and civil society and community organisations.
We have also studied other countries with anti-discrimination laws. And there are a couple of observations. First, different countries have different national contexts and so, the laws are not quite comparable across countries. For example, the characteristics that are legally protected and how disputes are legally resolved, differ from country to country. Second, introducing such laws is complex, and well-meaning legal protections for workers can have unintended consequences that end up hurting workers. For instance, if employers become more reluctant to hire certain groups or the laws result in protracted litigation between employers and employees.
We have taken the time to consult and study these experiences carefully, instead of rushing to introduce and implement the Bill, because we want to keep our hard-earned harmony in our workplaces and society. The comprehensive process that we have gone through and the effort we have made to understand different stakeholder groups give us confidence that the Bill strikes the right balance for now. At the end of the day, employers must fundamentally be able to hire employees based on the skills and attributes that support their business needs. What we want to achieve is to ensure that jobseekers and employees are evaluated fairly based on those skills and those attributes.
Even as we take this next step in our workplace fairness journey, please also let me emphasise upfront that Workplace Fairness Legislation (WFL) is not a panacea. Rather, it is an additional layer of protection that allows us to take certain actions against the more frequently encountered forms of workplace discrimination where there is societal consensus today. It is a measured approach that seeks to preserve our current workplace norms and guard against divisions in our workplaces and society.
I will now cover how the Bill will: first, strengthen protections for jobseekers and employees against discrimination, while retaining flexibility for employers; second, provide grievance handling processes to promote better communication and amicable resolution of issues; and third, complement our education-first approach, with calibrated levers, to deal with the small number of bad employers who persist in egregious discrimination.
Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first share the overarching principles that underpin the protections in this Bill. Singapore is a meritocracy and employers here must hire and assess workers based on their ability to do the job well. Every worker should also have the opportunity to develop their potential, without employment decisions being distorted by discriminatory biases. So, let me explain how the Bill gives effect to this.
The Bill prohibits employers from making an adverse employment decision on the ground of a protected characteristic. Under clause 17 read with clauses 5, 6, and 7, employers are prohibited from choosing not to hire someone, or giving them a poor performance appraisal, denying a promotion or training opportunity or dismissing them because the jobseeker or employee has a protected characteristic.
The Bill will also prohibit company policies or job advertisements that discriminate on the ground of a protected characteristic under clauses 18 and 19.
After extensive consultations, we have decided on a more nuanced and calibrated approach by first starting with five categories of protected characteristics under clause 8. These are areas where there is broad societal consensus and we have national policy imperatives to prevent discrimination against in the workplace. Together, they account for more than 95% of discrimination complaints received by TAFEP and the Ministry of Manpower (MOM). This provides some assurance that we have the requisite experience and the capabilities to handle such cases under WFL, without disrupting business operations or workplace harmony.
The first category is age. The Bill protects age discrimination because all workers, young and old, deserve to be assessed based on how well they do their jobs rather than their age. For instance, employers should not assume that an older worker or an older person has less strength than a young person to carry out manual tasks. At the same time, we also recognise that senior workers are disproportionately impacted by age discrimination. Given our ageing population, we must empower our senior workers to contribute to our workforce if they wish to, for as long as they remain productive and continue learning and refreshing their skills. So, this is why an exception under clause 21 provides employers with the flexibility if they intend to tap on these seniors' experience and expertise and retain them in the workforce. At the same time, we also know that the law can only go so far in preventing discriminatory practices and we will continue our efforts to dispel negative stereotypes and create more age-inclusive workplaces.
The second category is nationality. Many Singaporeans understand the economic case for why we need foreigners. They grow the economic pie by anchoring companies and investments that create better prospects for Singaporean workers and businesses. Other countries also know this. They have been competing hard to attract more global talent so that they can anchor global and regional functions, cutting-edge technology and skills in emerging industries. Without foreigners to complement our local workforce, we will lose out on better jobs, higher wages and stronger business opportunities. So, it is essential that we remain open, connected and welcoming to global talent and to businesses that can make our team stronger.
At the same time, we recognise the lived experiences and concerns of Singaporeans about whether foreigners are taking over their jobs. From time to time, we hear of biased employment preferences for specific nationalities. We have been taking strong measures to counter such discriminatory practices to ensure that our locals are treated fairly.
The Bill is our next step to further strengthen protections for Singaporeans and ensure a fair playing field. It will enable us to take stronger action against nationality discrimination. We have also gone a step further in clause 22, to provide an exception that will allow employers to make employment decisions based on whether the person is part of the local workforce. This means employers will be given the flexibility to strengthen their local workforce core, to build stronger local networks and greater resilience to disruptions like the recent pandemic and, hence, achieve stronger business outcomes.
Separately, clause 26 codifies into law the existing Fair Consideration Framework (FCF) job advertisement requirements and the duty to fairly consider candidates. By doing so, we will have a greater range of enforcement levers calibrated to the severity of the breaches and further deter discriminatory employers.
The third category is sex, marital status, pregnancy and caregiving responsibilities. Based on earlier feedback, including from the Conversations on Singapore Women's Development, these areas are important to ensure fair, merit-based treatment for men and women alike and to support our national marriage and parenthood objectives. So, this is why the Bill protects against discrimination on the basis of sex, which under clause 10 refers to the sex that is legally assigned to the individual, either at birth or post re-assignment.
While we have made progress, women continue to be underrepresented in areas, such as science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) fields and leadership roles. Women in STEM jobs were 29% in 2013. However, this improved to 34% in 2023 over a 10-year horizon. Women's participation on the boards of the top 100 Singapore Exchange-listed companies is currently 25%. We recognise that this could be due to an interplay of many social and economic factors. The Government will keep working hard to empower women to fulfil their aspirations and we hope this Bill can contribute towards our efforts for a more balanced representation of men and women across sectors and across occupations.
The protection for caregivers is in line with the Government's efforts to build a family-friendly environment in support of both fathers and mothers, in their marriage and parenthood journey, especially to signal the important role fathers play as an equal partner in the care of their children. It will also support the greater care needs for our ageing population.
The fourth category is race, religion and language ability. While racial and religious harmony is part of our long-standing societal values, we still hear that some members of the minority races face racial discrimination at the workplace. This Bill protects against such discriminatory biases. For instance, employers cannot assume that a person of another race does not know Malay or Mandarin. This will send a strong statement that racial and religious discrimination are not acceptable in Singapore.
Relatedly, clause 23 affords religious groups with some flexibility to make employment decisions for roles that are religious in nature, such as imams and priests, and roles related to the running of religious institutions, while preserving common space for secular jobs. This is appropriate in view of Singapore's multi-religious society and the longstanding role that religious groups play in our social fabric.
The fifth category is disability and mental health conditions. The Bill complements the Government's Enabling Masterplan 2030 by prohibiting discrimination against disabilities. Clause 24 also provides an exception to facilitate greater employment opportunities for this group by allowing employers to favour persons with disabilities in their hiring decisions.
We have also received feedback on the importance of employers making accommodations for persons with disabilities to participate in the workforce. To this end, we are working on a Tripartite Advisory for Reasonable Accommodations to raise awareness and to provide practical guidance to employers. We hope this will help to bring the concept of reasonable accommodations into the mainstream employment space. This greater public awareness will lay the foundation for future moves as part of our Enabling Masterplan, to further support persons with disabilities.
For persons with mental health conditions, this Bill recognises that they are more likely to face challenges at the workplace. As raised multiple times in Parliament, mental health issues are a growing challenge, both in Singapore and globally. We must take an evidence-based approach to mental health issues at the workplace, rather than perpetuate stigmas that limit the potential contributions of these fellow members of our society.
Let me also explain our approach, given questions on why we have not covered discrimination against more or even all characteristics, or indirect discrimination. Like us, other jurisdictions, such as Australia and Hong Kong, also have a positive list of protected characteristics as it is not practicable to legislate broad principles without causing uncertainty. Just as each jurisdiction has its own bespoke set of protected characteristics, we decided on each protected characteristic for their own policy reasons which I have shared earlier, such as supporting our older workers to contribute to our ageing workforce amidst demographic constraints and reaffirming racial and religious harmony as part of our key societal values.
It is also important to note that discrimination can arise in many ways. It is a complex and nuanced topic which engages various socio-economic issues. For instance, indirect discrimination is when an employer takes an apparently neutral action that disadvantages people with a protected characteristic in practice. It can impose very wide legal obligations that can create uncertainty and litigiousness for both employers and employees and we have seen cases overseas where employers who had standardised ability tests were challenged because certain racial groups tended to fare worse than others. So, examples like this remind us why it is important that our laws are not overly prescriptive. This is to avoid undermining labour market flexibility and inhibiting our ability to leverage our long-standing and successful model of labour relations to manage such complex issues.
So, we have designed this Bill knowing it cannot be the only tool to tackle all forms of workplace discrimination. Instead, this Bill starts on a more scoped and surer footing to ensure that we can preserve the precious workplace and social harmony that we enjoy today, while remaining open to future updates to the list of protected characteristics. The Bill complements TGFEP, which will enable TAFEP to tackle workplace discrimination based on all other characteristics.
Internationally, this approach of having a law to cover certain protected characteristics with a more flexible tool to cover all other characteristics is quite unique. It enables any employee who faces discrimination to seek support and is only made possible because of good tripartite relations and strong institutions, like TAFEP. We will also update TGFEP in tandem with the WFL's implementation to ensure alignment. Sir, I would like to reiterate to all employees: if you are facing workplace discrimination, MOM and TAFEP will support you. You will not be turned away simply because it is not a protected characteristic. TGFEP will continue to cover all forms of workplace discrimination.
Next, I will talk about how the Bill provides room for genuine business needs. Clause 20 sets out the ways that employers can legitimately consider protected characteristics when making employment decisions. Let me give some examples to explain how they may work in practice. First, for the reasonable performance of the job. For example, an employer can consider if a jobseeker is fluent in a particular language for the role of an interpreter. Second, for health and safety reasons, to protect employees and the people around them. For instance, a security company can consider whether an officer with a recently diagnosed but untreated case of depression can carry firearms, for the safety of the officer and for others. Third, for reasons of privacy. For instance, a spa can choose to hire female therapists to serve their female clientele. Fourth, for legal and regulatory reasons. For example, a bus company may only hire bus driver trainees above 21 years old because this is the regulatory age needed to obtain a bus driver's vocational licence.
In designing these flexibilities, we also want to assure employers that they will not run afoul of the law if they need to make employment decisions based on requirements set by the Government, such as those involving public safety or national security.
Mr Speaker, Sir, when grievances arise, open communication is vital to help employers and employees to preserve the relationship and avoid further misunderstandings. Let me now talk about how the Bill will require employers to put in place grievance handling processes and provide stronger protection from retaliation for employees who step forward.
First, grievance handling processes. TAFEP has seen disputes arise from miscommunication that could have been easily or quickly resolved if the parties had discussed openly from the start. Workplace disputes should, where possible, be resolved within the firm itself. This encourages employers and employees to settle differences more amicably whilst minimising disruptions and it also builds trust.
Today, six in 10 firms already have formal procedures to manage workplace discrimination. Most firms are fair and equitable workplaces. By making a push for firms to put in place processes to handle grievances professionally and sensitively, we can help these employers ensure that genuine cases do not fall through the cracks. Grievance handling processes will also help to build trust by providing a safe space to have conversations about sensitive or difficult issues.
Clause 27 of the Bill requires firms to inquire into the grievance they have received, review it and inform the employee of the result. Throughout the process, the employer must also protect the employee's confidentiality to the extent possible.
The Bill focuses on ensuring that employers have a grievance handling process in place and it refrains from being overly prescriptive on the detailed requirements. This approach is a pragmatic, practical and a sensible one, given the diversity of firms in our economy – a process that works for a technology startup with 30 employees might not work for a construction company with 300 employees or a bank with 3,000 employees. The grievance handling requirement will serve as a baseline requirement that most of our employees can benefit from. Unions will continue to play a key role in setting the right norms, educating workers about their rights and amicably resolving disputes.
For firms that do not already have such processes in place, TAFEP has prepared accessible and practical resources and templates. For instance, there is a Grievance Handling Handbook on TAFEP's website that provides details on internal grievance handling procedures. TAFEP is also working on a new e-learning courseware to guide employers on how to implement the grievance handling process.
At the same time, we know formal processes alone may not be sufficient. In MOM's 2023 survey, we saw a decline in the proportion of employees who sought help after experiencing discrimination, despite a rise in firms with formal procedures. Employees were worried about impacting their work relationships or careers.
Clause 28 of the Bill provides better assurance by prohibiting employers from retaliating against those that file complaints and claims. The message we want to send out is clear: we will not hesitate to take action against employers that retaliate against those who raise valid grievances and employees should therefore feel safe to bring them up.
Beyond these formal legal protections, MOM and TAFEP will continue our longer-term educational efforts so that employers and employees see the value of keeping communications and attitudes open.
Beyond grievance handling and retaliation, we also received suggestions including on workplace harassment issues in the WFL. In Singapore, we have a multi-pronged approach to address harassment issues, including in the workplace. There are criminal offences under the Protection from Harassment Act and the Penal Code. We also have a Tripartite Advisory on Managing Workplace Harassment. The grievance handling processes required under this Bill can also be used by victims of workplace harassment, to surface their cases to employers for resolution. Beyond this, the tripartite partners have agreed to develop a Tripartite Standard to complement the existing Tripartite Advisory, that will guide and encourage employers to adopt best practices in this area. This bolsters our educational efforts and complements our current legal protections, to create safer workplaces.
What if in spite of all that, the employer and employee are unable to settle their differences within the firm? While an employee should first bring up the issue to the firm, not every instance of communication and conciliation within the firm will be successful. In such cases, the employee can decide if they wish to make a private employment claim under the Bill. We will introduce a second Bill later to provide this option for claimants.
Today's Bill is the first of two Bills and will cover the substantive rights and obligations under the WFL. We have chosen to introduce it early so that employers can have more time to prepare themselves for the new law. The second Bill will pertain more specifically to how private employment claims can be made for workplace discrimination. It will take us some time to work through the details, which are complex and novel, on how such claims are adjudicated. If both Bills are passed, we intend to implement the WFL sometime in 2026 or 2027.
But let me give Members a preview and share the broad approach towards private claims, which was recommended by the Tripartite Committee.
For cases that cannot be resolved through the firms' grievance handling process, we intend for the parties to go through mediation before a workplace discrimination claim proceeds. As with all employment disputes, adjudication is a last resort. This preserves a non-litigious culture, encourages open communication and trust and achieves better outcomes for everyone.
Today, the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT) already hears employment claims, such as for wrongful dismissals. It adopts a judge-led approach focused on resolving the dispute quickly, privately and amicably. We are studying how we can empower the ECT to hear workplace discrimination claims with the same principles as far as possible, while deterring frivolous and vexatious claims against employers with the appropriate safeguards.
Let me now turn to the Government's education and enforcement efforts. We will educate on what is discrimination, what is not discrimination, such as when language proficiency is a business requirement, and what to do where there is discrimination. We will illustrate with examples and provide accessible channels of advice and support. Most employers are responsible and comply with TGFEP. They will not see a heavy increase in their obligations. The WFL is not about making it more difficult or burdensome for these employers or companies to operate. Instead, what it does is that it provides employers with greater certainty on the rules and expectations, so that they know how to act.
On the education and capability building front, TAFEP is working closely with partners like SNEF, the Institute for Human Resource Professionals (IHRP), the Singapore Human Resources Institute and the Association of Small and Medium Enterprises. TAFEP has set up a one-stop resource webpage for employers, employees and HR professionals. There will also be briefings, clinics and webinars, including those catered to small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Finally, there will be training resources for companies and HR to incorporate into their own in-house corporate training, including tapping on the IHRP-certified HR community to share best practices for SME employers.
MOM will continue to support firms on this journey by helping employers that may be in breach of the WFL to understand their obligations and to rectify the breach. In line with our educational approach, we will provide time for employers to prepare themselves for the new legislation. This is why we have chosen to introduce this first Bill earlier.
We also recognise that small firms may have limited capabilities and resources, and that this can make full compliance from day one difficult. Clause 4 of the Bill exempts firms with fewer than 25 employees, who will be given more time to build up their capabilities before the WFL requirements apply to them. We will review this in five years after the law is implemented. In the meantime, the TGFEP will continue to apply to these small firms. So, it does not mean that we are going to tolerate discrimination because the same guidelines within the TGFEP will continue to apply to these small firms.
For the small number of errant employers that blatantly flout the rules, the Bill empowers the Government to take enforcement action based on the severity of the breach. Part 7 provides calibrated levers that balance between effective deterrence and rehabilitation. For less severe breaches, these include directions to attend educational workshops and administrative financial penalties imposed by MOM. For the more severe breaches, MOM can bring the offenders to Court to recommend heavier civil penalties. To be clear, there are enforcement actions that the Government can take, which are in addition to the private claims that employees can make. Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to say a few words in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Our current fair and harmonious workplace norms did not come by easily. Therefore, the Workplace Fairness Bill will protect these norms. We have considered the experiences of other countries and recognise the complexity of introducing this legislation.
Protecting workplace and social harmony requires striking an appropriate balance to avoid creating a litigious culture in the workplace. Thus, the Bill is not a panacea. It provides an additional layer of protection to ensure employers evaluate and hire employees fairly based on work capabilities.
The Bill will strengthen existing workplace protections, ensuring employees and job seekers are not discriminated due to age, nationality, sex, marital or pregnancy status, caregiving responsibilities, race, religion, language, disability or mental health conditions.
The Bill will also stipulate protective measures for handling disputes, allowing employees to report discriminatory behaviours without fear.
For businesses, the Bill ensures that employers can make hiring decisions based on genuine business needs. This includes considering whether job applicants can fulfil job responsibilities. Employers may also decide not to hire certain employees for health and safety reasons or regulatory requirements.
Small businesses with fewer than 25 employees will be temporarily exempted from the Bill for the first five years after implementation, giving them more time to adapt to the new regulations.
There is an old saying, \"The law is not separate from human sentiment\", meaning that legal principles must be established according to common sense and human nature.
We understand that most employers adopt fair employment practices and understand the importance of a harmonious workplace. Therefore, after the new Bill takes effect, we will adopt an education-first approach, guiding employers to correct their behaviour rather than imposing penalties immediately. Only employers who commit serious violations will face fines or be prosecuted in Court.
Mr Speaker: Minister, you are almost reaching your speech limit. If you are going to stretch it a bit more, I will ask the Deputy Leader to raise the Motion.
Dr Tan See Leng: I think it is five more minutes. I do not know whether I will exceed the five minutes.
Mr Speaker: Alright. Deputy Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Time Limit for Minister's Speech","subTitle":"Suspension of Standing Orders","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of Minister Tan See Leng's speech?
Mr Speaker: I give my consent. Does the Deputy Leader of the House have the general assent of hon Members present to so move?
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
[(proc text) With the consent of Mr Speaker and the general assent of Members present, question put and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of Minister Tan See Leng's speech\". – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad.] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Workplace Fairness Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Dr Tan, you may proceed.
Dr Tan See Leng: Thank you. Mr Speaker, Sir, given the significance of this Bill, please allow me to attempt to say a few words in Malay. To my Malay speaking colleagues and friends, please pardon my errors in delivery and pronunciation.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Workplace Fairness legislation will help preserve and enhance the fair and harmonious norms that have worked well thus far. After studying the experiences in other countries, we recognise the complexities in introducing such laws. We want to preserve our hard-earned harmony in the workplace and in society.
We also do not want to make the workplace a litigious environment. So, this WFL is not a panacea. Instead, it is an additional layer of measured protection that helps to ensure workers are evaluated and hired based on their abilities and not discriminatory biases. For employees and jobseekers, this Bill sends a strong message – everyone has an opportunity to fulfil their potential at work.
It will ensure that there is recourse available and no worker should have to suffer in silence – such as in cases where they face racial or religious discrimination at work. This law also ensures that employers retain the flexibility to make decisions based on genuine business needs.
At the same time, we will afford religious groups some flexibility to make employment decisions based on religion. Meanwhile, we will preserve the common space for secular jobs. We recognise that most employers have adopted fair employment practices and want to do the right thing. Notwithstanding this new legislation, we will take an education-first approach. We will only take action against employers that blatantly flout the rules.
(In English): To conclude, while this Bill is not a silver bullet for upholding workplace fairness, it will enhance our current model of promoting fair and harmonious workplaces in a way that is tailored to our local context. It will encourage an atmosphere of trust and openness where issues on workplace discrimination can be raised safely and resolved amicably. In doing so, we aim to preserve, we aim to reinforce and to improve our existing workplace norms on fair and harmonious workplaces.
Beyond the WFL and TGFEP, we need to cultivate the right mindsets and a shared understanding that everyone benefits from a fairer workplace. The tripartite partners are committed to continuing our efforts at nurturing these mindsets and norms in the workplaces and beyond.
We welcome everyone to join us in this whole-of-society effort to build fairer and more harmonious workplaces together. Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek to move. [Applause.]
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Before I call the first speaker to kick off the debate, Deputy Leader, would you like to move the Motion on Exempted Business?
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exempted Business","subTitle":"Business Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2.\" – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad.] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Workplace Fairness Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, when the Workers' Party (WP) participated in the General Election of 2020 to seek a mandate from Singaporeans, the call to introduce anti-discrimination legislation was an important proposal in the party manifesto. Separately, and for some years now, several Members of Parliament on both sides of the House have also called for such legislation.
But as late as 2018, MOM spoke out against the codification of the Tripartite Guidelines for Fair Employment Practices into legislation. It argued that doing so would not lead to superior employment outcomes and, separately, that the specific anti-discrimination legislation may have the unintended consequence of deterring businesses from hiring workers because these businesses would become fearful of dismissing workers without legitimate reasons.
I spoke at some length about the importance of such legislation in my first speech as Leader of the Opposition in 2020 during the debate after the opening of Parliament.
Mr Speaker, the reality is that the spirit of any anti-discrimination legislation does far more than just supporting and helping workers. This Bill sends a fundamental and powerful message. It speaks to how the state deals with where Singaporeans stand at workplaces in their own country. It speaks to how the state recognises multi-racialism, especially when minorities form about 25% of the population. It is a powerful signal, particularly when one considers the domestic context over the last decades. This would include the fears of some Singaporeans becoming second class citizens in their own country, where some believe job prospects are better if you are a foreigner on an Employment Pass (EP) than a local born or naturalised Singaporean.
Mr Speaker, the WP supports the Workplace Fairness Bill. I will speak on some issues the Bill raises and seek clarifications on some others. My colleagues, Sylvia Lim, He Ting Ru, Faisal Manap and Louis Chua will also speak on this important Bill.
First, on clause 3, which covers the purpose of the Bill. It states four purposes to this proposed legislation.
First, to protect individuals from discrimination by employers on the grounds of the protected characteristics listed in clause 8, covering age, nationality, sex, marital status, pregnancy, caregiving responsibilities, race, religion, language, ability, disability and mental health conditions.
Second, it establishes fair employment practices, including the codification of the Fair Employment Framework and legislating how employers handle grievances.
Third, and very significantly, in my view, it ensures that Singaporeans and Permanent Residents (PRs) are fairly considered for employment opportunities and continue to form the core of the workforce in Singapore, with foreigners as a complement.
Finally, to preserve harmonious workplace relations. Where does this Bill leave foreigners who are critical complementary components in many sectors of the economy? The Bill correctly offers wide and significant protections to them as well, notwithstanding clause 22. Clause 22 reads that it is not discrimination to say that an employment opportunity is for a Singaporean or PR at the expense of someone who is a foreigner. It is a simple exception, worded in the negative but clear in its intent.
Employers should always aim to recruit Singaporeans and PRs first. This must be so. Otherwise, how do we build and sustain a united people and nation heavily reliant on immigration, which is a fault line in many parts of the world? How do we convince Singaporeans that their National Service commitments are not in vain? How do we convince them that the state will always have their backs?
Hence, employers should not see this legislation just as an administrative process, or worse, a burden. It is far more important than that. I would even go so far as to say that it is a critical piece of legislation with a view towards nation building in the years to come, where many of our challenges will be domestic.
Mr Speaker, the Bill is also significant in how it seeks to achieve certain important goals and to balance the relationship between workers and employers. It covers discrimination, not just with respect to hiring decisions but to in-employment decisions, such as performance appraisals, promotions, training opportunities and finally, dismissals.
On the protected characteristics or the specific discriminatory grounds set out, Part 3 of the Bill seeks to define the meaning of eight out of 11 characteristics. Clauses 9 to 16 seek to clarify the ambit of these characteristics and must be read with exceptions at Part 5 to be properly contextualised and understood by workers.
Employers are allowed to consider a discriminatory hire if there are genuine job requirements on the grounds of age, in favour of citizens and PRs, on religious grounds and on grounds of disability.
In the main, the exceptions are fair and practical and they provide significant operating space for employers to make employment decisions in the best interest of their corporate entities and companies. However, I found the explanatory statement to clause 17(3) intuitively problematic and odd, especially since this Bill addresses discrimination. This clause deals with what is commonly referred to as \"associated discrimination\" and it reads, \"an employment decision made only on the ground of a protected characteristic of a relative or an associate of the individual is not discrimination\".
This reads rather innocently until one peruses the explanatory statement to the clause at the end of the Bill, which reads, I quote, \"An employer does not discriminate against A if the employer dismisses A on the ground of the race of A's husband.\"
Prima facie and without more, this explanation makes it clear to me, at least, that A's employer is a racist. What has the race of A's husband got to do with A's employment and dismissal? By extension, other extreme examples that would not be out of place here would be when A chooses to fire the worker if the worker's spouse is a foreigner, or their parents are too old, or the child or A's child is mentally disabled.
These examples show how mind-boggling discrimination by association can be insofar as the explanatory statement is concerned. Can the Minister clarify what this clause seeks to achieve in favour of an employer with concrete examples from TAFEP's history, given that TAFEP has been around for close to 20 years? These examples may be more useful than explaining what is sought to be achieved by this clause.
Workers must note that for practical purposes, they would need to secure evidence to lodge a workplace fairness claim. I note the Tripartite Committee's Workplace Fairness legislation final report which listed two key requirements to that end. First, the claimant or the worker should clearly cite the incident that led him or her to believe that he or she suffered an adverse employment outcome because of a protected characteristic, and the cited incident should show how the consideration of the discriminatory action, for example, on the grounds of age or nationality led to that adverse employment outcome.
The report also says that documentary evidence, such as emails, mobile phone messages and oral testimonies, which are signed by witnesses, will strengthen the claim. This is from the workers' perspective.
These requirements are likely to be a bridge too far for many workers, and discriminations on the grounds of the protected characteristics may be quite difficult to prove, particularly at the moment of employment. I would be grateful if the Minister could share some examples of how TAFEP helped workers who made such complaints on the grounds of nationality and age at the moment of employment, were successfully resolved.
I choose nationality and age because these are the two characteristics which rank highest in terms of complaints by workers on the grounds. These examples would help workers appreciate the evidentiary threshold that has to be overcome to succeed in a claim.
To this end, the Tripartite Committee's report does list out some helpful examples that would be useful to guide workers. In the absence of illustrations in the Bill, it would be important for these examples to be profiled and updated, as appropriate, on easily accessible public resources on a public service website or channel, not just for the convenience of workers and employees, but for a more realistic understanding of what is perceived to be discrimination as envisaged by this legislation. The fact that not all the illustrations in the Committee's report are automatically determinative of discrimination is a reminder that proving workplace discrimination is not always straightforward and many workers will also have to be alive to the reality of indirect discrimination. The prospect of indirect discrimination was raised by my colleague Sengkang Group Representation Constituency (GRC) Member of Parliament Ms He Ting Ru in a Parliamentary Question (PQ) in 2023.
The Bill before the House does not cover indirect discrimination as the Tripartite Committee opined that it would impose very wide legal obligations on employers, resulting in uncertainty for both employers and employees. In addition, there was a concern of an overly legalistic relationship between employer and employee.
While this perspective is not completely without merit, it must be remembered there could be some cases of employment decisions that arise out of norms, culture or processes that are nonetheless discriminatory. This would be one area to monitor closely going forward to better support workers who are commonly in a more inferior bargaining position compared to their bosses and employers, who exert significant control over them.
I note that TAFEP will welcome complaints covering indirect discrimination, even if this Bill does not list indirect discrimination as a protected characteristic. To complement the Bill, it would be critical for TAFEP to list out examples of such indirect discrimination going forward, which it should profile publicly. My colleagues, Sengkang GRC Members of Parliament, Ms He Ting Ru and Mr Louis Chua will speak on the development of the common law with regard to indirect discrimination in other jurisdictions, which have a longer history of hosting anti-discrimination legislation to better address such problems. They will also speak on the important subject of reasonable accommodations, including for workers who are differently abled.
Sir, MOM's press release on the First Reading of the Bill in November last year states that small firms with fewer than 25 employees will be exempt from this Bill and that tripartite partners will monitor the situation and review the exception in five years time. If this Bill comes into force in 2026, for example, it follows that all our workplaces will only be covered in 2031 at the earliest. My colleague, Ms Sylvia Lim, will speak on this issue of timing and other matters in her speech.
This exemption was the subject matter of my PQ to MOM in 2023, when I enquired how many discrimination-related complaints were made by workers and employees working in companies with a headcount of less than 25. While the intent of MOM is that firms with less than 25 workers will continue to be covered by the guidelines, the Minister confirmed that between 2018 and 2022, 35% of workplace discrimination complaints were received from workers working in firms with a headcount of less than 25. This is not an insignificant number and I have some queries in this regard.
For clarity, can the Minister confirm if the threshold number of 25 is to be understood on a group basis for companies that have a holding company and multiple corporate entities for corporate planning and risk management purposes, but effectively operate as one entity or for an individual corporate entity, such as a company? And in addition to this, are the Civil Service and public service officers, including uniformed services and Statutory Boards, also covered by this Bill?
More significantly, as provided for in clause 28, the Bill provides not insignificant protection for workers when they raise grievances to the employer. As it stands, workers who are employed by companies with less than 25 individuals will not be covered by clause 28, at least for the next five years.
In view of the protections available for workers who make legitimate claims and the prospect of other civil relief which will be made known by the Government later in the year through sister legislation, I hope more resources can be placed at the feet of these smaller companies to help them come up to speed with the requirements of this legislation by way of regular updates from TAFEP, so that all workers can be covered by this anti-discrimination law in good time. I note Minister, in his opening speech to this Bill, stressed about various educational resources that will be developed, so I take the point that the Minister raised.
I understand and respect the approach of the tripartite partners in taking a staggered approach out of practical necessity. However, a clear roadmap with intermediate goals towards compliance for companies with less than 25 workers would be necessary as the Bill today still does not cover 25% of our workforce. Why are such intermediate checkpoints important?
Sir, as I alluded to earlier, the Bill before the House today is not just a piece of manpower legislation, it is a social legislation too. For many Singaporeans, work takes up a significant part of almost all our lives. In a recent podcast last month, the Prime Minister, Mr Lawrence Wong, remarked, and I quote, \"In any multiracial society, it is harder to be a minority than the majority.\" The Prime Minister urged those in the majority community to be sensitive, engaged and to reach out to minorities across all aspects of life. These remarks are relevant to the Bill before the House and promotes the outcomes that this Bill seeks.
To this end, workers need to consider that some employers' perceived lack of sensitivity may be down to ignorance, inexperience and a lack of exposure, as opposed to malice. For things to change, greater professionalism and mutual respect at the workplace must be promoted. Such HR improvements welcomed through open conversations can boost productivity, if sincerely undertaken by both workers and employers. My colleague, Aljunied GRC Member of Parliament, Mr Faisal Manap, will speak on this point from a different perspective, with a view to engender greater understanding for some of our workers and compromise from employers.
For small and medium enterprises (SMEs) with less than 25 employees that professionalise more swiftly and adopt workplace fairness practices and are ready before the five-year exemption period is over, such workplaces may well generate greater interest from jobseekers. A fair workplace-ready TAFEP accreditation scheme for workplaces with less than 25 employees may well be something the Ministry can consider as an intermediate option before the review of the applicability of this legislation for these companies comes up.
To that end, I hope the Government can pay close attention to the processes by which these smaller companies currently not covered by the Bill are educated about their obligations under the TGFEP after this Bill is passed, with a view to their prospective coverage under the Bill in future.
Next, on administrative penalties, clause 31 details the administrative penalties that will be invoked when employers are issued with a contravention notice, requiring them to pay an administrative penalty of the prescribed amount. The nature of the civil contraventions is wide, ranging from penalties for retaliation against complainants to the publication of a discriminatory direction to providing inaccurate particulars to the Commissioner, amongst others.
Can the Minister clarify if the Bill contemplates a specific penalty amount for each of the civil contraventions listed in clause 31(1)(a) to (i), or is there an open-ended range of penalties, for example, up to $5,000 for any contravention? For example, clause 34 of the Bill covers the specific penalty amount that will be imposed on an employer in the case of a serious civil contravention – $50,000 for a first order and $250,000 for subsequent cases. I hope the Minister can provide some clarity with respect to the dollar value of the administrative penalties under clause 31(a) to (i).
Clause 34(1) devolves significant powers to the Commissioner to determine what constitutes a serious civil contravention by the use of the term, and I quote, \"whenever it appears\". Can I confirm if these powers relate directly to what has been established as serious civil contraventions in clause 30, or are there other serious civil contraventions which are contemplated and not captured by the Bill? If so, some guidance and clarity as to what these are would be useful and stated for the record.
The Bill requires workers to go for compulsory mediation before considering the prospect of legal recourse, ostensibly with a view to maintain harmonious industrial relations and to avoid a litigious culture. However, litigation can be necessary when egregious cases present themselves and workers are on the receiving end of the same. We know that between 2018 and 2022, the two protected characteristics that host the most number of complaints to TAFEP were discrimination by nationality and discrimination by age. The legal process and legal proceedings would reveal the identity of the companies that commit such egregious discrimination or serious civil contraventions. To this extent, is it the intention of the Bill for the Commissioner to also reveal the names and circumstances of companies that are subject to administrative penalties as envisaged under clause 31?
TAFEP has hitherto been conservative in revealing the names of companies found to have fallen foul of their fair employment practices. Naming the employers who fall foul of this Bill is not to encourage a name and shame culture. On the contrary, such an approach would be useful in supporting the purposes of the Bill, educating companies and workers at large about discriminatory practices at the workplace and to nudge employers to always take workplace discrimination very seriously to the benefit of workers. After all, the only natural resource of Singapore is our human resource and it is in our interest as a nation to ensure that all our workers receive protection from discrimination.
To conclude, Mr Speaker, the Government has announced that there will be a second Bill associated with workplace fairness, which will introduce the procedural rights and processes for individuals to make private claims under this Bill. The WP will debate this separately at its Second Reading. It is assumed that this will give better options for workers to pursue claims against unscrupulous employers.
Sir, the Bill before this House today marks a major philosophical shift in the People's Action Party (PAP) Government's thinking on workplace discrimination. For some Singaporeans, the signalling of this philosophical shift has taken too long, particularly when one recalls the deep discontent over the last decade or so of some Singaporeans over perceptions of being overlooked by some employers on the grounds of nationality, in particular, but also age. Late, though it is, the change is for the better and WP will support this Bill. I look forward to the Minister's responses to my clarifications.
Mr Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as Assistant Secretary-General of NTUC and a member of the Tripartite Committee in the promulgation of this Workplace Fairness Bill. I congratulate our tripartite partners, various stakeholders and the Attorney-General's Chambers for working tirelessly over three years to see to the introduction of this Bill and its Second Reading today. I rise in strong support of this Bill.
I have raised in this House, since my maiden speech in Parliament in 2011, on this issue and the need to strengthen the Singaporean core and ensuring workers, especially professionals, managers and executives (PMEs), have a level-playing field. Since then, we have, in the past decade, introduced a compendium of legislative changes, tripartite guidelines and tripartite advisories, including new policies and now, this Bill, to address this.
It has been some years since I suggested introducing some form of workplace anti-discrimination law. This call was echoed during NTUC's engagements with more than 10,000 PMEs, employers and stakeholders through the joint NTUC-SNEF PME Taskforce from 2020 to 2021, which I co-chaired with SNEF.
The Taskforce found that 67% of mature PMEs aged 40 and above cited age-related bias as a key challenge in job search; and those in the modern services sector, that is, infocomm technology, professional services and financial services, in particular, thought current policies were insufficient in creating a level playing field with foreign PMEs. One of the key recommendations of the PME Taskforce was the need for a dedicated piece of legislation to prevent discriminatory practices that might arise from cost-driven or biased decisions, such as favouring foreign workers who may accept lower wages or are of a certain national origin.
For more than a decade, I have received numerous letters, emails and messages as well as have had many coffee sessions with PMEs of various ages across different organisational levels and in different industries to hear their woes, frustrations and anxieties. Their sentiments correspond with the nationally published statistics that age and nationality discrimination were the top two complaints received by TAFEP and MOM from 2018 to 2022.
This Bill is watershed and landmark as it is a new and dedicated piece of legislation to address workplace discrimination across several important protected characteristics whether pre-employment, during employment and post-employment, such as during terminations or retrenchments. This Bill will answer the Labour Movement's long and consistent calls to ensure fair access to good work opportunities for our workers, especially PMEs. It would confer protection for the most common types of discrimination faced by workers today and our unions will now be able to better protect our members through the expanded suite of individual remedies and calibrated penalties for discriminatory employment practices.
All said, the success of this Bill will depend on five key factors which I call the five \"C\"s: coverage, clarity, communication, capability and complement.
The first \"C\" is coverage. It is important that this piece of legislation will cover the majority and most common forms of workplace discrimination. The Labour Movement believes that no form of discrimination should be tolerated at the workplace. Workers must be treated fairly, based on merit, and we want to see that employers do not run afoul of this new law.
Besides the protected characteristics, there may be fewer common areas not explicitly covered, such as sexual orientation and gender identity or expression. Even if not covered by the new legislation, an employer who runs afoul of the TGFEP must be subjected to investigation and enforcement actions and measures by MOM and TAFEP.
By the same token, MOM has planned to exempt smaller companies from this Bill for a start. I humbly submit that all companies and employers should be subjected to this new piece of legislation. Aside from giving more time for SMEs to prepare and comply with this new legislation, companies should not be exonerated from such responsibilities by virtue of size indefinitely. SMEs, like larger companies, have an equal responsibility to foster a fair and inclusive workplace for their workers.
During my ground engagements, I also realised that outsourced workers and freelancers, including platform workers, may be an underserved worker segment in this space. I envisage they should, similarly, be protected against discrimination in the course of their work.
However, as this is the first iteration of the workplace fairness legislation, I submit that, after passing as law, the legislation should undergo timely and regular reviews in keeping with possible changes in societal and social norms, in and outside the workplace and a changing workforce profile. This constant and careful review of coverage and exemptions is imperative to ensure no genuine victim of discrimination will be left in the lurch. The Labour Movement will continue to listen closely to workers’ feedback and lobby for further changes to the workplace fairness legislation, even after it is implemented, to ensure its relevancy and cater to the needs, expectations and conditions of workers and the world of work.
The second \"C\" is clarity. There has been much discussion on the topic of what is fair and what is discrimination, whether the law should cover both direct and indirect discrimination; and what evidence needs to be produced to prove and substantiate a claim by a claimant or complainant. And for the protected characteristics, whether disability covers mental disability and, if so, to what extent? These are pertinent questions which should be exhaustively articulated in the legislation if not otherwise, through the relevant advisories, guidelines, illustrations or frequently asked questions issued by our tripartite partners in a clear and succinct manner. This will provide clarity and certainty to HR, employment and industrial relations practitioners, lawyers and in-house counsels, unions, union leaders and employers. This will further eradicate frivolous or speculative claims in addition to those already provided.
By the same token and for greater clarity, I have a number of clarifications regarding the Bill, which I will go in order of the clause numbers for easier reference by Members of the House.
Clause 4(1)(b) states that the Act will not apply to \"any prescribed employer or class of employers\". Could the Minister clarify if there are any current plans to exclude any employer or class of employers; and on what grounds would such employers be excluded?
In clause 5(2), \"asking for information or documents… for purposes of possible employment\" is part of an employment decision. In job application forms, would employers have to remove fields asking for protected characteristics, such as age, race, sex and so on? Will job candidates also have the right to reject providing this information, on the basis that it will \"adversely affect\" them, as defined in clause 17?
In clause 12, what is the age range for an \"infant\"? Clarity is important because if the maximum age for who is deemed to be an infant is too low, a female worker may lose her protection when breastfeeding an older child.
Clause 18 covers discrimination by employers' direction, instruction or policy published in writing. I would like to ask the Minister how would unwritten discriminatory directions, instructions or policies be dealt with? The existence of such directions, instructions or policies may be substantiated by evidence, for example, witnesses' testimonies, and as currently worded, employers may get around clause 18 by not putting things in writing.
Clause 19 prohibits discrimination by published advertisements or description. But employers can also discriminate by asking questions about protected characteristics during the job application process, even when not justified by any genuine occupational requirements. How would such behaviour be deterred?
Clause 20(2)(a) provides an exception if the nature of the job means it cannot be \"reasonably performed by an individual unless the individual has (or does not have) the protected characteristic\". This is likely to be the most widely used exception and I would call for clear guidance to prevent abuse. Some questions come to mind.
First, if some employees of the employer can only speak proficiently in a particular language, will proficiency of that language be regarded as reasonably necessary for the performance of the job, as otherwise communication would not be possible? Second, can strong preferences by customers be considered reasonably necessary for the performance of the job? For example, parents strongly preferring female early childhood educators at kindergartens or female tutors at tuition centres to teach their young children. As the young pupils would be of different sexes, the preservation of modesty exception would not apply.
Clause 27 requires employers to develop processes in writing to inquire, review, inform, keep records of and maintain confidentiality of grievances. I would like to ask the Minister: first, will there be any prescribed standards or guidelines on what a \"good enough\" grievance handling policy should look like? Second, given that it is crucial for there not only to be a grievance handling policy, but one that works well in practice, what are the safeguards in the law to ensure that employers not only have written policies but also abide by them in practice? Put in another way, what recourse do workers have if they are dissatisfied with how their grievances were handled? Third, under what circumstances would it be \"reasonably necessary\" for an employer to disclose victims' identity and the inquiry details to any person, with reference to clause 27(e)?
Clause 28 prohibits employers from taking any retaliatory action against employees who raise grievances or pursue claims under the Bill. I am heartened that the prohibition against retaliation also includes workplace harassment grievances. I would like to clarify: first, for the definition of \"retaliatory act\" in clause 28(2)(f), would that include pressurising the employee to agree to a variation of the employment contract which is less favourable? Second, not offering re-employment is an adverse employment decision only if it is attributable to retaliation. In other cases where the employer did not offer re-employment, the affected employees can make representations to the Minister under the Retirement and Re-employment Act. In those other cases, would evidence of discrimination by the employer be relevant?
Third, would protections against retaliation by employers on the basis of grievances covered by the TGFEP levers be similarly strengthened for parity with the provisions on prohibition against retaliation under this new Workplace Fairness legislation? Finally, I would call for those facing discrimination covered under TGFEP to similarly be protected from retaliation. Small companies, with fewer than 25 employees, who are exempted from the Workplace Fairness legislation should be held accountable for any retaliatory acts against their employees who report discrimination under TGFEP.
Looking at clause 35(2), it appears that some cases may be regarded as both civil contraventions and serious civil contraventions. I would like to ask the Minister, under what circumstances would MOM pursue civil penalties for serious civil contraventions, as opposed to imposing administrative penalties for civil contraventions?
Last clarification, in making a complaint to MOM for employers' discrimination, could the Minister give guidance on what type of relevant evidence would workers need to produce or show before MOM will investigate further?
The third \"C\" is communication. This landmark legislation will cover much ground and its effective implementation and enforcement will not be easy or straightforward. At the onset, there will be questions from all quarters. These questions are opportunities to sharpen our approach and build trust and unity among all stakeholders. It is, therefore, imperative that we address all concerns and commence communication about this new law and how it will eventually be operationalised at the earliest opportunity.
It is my hope that the nuts and bolts can be well cascaded to every employer as well as every union, union leader, HR and legal practitioner and every worker operating in Singapore. Communication can come in various forms and channels, such as a legal handbook, pocket series or guide, or even a dedicated website with an exhaustive deck of frequently asked questions, coupled with legal primers catered to the various levels of needs and segments.
The fourth \"C\" is capability. To enhance workplace fairness and the knowledge in this space, more can be done to improve HR capabilities as well as workplace practices. Echoing the recommendations in the PME Taskforce Report, there is a need to improve HR standards and increase take-up of IHRP certification. It is essential for the HR fraternity to be familiar with tripartism, industrial relations as well as this new piece of workplace fairness legislation.
It is therefore, submitted that the IHRP certification should also be updated after the Bill is passed to cover WFL across all certifiable levels, including as an additional module for HR professionals with an internationally recognised HR certification but who may have missed covering topics, such as the WFL, tripartism and industrial relations in Singapore. I would like to reiterate my previous call in this House for the IHRP certification to be made mandatory, especially for companies that hire foreign manpower.
Fifth and final \"C\" is complement. We need this Bill to complement existing legislation and other worker protections. In short, we need to create a safer environment for workers to report discriminatory practices. Mr Speaker, while the Bill will confer rights and protection on workers, they will need to feel safe to report any discrimination. According to MOM's Fair Employment Practices report, from 2022 to 2023, there was a decline in employees seeking help when faced with discrimination at work. Despite the increased availability of formal grievance-handling procedures, workers may not feel safe enough to do so. According to the report, the main reason was the fear of being marginalised at work or making work relations awkward.
I submit that this is where unions can play a crucial role in supporting our members. Our union leaders are trusted and experienced peers and advocates who understand the challenges our members face and are trained to provide relevant support and advice. This is why it is critical to ensure that our unions are able to represent our workers, especially PMEs when they face workplace discrimination. We therefore call for the Industrial Relations Act to be amended, so that unions can provide limited representation for PMEs regarding disputes under this Bill.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad to see that in clause 25, \"grievance\" includes harassment by the employer or by another employee. Indeed, there are many overlaps between harassment and discrimination. I have, in the past, made repeated calls to address workplace harassment. While recognising that this Bill makes harassment a type of grievance and that some remedies are currently possible under the Protection from Harassment Act, I would call on the Government to complement existing harassment laws by enhancing extra-legal levers to strengthen protection against workplace harassment, such as more research, education and awareness training on this very important issue.
Mr Speaker, Sir, to conclude, while legislation must serve to punish and deter errant employers, especially the egregious ones, it is ultimately another step in a continuous journey to foster a fair and inclusive Singapore. All of us – workers, employers and members of society – will need to play our part to achieve this vision.
True progress requires a collective commitment to check our own biases at work, practice inclusion and speak up when we spot that something is not right. There are available avenues to seek redress and NTUC, together with our unions, will continue to do our part to ensure that our workers are protected and have fair opportunities at work to fulfil their potential. We stand ready to support our members and workers who face any challenging situations at the workplaces because #everyworkermatters.[Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, today's Workplace Fairness Bill is a long-awaited law that has clearly gone through many rounds of development since it was first announced in 2021, so I am happy we finally have it up for debate. The WP 2020 manifesto calls for explicit anti-discrimination legislation. This is because we felt that TAFEP guidelines and enforcement via restriction of access to work permits were not enough to stamp out discriminatory practices.
Moreover, we believe that formal legislation would provide clarity for both employers and employees, and Singaporeans in general, because laws do not just provide mechanisms, but are also signals of our society's generally accepted moral intuitions.
The PAP disagreed. Then-Minister for Manpower Josephine Teo said in September 2020, that it might not result in better employment outcomes for vulnerable groups and asked if we might be more interested in form or substance. She further said that Singapore has better employment statistics for women and seniors than some other developed nations, and the threat of getting Work Pass privileges revoked was an extremely serious one.
However, given the use of the term \"fairness\" in today's Bill, I am glad that the Government has come round to the view that signals and ethical stances are important in tackling discrimination in the workplace and above all, it is important to legislate to outlaw such practices as illegal.
In my speech today, I would like to make some queries to understand why the Government decided to scope the legislation to: one, exclude discrimination outside the workplace; two, exclude indirect discrimination; three, exclude several other protected characteristics that the public has called for protections on; and four, exclude several categories of workers.
The second part of the speech will cover what I believe to be a clear and major gap in the Bill – discrimination via denial of reasonable accommodations. On non-workplace discrimination, I understand that this may feel novel in the Singapore context, but are we simply taking a conservative approach to deciding and prioritising practicable applications of anti-discrimination legislation? Is the Government exploring whether it can legislate against significant and harmful discrimination in interactions that bear similar dynamics to employment, such as in the use of private and public services. For instance, the purchasing of goods and services on gig work platforms could be a scenario where discrimination takes place. Should landlords be allowed to discriminate against those from a certain racial background or a specific family size? The United Kingdom (UK) Equality Act specifically prohibits discrimination in the provision of services in access to premises and education.
And while of course we do not advocate the wholesale copying of such laws, nor do we claim that these other jurisdictions are utopias without their problems, it seems a missed opportunity for us to legislate to outlaw discriminatory practices more generally.
Secondly, the Tripartite Committee deliberately excluded indirect discrimination in a move that would reduce legal obligations on employers and purportedly reduce uncertainty for both employers and employees. However, could the Minister clarify if the Government sees the lack of coverage of indirect discrimination as a problem and how would we effectively address what some might call nationality-based discrimination against Singaporean workers? For example, it is often a practical impossibility to prove such alleged nationality discrimination. Workers are often only able to cite anecdotes about foreign HR managers being biased towards candidates or colleagues from their own country, while statistics showing larger than proportionate representation from some countries can be brushed off as coincidence.
Another concern that has been raised is the use of National Service Physical Employment Standard (PES) status to potentially discriminate against male candidates with non-visible disabilities, such as intellectual disabilities or neurodivergent conditions. While the Tripartite Guidelines do mention that employers should not suggest preference based on National Service liabilities, it is unclear whether they can ask about PES status. PES status can, after all, be used as a blunt tool to assess if the job applicant may have a medical condition or neurodivergent condition.
Again, indirect discrimination is prohibited in several other developed jurisdictions like the UK, and indeed, their Equality Act was considered in the Tripartite Committee's review. Are such claims really that complex to introduce legislation for? And if prohibiting indirect discrimination is meant to be left covered by TAFEP guidelines, when will these guidelines be made available?
After all, our society appreciates that indirect discrimination is unacceptable. For example, there was a significant public outcry after a hijab wearing Muslim worker was asked to remove her hijab in order to work as a promoter at a departmental store just a few years ago. This is a classic example of indirect discrimination, where a neutral policy about uniform and appropriate dress disproportionately affects certain groups, in this case, Muslim women.
Another example of indirect discrimination in a disability context is a requirement for candidates to participate in a phone interview for a data entry role. This requirement disproportionately affects deaf and mute candidates who are not able to complete the phone interview satisfactorily and are disqualified as a result.
Such cases are precisely why indirect discrimination is recognised and regulated in many developed jurisdictions, including the UK, the European Union (EU) and Australia. The principle is that if an apparently neutral criterion or practice has a disproportionately negative impact on a group defined by race, religion, gender or other protected traits, the onus should be on the employer to demonstrate a genuine necessity for that criterion.
Our Bill, however, remains silent on this front, which will permit covert biases to continue unaddressed. We should not under-estimate the significance of closing this gap. Those who rely on statutory protections are often the most vulnerable segments of our workforce – employees with disabilities, lower-income workers, older workers, women who juggle caregiving responsibilities and those who start with less advantage in working life. If we only address blatant overt acts of discrimination, we inadvertently leave behind these hidden or systemic patterns, which can be just as corrosive to social harmony and economic security.
Next, several characteristics that are well-known sources of discrimination are also not covered by the Bill. For instance, those who have chronic medical conditions, like arthritis and regular migraines, are not covered. It also appears that the Bill's coverage of intellectual disabilities appears to indicate that learning disabilities are not included.
I based this on SG Enable's definition of intellectual disability as mainly established by a person having an intelligence quotient of 70 and below, or a feature of medical conditions, like Down syndrome, which is quite different from learning disabilities, such as dyslexia, which the Dyslexia Association of Singapore estimates to affect around 10 percent of the population in Singapore.
Discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity are also explicitly excluded in the Bill, which seems at odds with the Minister for Home Affairs' statements that gay people deserve dignity, respect, acceptance and do not deserve to be stigmatised because of their sexual orientation during his opening speech in 2022, when this House debated the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code and attendant amendments to the Constitution.
This is notable as researchers as at organisations, such as National University of Singapore's Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health and the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) have found that more than half of LGBTQ persons have experienced discrimination at the workplace and that levels are generally higher than those who do not identify as LGBTQ.
This concern about employment has also been raised by LGBTQ individuals to party colleagues, previously sharing that they have experienced discrimination from employers who declined to hire them on the grounds of their sexual orientation. This is disturbing, as we should aim to harness the contributions of all Singaporeans.
Even if we are not to include these characteristics in the legislation, I would like to seek clarification from the Minister about how the Ministry plans to address such types of discrimination experienced by fellow Singaporeans, particularly, as it is not currently explicitly covered by TAFEP guidelines.
Fourthly, I would like the Government to clarify why they and the Tripartite Committee excluded large classes of workers from coverage under the Bill. Under the proposed section 4(3), platform workers are explicitly excluded from the protections from discrimination. Foreign domestic workers also appear to not be covered because domestic workers are not covered by the Employment Act.
Mr Speaker, these clarifications on exclusions are important because this Bill took three and a half years of development and many consultations with employers.
It is also not a novel point of law, with many developed jurisdictions and international law to take reference from. Therefore, these decisions must have been deliberate, and the Government should be open with why they were taken. I am not casting aspersions, but I hope that we can have better clarity and understanding of the thought process and timing behind how the Government intends to ensure that these groups too, are eventually afforded legal protections against discriminatory behaviour.
Finally, I would like to speak on the need for reasonable accommodations, which are not covered by the Bill. Reasonable accommodations are necessary, appropriate and practical adjustments made to a job to make it fairer and more accessible to people with disabilities (PwDs), with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) definition, highlighting that the point is to ensure they can exercise all human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with others.
Singapore is a party to the CRPD, where states recognise the need to protect the provision of reasonable accommodations, and said they would take all appropriate steps to ensure their provision. The Minister mentioned that tripartite partners are working on advisory on the provision of reasonable accommodations for PwDs, and as of May 2024, the Government's view is that the difficulty in clearly defining what constitutes reasonable accommodations could result in heavy litigation, citing what has happened in some other countries.
But disability advocates have highlighted that reasonable accommodations are by far their number one hurdle when it comes to employment. They are essential to PwDs participating in the workforce. Given the Government's own target to increase the employment rate of PwDs to 40% by 2030, I believe that this is a key policy lever to ensure that PwDs have a fair chance in joining the workforce and thriving at work.
Three main questions arise from this. Considering that the Government has tabled the Workplace Fairness Bill today and acknowledge the lack of teeth of tough-help guidelines, what recourse can PwDs expect if their employers fail or refuse to comply with the tripartite advisory when these come into play? Will the Government commit to a timeline to recognising the denial of reasonable accommodations as a prohibited form of discrimination under the Workplace Fairness Act within the next five years?
As a matter of international law, does the Government consider Singapore to be compliant with our obligations under the CRPD if we do not legally recognise a right to reasonable accommodations? If so, how does it reconcile its position with the views on the UNCRPD to the contrary?
As the Government has resisted the call to legislate reasonable accommodations for now, how then does it propose to explore how reasonable accommodations can be mandated and not just through an advisory which can be ignored? Could this mean developing policy mechanisms with a carrot-and-stick approach for employers to provide reasonable accommodations, such as outlined below?
Employers should be convinced about the value of having a genuine interactive process upon receiving any request for accommodation, something which has already been introduced in December 2024, with the flexi-work arrangements (FWAs). Like FWA request, this will entail timely acknowledgement of employer requests and good faith aspiration of workable solutions. When a request is deemed impractical, an employer should be required to provide written explanations of proposed alternatives. Such a mutual dialogue builds trust, helps mitigate disputes and ensures that both parties collaborate to arrive at sensible balanced arrangements.
Establishing what is undue hardship for employers will also be helpful in guiding employers as to when a requested accommodation becomes unworkable. Factors, such as employer size, resources and potential operation impact must be taken into account and should also take into account existing subsidies or supportive programmes.
In the meantime, the upcoming advisory should also be made as effective as possible with concrete plans for uptake, targeting companies and industries which are the least likely to be providing reasonable accommodations. That advisory must not just be preaching to the converted. The advisory should also have a basic definition of what a reasonable accommodation is, taking guidance from the UNCRPD that Singapore has ratified.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, the Workplace Fairness Bill is a welcomed move. It demonstrates that we, as a society, are prepared to take a stronger stance against discrimination. But the Bill excludes significant scenarios of non-workplace discrimination, offers narrow definition of discrimination that leave out indirect and associational forms and leaves entire groups, such as platform workers, migrant domestic workers and people with certain disabilities without clear legislative protection.
Crucially, we risk creating a law that the public might view as tokenistic rather than genuinely transformative. And if people lose faith that this legislation can protect them, a deeper disillusionment sets in where they feel that systemic inequalities cannot be solved. Any subpar results may ironically confirm the Government's prior argument that legislation might be only formed. So, we must ensure it has real substance. We must ensure that the laws are truly robust, that they address real-world discrimination comprehensively and that the Government remains open to future expansions of its scope.
I hope that we will address these gaps to consider future amendments that might strengthen protection for the groups left out and to ensure that reasonable accommodation are not relegated to a footnote. Only then can we confidently say that we have a Workplace Fairness Act that is both firm in principle and forceful in practice.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Heng Chee How.
The Senior Minister of State for Defence (Mr Heng Chee How): Mr Speaker, Sir, despite progress in many areas of employment equity, age discrimination continues to be cited as a barrier. This challenge will be heightened by our growing demographic shift toward an ageing population and if age discrimination is not adequately addressed, it could have serious economic and social implications.
Recent reports indicate that age discrimination is not only present in our labour market. In 2023, age discrimination was the most commonly cited form of workplace discrimination according to TAFEP figures and is placed ahead of complaints about race discrimination and gender discrimination.
The stickiness in age bias indicates that there are older workers who will continue to face barriers in accessing good job opportunities and prospects on a fair basis. This issue would be particularly pertinent in industries where experience and expertise are highly valued and where older workers still find themselves sidelined in favour of younger candidates.
The struggle is especially evident in PME workers who are in their 40s and 50s. These workers often report that their age is viewed as a disadvantage and it limits their in-employment prospects. A survey conducted by NTUC found that 60% of older workers surveyed felt they were discriminated against when it came to training opportunities, with younger workers receiving priority for consideration for upgrading and upskilling programmes.
This gap in access to opportunities for growth and development across because of age is not trivial. The effects of age discrimination extend beyond individual workers. They ripple through the entire economy. The ageing population is one of the most significant challenges facing global economies today. As populations age, fewer young workers enter the workforce while more older workers reach the end of their work lives, they retire, leading to a declining labour force participation rate.
In our case in Singapore, for example, our labour force participation rate has shown a small, gradual decline, for example, over the last three years. This demographic trend is expected to limit workforce growth, exacerbating the challenges of economic sustainability.
Older workers represent a critical component of the workforce. In Singapore, workers aged 50 and above account for approximately 37% of our resident workforce and this is a substantial portion that cannot be overlooked. However, when ageism hinders their employment opportunities, wages and career progression, it not only impacts individual workers but also reduces the overall productivity potential of the economy.
An Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) study has shown that an age-diverse workforce actually offers a larger set of skills and enhances organisational sustainability and profitability. By excluding older workers from the labour force or by not giving them fair opportunities due to age bias, businesses miss out on valuable experience and expertise that can help drive growth and innovation.
Furthermore, with the increasing rate of job turnover, especially in sectors like informcomms technology and financial services, mid-career workers are especially vulnerable to age discrimination. Even not-so-old workers, like those retrenched in their 40s or 50s from these industries, may struggle to find new employment opportunities due to biases in recruitment and hiring practices. This not only affects the workers but also their families, as they face what could be prolonged periods of unemployment or under-employment.
To address these issues, it is important that our legislative frameworks evolve to offer stronger protection against age discrimination and promote age fairness. I therefore welcome the introduction of the Workplace Fairness Bill. This Bill marks a significant step in the fight against workplace discrimination, including workplace ageism, in Singapore. I am glad that this point is acknowledged on both sides of the House.
Under the WFL, age is recognised as a protected characteristic, meaning that employers cannot make adverse employment decisions based solely on a person's age. This legislative clarity sends a clear signal and message that age discrimination will not be tolerated and that every worker, regardless of age, deserves equitable opportunities in the workforce and in the workplace.
The WFL not only prohibits discriminatory practices but it also allows for policies that favour older workers in certain contexts. For instance, employers can give preferential treatment to senior workers in hiring decisions, which can be particularly beneficial in addressing the challenges of an ageing population. The WFL, together with other age-friendly laws, such as the Retirement and Re-employment Act will further strengthen the advocacy and realisation of equitable protection of the rights of older workers vis-a-vis their younger counterparts.
While legal protections are essential, they are not sufficient in their own to eliminate ageism or, as the Minister puts it, it is not a panacea. Together with the law, it is critical that organisations also adopt age-friendly workplace practices that promote inclusion and provide equal opportunities for workers of all ages. FWAs is one of the common ways in which employers can accommodate the needs of older workers, allowing them to remain productive and engaged in the workforce longer, while simultaneously facilitating succession and renewal for the organisation.
A joint study conducted in 2023 by NTUC with the Singapore University of Social Sciences and Tsao Foundation revealed that nearly half of the employers surveyed said that they had implemented such practices to extend the employment of their older workers. These flexible arrangements help to mitigate the challenges that come with ageing, such as physical limitations or caregiving responsibilities and allow workers to continue contributing their skills and expertise to the organisation.
Additionally, job redesign is another key area where employers can create more inclusive workplaces. Age-friendly job design takes into account the needs and capabilities of older workers and provides them with the tools and resources necessary to succeed. For example, companies can offer training programmes to help older workers develop new skills, especially in areas like digital literacy, which is critical in today's rapidly evolving job market.
Through various Government schemes and tripartite initiatives, including the NTUC's Company Training Committee and various job redesign grants, employers can work together with their unions to create age-friendly workplaces and businesses can ensure that their multi-generational workforce remains competitive and well-equipped to meet the challenges of the future.
The recruitment stage is also an area that employers must be vigilant about to carefully examine the tools they use in recruitment and hiring. For example, on top of potential human biases, in other words, the interviewers, you can also see that companies might increasingly make use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in their hiring processes. And depending on the way in which their algorithms are determined, that can inadvertently also introduce bias into the process.
Therefore, it is important that employers be vigilant about these potential downsides and take concrete action to make sure that their human recruiters are properly selected and trained and briefed and that their AI filters and hiring algorithms avoid ageist biases so that the companies can benefit from capable candidates, regardless of their age and give all candidates a fair shot at securing employment and that their organisation can bring on the best candidate to serve its purpose.
Age discrimination undermines the potential of older workers and the broader economy. As our workforce ages, it is critical that we address the barriers that prevent older workers from accessing good jobs that bar them from training opportunities and deprive them of fair career progression.
This requires a multi-faceted approach, combining strong legal protections, age-friendly workplace practices and ongoing efforts at the tripartite level and in each workplace to promote inclusivity and diversity in the workforce. By strengthening and systematically promoting age fairness and tackling ageism resolutely, we can help ensure that older workers are given the respect and opportunities they deserve and that businesses can benefit from the wealth of experience and knowledge that they bring to the table.
Ultimately, fighting age discrimination is not only a legal matter nor is it just a moral imperative. It is also an economic necessity that will help sustain long-term prosperity for all.
Mr Speaker, the slant of my speech is really to say that age discrimination has got to be tackled in terms of its negative manifestations, the biases against older workers. But at the same time, I think we should pay good attention to the name of this Bill and I think it is core intent – which is fairness. And I think there is a difference between just acting against discrimination as against, also focusing enough attention on promoting and operationalising fairness. I think those two must go hand-in-hand in terms of how we can get the best out of our workforce and how we can leverage our strong tripartite relationship and industrial harmony to do the best for Singapore and Singaporeans. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap. Sorry, Mr Faisal Manap, could you just take a seat first? Minister Tan.
Dr Tan See Leng: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I would just like to provide one point of clarification to the Leader of the Opposition's earlier point on associated discrimination.
I want to, first and foremost, reassure every Member in the House and every Singaporean that we do not tolerate any form of discrimination. But for the purpose of WFL, for the purpose of this Bill, as I have alluded to the journey that we have taken for the last many years, the fact that so many people have come up and we have taken all of their considerations, to move it to a more surefooted way of crafting a Bill, we wanted to be very well-scoped in terms of defining what the definition of this protected characteristic is and what does the protected characteristic cover. Hence, I have outlined five broad categories.
By virtue of the way the Member has described it, Mr Speaker, Sir, from the Leader of the Opposition, in terms of the associated discrimination, by virtue of the fact that an employee is married to someone who is of a different race, let us say, for example, who feels that he is being discriminated against because he is dismissed, TAFEP will take it up. But for the purpose of the prescribed penalty in terms of the Bill, WFL, at this particular point in time, we have not crafted it such that it is covered.
But that does not mean that, moving forward, we would not continue to review. Because it is a live document, we will continue to get data, to look at where the areas of needs are and we will continue to improve that and expand the coverage itself.
I hope that can correct, in case the Member has any misperception.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker and the Minister. I take the Minister at his word. The issue I had was specifically with clause 17(3) and the way it has been drafted in the explanatory statement. I am not going to repeat my speech. If I recall correctly, in my speech, I sought clarity on examples which would show why clause 17(3) would be important for an employer.
What I am suggesting is the explanation on clause 17(3) and the explanatory statement of the Bill on page 44, to me, sounds intuitively odd. That is what I shared. It would be helpful, through the experience of TAFEP, if the Minister could share, perhaps, later, in the round-up speech, examples of why this particular clause is important and is to be included in the Bill. Why is it so important for employers? That would be helpful, so we can understand the clause better.
Dr Tan See Leng: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his suggestion. We, indeed, will cover that in my wrap-up speech. I do not want to belabour the point because we are only at the beginning. I note the fact that there is significant interest. For the record, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for your support of the Bill at just the Second Reading itself.
But I want to, not to belabour the point, the illustration in the explanatory statement was actually taken out of context. It is meant to clarify what is discrimination as defined in the Bill – in this particular Bill itself. It is not what we consider to be discrimination in Singapore. I cannot emphasise and reiterate more, that we do not tolerate any form of racism and we do not tolerate any form of workplace discrimination.
Like I said, TAFEP will continue to be there. TAFEP was the basis on which we built this WFL on. It will continue to assist any worker who experiences workplace discrimination even if they fall outside or beyond the scope of this Bill. This Bill is, really, the first step in introducing legislation for our workplace fairness regime.
I do not want to belabour the point. Thank you, Speaker.
Mr Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): Sir, I will be speaking in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Sir, the Workplace Fairness Bill that has been presented and is currently being debated has been eagerly anticipated by Singaporeans, especially those who are more vulnerable to discrimination when seeking employment as well as those carrying out their duties.
The Workers' Party has long voiced the need for legislation to address the issue of workplace discrimination. We, the Workers' Party MPs, along with Singaporeans, feel relieved that after waiting for so long, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has finally made this decision.
Sir, in part Three of the bill titled Protected Characteristics, clause 8 lists and establishes the protected characteristics, namely age, nationality, sex, marital status, pregnancy, caregiving responsibilities, race, religion and language ability, as well as disability and mental health condition. This protection covers all stages of employment, including recruitment, period of employment and dismissal.
Sir, I would like to take this opportunity to raise or bring up again the concerns of Muslim community in Singapore regarding the types of workplace discrimination experienced by certain Muslim individuals.
I will share two scenarios that have been experienced by Singaporean Muslim individuals and would like to seek clarification and confirmation that, based on this bill, discriminatory practices indeed occur in these two scenarios and that the affected individuals can file a report.
The first scenario concerns the observance of Friday prayers for Muslim men. One situation involves Muslim men being rejected for employment during interviews because their request to perform Friday prayers is not granted by the company. The second situation involves Muslim male employees whose request for a slightly longer break on Fridays to perform Friday prayers are refused by their employers.
In general, many Government agencies and employers in the private sector allow Muslim men to perform Friday prayers. However, there are still some or a few who do not permit it. The issue of granting permission to perform Friday prayers was previously raised by former Member of Parliament Mr Zainal Sapari through his social media platform.
Mr Zainal Sapari's sharing on this matter was covered by online media outlet Mothership on 17 July 2019, titled \"MP Zainal Bin Sapari suggests S'pore employers give Muslim men time-off for Friday Mosque prayers\".
Mr Zainal Sapari, who is currently the Assistant Secretary-General of the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), said he had been approached by Muslim male employees who face difficulties in getting permission from their companies or employers to perform Friday prayers. He said that \"it would be much appreciated if employers could grant male Muslim workers time-off between 12.30pm to 2.30pm to go to the mosques\".
In the same Facebook post, Mr Zainal Sapari also explained the obligation of Friday prayers for Muslim men, and he also opined that \"workers should also 'make up for lost company time' by coming to work a little earlier, or leaving later that day\".
The second scenario is a situation that has received much attention for a while now, which is the wearing of hijab. For years, there have been occasional accounts or reports about Muslim women facing situations where they are asked to remove their hijab if they want to be accepted for employment or after they have started work.
This matter was mentioned in the Suara Musyawarah report published in 2013. This Suara Musyawarah report was produced by an independent and non-partisan committee formed by the government with the objective of gathering feedback as well as concerns and aspirations of the Malay/Muslim community in Singapore.
On page 21, paragraph 32 of the Suara Musyawarah report in Malay, and I quote, \"This committee has also heard several personal experiences that give the impression that discrimination is also practiced in employment. Personal examples include employers who clearly state that their preference is for non-Malay workers and Muslim women are sidelined or bluntly told that they are not allowed to wear the hijab\".
Sir, this Suara Musyawarah report was published in 2013, almost 12 years ago, and the feedback that was collated are possibly incidents that had occurred several years before 2013. In fact, my wife had a similar experience back in 2000 when she was almost accepted to work at a private language centre but with one condition, which was she cannot wear a hijab.
Moving forward, a recent incident that received attention from many people, including Madam Halimah Yacob, who was the President at that time, was a case that occurred in 2020. It involved a Muslim female worker at a well-known department store who was told to remove her hijab a few minutes after she had just started work on her first day.
In this case, as reported in the media, Madam Halimah firmly stated, \"there is no place for discrimination of any form and against anyone in Singapore\".
Sir, in conclusion, I would like to seek confirmation from the Ministry of Manpower that both scenarios I have shared, namely not giving permission to perform Friday prayers for Muslim men and the wearing of hijab for Muslim women, are recognised as workplace discrimination under this Bill. That is all.
Mr Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.
Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Sir, I rise today in support of the Workplace Legislation Bill. I commend the Government and all stakeholders for their efforts in bringing this Bill to fruition. After more than three years of research, public consultation and thoughtful revision, it addresses five protected characteristics: nationality, age, sex/marital status/pregnancy status/caregiving responsibilities, race/religion/language and disability/mental health conditions. Together, these cover 95% of workplace complaints received.
The Workplace Fairness Bill is a significant milestone in promoting fairness and inclusivity in Singapore's employment landscape. I will focus my remarks, today, on the impact of this Bill on PwDs, drawing on my experience serving this community. I will also use the terms \"disabled\", \"special needs\", \"differently abled\" interchangeably.
Let me declare the different roles that I play in the disability space.
I am an activist involved in developing the Enabling Masterplan and initiatives, such as The Purple Parade, The Purple Symphony, and social enterprises, creating jobs for the disabled. I also head disability charities, such as the Autism Resource Centre, which provides job placement services. I am also the parent of a special needs adult. I, therefore, will speak from different perspectives, hoping to balance the interests of all stakeholders.
First, let me talk about the progress of Singapore's disability landscape
Sir, Singapore has made remarkable progress in disability inclusion over the past two decades, thanks to former Prime Minister and current Prime Minister and the Cabinets as well. The focus on children with special needs in their early and school years have been transformative over the last two decades. These efforts have actually given many families much needed hope and support. The challenge now is to extend these efforts into adulthood, ensuring that PwDs have meaningful opportunities in the workforce if they can work.
Key initiatives, very well appreciated, included the setting up of the following: SG Enable and its job placement partners, such as SPD, MINDS and the Autism Resource Centre, which have supported over 4,000 job seekers with disabilities through job placement and training programmes. The Open Door Programme (ODP), which also funds job redesign, workplace modifications and staff training, has benefitted over 400 companies; Special Employment Credit (SEC) and the Job Redesign Grants, which incentivise businesses to hire and accommodate PwDs, have catalysed changes in the corporate sector employment scene; schemes, such as the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS), and other accessibility grants ensure that PwDs also remain engaged in the workforce; and introduced in 2021, the Enabling Mark recognises businesses for their inclusive practices in employment.
As of 2023, the employment rate for working-age PwDs exceeded 32%, it is about 32.7%, with over 600 companies adopting inclusive hiring practices. The latest Enabling Masterplan sets a target to increase this to 40% by 2030. So, I want to thank and congratulate the Government for doing this. But while much has been achieved, there is still significant work to be done.
Let me, first, speak on the importance of inclusive employment. Sir, inclusive employment is not just about fairness. It is about unlocking potential at the individual and societal level. With proper training and support, PwDs can contribute meaningfully to workplaces and society. Work provides dignity, identity and purpose. For PwDs, it is a bridge to inclusion. It is also a bridge to financial independence, allowing them to move beyond being welfare recipients.
Inclusive employment also unlocks economic potential. Research from the International Labour Organization shows that inclusive workplaces can boost gross domestic product by up to 7%. Locally, in Singapore, SG Enable's success in matching over 4,000 PwDs with jobs highlights how inclusion enhances economic participation. Companies like UOB, Deutsche Bank and DBS Bank have shown that neurodiverse employees excel in areas, like cybersecurity and digitalisation, proving that inclusion also drives innovation.
Now, with Singapore's ageing population and workforce constraints, PwDs represent an untapped talent pool. With proper training and support, they can contribute effectively across sectors, from blue-collar to white-collar to silver-collar jobs.
Despite its importance, inclusive employment comes with challenges. Having overseen job training and placement services for PwDs, I have seen both successes and failures. Success cannot rely solely on goodwill. It requires systemic changes.
The key challenges include, one, society's attitudes and bias. PwDs are often misunderstood, especially those with non-visible or neurodivergent conditions. Stigma and lack of awareness hinder their potentials. The second challenge is in workplace readiness. Many businesses lack the infrastructure and knowledge to support PwDs. An SG Enable survey found that over 50% of SMEs perceive hiring PwDs as challenging, due to insufficient accommodations. The third challenge is this, that PwDs themselves have to be ready as well. PwDs often require extended training in both vocational and life skills to be adequately prepared for the workforce.
Sir I would like to put up three proposals for the Workplace Fairness Bill: one, in broadening the definition of disability; two, in mandating reasonable accommodations; and three, developing a roadmap to legislate reasonable accommodations by 2030. I want to thank, also, the individuals and organisations who have put in work by stakeholders, such as the PWDs themselves, employers who are enlightened and inclusive, disability organisations, such as Autism Resource Centre, whom I work with, and the Disabled People's Association.
First proposal, broaden the definition of disability. The Bill’s current definition of disability is too narrow, covering only autism, intellectual disabilities, physical disabilities and sensory disabilities. This excludes individuals with learning disabilities, like dyslexia and ADHD, as well as conditions like cerebral palsy, which is more than just a physical disability. The UNCRPD adopts a broader definition, encompassing all impairments that hinder full participation in society. Singapore should align with this inclusive standard.
Why is broadening the definition of disability for this Bill important? Because they are under-represented communities. Individuals, especially those with less-visible disabilities, face significant barriers due to stigma and lack of accommodations. There is also economic impact. Expanding the definition of disabilities would unlock a broader talent pool, for example, dyslexia, contributing significantly to Singapore's economy. And that is proposal one: broadening the definition of disability.
Proposal two: mandate reasonable accommodation. Reasonable accommodations, which are, basically, adjustments to the workplace enabling PwDs to perform to their potential, are fundamental to equitable employment. Examples include modifications, like ramps and ergonomic furniture; flexible schedules for medical needs; and assistive technologies, such as screen readers or using visual or appropriate communication methods. The current proposal for a Tripartite Advisory on reasonable accommodations is a good start, but it lacks enforceability. So, legislation is necessary to ensure consistency and accountability.
Why does this matter? Because mandatory accommodations will support even more PwDs to contribute meaningfully to the workforce. Successful policies in Singapore, like our Compulsory Education Act, have shown that phase-by-phase legislation following public education can indeed drive meaningful change.
So that leads to my third proposal, which is developing a roadmap for legislation by 2030 in this space. Sir, if immediate legislation for reasonable accommodations is not feasible for now, a phased approach should be adopted and a clear roadmap should be established, aiming for full implementation by 2030, which aligns with the expiration of the current Enabling Masterplan.
Successful policies, such as Singapore's Compulsory Education Act, demonstrate that phased legislation can drive meaningful change by allowing adequate preparation time for education and capability building. Sir, the decision to delay the implementation of the Act until schools and disability service providers were ready for the Compulsory Education Act until they were better prepared, this was widely appreciated, such that when it was implemented, the landscape was a lot more ready and it was very smooth. So, we can learn from that experience.
Sir, while we wait for 2030 and prepare, I propose that the following key elements be included in developing the roadmap to get 2030 inclusion. I have seven key elements to be included.
First, review and enhance the effectiveness and outreach of the existing programmes, such as the Open Door Programme, the Place and Train Programme and the Job Placement and Support Scheme.
Two, extend the Enabling Mark concept from beyond employers to service providers, such as job placement agencies and coaches, whether they are Government-supported or not, to ensure better support and quality assurance for employers and PwDs.
Third, enlarge and professionalise the pool of job and life coaches.
Fourth, to develop a SkillsFuture Masterplan for PwDs for them to upskill and remain competitive and not be left behind.
Fifth, develop a joint national service between the Ministry of Manpower and SG Enable under the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF), modeled on the Job Accommodation Network (JAN) in the United States, to guide employers in implementing reasonable accommodations. JAN's online database of best practices, live chat support and tailored solutions is a model that Singapore can learn from and adapt.
In fact, Singapore can have our own version of JAN, which should also the education and guiding employees with disabilities so that they can be stronger in self-advocacy, showing also sensitivity to their employers' business needs, understanding what is reasonable on their part and also taking proactive steps that they, like anyone else, can take to support themselves in the workplace. So, let us help PwDs, employees with disabilities themselves, at the workplace to self-advocate.
And lastly, to ensure measurement and accountability through annual progress reports on readiness and inclusion metrics, that is, for developing the roadmap for legislation to include reasonable accommodations by 2030.
And lastly, on public sector leadership. The public sector must lead by example. I am not asking for targets or quotas. I am asking for whatever is done, we need to scale it. Agencies like the National Library Board, VITAL, GovTech, the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF), the Ministry of Health (MOH) Holdings, Singapore General Hospital (SGH) and several more, they have already seriously embarked on inclusive hiring and doing quite well, giving jobs in blue-, white- and new-collar spaces. So, scaling these efforts will set the tone for private sector adoption and aspire a community of practice. So, the public sector should take leadership in this.
So, Sir, in conclusion, the Workplace Fairness Bill is a necessary step forward in protecting workers against discrimination. To make a real difference for PwDs, reasonable accommodations must, eventually, be legislated. While readiness concerns are valid, they must not delay progress indefinitely. So, I urge the House to support a clear roadmap that mandates reasonable accommodations by 2030, aligned with the expiration of the current Enabling Masterplan for the disabled. I urge the Government, PwDs and their advocates and employers and families as well, to each take our place and create and support an inclusive Singapore workforce. I support this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, the journey towards equality is a long and arduous one. The Bill that this House is debating today is much-needed and a long-overdue one, if we pride ourselves on being an open and inclusive society.
The passage of a Workplace Fairness Bill in Singapore is not just a legislative necessity. It is a moral imperative that addresses the long-standing issue of workplace discrimination that has affected many workers across various sectors. For too long, employees have faced barriers based on age, race and other personal characteristics without adequate legal protections, which not only undermine their dignity but also hampers our nation's commitment to meritocracy and equality.
In WP's 2020 manifesto, we called for the institution of anti-discrimination legislation on the basis of gender, race and age. Importantly, the manifesto also notes how the Government's strategy of issuing advisories and guidelines does not penalise employers sufficiently for adopting discriminatory practices.
The contents of this Bill largely reflect the Government's approach towards the issue of fair employment practices and the focus on harmonious workplace relations in Singapore. I will be touching on a few areas in which I believe there could be areas of improvement to consider, especially as we look to introduce a second Bill on this matter later in 2025.
The first broad point I wish to highlight is the issue of exclusions in this Workplace Fairness Bill. Granted, workplace fairness and the issue of discrimination are complex ones and the Government may want to take an incremental and cautious approach towards legislation in this area. However, if we are deliberately looking at discrimination in the narrow sense through careful scoping of the Bill, how confident are we in saying that this new legislation will be effective in addressing the concerns and discriminatory barriers of minorities? How can we confidently say that workplace discrimination of any form should not be tolerated, but yet, some forms of discrimination are illegal while others are not?
Let me elaborate on each of the subpoints under the broader exclusion category.
Based on clause 8 of the Bill, employers are prohibited from discrimination on the basis of 11 protected characteristics, which form 95% of the workplace discrimination complaints received by MOM and TAFEP. There are, however, several other classes of people who may face discrimination, but yet will not be covered by this Bill. Are we not then discriminating against this 5% in not according them adequate legal protection?
The first is on physical medical conditions, as I note that mental health conditions are a protected characteristic. I have met residents who have been through a period of medical illness, which has resulted in them being unable to work for an extended period of time, causing them to rack up a significant medical bill. What could be more distressing, however, is that they may face a major hurdle as employers may view their medical history as a liability.
For instance, a resident of mine is on follow-up with a cardiologist for a cardiac condition. However, he was specifically certified by the doctor that from a cardiac perspective, he was fit-to-work based on the nature of his job scope. Yet, despite this, he believes that he was being terminated more than once by different employers because of his condition and especially, when one of them only required him to perform guest services-related duties in an indoor location.
The draft Health Information Bill, which was opened for public consultation in 2023, prohibits the use of National Electronic Health Record data for non-patient purposes. It would also explicitly disallow data to be used to assess one's suitability for employment. Therefore, would this Bill also prohibit employers from discrimination based on one's medical condition or medical history if unjustified?
Second, everyone deserves a second chance. Being an open and inclusive country, Singapore must also grant second chances to those who are keen on joining the workforce after a stint in prison. Although such members of our society are willing and motivated to contribute productively, a CNA article highlights that many of them face discrimination when job-hunting despite being qualified for the role. Therefore, it is only right that those with a past criminal record are also protected against workplace discrimination under this new law.
In certain instances, it could be arguable that restrictions are put in place, given the risks involved. For example, under section 26 of the Child Care Centres Regulations, staff who have been convicted of offences, such as child abuse and neglect, are not allowed to be hired as staff of a childcare centre.
In the financial industry, in response to my PQ in August 2024, Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong shared that 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 and an ex-offender who has not been issued any prohibition order or an individual whose prohibition order has expired may be employed by a financial institution, if he or she has been assessed to be fit and proper for the role.
Yet, the assessment of whether a person is fit and proper can be a subjective one and at present, MAS does not track the number of ex-offenders hired by financial institutions or require financial institutions to inform MAS of the rejection of candidates.
Given that it has been more than 20 years since the Yellow Ribbon project was launched in June 2004, would the Government also consider prohibiting discrimination on the basis of one's criminal record? This would certainly open more doors for them to start afresh and rebuild their lives.
Beyond the issue of protected characteristics, one of the other glaring omissions in the Bill is that on indirect discrimination. Aside from being difficult to detect, workplace discrimination comes in all shapes and forms. While this Bill covers direct discrimination, which refers to an instance where someone is treated less favourably than someone else in a comparable situation on the basis of a protected characteristic, my Sengkang colleague He Ting Ru observed that the proposed Bill does not cover discrimination by association, which is when someone is treated less favourably as they are acquainted with someone who possesses a protected characteristic. Furthermore, discrimination by perception, which is when someone is treated unfairly as they are falsely believed to possess a protected characteristic, is also beyond the remit of this Bill.
Crucially, this Bill does not protect workers against indirect discrimination, which refers to a policy or practice that while being neutral in appearance, results in a disadvantage for persons who may fit a certain criterion, unless it is justified by a legitimate aim and the \"means to achieve that aim are necessary and appropriate\". Examples of indirect discrimination may include working hours that unnecessarily disadvantage employees with children, or perhaps an attire policy that unreasonably discriminates against employees from a particular racial or religious group.
According to a Parliamentary reply by Manpower Minister Tan See Leng, he noted that including indirect discrimination as part of the Bill would \"impose very wide legal obligations on employers\", which results in \"uncertainty for both employees and employers alike\". Instances of indirect discrimination could be reported to TAFEP instead.
However, having two separate frameworks, one enshrined in law and the other based on guidelines for handling discrimination, may also cause confusion to both employers and employees alike.
Instead of omitting it from the Bill entirely, I suggest that as an intermediary step, guidance be provided to educate employers and their staff on indirect discrimination, its seriousness and the importance of addressing it appropriately. This would only be beneficial for employers.
If we look at UK case law, it establishes a precedent regarding what constitutes indirect discrimination and how such cases are to be handled. According to a UK Supreme Court ruling, employees need not prove why a Provision, Criteria or Practice (PCP) disadvantages people of a particular group in order to show indirect discrimination but instead requires a causal link between the PCP and the particular disadvantage suffered by the group and the individual. At the same time, it is open to an employer to show that their PCP is justified and there will be no finding of unlawful discrimination unless the justification is not made out.
One key instance of indirect discrimination would be the denial of reasonable accommodation, which would be useful for certain workers, such as those with disabilities and older workers. Clause 15 of the Bill refers to someone with a disability as an individual who has any one or more of the following, namely autism, any intellectual disability, any physical disability and/or any sensory disability.
PwDs face an uphill climb when navigating through the various hurdles in society. The findings of the 2024 Disability Trends report show that only 53.5% of the PwDs surveyed felt that they were included and not discriminated against. Worryingly, there was also a decrease in the percentage of respondents who expressed positive attitudes toward PwDs in the workplace compared to the last survey in 2019.
It is imperative that Singaporeans ought to cultivate a society where our PwDs could feel included. While mindset shifts are certainly crucial, we also ought to strengthen our legislative tools to create a barrier-free society.
The Bill's coverage of PwDs under clause 8 would certainly offer greater protection for PwDs against discrimination. However, one of the barriers that PwDs experience when seeking gainful employment is the lack of reasonable accommodations in their workplaces.
According to the CRPD, reasonable accommodations are \"necessary and appropriate adjustments\" to ensure that in the workplace, PwDs would be able to function \"on an equal basis with others on all human rights and fundamental freedoms\". Examples of reasonable accommodation include ensuring step-free access to workplaces for employees with mobility issues and work-from-home arrangements for workers with sensory impairments.
There have been governmental programmes to encourage business to implement reasonable accommodations for PwDs, such as SG Enable's Job Redesign Grant. Moreover, a Tripartite Advisory on Providing Reasonable Accommodations to Persons with Disabilities, which is not legally-binding, would also be released.
However, the Government has stopped short of enshrining the right to request for reasonable accommodations into law, with Manpower Minister Tan See Leng articulating that it could result in heavy litigation and prevent employers from hiring employees that require such accommodations.
This approach could be seen as being reliant on the moral suasion of employers and sends a signal that reasonable accommodations are \"good to have\" when it is a \"must-have\" for PwDs to carry out their tasks.
Therefore, the new Bill must reflect that aspiration by legislating the right for employees to request for reasonable accommodation, especially when Singapore has in 2013 ratified the UNCRPD. As pointed out in a report by the Disabled People's Association, in their 2022 Concluding Observations to Singapore, the UNCRPD noted on more than one occasion within their recommendations to the Singapore Government on the need to prohibit the denial of reasonable accommodations. For example, it is \"concerned about the lack of recognition of denial of reasonable accommodation as a form of discrimination on the basis of disability\" in Singapore and recommends that Singapore \"adopt legal provisions and create practice to recognise denial of reasonable accommodation as a form of discrimination in all areas of life and include an express definition of reasonable accommodation consistent with Article 2 of the Convention\".
To ensure its effective implementation, the Tripartite Advisory for Reasonable Accommodations could function as a source of guidance for employers and employees alike. Besides PwDs, other workers, such as those with caregiving duties, parents and older workers, would also benefit from reasonable accommodations in the workplace.
The second point I am concerned about is the requirement that TAFEP serve as the first port of call outside the firm for workers who experience discrimination. While this is a point to be covered under the second Workplace Fairness Bill, I hope that the Government can give this point due consideration, before it is being raised for First Reading.
Now that we have made the all-important step to introduce legislation to combat discrimination, I am concerned that having TAFEP and TADM as the first port of call could mean that, in practice, we are back at square one and there may not be much of a difference to the current means to deal with discrimination via the TAFEP guidelines.
While the articulated aim by the Government is to preserve workplace harmony, in the case of a termination of employment, we can be clear that there is no intention by the employer to be in a continuing work relationship with the employee, much less a harmonious one and it is more likely going to be an acrimonious rather than harmonious relationship after the termination.
Relying on mediation could place employees at a disadvantage, as they may lack the resources, such as time, energy, money and support to effectively challenge powerful and well-resourced employers. Mediation can often also favour the more dominant party, leading to outcomes that do not adequately address the grievances of those who experience discrimination and wrongful termination.
This brings me to the third broad point I wish to highlight in that the ease at which employees can be terminated. Employment law in Singapore is such that an employer can terminate an employee's contract without cause, simply by giving notice or by paying the employee his or her base salary in lieu of the notice period. No reason whatsoever needs to be given to the employee.
To successfully claim that a dismissal with notice is wrongful, where no reason is given for the dismissal, an employee must substantiate a wrongful reason for the dismissal, for example, discrimination.
The point about circumstantial evidence is thus an important one, given the colossal task faced by employees in proving discrimination. It is not easy to detect workplace discrimination as employers would attempt to hide it. For example, employers would not indicate in black and white that an employee is being terminated due to their age. But rather, the said employee would perhaps hear it via word-of-mouth from a fellow colleague. In fact, they might even hear it directly from the line managers in passing, but have no concrete recording or evidence of it, allowing him or her to subsequently deny having said such a thing at all. Hence, the employee would most likely have at best indirect or circumstantial evidence of any wrongdoing by the employer in such cases.
The establishment of a framework for the handling of indirect evidence would be helpful for workers who might be afraid of seeking redress as they feel that they lack substantial evidence.
For instance, in US case law, the Mcdonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework places the burden of proof on employers to argue that there is a justification for their employment decision, after the employee has ascertained that they are rejected from a role despite being qualified for the job.
Finally, let me touch on some other matters relating to the Bill, such as the FCF and the use of AI.
A key tenet of this Bill is also to ensure that Singaporeans and PRs are fairly considered for employment. This is reflected in the implementation of the FCF under clause 26 of this Bill.
The FCF mandates that employers who are submitting EP and S Pass applications must first advertise that position on the MyCareersFuture portal. However, employers may also pre-select a candidate and go through the motions of interviewing applicants from the MyCareersFuture portal without considering them fairly. Hence, how is the Government monitoring such employers and how would such employers be penalised? Would the Government also consider implementing a mechanism that monitors the outcomes of job postings uploaded to MyCareersFuture?
On a related note, one crucial development in the HR industry is the proliferation of AI in the hiring process. For instance, an Applicant Tracking Software (ATS) could be used to filter out curriculum vitaes based on the employer's needs, while an AI-powered video-interviewing software could analyse the candidate's speech and behaviour. However, AI could also perpetuate discrimination if the algorithm or data is biased.
In a Parliamentary reply late last year, Minister Tan See Leng noted that candidates could approach TAFEP to seek recourse should AI usage result in discriminatory employment practices. The Minister also highlighted the Model AI Governance Framework for Generative AI, which encourages AI developers to adopt data quality control measures and to disclose information regarding the AI model's make-up.
Instead of adopting a \"soft touch\" approach towards AI usage in recruitment, we ought to pivot towards enacting robust legislation that would provide workers with greater assurance and transparency with regards to how AI is being used when hiring. After all, it is crucial to unpack the \"black box\" that is AI to ensure that it is not a tool deployed by employers to enable discrimination.
For instance, the EU AI Act imposes obligations on employers seeking to deploy AI systems as part of their HR practices. These obligations include, amongst others, instituting the right for candidates to request an explanation of AI's role in the decision-making process, ensuring sufficient human oversight over the AI system and adhering to data management practices that eliminate biases within the input data. Candidates must also be informed when AI is being used during the hiring process.
Aside from mitigating the risk of discrimination arising from the usage of AI systems, this would also help to assuage public scepticism towards AI's usage in recruitment due to its perceived unfairness compared to a human recruiter.
On that note, while mindset changes amongst employers and employees are a key ingredient towards building a fairer workplace, the legislation that we pass in this House sends a signal about where our priorities lie and charts a direction in which society heads towards. Advisories and guidelines hold little weight compared to legislation. Therefore, I am glad that we are finally putting forth this long overdue Workplace Fairness Bill, and I hope that the suggestions that my WP colleagues and I will be taken into consideration as we await the second Bill to be passed.
As cliché as it may sound, if we wish to build a society that is \"based on justice and equality\" that ensures \"happiness, prosperity, and progress for our nation\", then we should take greater strides in ensuring that within every facet of society, everyone will have the opportunity to thrive and flourish.
Mr Speaker: Mr Edward Chia.
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Workplace Fairness Bill, which establishes clear rules against workplace discrimination while safeguarding core values of trust, fairness and open dialogue. It strikes a necessary balance between an employee's right to redress and an employer's need to manage operations effectively.
In my speech, I will raise the following three points: one, concerns about a litigious work environment are addressed through a mediation-first approach to foster trust and reduce disputes; two, resource limitation challenges that smaller enterprises may face in implementing the Bill, the unintended consequences of exemption and initiatives, such as HR-as-a-service to support SMEs; and three, the need to equip HR professionals, managers, employees and jobseekers with training and resources for consistent understanding and fair application of the law while proactively aligning employee expectations with employer capabilities to foster a harmonious and inclusive workplace.
Regarding my first point, there are concerns that additional legislation might lead to increased litigations. International examples highlight this risk. In some cases, while addressing unfair treatment, this has led to overcorrection by employers, resulting in rigid procedures rather than fostering trust. There is also the fear of lawsuits, which sometimes stifled open communication.
Singapore must learn from these experiences. The proposed Bill targets familiar and common forms of discrimination. By maintaining clear definitions and focusing on prevalent issues, we reduce the likelihood of disputes requiring legal interventions while ensuring broad coverage.
Additionally, the Bill mandates mediation before adjudication. Overseas, early conciliation services have proven effective. For instance, the UK's Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service resolves most disputes before they reach tribunals. Here, employees will be encouraged to seek internal resolutions first. If that fails, mediation through TAFEP or TADM will follow. Only as a last resort, will cases proceed to the Employment Claims Tribunals. This tiered approach prioritises workplace harmony and encourages efficient and equitable resolutions.
Regarding my second point on the potential burden on employers, particularly smaller businesses. Compliance can be costly. In the UK, the proposed Employment Rights Bill is projected to raise business costs by billions annually. Similarly, Canada's Employment Equity Act demands extensive reporting and complex policies, while Australia's Fair Work Act has driven many employers to seek costly legal advice to avoid compliance errors. Mr Speaker, Sir, this has implications to prices, hiring and job quality.
Singapore's economy depends on an ecosystem of multinational corporations, SMEs and startups. Smaller enterprises, in particular, are concerned about the administrative costs of compliance, such as hiring consultants, lawyers or additional staff. While the Bill initially exempts firms with fewer than 25 employees, I would like to ask the Minister about the consideration factors that would determine the period of exemption and the Ministry's action plan to level up smaller firms.
An unintended consequence could be that employees may avoid smaller companies, perceiving them as offering weaker workplace protections. This could worsen the existing talent attraction and retention challenges faced by SMEs. To address this, there is an urgent need to support smaller companies in understanding and implementing the Bill effectively. Additionally, could there be provisions allowing exempted companies to voluntarily opt in to the Bill's framework and receive formal recognitions for doing so? Such a measure would enable forward-thinking SMEs to enhance their employer branding and position themselves as employers of choice.
Smaller enterprises often lack the full range of HR capabilities due to resource limitations. Hence, I reiterate my earlier calls for the MOM to introduce HR-as-a-service, similar to Infocomm Media Development Authority's Chief Technology Officer-as-a-service. Such a service could be facilitated by the IHRP, which is well-positioned to pool HR expertise and deliver scalable solutions for SMEs. I would like to ask the Minister if he would consider such support services to boost smaller enterprises' HR capabilities.
The Workplace Fairness Bill sets minimum standards, a welcome step in signalling to errant employers that workplace fairness is non-negotiable. At the same time, we must also recognise and reward progressive HR practices. The SHRI's annual Singapore HR Awards is one such initiative, but there is potential to enhance and expand these efforts. Aside from traditional means to encourage progressive HR practices such as award ceremonies, will the Minister consider widening the range of strategies, such as financial incentives, Government procurement quality credits, certification, spotlighting best practices and scaling up existing ones?
Regarding my third point, good legislation sets standards, but it is ultimately HR professionals, supervisors and team leaders who translates standards into fair outcomes. We must ensure they are equipped to interpret and apply the law confidently and consistently.
Singapore can do better by offering robust support. Through partnerships with SNEF, NTUC and TAFEP, the Government will prepare materials, conduct outreach and provide practical tools to train HR professionals, hiring managers and supervisors. These resources will help them identify discrimination, handle grievances effectively and communicate decisions. With proper training, managers can apply the rules confidently, reducing the likelihood of disputes and fostering a culture of fairness.
However, fostering workplace harmony requires a concerted effort from both employers and employees. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is often said that employers and employees are two sides of the same coin. While much training focuses on employers, we must also empower employees and jobseekers. The TADM currently provides advisory services to manage employment or payment-related disputes, but more proactive measures are needed.
I would like to ask the Minister what specific training and education programmes to familiarise employees and jobseekers with workplace protections, ensuring they understand and can navigate the processes that are in place to safeguard their rights in the workplace. This would also promote greater alignment between employee expectations and employers' resource capacities. Managing expectations through an accurate understanding of the provisions is essential to fostering a harmonious and inclusive work environment.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the introduction of this Bill signals that we do not tolerate discrimination in our workplaces. It draws a clear line on what is acceptable and what is not. This is a positive move, one that aligns with our national values of fairness, respect and meritocracy.
By posing these questions today, we acknowledge that implementing this Bill will be a journey. We must stay vigilant, ensuring stakeholders have the resources they need and remain open to improvements. If we do this, we can be confident that the Bill will enhance trust, support inclusivity and strengthen the harmonious relationship between employers and employees that is the backbone of Singapore's success.
Mr Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.
Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, it is heartening that MOM's 2022 Fair Employment Practices Survey shows progress. Workplace discrimination in Singapore has significantly decreased, with only 24% of job applicants reporting discrimination, compared to 43% in 2018. Moreover, just 8% of resident employees reported workplace discrimination, lower than the EU average of 11%.
While these figures highlight improvement, discrimination remains a concern for many Singaporeans. Beyond these statistics are deeply personal stories of exclusion and unfair treatment, underscoring the importance of continued action, and I thank Minister Tan for acknowledging that. For instance, I recall moments from my career, both in Singapore and abroad, where I faced discrimination as a minority. As a young engineer in Singapore, I was once told, \"You are quite smart, for a Malay\". I also felt excluded when colleagues held meetings entirely in Mandarin. Overseas, when I was mistaken for a Latino American, I encountered overt racial prejudice.
These experiences, shared by many, reminds us that discrimination persist in both overt and subtle forms. Tackling these issues requires sustained efforts to create a fairer, more inclusive society, where opportunities are accessible to all, regardless of race, religion or other attributes. The Workplace Fairness Bill is a critical milestone in this journey. It complements the tripartite guidelines of on fair employment practices, addressing discrimination across 11 protected characteristics and establishing a strong foundation for fair treatment. Together, these measures reflect Singapore's commitment to fostering workplaces where everyone can thrive.
Mr Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill, as it fortifies our system to uphold workplace fairness, protecting workers while balancing the interests of employers. However, I seek clarification on three areas: firstly, the definition of character of protected characteristics; secondly, the application of the Bill; and thirdly, the grievance resolution process and its effectiveness.
Mr Speaker, part three of the Workplace Fairness Bill identifies 11 protected characteristics, covering 95% of workplace discrimination complaints received by MOM and TAFEP. Could the Ministry clarify what other characteristics constitute the remaining 5% of complaints? While the inclusion of these protected characteristics is a great step forward, the legislation remains punitive in nature. Legislation is an important step, but how do we shift from punishing discrimination to actively fostering the employment of seniors, PwDs and caregivers? How can the Workplace Fairness Legislation work in tandem with the tripartite guidelines on fair employment practices, to tackle workplace discrimination holistically?
For many seniors seeking employment, discrimination remains painfully real. Some are denied even an interview once their age is revealed. This reflects entrenched biasness that legislation alone cannot address. Beyond punitive measures, how will we challenge and change such ingrained attitudes to create an inclusive mindset among employers? Education also plays an important role. Jobseekers must understand their rights and avoid providing sensitive information like age, race, religion or marital status on their CVs, a practice once very common. Schools, career services and organisations like e2i and Workforce Singapore should embed this knowledge in career preparation efforts.
Additionally, some employers still request sensitive personal details during the application process. Clearer guidelines must discourage such practices to ensure equal opportunities for all candidates, and by addressing these systemic issues alongside the legislative framework, we can move closer to workplace culture rooted in fairness and inclusivity.
Mr Speaker, Part 5 of the Bill addresses genuine job requirements for protected characteristics. Can TGFEP recommend that employers provide upfront clarity on why a characteristic is necessary, such as specifying that language proficiency, is required for customer interaction in specific markets? For example, if the Chinese language ability is required, the advert could read \"Chinese-speaking preferred as employee is required to address customers from the Chinese market\". Having such details would definitely help remove the perceived discrimination.
Mr Speaker, while the 11 protected characteristics are well defined in the Workplace Fairness Bill, the issue of reasonable accommodation has not been fully addressed. Reasonable accommodation refers to modification or adjustments to enable employees with disabilities to perform essential job functions and enjoy equal employment benefits. For instance, adapting a workspace for an employee with a physical disability is relatively straight-forward. However, cases like accommodating someone with anxiety disorder requesting a completely quiet workplace, with less people in an office and set away from others can pose significant practical and financial challenges.
Hence, I understand why the Bill may have avoided explicitly addressing reasonable accommodation – ambiguities in its interpretation could lead to disputes, increasing the risk of a litigious culture where formal adjudication becomes the default mechanism for resolving uncertainties.
Indeed, under the Americans with Disabilities Act in the US, which mandates employers to provide reasonable accommodation, numerous cases have ended in formal adjudication due to disagreements over what constitutes \"reasonable.\" However, we cannot simply discard the principle of reasonable accommodation because of its complexities. The critical question is: how can we address genuine cases of reasonable accommodation effectively under WFL and TGFEP?
Recommendation 13 of the TGFEP suggests that TAFEP issues advisories and facilitates dialogues between employees and employers. While this is promising, it remains too ambiguous to drive meaningful change. To advance inclusivity, we must strengthen our approach. WFL or TGFEP should mandate, or at least, strongly encourage, organisations to establish clear processes for reasonable accommodation requests.
Linking this effort with the work of the taskforce on Inclusive Employment Practices under the Enabling Masterplan 2030 can provide financial support and resources, reducing employer burden and fostering workplace inclusivity. Burden on employers and encourage the hiring of persons with disabilities, making workplace inclusivity a tangible reality.
My second clarification links to the application of the Bill. In Part 1, clause 4, para 2, WFL applies to employers with more than 25 employees. According to the 2019 Department of Statistics, 18% of companies in Singapore employ fewer than 25 people. How many employees will remain uncovered under this threshold? What percentage of our workforce is not covered under this Bill. While I understand the phased approach, when will WFL apply to smaller organisations? In the meantime, how will we prepare these companies with more robust HR practices?
My third clarification is on the process of resolving grievances. How does the legislation safeguard the identity of the complainants and protect them from retaliation? How will the Ministry support firms in developing effective processes to meet WFL requirements? Could this lead to a more litigious culture, particularly around subjective areas, like performance appraisals and promotions? How will frivolous claims be managed? What volume of cases does the Ministry anticipate under this framework and what proportion might escalate to formal adjudication? Success hinges on the organisations' ability to resolve issues internally and TAFEP's capacity to mediate. Are resources adequate to ensure TAFEP's effectiveness? Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to speak in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] A survey on Fair Employment Practices Survey by the Ministry of Manpower in 2022 revealed encouraging progress, with discrimination during job searches among residents dropping from 43% in 2018 to 24% in 2022. Workplace discrimination among workers in Singapore was also at 8%, which is significantly lower than the European Union average of 11%. Despite these improvements, discrimination remains real, emphasising the need for continued efforts to address this issue.
As a minority, I have also faced discrimination like many minority communities in Singapore. And I would like to thank Minister Tan for highlighting that, although the number is not as high as before, there are still cases of racial and religious discrimination. In one of my previous jobs in Singapore, I was once told, \"You're quite smart... for a Malay,\" and felt marginalised when colleagues held meetings entirely in Mandarin.
Unfortunately, I also had the chance to compare the discrimination faced in other countries when I faced more overt racial discrimination such as being called derogatory names due to the colour of my skin. These experiences reflect how discrimination can manifest both subtly and overtly, and this is a common experience of many from minority groups.
The Workplace Fairness Bill to protect against discrimination, including those based on race, language and language, is a significant step forward. However, it is not an absolute solution. Discrimination is a complex issue that requires ongoing efforts.
The Workplace Fairness legislation itself is not a panacea, but rather a measured additional protection for our workers. Although the law will play its role will play a part, individuals can also protect themselves from discrimination through personal resilience—by enhancing their skills and achieving excellence in their respective fields to eliminate any doubts about their capabilities. Individuals can strive to be the best candidate for their job, leaving no room for prejudice.
The Workplace Fairness Bill is a significant step that complements the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP) and sets a baseline to address workplace discrimination across 11 Protected Characteristics.
However, I would like to suggest that the Workplace Fairness Bill require employers to explain the necessity of certain characteristics, such as language proficiency. For example, if language proficiency is required to deal with customers from the China market, the job advertisement could state that, \"The ability to speak Chinese is encouraged in order to deal with customers from the China market.\" This would help remove any perceived discrimination.
Finally, I fully support this bill as it strengthens protections for our workers. While workplace fairness has certainly improved, creating a more just society with equal opportunities requires an ongoing effort. Together, through legislation and individual action, we can build a more inclusive and equitable workplace for all.
(In English): Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the clarification sought, I stand firmly in support of this Bill. It represents a pivotal step towards a fairer workplace and a more inclusive society.
Mr Speaker: Mr Ong Hua Han.
Mr Ong Hua Han (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, today Parliament debates the Workplace Fairness Legislation, a landmark Bill that sends a clear message: discrimination has no place in our work environment. Discrimination, in all its forms, must be eradicated if we are to build a truly inclusive community. As the saying goes, \"the true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members\". This Bill reflects that principle, representing a step forward in the right direction and I commend the Government for reaffirming our pledge to fairness and dignity.
The proposed Act defines 11 protected characteristics, taking a pragmatic approach to cover 95% of discrimination based on complaints to TAFEP and MOM. Among them, disability has been designated as one protected characteristic, bringing much-needed attention to a vulnerable minority.
Before today, there has not been any legislation that specifically addresses discrimination against persons with disabilities in the workplace, making this an exciting milestone for many in the community. My speech will focus on what this legislation means for those with disabilities in the employment landscape.
Under section 17 of the Bill, it is discrimination for an employer to make an employment decision that adversely affects an individual if at least one of the grounds for the decision includes the individual's protected characteristic. This means that direct discrimination is expressly prohibited. This is a good thing. We cannot allow fair employment opportunities to be denied on the basis of one's disability.
However, discrimination may not always be direct. An individual may also face indirect discrimination. Indirect discrimination occurs when a seemingly neutral policy disproportionately puts persons with a particular protected characteristic at a disadvantage, even if the adverse outcome is unintended.
For example, sharing key information solely through verbal communication would exclude employees who are deaf or hard of hearing and pose challenges for autistic individuals who need direct and explicit messaging. An employer might believe they are being fair by giving instructions to all employees in the same way. They may think there is no discriminatory practice. But this approach disadvantages those of us who genuinely require tailored adjustments to thrive.
When accessibility is disregarded, opportunities at the workplace gradually narrow. Performance is unfairly evaluated at year-end. Promotions or career advancements are stifled. The\tresult\tis\tan\tadverse\temployment\toutcome\tthat\tunjustly\tpenalises\tsomeone\tfor circumstances beyond their control.
Sir, unlike direct discrimination, indirect discrimination is often difficult to prove or perhaps not as easily understood. It may be subtle and less obvious, but it is a real issue that needs to be tackled. Policies or common practices are rarely designed with sufficient thought for including minorities or the disadvantaged. This makes indirect discrimination more pervasive and harder to address, especially when biases are unconscious. Without sufficient intervention, it leaves disadvantaged minorities even more vulnerable. The WFL does not provide for indirect discrimination.
In the absence of legislation, those who believe they have suffered from indirect discrimination have little recourse besides seeking help from TAFEP. Employers and employees in Singapore who wish to understand the principles of fair employment practices can refer to TAFEP's TGFEP. The guidelines outline the dos and do nots for ensuring fairness across all stages of employment. However, the current recommendations and examples that accompany them deal only with direct discrimination. Since protections against direct discrimination will now be elevated through legislation, the issue of indirect discrimination remains insufficiently addressed in existing guidelines.
Given this, can MOM consider, in collaboration with the tripartite partners, updating and improving the guidelines to incorporate explicit messaging that indirect discrimination is not to be tolerated? These guidelines should include clear examples of indirect discrimination. By helping employers and employees better understand the concept, the TGFEP can serve as a valuable tool for providing practical guidance for employers and employees to navigate such situations. This may be especially helpful for employers with fewer than 25 employees who are currently not in the scope of this Bill.
Most who experienced discrimination at work often do not report to official channels. According to MOM's Fair Employment Practices Report, in 2023 only 29.3% of employees who encountered discrimination at work sought help. Perhaps, they believed that their concerns will not be taken seriously, or worse, that they will face negative consequences.
Under section 28 of the Bill, \"prohibition against retaliation\", only prohibits retaliation for anything done under or by reference to the proposed Act. It is unclear if these protections extend to those who seek help from TAFEP or MOM for indirect discrimination. It is crucial that those who suffer from discrimination feel safe and empowered to report such unfortunate instances. Given this, can the Government clarify, how employees who seek help in cases of indirect discrimination will be protected against retaliation since this falls, technically, outside of the Bill's coverage.
Addressing this clearly will encourage more employees to come forward without fear of reprisal, ensuring they report their concerns and finally receive the support they need. While the Government has chosen not to include protections for indirect discrimination in the Bill at this juncture, such legislation is not new.
There are other jurisdictions that have legally defined indirect discrimination to protect vulnerable persons in all settings beyond just the workplace. For instance, the UK has its Equality Act. Australia makes this definition in its Disability Discrimination Act as well as in the respective discrimination Acts for age and sex. Similarly in Hong Kong, the Ordinances for each protected attribute of disability, sex, family status and race, all explicitly provide for protections against indirect discrimination.
The passing of the Workplace Fairness Act is an important step in helping our workplace mature, paving the way for deeper commitments to fairness and inclusivity in the future. In parallel, I urge the Government to examine how other jurisdictions have defined and implemented such protections against indirect discrimination and adapt these learnings to strengthen our local approach in future amendments to our WFL.
Mr Speaker, discrimination can take many forms. One such form is the denial of reasonable accommodations. This is recognised in some jurisdictions as a discriminatory practice. Taking reference from SG Enable and the UNCRPD, reasonable accommodations are necessary and appropriate modifications and adjustments. They are adjustments that do not impose a disproportionate or undue burden and puts persons with disabilities on equal footing with the rest of society.
Many of us rarely consider the accommodations we rely on daily, like having a table to write on or a chair to sit on, because they are so integrated into our lives. Supporting PwDs is not about large-scale changes. It is about small, thoughtful considerations. Just as having a table or a computer is a basic necessity for work, PwDs also need accommodations – only that they are tailored to their specific needs to carry out their tasks effectively.
For example, a wheelchair user may require a height-adjustable desk at work. An autistic employee might benefit from a relaxed dress code to reduce sensory discomfort or require clear, direct instructions to enable productive work delivery. PwDs merely want to be treated equitably, not with sympathy or pity.
Sir, denying the space to provide reasonable accommodations undermines a fundamental right. Yet, the WFL does not prohibit the denial of reasonable accommodations. In place of legislation, I understand that the tripartite partners plan to release an advisory on the provision of reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. This is expected to work in concert with the WFL.
We all know an advisory is not law, but if harnessed effectively, it could still lay important groundwork. If we want employers to embrace and buy into the idea of reasonable accommodation, we must first demonstrate its necessity, share best practices and debunk the myths. Taking this stepwise approach may be a prudent way to build consensus and readiness, before moving towards strengthening our law in the near future.
To ensure the advisory is effective, I would like to offer a few suggestions.
First, the advisory needs to emphasise that reasonable accommodations are a necessity, not a good-to-have. It needs to address common misconceptions and clearly show that the outcome is a net positive to the employer and the employee. In the context of workplaces, reasonable accommodations are indispensable adjustments made to enable persons with disabilities to perform their job duties.
The goal of reasonable accommodations is not to give anyone an unfair advantage. It is about levelling the playing field. It allows persons with disabilities to enjoy equal opportunities in the workplace.
According to the US Job Accommodation Network, 85% of employers reported a direct benefit of retaining a valuable employee as a result of having made an accommodation. Other widely mentioned benefits include increased employee productivity and company morale. These points show that when employees are given the right tools and environment, they are happier and well positioned to become valuable contributors that stay for the long term.
Second, the advisory should draw attention to the financial support available to allay any costs concerns. Reasonable accommodations are not meant to be overwhelming or create excessive strain on any organisation. Some employers may worry that providing accommodations would come at a heavy cost. But this fear is unfounded.
The US Job Accommodation Network found that 56% of workplace accommodations for persons with disabilities came at no cost to employers – free of charge. Another 37% experienced a one-off cost with a median of US$300 or roughly S$410.
Closer to home, Singapore offers grants specifically designed to support employers in creating workplace accommodations for persons with disabilities. Employers will be happy to know that if they are registered under the Open Door Programme, they can tap on the Job Redesign Grant that covers up to 90% of costs incurred. The grant, administered by SG Enable, can be used to defray the cost for the purchase of equipment, workplace modifications, redesigning of job scopes or processes and consultancy services.
Fifty percent of employers who used the grant reported that workplace accommodations cost less than $1,000 on average. Between 2020 and 2022, 20 employers hiring 60 persons with disabilities benefited from the Job Redesign Grant per year on average.
We need to do more to encourage higher uptake of available support. I hope that the tripartite partners can play a crucial role in raising awareness of such schemes.
Third, the advisory needs to outline how the process of providing reasonable accommodations should be managed. Requesting for accommodations is not a one-sided demand. Instead, it should be a collaborative process that addresses concerns of both employees and employers. This can be clarified by providing specific examples of reasonable accommodations and what falls outside the scope of reasonableness. This balanced approach ensures that such workplace accommodations are validated and implemented in a practical and fair manner.
Finally, MOM should consider specifying a timeline for transitioning the tripartite advisory into enforceable guidelines, laying the foundation for future legislation. Such transitions are not without precedent. Our very debate today is one such example. Direct discrimination was once only addressed in the TGFEP. Now, protections against direct discrimination are enshrined in law.
Another example is the recently introduced Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests, which replaced the earlier tripartite advisory on FWAs. The same approach can be applied to reasonable accommodations in the future.
While an advisory can serve to provide a starting point, there is a real risk it may not be taken seriously or is seen as optional. Therefore, it is crucial that the transition into enforceable guidelines is prompt and deliberate.
As employers adapt to new practices under the advisory, the Government can study how to legislate reasonable accommodations. On the surface, defining what is \"reasonable\" might sound tricky, but it is not an abstract concept. Just like for indirect discrimination, other jurisdictions provide for reasonable accommodations.
For instance, the Canadian Human Rights Act provides that employers and service providers have a duty to accommodate up to the point of \"undue hardship\", considering health, safety and cost. This is scoped not to only provide coverage for PwDs, but to cover all other prohibited grounds of discrimination, which means protected characteristics in our context. It also states that, \"the Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing standards for assessing undue hardship\".
Similarly, Australia's Disability Discrimination Act states that an adjustment is reasonable unless making the adjustment would impose an \"unjustifiable hardship\" on the person. In determining whether a hardship is unjustifiable, the Disability Discrimination Act adopts a multifactorial approach by taking into account all relevant circumstances of the particular case.
These legal frameworks, while not identical, all uphold a holistic and thoughtfully applied principle of reasonableness, which safeguards the vulnerable while ensuring a judicious process. By studying how other jurisdictions have embedded their laws into practice, we can refine our approach and adapt these lessons to Singapore's unique context.
Mr Speaker, we can be proud of the progress we have made for PwDs over the past decade. The Disability Trends report released by MSF last month revealed that public attitudes towards persons with disabilities were largely positive. Yet, based on the survey by the National Council for Social Service, there has also been a decrease in positive attitudes towards persons with disabilities in the workplace, from 59.6% in 2019 to 50.6% in 2023.
While the reasons for this are not stated by MSF, more work needs to be done. NCSS' survey also revealed one interesting finding, which I will quote: \"respondents who had contact with persons with disabilities at least twice in the past year reported higher proportions of positive public attitudes across the four disability types, compared to those who had no contact with persons with disabilities at all\".
This highlights the need to consistently raise awareness and promote meaningful interactions in the community. The more we live, play or work with PwDs, the more understanding and accepting we become.
I agree with Minister Tan See Leng – there is no silver bullet to eradicate discrimination. Legislation alone cannot be a panacea that solves for fair and nurturing workplaces. As we debate the finer points today, we must not lose sight of the bigger picture. The WFL works in support of our broader ambitions – to build a more inclusive society, beyond just the workplace.
Hence, the law and its associated initiatives should be harnessed to realise the vision of the Enabling Masterplan 2030, not only to meet the aspirational target of 40% employment rate for persons with disabilities by 2030, but to embed inclusion into every aspect of society.
Let me now conclude. In 2013, Singapore ratified the UNCRPD and we have done a lot since. Today marks a meaningful step in our ongoing effort to address the remaining gaps in our laws. But the passing of this Bill will not be of material concern for employers who are already inclusive, nor will it automatically transform every organisation into an equitable employer. It simply sets the minimum standards for fair employment practices.
Real change requires much more than that. It is my hope that more employers take fairness beyond just a legal obligation. It is an opportunity to embrace the benefits of workplace diversity and above all, to do what is right.
Let us continue striving for a Singapore where every individual is valued and where our workplaces reflect the best of our shared values. With that, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.
Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, in modern day Singapore, while meritocracy marks our gold standards in fair rewards and recognition in the workplace, discrimination does rear its ugly head, sometimes in deliberately framed opinions, sometimes in thoughtless offhand remarks, but always resulting in insidious, unfair and even harmful consequences in the workplace.
In the course of us going about our daily lives, we have heard and bore witness to acts or words of discrimination.
Just this weekend, during my block visit in Punggol, one resident shared with me his challenges in finding a job when he was retrenched. He is 62, and during a job interview, the interviewer commented that he was the same age as her father. The interview, charming as it was, did not turn out well for my resident, as there was a low-humming preconception that he was too \"senior\" for the position, both in age and in experience. This is a form of discrimination and one that this Bill serves to address.
Mr Speaker, at this juncture, I would like to declare that I run the Secretariat team for our Labour Movement's Women's Committee and am the Director of our Women and Family Unit.
Our union leaders have told us that discrimination against women in the workplace circle around pregnancy, caregiving and gender role stereotypes. Hence, the Labour Movement welcomes the introduction of the Workplace Fairness Legislation. This marks a significant milestone for Singapore and the Labour Movement towards levelling the playing field for women and caregivers. This journey has been a long and deliberate one towards this Bill and one that has been championed by many generations of female union leaders.
As early as 2007, then NTUC Assistant Secretary-General Mdm Halimah Yacob called on the MOM to address discrimination against pregnant employees beyond dismissal, highlighting the need for proper HR practices and fair access to opportunities.
In 2018, our President Thanaletchimi, then Nominated Member of Parliament, pushed for a more targeted approach to enhance the adoption of tripartite standards, recognising their crucial role in grievance handling and FWAs. I, more recently in 2022 and 2024, advocated for fair employment practices for caregivers on FWAs and had asked for more support for companies to implement progressive performance appraisals.
We have made great strides in making the workplace fairer for females and caregivers. According to MOM's Fair Employment Practices 2023 report, the incidence of workplace discrimination based on sex and family status across all reported discrimination was just 2% for employees and below 5% for jobseekers.
However, Mr Speaker, statistically low as they seem, behind these statistics are real people with real challenges and it is important that this Bill forms part of the larger ecosystem of protection.
Redressing discrimination is not new to the Labour Movement. Let me share a recent case my team at NTUC worked on.
Kelly, not her real name, is a resident of mine and an NTUC union member. Just before Kelly started on a new full-time job, she found out that she was pregnant and decided to inform her future employer. She was presented then with two options, either work part-time or work full-time but only for two months.
To my team, this was an attempt by her future employer to avoid providing maternity benefits, though ironically, the employer seemed unaware that maternity benefits apply to part-time employees as well. Understandably, Kelly was no longer keen to join the company. As a union member, we put Kelly in touch with TADM@NTUC and they managed to negotiate with the company to cancel her employment agreement without penalties. And with the help of the Women and Family Unit, Kelly subsequently found work near Punggol where she stays and embarked on a fruitful career as an educarer.
Mr Speaker, Kelly was able to seek redress and assistance as she is a union member. The example given would highlight the importance of union membership and representation. Cases similar to Kelly's are unfortunately not unique nor one off and if this Bill is passed into law, it will serve as another safety net should our workers find themselves out of the union network and looking for redress.
I appreciate the protected traits for sex, marital status, caregiving responsibilities and pregnancy and the coverage of other areas, such as sexual orientation and gender identity or expression through the TGFEP. I seek clarification on the Ministry's investigation and enforcement measures should employers run afoul of the TGFEP.
Indeed, for this legislation to truly succeed, we must ensure its effective implementation. A 2022 survey by Women and Family Unit and the PAP Women's Wing highlighted some concerns. Women perceive that they are disproportionately facing workplace discrimination and highlighted the prevalence of a lack of company know-how and policy against such workforce discrimination and harassment, particularly among companies that do not enjoy the abundance of resources and manpower.
In this survey of 3,000 respondents, only 40% of women surveyed, as compared to 60% of men, were willing to report gender discrimination that they had witnessed or personally experienced. This possibly suggests that women are less likely to report gender discrimination. In addition, the fear of retaliation and the lack of clear reporting procedures were main reasons that discouraged the reporting of workplace gender discrimination. Survey results also showed that only a third of respondents say that their companies have clearly communicated a policy against workplace gender discrimination.
While companies we spoke with welcomed this legislation and shared that this provides a fair level playing field amongst companies with the same rules at play, many were worried about implementing this effectively. Some quoted the lack of understanding when it comes to the finer details of employment laws and for others, the lack of resources when coming out with progressive HR policies and practices.
One recent case that my team at the NTUC USME, the department that works with SMEs and SME workers came across, was an aggrieved female worker who reported on an unfair clause in her employment contract. Essentially, the clause stated that the company reserves the rights to terminate a female employee should she conceive during her first six months of employment and she must tell the company during her job interview session if she is pregnant.
This is a discriminating practice and when we spoke with the business owner about the clause, he shared that he was unaware that it was there in the first place and was sincerely aghast about the matter. He and his team are now part of the Labour Movement and are working with the NTUC on coming up with better worker outcomes.
Mr Speaker, my belief is that our Singapore businesses fundamentally are progressive companies and with support and awareness, can be strong advocates of fair workplace practices. To this end, the NTUC has been proactive in addressing this gap for our SME workers. We have 2,000 SMEs in our Labour Movement network now and they have committed to providing fair, progressive and safe workplaces for their workers.
To promote better fairer workplaces, the NTUC together with our tripartite partners, have provided advice, templates, playbooks and training for our SME workers and business owners.
Four years ago, we introduced the NTUC Better Workplace Programme, where we provide breastfeeding and wellness spaces to our partner companies. By the way, breastfeeding in the workplace is a protected characteristic of \"pregnancy\" under the proposed Bill.
I would like to ask the Ministry if there are plans to further avail resources to companies in the implementation of anti-discrimination practices and to better equip HR professionals in SMEs to handle workplace discrimination disputes effectively.
In addition, I ask for consideration for the legislation to be extended to all companies in Singapore regardless of size in time to come. An interim measure could also be to recognise SMEs who have implemented WFL practices in their workplaces voluntarily. This will allow all companies to be on a level playing field and to uplift the image of SMEs to be equally progressive employers alongside all Singaporean companies.
Mr Speaker, while the NTUC and our Unions will continue playing our part to address workplace grievances to eradicate discrimination and unfair work practices, I urge the Government and our tripartite partners to view the WFL not as a destination, but as a stepping stone towards creating a truly inclusive workplace.
Like fleas confined in a jar, the WFL cannot be the jar that conditions and limits us to how high we can jump. Workplace fairness must become a societal norm because every worker matters. Mr Speaker, my concerns notwithstanding, I strongly support this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill, which seeks to set out the key principles of discrimination, lay out fair employment practices and prescribe the relevant dispute resolution processes and penalties for breaches.
Sir, my fellow Labour Members of Parliament have already spoken about NTUC's support for this Bill, particularly in the areas of protecting vulnerable PMEs and our older workers. My speech today will touch on the importance of protecting workers with mental health conditions and to ensure that workers working in small businesses do not fall through the cracks during the transition period.
Sir, mental health issues at the workplace are becoming commonplace. According to a June 2024 survey by Telus Health, almost half of the 1,000 workers surveyed in Singapore reported feeling exhausted after a day's work. The company which commissioned the survey said that these findings point to the growing risk of burnout among workers and highlighted a need for greater mental health support.
According to a 2022 study by The Instant Group, Singapore was found to be the most overworked country in the Asia Pacific region. The Straits Times also reported recently in November 2024, that stress bragging, that is bragging of overworked, was becoming more prevalent at the workplace, with negative consequences on workplace culture and relationships.
Despite this, unfortunately, many workers remain afraid to speak up or seek help for their mental health issues, because of the perceived negative attitudes and reactions from others. Some also worry that they will be discriminated against during employment decisions.
According to a survey by MOM on Fair Employment Practices, mental health discrimination was the most common form of discrimination faced by employees in 2022 and was one of the top four main forms of discrimination in 2023.
In NTUC's own #EveryWorkerMatters Conversations, young workers shared with us that, while they felt mental health support was important, only about a quarter of them felt that there have been improvements in the way society and the workplace treat individuals with mental health issues.
Sir, I have repeatedly raised in this House about the importance of addressing the stigmatisation of mental health at the workplace and I am very glad to see that the Government is making a timely move to legislate and to protect workers who face mental health challenges. However, I have some questions and some suggestions.
First, clause 16 of the Bill states that the protected mental health condition, in relation to an individual, means that the individual has been diagnosed with any mental disorder by a medical practitioner registered under the Medical Registration Act. In effect, this would mean that workers with mental health conditions are only protected from discrimination if they see and are treated by a psychiatrist. I would like to urge the Government to review and expand this definition.
There is a wide array of mental health conditions, with a range of treatment options, depending on how early someone seeks assistance. Beyond the clinical environment of seeing a psychiatrist, some workers with milder mental health issues would benefit greatly from seeing a therapist or a psychologist. Could the Government recognise allied healthcare professionals in the mental health space, as part of our push to protect workers from mental health discrimination?
The Singapore Psychological Society today already runs a voluntary register of psychologists. The Ministry of Health could amend the Allied Health Professions Act to make registration among psychologists and counsellors mandatory, which would then allow us to expand the definition of a mental health condition under the Workplace Fairness Legislation to include diagnosis by these allied health professionals.
Sir, tackling mental health stigmatisation requires us to understand that workers with mental health issues should be allowed to seek treatment beyond a clinical setting. I hope that the Government will seriously consider this proposal.
Sir, my next point pertains to employers enquiring about employees’ mental health conditions. Under clause 20 of the Bill, employers will need to have genuine job requirements in order to consider protected characteristics when making employment decisions.
I would like to seek clarification on how MOM will operationalise this. Would there be white list of jobs provided by MOM, where certain protected characteristics, such as mental health conditions, should be considered? Without any clarity, I worry that some employers will insist on asking their current and prospective workforce in declaring mental health conditions, even when there are no good reasons to do so. How would MOM police this?
Next, I would like to highlight the importance of ensuring that workers working in small businesses do not fall through the cracks during the transition period. MOM plans to exempt businesses who employ fewer than 25 workers from the requirements of the WFL for five years after the legislation comes into effect. This is to ensure that smaller companies have sufficient time to transition and adjust to the requirements of the legislation. I can understand this.
However, I would like to ask how MOM would treat companies that deliberately set up multiple business entitles, all controlled by a single director and his associates, to get around such legislative requirements during the transition period. Today, there exist companies that seemingly operate under a single brand name but in reality, they are made up of multiple smaller business entitles. How would MOM ensure that workers working for such companies have their rights protected during the transition period?
Sir, in closing, I would like to commend the Government, in particular, MOM, for working closely with NTUC over all these years to better protect workers from discrimination. Mental health issues can be a difficult and complex topic and I hope that the Government will consider an expanded definition of a mental health condition under this Bill to safeguard more workers. I also hope that the MOM will protect workers working in small businesses during the transition period. Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my questions and suggestions, I support this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Workplace Fairness Bill marks a pivotal moment in our journey towards inclusivity and fairness in our workplaces. However, I would like to offer some clarifications and suggestions that will help ensure its true impact.
Mr Speaker, Sir, my first point is about our seniors in the workforce. Although age is explicitly protected under clause 8 of the Bill, many seniors still face what I term \"covert discrimination\". This refers to subtle biases, like dismissing their expertise or denying them growth opportunities, not the overt remarks like \"you are too old for this job.\"
In my Meet-the-People Sessions, seniors like Mr A, in his 50s, shared how their extensive experience is often overlooked in favor of younger, untested ideas. Mrs B recounted how she is offered fewer training opportunities, leaving her feeling stagnant and unvalued. These experiences, though often invisible, create significant barriers to equality.
While the Bill addresses training opportunities and prohibits age discrimination, the real challenge lies in detection and resolution. Many seniors hesitate to approach HR, fearing they will be labelled as troublemakers. Small businesses may not even have formal HR departments to mediate such issues.
To resolve this, we need alternative and non-confrontational channels that allow seniors to address concerns without fear of retaliation. These neutral spaces could facilitate honest dialogue, where employers explain challenges and employees share their feelings of exclusion. This will build trust, foster open communication and ensure that seniors' contributions are fully recognised.
Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, I commend the inclusion of mental health conditions as a protected characteristic under clause 16. This is a critical step forward, recognising that mental well-being is as important as physical health.
I am especially heartened that the Bill acknowledges mental health as a protected characteristic without requiring mandatory disclosure. This voluntary approach should persist as disclosure is only required when there is a measurable impact on performance. Otherwise, mandatory disclosure risks reinforcing stigma and deterring individuals from seeking employment or support.
At the same time, we must handle mental health cases sensitively. The requirement for a formal diagnosis in cases of alleged discrimination is necessary to prevent abuse. However, the process should be handled with compassion and respect, ensuring that employees do not feel alienated or judged.
I propose greater awareness and education for employers to dispel myths and on the benefits of accommodating employees with mental health conditions. Many of these individuals are highly capable when provided the right support. Training programmes can dispel myths about absenteeism and productivity and equip employers with practical solutions like flexible working hours or quiet spaces. Such measures will ensure mental health is no longer a barrier to success.
Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill's exemption for religious organisations as outlined in clause 23 acknowledges their unique roles. However, we need to clarify the scope of this exemption to avoid confusion. Many religious organisations run preschools, charities and welfare services that cater to people of all faiths. Does the exemption extend to these institutions? And if so, to what extent?
To prevent misunderstandings, I urge the Minister to provide greater clarity on the necessity and limits of these exemptions. Clearer communication will help avoid division and ensure that these provisions are fairly and consistently applied, preserving the harmony we value in Singapore.
Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, while I appreciate the phased implementation of this Bill to give SMEs more time to adapt, we must guard against unintended loopholes. The exemption for companies with fewer than 25 employees, as mentioned in clause 4(1), could inadvertently encourage some employers to keep their workforce artificially small to avoid compliance costs.
To mitigate this risk, I propose that we phase out the exemption as businesses grow. Alternatively, we could offer financial incentives and practical guidance to ease the compliance burden for SMEs. Grants for workplace upgrades and training programmes would help SMEs adopt fair practices without placing undue strain on them.
Similarly, reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities should be addressed. While larger companies can absorb the costs of accessibility, smaller businesses may struggle. TAFEP's advisory and financial support will be critical to ensure that SMEs can create accessible and inclusive workplaces.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, as we look to the future, let me ask: what will the workforce or the workplace of tomorrow look like? How will it evolve to meet the challenges of an increasingly digital and AI-enabled world?
The 2024 World Economic Forum's Future of Jobs report reveals that the workplace will be shaped by generative AI, digital transformation and the demand for constant upgrading. To thrive in this new world, we must harness the power of diversity. Diverse perspectives are no longer just a nice-to-have, they are the key to innovation and success.
Take NASA's Mars Rover project, for example. The team included not just engineers, they also had anthropologists and historians. This diversity led to groundbreaking solutions, such as adapting ancient bridge designs for a reliable landing system. As highlighted in Matthew Syed's \"Rebel Ideas\", this story exemplifies how embracing diverse minds leads to innovative breakthroughs. It shows us that diversity is not just about representation, it is about creating better and more effective solutions.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the Workplace Fairness Bill is an essential step forward in fostering fairness and inclusivity in Singapore's workplaces. It tackles the challenges faced by our senior workers, breaks down barriers for those with mental health conditions, provides clarity on religious exemptions and offers SMEs a thoughtful approach to compliance. But our work does not end here.
This Bill is a call to action for all stakeholders. To employers, value experience, embrace inclusivity and create workplaces where everyone has an equal chance to succeed. To employees, speak up, seek support and encourage understanding. And to all of us, let us ensure that this Bill does not just remain a set of rules, but becomes a foundation for real change in our workplaces and in the lives of all Singaporeans. I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Keith Chua.
Mr Keith Chua (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I first declare my position as the executive chairman of a food service business and also as vice president of a charity providing mental health services.
For persons recovering from and coping with mental health issues, meaningful employment can be both helpful and vital. If I would look back over the past 20 years or more, many employers have been extremely generous in providing employment opportunities for persons in recovery. In the more recent years, with efforts to help persons in recovery gain meaningful employment, even more employers have stepped forward. Employment support specialists have also been engaged to assist both employees in the workplace and also the employers.
I would like to acknowledge with gratefulness all who have provided and continue to provide employment opportunities for persons in recovery.
In passing the Workplace Fairness Bill, it will provide a good framework for issues involving potential discrimination and provide guidance for fair employment practices.
I would like to touch on three of the stated protected characteristics: mental health condition, disability and caregiving.
Let me continue with mental health and the protected characteristic of mental health condition. Recent studies and reports show – and have been mentioned by the Minister – that mental health issues will be an area of increasing need for intervention and support. Including this in the proposed Bill is therefore very timely.
The added complexity for mental health conditions is the issue of stigma. Individuals may not disclose this even within their family and friends and may also choose not to advise their employers of their condition. Even of more concern, they may not be willing to seek proper help and suffer in silence.
In order for the individual to be included under mental health condition, there will need to be a professional diagnosis. This seems fair and reasonable. However, the outworking of this will require better understanding and awareness of mental health conditions and the benefits of seeking proper professional intervention.
Public education on mental health and wellness needs to continue. Employers will also need to better understand mental health conditions and how this may impact the employee and their ability to continue in their roles after appropriate treatment – not unlike other medical issues that result in temporary incapacity to work.
The workplace must therefore see transformation to one where any person with a mental health condition can be accepted and supported without the agony of stigma. While discrimination is addressed in the Bill, the broader challenge of stigma will need continuing efforts.
Many employers have also provided employment opportunities for PwDs. For some years now, social enterprises and charities have been active employers for persons with disabilities. We are also seeing increasingly a much wider group of employers providing employment opportunities for PwDs.
Today, PwDs are prepared for suitable jobs from the time they attend schools. This therefore removes some of the anxiety, but this will also be dependent on there being enough job vacancies once they enter the job market.
There also needs to be alignment, as mentioned by hon Member Denise Phua earlier, on conditions that fall under disability. One condition is, for example, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, or ADHD. Statistics show that about two thirds of individuals diagnosed with ADHD present with other disorders which could fall under either the protected characteristic of disability or mental health condition. But that would leave out some who are specifically diagnosed with ADHD. Could the Minister kindly clarify whether ADHD falls under one of the protected characteristics if an individual is not concurrently diagnosed with any of the four categories under disability or mental health condition?
Caregivers, too, have been a group requiring more avenues of support. In recent years, more support for caregivers has been provided across various fronts. While caregivers are more than likely to be family members as defined, there are caregivers who provide care but fall outside this definition. Could the Minister clarify if there is scope for broadening this category of caregivers?
This Bill needs to be seen as an initial step towards workplace fairness as it covers broad key areas. Some concern has been raised on whether more clarity should be given in addressing issues arising in the workplace. We need to strike a reasonable balance between employers and those who fall under the protected characteristics. The workplace should not become a litigious environment as this Bill intends to preserve harmony and fairness. Nevertheless, some degree of recourse as provided in this Bill will help minimise discrimination and unfair practices should these arise. We should see this as a positive first step and therefore as a work in progress.
Many employers are already providing excellent work environments and giving care to employees who fall under protected characteristics. Some employers, whether by nature of the sector or other factors, may need time to adjust. We should enable this so that every employer can ultimately embrace the intent of this Bill.
Businesses need to do well in order to do good. At the same time we want responsible employers who take care of their employees. Employees, too, must remain diligent and responsible and be reasonable in exercising the protection this Bill provides.
Mr Speaker, Sir, my questions notwithstanding, I support this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Miss Rachel Ong.
Miss Rachel Ong (West Coast): Mr Speaker, during the past Committee of Supply debates, I highlighted that while employers might view reasonable accommodation as optional, it is a necessity for PwDs and caregivers of vulnerable individuals, whether children, PwDs or seniors.
If workplace fairness is the goal, then reasonable accommodation is the bridge to achieving it for PWDs. It is the essential foundation that empowers them to access, sustain and thrive in their livelihoods, fostering equal opportunities not just in employment but also in career growth and development. Without this bridge, the promise of workplace fairness becomes a hollow ideal.
In May 2024, MOM shared that the Tripartite Advisory on Reasonable Accommodation would be introduced alongside WFL. May I confirm if this advisory will indeed be released concurrently with Part 2 of WFL? This advisory holds great significance for those in the PwD community, who are keenly awaiting its guidance. This will serve as a critical framework for fostering inclusive workplaces. However, its importance also highlights why reasonable accommodation cannot remain separate from the discussion on workplace fairness.
Consider this: if a PwD is deemed unsuitable for a role, solely because the employer did not provide a basic accommodation, such as screen-reading software, would that decision not amount to discrimination? Similarly, if a caregiver of a severely-disabled child is denied a job simply because they requested FWAs or hybrid meeting options, when the role can reasonably accommodate these requests, should that not also be seen as an unjust barrier under WFL?
As first steps, I would like to propose two aspects of reasonable accommodation to be legislated as part of WFL. First, FWAs as a legislated reasonable accommodation. The Tripartite Guidelines on FWAs rolled out last December, are indeed a step forward. However, they raise an important question: if FWAs can be strongly encouraged, should we not go further and make FWAs a required reasonable accommodation for those with specific protected characteristics, particularly, PwDs or caregivers of vulnerable persons?
For PwDs and their caregivers, remote or hybrid work arrangements is very much welcomed due to their unique needs. This also is profitable for our labour pool. Incorporating FWAs into the WFL as a legislated accommodation for PwDs and caregivers would send a clear and powerful message that inclusivity is not optional, but an essential principle.
As we explore other potential accommodations that balance the needs of employers with those of employees, it is critical that we act with urgency and intent. Today's decisions will shape workplaces where those who need the most support are given the opportunity to thrive and where fairness is embedded in every aspect of our work culture.
Second, the Open Door Programme grant scoped as legislated reasonable accommodation. Accommodations covered by grants under SG Enable's Open Door Programme should also be legislated as reasonable accommodations. The Open Door Programme supports employers by covering up to 90% of the costs for job redesign and staff training to accommodate PwDs.
This significantly reduce the financial burden of inclusive hiring. However, many companies may find the application process daunting due to administrative challenges. To address this, I urge MOM and MSF to collaborate with SG Enable to simplify and streamline the application process. By reducing administrative barriers and improving access to information, agencies can encourage more companies to take advantage of these grants, fostering a greater willingness to make reasonable accommodations.
For WFL to succeed, we must include education and training for hiring agents and managers. Awareness of what constitutes discrimination, at every stage of employment, is critical. I will share two examples where two hiring officers have, unknowingly, discriminated against PwDs.
The first example, at the pre-employment stage, some deaf individuals have faced overt discrimination. For instance, one deaf applicant included a note in her CV requesting responses via email. After weeks without replies, she added a friend's phone number. When the hiring officer called the friend and learned the applicant was deaf, they responded, \"In that case, we will delete her name from the list.\" As the role did not require hearing or speaking on the phone, this was a clear and unjust act of discrimination.
Here is a second example: a neurodivergent individual shared that his manager explicitly marked him down during a performance appraisal because he requested clarifications and step-by-step guidance on tasks. The markdown was based on the performance criterion of \"ability to work independently with minimal supervision\". But requests for clarifications are common for neurodivergent individuals and should not be penalised.
Managers and HR departments working with PwDs must be trained to reasonably adjust performance appraisal criteria, particularly regarding what \"working independently\" means for someone with disabilities. I urge MOM to incorporate training programmes, supported by disability Social Service Agencies (SSAs), as part of the WFL roll-out. These programmes should aim to raise awareness and foster understanding among hiring agents and managers, about what constitutes discriminatory behavior towards PwDs.
Understandably, many may be unaware of what fair requests and reasonable accommodations entail. This also underscores the critical role of the Advisory on Reasonable Accommodation in ensuring the successful implementation of WFL. As WFL rolls out, particularly with clarifications on reasonable accommodations and what constitutes discrimination, may I emphasise the importance of making grievance handling processes accessible to PwDs? This means ensuring that both online forms and physical spaces for filing grievances, whether within companies or with TAFEP, are accessible to individuals with visual, hearing or physical disabilities. Without accessible grievance mechanisms, we risk leaving PwDs without recourse to address workplace fairness violations.
Imagine constructing a state-of-the-art office building and declaring it open, yet failing to include a wheelchair ramp. How can we genuinely call the space \"inclusive\" or \"equitable\", if an entire group is excluded from ease of entrance? Reasonable accommodations, such as wheelchair ramps, are not just conveniences, they are fundamental enablers of participation and inclusion. Without them, WFL risks being an unfulfilled promise, falling short of its true purpose for our PwD community.
As we advance WFL, let us ensure it becomes more than just a vision or a set of ideals. It must function as a practical, inclusive framework that truly works for everyone. Embracing reasonable accommodations for PwDs will be a testament to our nation's shared commitment to equity and inclusivity. Like a bridge that creates access, these accommodations open the doors to equal opportunities.
Together, let us construct a bridge to workplace fairness; one that leaves no one behind and ensures everyone can cross to the other side comfortably. Mr Speaker, I support this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Zaqy Mohamad.
","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":"The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Speaker, I move, \"That the debate be now adjourned.\"
Mr Speaker: Resumption of debate, what day?
Mr Zaqy Mohamad: Tomorrow, Sir.
Mr Speaker: So be it.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"A More Equitable Certificate of Entitlement","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
A More Equitable Certificate of Entitlement
Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Certificate of Entitlement, or COE, system was introduced in 1990 to manage the growth of the car population in Singapore. It does so by allocating a limited supply of COEs via a bidding system. Those with the highest bid win the right to own a vehicle in Singapore.
The COE system currently is based on purely economic considerations, on the belief that economic efficiency is optimised by allocating resources to those most willing and able to pay. This has meant that car ownership has also become a goal that is only achievable by the wealthy, without regard for who has a greater need for a car. The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) is of the view that public policies should not be based on economic optimisation alone. Social considerations must also be taken into account for fairer and more holistic policies.
In the case of commercial vehicles, PSP has no objection to the current system of allocating based on those most willing and able to pay. However, for private vehicles, PSP believes that even though not everyone in Singapore will be able to own a car, we should also consider the needs of certain groups in society in deciding who gets to own a car. We would, therefore, like to propose a hybrid COE system that takes into account both economic and social factors in the allocation of private vehicles, which will only apply to Categories A, B and D COEs. This also means that PSP will support the creation of a separate COE category for private hire cars (PHCs). We look forward to the Transport Minister sharing an update on this during the Budget debate in February.
In 2023, I urged the Government to consider adjusting our COE system to take into consideration needs factors, such as families with persons with disabilities (PwDs) or children. However, then-Minister for Transport S Iswaran cited various practical difficulties incorporating needs into the system. Therefore, today I would like to propose a feasible COE system that takes into account needs factors for the Government's consideration.
We propose that instead of bidding for Categories A, B and D COEs using cash, bids should be placed using COE credits. What are COE credits and how do we get them? COE credits will be distributed by Government to adult Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents (PRs) each month. The number of COE credits received by each person will depend on various factors, such as nationality, the number of children, age, disability and so forth.
For illustration purposes, let me give some examples of how we can distribute the COE credits. For example, we can distribute 100 credits to each adult Singapore Citizen and 70 to each adult PR. Those with children aged 12 or below get an additional 200 credits per child who is a Singaporean Citizen; and 140 per child who is a PR. Senior citizens above the retirement age gets an additional 100 credits. Those who have mobility impairment, such as those who qualify for Class 1 or Class 2 car park labels for the disabled, can get an additional 200 credits. In recognition of the contributions of those who served National Service (NS), we can also distribute additional credits to them. These examples given are not exhaustive, but serve to illustrate how we can use this system to take into account needs and social contributions and make it less costly for those with greater need to own a vehicle.
These COE credits will be transferable. Families can pool their COE credits together to bid for a vehicle. Larger families will, thus, find it less costly to get a car. COE credits can also be traded. Those who want to own a vehicle can buy the COE credits from those who do not, in order to submit a higher bid. This sets up a system of transfer from vehicle owners to those using public transport. Foreigners residing in Singapore who wish to buy a car will also have to buy COE credits from Singaporeans and PRs.
Under this system, unavoidably, those who are financially better off would still be better able to acquire a COE, although it is ameliorated to some extent by distributing COE credits based on needs factors. It is also accompanied by a redistribution of wealth from vehicle owners to non-car owners and from foreigners to Singaporeans and PRs. It is thus not only a tool for controlling the number of vehicles, but also a tool for redistribution that is self-adjusting based on different economic conditions. For example, when the economic gap between the upper segments and the rest widens, the transfers automatically increase with the additional purchasing power of the top, and vice-versa.
The intention of PSP’s proposed system is to: one, lower the cost for those with greater need compared to those with less; two, lower the cost for those willing to wait and accumulate their COE credits as compared to those who are less patient; and three, reward those who choose not to own a car and help them better cope with the rising cost of public transportation.
In addition to the normal COE credits, we propose the introduction of Gift COE credits, which can only be gifted to others, not sold.
While we try to formulate public policies to cater to different circumstances as best as we can, it is not practical to expect all scenarios to be covered. As individuals, we are better able to see the circumstances of the people around us and make our own judgement on who has a greater need. We can transfer our Gift COE credits to those with greater needs or simply just to whoever we wish to help.
For example, in addition to the 100 COE credits for each adult Singaporean, we can give 10 Gift COE credits. To prevent abuses, we can put certain safeguards in place. For example, Gift COE credits cannot be used by people who live at the same address. Also, once A has gifted B with credits, B or anyone from B's household cannot give credits to A or anyone from A’s household for the next one year.
This system allows us to plug some of the gaps that is sometimes unavoidable in public policies and fosters a climate of mutual help in the community. We believe that the bonds in our community will be the stronger for it. Gifting tends to be a one-way flow from the richer to the poorer. With the gift credits, even the poorest among us will have opportunities to give something to their friends.
COE is a significant revenue source for the Government, accounting for an estimated $4.66 billion in revenue in FY2023, or about 4.5% of total Government revenue. PSP is aware that if the Government foregoes all COE revenues, there will be a big hole in public revenue that will have to be filled through other means.
Thus, to reduce the impact of the new COE system on Government revenue, we propose that the Government collect a base fee per COE. In other words, in order to get a COE, you will need to pay a base fee to the Government, plus COE credits, which can be accumulated for free or bought from others.
We would like to suggest two ways to determine this base fee. First option, a flat fee of say $50,000 per Category A (Cat A) COE and $70,000 per Cat B COE. The flat fee can be determined by taking reference from historical COE prices and then indexed to inflation thereafter.
The second option, a percentage of the car’s open market value, which is how the Additional Registration Fee (ARF) is calculated. This will make it more expensive to own luxury cars, while those who need a car solely for transport will find it easier to own cheaper cars. This makes for a more equitable car ownership policy. In fact, for this option, we can do it via raising the ARF to make up for the lost revenue.
Even with the implementation of a base fee, there will still be some loss of revenue for the Government, as these monies are transferred from vehicle owners to public transport users instead of to the Government.
PSP is thus mindful of the need to ensure prudent Government spending. It has always been a priority for PSP to ensure that the Government’s policies do not over-burden the public purse. For example, we have previously questioned the Government’s grants to Singapore Press Holdings, expenditures by the People’s Association and spending related to the Sports Hub. It is also our view that the Government needs to re-assess how we are spending or collecting money in some areas of public policy to ensure greater fairness for Singaporeans. Housing is one example. COE policy is another.
In 2023, I asked the Minister for Transport in this House if the authorities would consider introducing a levy for additional vehicle purchases, similar to the Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty, or ABSD, used in the housing market. At the time, the Minister said that high COE prices were not explained by multiple car-owning households.
However, PSP believes that there is a need to send a signal against the accumulation of multiple cars by ultra-wealthy households for pleasure when these scarce COEs could be more useful in the hands of another household that does not currently own a car. Thus, we continue to feel that an additional levy should be imposed on any additional car purchases by a household.
However, in order to be fairer to multi-generational families residing together or larger families, exceptions can be made where the household size is such that the ratio of household members to each car is five or more before such additional purchase. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Singapore introduced the Certificate of Entitlement (COE) system in 1990. Over the years, while the COE system has effectively controlled the number of cars in Singapore, it has also been criticised because under the current system, the highest bidder wins. This has made car ownership a privilege of the wealthy, without considering the benefits that private cars can bring to families in need, such as those with elderly, children, or disabled members.
PSP believes that public policy should not only consider economic benefits. We must consider the needs of the general public to formulate fairer and more comprehensive policies.
In 2023, I called on the Government in Parliament to consider adjusting the COE system based on public needs. At that time, Transport Minister S. Iswaran rejected this proposal, citing some implementation difficulties. Therefore, today I want to propose a COE system that can consider needs and is implementable for the government's consideration. For commercial vehicles, we believe the current highest-bidder-wins system can be maintained, and a new COE category should be established for private hire cars.
PSP proposes that instead of bidding for Categories A, B, and D using cash, for private cars and motorcycles, we create a new bidding system using \"COE credits\" .
Under this system, the Government would distribute \"COE credits” to all adult Singaporean citizens and permanent residents every month. For example, we could give 100 credits to each adult Singaporean citizen and 70 credits to each adult permanent resident. Additional credits could be given to those with young children, those over retirement age, the disabled, and those serving National Service.
People can accumulate these credits, buy and sell them, and then use these credits to bid for COEs.
Under our proposed COE system, people with greater need for car ownership have the opportunity to buy cars at a lower cost; those willing to wait and accumulate credits also have the chance to buy cars at a lower cost; those who choose not to buy cars can sell their credits to offset public transport costs. This will create a wealth transfer from car owners to non-car owners.
We also propose issuing gift credits that can only be given away and not bought or sold, to encourage a spirit of mutual help in society. With these gift credits, even struggling families would have more opportunities and ability to give to friends. The income from COEs is a considerable sum, and abandoning it entirely would create a large fiscal gap. Therefore, we propose that in addition to bidding with credits, car owners must pay a COE base fee. We suggest two ways to set this fee.
First, we can set a fixed fee based on historical COE prices for Categories A, B, and D. For example, the base fee for a Category A COE could be set at $50,000, and Category B at $70,000. This fee could increase in the future linked to inflation.
Second, the base fee could be linked to the car's Open Market Value (OMV). This would make luxury cars more expensive, helping to create a fairer car ownership policy. If this option is chosen, it could be implemented by increasing the Additional Registration Fee (ARF). We also suggest that households purchasing more than one car should pay an additional fee. For fairness, some large families or multi-generational households could be exempted.
PSP believes that as our country has achieved remarkable economic development in its 60 years since independence, we have the ability to create more empathetic policies in various areas such as housing, employment, and social welfare. Since the last General Election, we have been continuously proposing these alternative policies in Parliament. While these alternative policies may not be the most economically efficient when viewed purely from an economic perspective, we believe our alternative policies can treat all citizens more fairly. We call on the government to seriously consider the alternative COE policy we have proposed today.
(In English): Mr Speaker, fairness should be at the heart of our public policies as our nation progresses economically. PSP believes that our proposed approach better balances economic and social considerations, and builds a system that provides a fairer and more equitable allocation of COEs for private vehicles and better matches our value system. We hope the Government will seriously consider this model.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Amy Khor.
The Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan): Mr Speaker, I note that the Member's speech is primarily about a COE Credits Allocation Framework.
Given Singapore's land and carbon constraints, it is critical to manage our vehicle population and usage. We do so through the Vehicle Quota System (VQS), which works efficiently to allocate a scarce resource, COEs, through a price mechanism. In addition, we manage congestion during peak hours through the Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) system.
Mr Speaker, the PSP's proposals may be well-intentioned, but they are unlikely to be effective in practice.
First, Ms Poa highlights concerns with the current price mechanism but comes up with a credit framework system, a rather complicated one. Under the proposal, those who want to own a car can buy COE credits from those who do not. The net effect is people who can acquire COEs will still be those who are willing and able to pay for it.
Second, our system today is a transparent, single price mechanism for every bidding exercise. How will the prices for PSP’s credits be set? Are we inadvertently creating more friction and complexity in the process for Singaporeans who genuinely want to buy a vehicle? Their proposal may potentially drive the price of credits underground, where the prices of the credits become opaque and unknowing consumers get fleeced, akin, for instance, to the price gouging of Taylor Swift concert tickets last year. A COE under such circumstances may well cost even more than today. And to guard against black markets, we will need to set up a whole new trading and enforcement regime, which will ultimately cost taxpayers even more.
Third, the PSP suggested that those who do not need their credits can sell it and thus set up a “system of transfer” from vehicle owners to those using public transport. However, our system today already achieves this at the macro-level. COEs that are paid by private owners form part of the Government’s revenue, which is used to fund the Government’s subsidies for public transport and other public goods such as housing, healthcare and education.
Fourth, I find it concerning that the PSP is suggesting the Government dictates who gets more credits. It may sound attractive in the first instance, that different people with different needs should get different amount of credits.
But needs are very subjective. How do we pass such judgement on who needs a car more? To use Ms Poa's proposed allocation, is there strong justification why a male who has served NS needs a car more than a female who has not, and thus should be given more credits to own a car? Or that a child under 12 years of age should be allocated twice the credits of an adult?
I fully agree that we should recognise our NSmen for their contributions. We have done so in other ways such as NS credits. Similarly, families with children are given Baby Bonuses and other assistance. For these groups, we provide additional support upfront in a transparent and direct way, instead of through a convoluted credit system.
Ms Poa also said that the PSP supports the creation of a separate COE category for PHCs. There have been similar suggestions raised by Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Yip Hon Weng in this House. As Minister Chee Hong Tat has explained previously, this is not a straightforward exercise and needs careful study. It entails creating a separate COE category for PHCs and moving existing quota from Cat A and B into it. If we move too much of the existing quota from Cat A and B to this new category for PHCs, it would overly reduce the supply in Cat A and B and could lead to an increase in COE prices.
Conversely, if we moved too few quota to the separate category for PHCs, it would lead to insufficient PHC supply, resulting in higher cost and reduced accessibility for point-to-point commuters. So, how much of the existing Cat A and B quota should be shifted to the new category for PHCs? There are no easy answers. Perhaps, the PSP can share with us the amount of COE quota they propose to take from Cat A and B, to transfer into this new category for PHCs?
Ms Poa has also suggested an additional tax for multiple car owning households, similar to ABSD. The key intent of ABSD is to curb speculative behaviour in the property market. Cars are less regarded as speculative assets, in part because the COE system limits the validity of use. The same parallel therefore cannot be drawn. As we have also shared previously in this House, multiple car-owning households are not the main drivers for COE quota. Fewer than 5% of all households own more than one car and the percentage has been gradually coming down. Amongst these, there are inter-generational or larger households. Should we penalise such households just because they choose to live together rather than in separate properties?
Mr Speaker, the Government understands the concerns with high COE prices. Other Members, such as Mr Melvin Yong, Ms Ng Ling Ling and Mr Liang Eng Hwa, have also raised similar concerns in the House. We have explained that prices are a function of supply and demand. The Government cannot control demand, but we have made significant moves to increase supply, including through the \"cut-and-fill\" approach for Cats A, B and D where we bring forward COEs from the peak supply years to fill the current trough. In 2024, we increased the Cats A and B quota by more than 9,000 via \"cut-and-fill\". The quota released was more than 30% higher than what it would have been without \"cut-and-fill\".
The increased supply appears to have dampened COE price increases. When we debated the Cost of Living Motion in this House in November 2023, Ms Poa highlighted her concern with high COE prices, as did other Members. Since then, the Prevailing Quota Premium, or PQP, across Cats A, B, C and D have come down by between 5% and 20%.
Mr Speaker, the Government will, where appropriate, continue to increase the COE supply through \"cut-and-fill\" and from February 2025 onwards, also through the 20,000 additional COEs announced in October 2024, till it reaches its projected peak from 2026. The additional injection of up to 20,000 COEs is made possible due to changes in travel patterns after COVID-19 and enhanced capabilities to manage traffic congestion with ERP 2.0. This increase in supply is the most direct way to give more households the choice of owning a car, without causing traffic congestion.
More importantly, we remain committed to our shared car-lite vision where walk, cycle, ride are the predominant travel modes. Central to our car-lite vision is mass public transport. We will continue to expand our rail network over the next decade. Last year, we have also launched the Bus Connectivity Enhancement Programme to enhance the bus network.
There is also a role for shared transport which includes point-to-point services and car sharing services. These services allow those who need to use a car every now and then, to access car-like services without having to own a car.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, the Government has and will continue to invest heavily in public transport and infrastructure to make it accessible, affordable and convenient for all. We believe this will also be the most equitable approach in meeting the transport needs of all Singaporeans.
Mr Speaker: It has been a long day.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Ms Poa, the time is up, as we have only 30 minutes for the entire Adjournment Motion.
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 10.21 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":"Measures for Rapid Deployment of Public Health Interventions and Protection for Healthcare Workers from High-risk Diseases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"58 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Health (a) what measures are in place to ensure the rapid deployment of public health interventions, such as vaccination or containment measures, in response to the potential spread of emerging diseases to Singapore, such as H5N1 or the recent outbreak of an unidentified flu-like disease in the Democratic Republic of Congo; and (b) what support and resources are being provided to healthcare workers to protect them from high-risk diseases.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: A pandemic, by nature, is a global disease outbreak where the world cannot be entirely prepared for. That said, from the experience of COVID-19, we have put in a place a robust contingency plan, which we have been discussing in this House. For example, we have a comprehensive set of clinical protocols, including patient isolation, restriction of visitors and donning of full Personal Protective Equipment to protect our healthcare workers during a pandemic. We have stockpiles of drugs, such as antivirals, which can effectively reduce the severity of certain diseases.
Parliament has recently passed the amendments to the Infectious Diseases Act to confer the Ministry of Health the powers to take necessary measures, including a Circuit Breaker or even declaring an Emergency and imposing a curfew, to slow down the spread of the disease. This will help buy time for an effective vaccine and other medical countermeasures to be developed, manufactured, distributed and administered.
In this regard, Singapore is plugged into global vaccine development efforts, such as the 100 Days Mission. We are hosting several vaccine manufacturing plants in Singapore, which give ourselves additional options during a pandemic. No country is ever fully ready for a pandemic, but we have taken all possible measures to prepare ourselves for it.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Observed Trends that Led to New Guidelines on Healthy Family Boundaries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"59 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in respect of the new Guidelines on Healthy Family Boundaries (a) what social trends were observed that prompted the Ministry to detail delineating acceptable behaviours in child caregiving practices; and (b) how will families with financial challenges and living in tight spaces be able to uphold the practices recommended in the guidelines.
60 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what was the process for formulating the Guidelines on Healthy Family Boundaries on caregiving boundaries between parents and children; (b) which groups and individuals were consulted to determine these guidelines; (c) whether these guidelines take into account different social and cultural norms within Singapore's multi-racial and multi-religious society; and (d) how do these guidelines address the challenges of single parents with children of the opposite sex, or large families living in small spaces.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: My response will also cover questions filed for subsequent Sittings by Dr Wan Rizal and Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim on the Guidelines on Healthy Family Boundaries. I would invite them to also seek clarifications if need be. If Dr Wan Rizal and Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim are satisfied with the response, they may wish to withdraw their questions for the 8 and 10 January 2025 Sittings, respectively, after this session. [Please refer to \"Promoting Public Understanding of Daily Caregiving Boundaries in New Guidelines on Healthy Family Boundaries\", Official Report, 8 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 149, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) initiated the development of the Practitioners' Resource Guide on Guidelines on Healthy Family Boundaries. In the course of child protection work, MSF and professionals have come across parenting practices that, while not illegal, can place children in uncomfortable situations. These children have said so to the professionals. If a child represses their discomfort and tries to normalise the behaviour that makes them uneasy, it may inadvertently increase their vulnerability to harm in other contexts, such as outside the family or in social settings. Our starting principles as stated in the Guidelines are that every child has the right to feel safe and that no child should be subjected to unsafe touches or told to keep quiet about inappropriate actions.
A workgroup consisting of members from MSF's Child Protective Service, Clinical and Forensic Psychology Service, Family Life Group and the Office of the Director-General of Social Welfare came together to develop the Guidelines in consultation with subject matter experts, such as paediatricians from the National University Hospital and KK Women's and Children's Hospital, as well as the Ministry of Education's Guidance Branch which oversees school counsellors and student welfare officers. To ensure the Guidelines reflect Singapore's social and cultural context, representatives from the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Singapore, Hindu Advisory Board, Catholic Family Life, AMP Singapore and National Council of Churches were also consulted. The recommendations of the workgroup are backed by research with references cited in the guidelines.
The Guidelines were developed to support professionals in the child protection system who work with at-risk families, including children experiencing or are at risk of abuse or neglect. These professionals include social service practitioners, paediatricians, medical social workers, school counsellors and student welfare officers. The Guidelines are being disseminated progressively starting from end December 2024. To enhance application, the Guidelines will also be incorporated into existing training for these professionals in the child protection system.
MSF recognises that every family is unique, and some may face special circumstances. The Guidelines are, thus, not intended to be rules to be enforced or prescriptive in nature across all parenting contexts but rather to serve as general principles to help professionals working with diverse family situations.
For instance, for families with unique circumstances, such as single-parent households, the parent may need to bathe their child of the opposite sex. But when the child becomes independent, they should allow the child to bathe on their own. If necessary, the parent can verbally guide the child when bathing. For families with financial struggles or limited living spaces, co-sleeping in the same room may be unavoidable. However, parents should strive to provide privacy for children of the opposite sex, especially those who have already reached puberty, whether it be a separate sleeping mat, a bunk bed or similar alternatives. In my ward for instance, we have provided bunk beds to families who want to create safe sleeping spaces for their children.
The Guidelines encourage professionals to explore strategies that foster safe, respectful and empowering environments for children. They also include practical tips and advice, such as examples of red flags and case scenarios, to help identify situations requiring additional attention or collaboration. When professionals encounter situations that are inconsistent with the Guidelines and identify red flags, professionals would assess whether the case involves suspected child abuse. Such cases would be reported to the National Anti-Violence and Sexual Harassment Helpline, where further screening and assessment will determine whether abuse is involved.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Ensure Safety of Police Officers in Light of Attack Using Improvised Flamethrower","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"62 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Home Affairs in light of an incident involving an attack on police officers using improvised flamethrower in November 2024, what is being done to equip and protect police officers to deter targeted attacks on them.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Singapore Police Force continuously reviews the training, procedures and equipment of our officers to ensure that they can carry out their duties safely.
Police officers are empowered to use force, so as to contain situations where there is danger to life, including to protect themselves. They are trained in and equipped with various force options, such as contact tactics, batons, tasers and firearms. These options will be deployed by the officers in a manner that is proportional to the perceived threat.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Migrant Workers' Access to Healthcare Services following Introduction of Primary Care Plan","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"63 Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman asked the Minister for Manpower (a) since the introduction of the Primary Care Plan (PCP) in 2022, how many migrant workers have benefited from access to primary care services under this programme; (b) what metrics has the Ministry used to measure the success of the PCP; and (c) whether any financial benefits have been reported by employers as a result of migrant workers' access to the PCP, particularly in terms of reducing healthcare-related absences and maintaining productivity.
Dr Tan See Leng: Currently, there are more than 490,000 migrant workers enrolled in the Primary Care Plan (PCP).
PCP provides quality, accessible and affordable care to migrant workers. Appointed medical service providers must adhere to licensing and regulatory standards by the Ministry of Health and meet clinical quality and patient safety requirements specified by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM). Providers must employ staff who can speak the migrant workers' native languages and must provide translations of healthcare materials and medical and treatment plans in such languages. Clinics and medical centres must be located in the vicinity of migrant worker catchment areas, such as dormitories. Migrant workers pay a fixed co-payment fee of $2 per telehealth session or $5 per in-person session, so that they are not deterred from seeking medical care.
A study conducted by the National University of Singapore's Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health found that the medical centres and in-dormitory clinics operated by our PCP medical service providers were the most visited by migrant workers due to their affordability, proximity and convenience. MOM also regularly performs service satisfaction surveys and, thus far, majority of migrant workers are satisfied with PCP and its services.
PCP offers employers predictability and clarity of cost and protection against unexpected healthcare bills through a fixed annual capitation rate. With PCP, employers expect to save at least 20% when compared to the expected annual cost of consultations at General Practitioner clinics for each worker. MOM will continue to engage employers to gather feedback on PCP and ensure that quality care is provided at an affordable cost. We urge employers to encourage good health-seeking behaviours for their migrant workers, especially for preventive care, to better manage worker healthcare costs in the long term and increase productivity at work.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Making Services and Information on Government Disbursement Schemes Website Accessible to Illiterate or Digitally-challenged Persons","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"65 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance how can the services and information on the Government Disbursement Schemes website, www.govbenefits.gov.sg, be also made accessible to residents who are illiterate or not digitally able.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The www.govbenefits.gov.sg website allows citizens to conveniently login with their Singpass to check their eligibility and update their payment instructions for Government benefits, such as the GST Voucher, Majulah Package, Silver Support and Workfare Income Supplement schemes. Citizens will also be notified through SMS or hardcopy notifications after their benefits have been disbursed.
In line with the \"digital-first but not digital-only\" approach, Singaporeans who need assistance can approach any of the nine ServiceSG centres or any community centres/clubs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tripartite Guidelines on Restraint of Trade Clauses in Employment Contracts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"66 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Manpower whether there is any update on the Ministry's plan to issue tripartite guidelines on the inclusion of restraint of trade clauses in employment contracts.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower is discussing with its tripartite partners, the National Trades Union Congress and the Singapore National Employers Federation, on how and when restrictive clauses in employment contracts can and should be used, based on established principles that the Courts have articulated.
More details will be made available in due course.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effects of Mother Tongue Language Learning Options on Stress Levels of Students","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"69 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Education (a) whether there has been any study on the effects of Mother Tongue Language (MTL) options on stress levels for students who have been offered MTL options; (b) whether this practice has led to an emphasis on textbook competency over functional literacy; and (c) whether this practice significantly disadvantages children who may have weaker disposition toward languages, despite being gifted in other academic areas.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Our Mother Tongue Language (MTL) enables us to understand our own culture and maintain a strong link to our heritage. It also offers Singaporeans a comparative advantage by allowing us to connect with people who speak the same language as well as tapping into wider opportunities in the region. To this end, equipping our students with strong foundation in MTL is important and has been a part of our education policy on bilingualism.
The Ministry of Education recognises that students have different abilities in the learning of MTL. It is understandable for some students to feel stress in subjects that they are weaker in. Our MTL curriculum is differentiated to cater to students of different learning needs and levels of readiness. Students who faced difficulties in MTL can learn at a more appropriate pace. For example, they can receive more individualised support through the MT Support Programme at Primary 3 and Primary 4. They can take the less-demanding Foundation MTL at Primary 5 and Primary 6, and G1 or G2 MTL as they move up to Secondary level and still progress to pre-university.
Our MTL curriculum is designed to enable students to use MTL in everyday situations, beyond just academic settings. For example, our Primary 1 students learn how to use MTL in their daily routines, like buying food in the canteen and greeting their family members. Other students also participate in activities like heritage walk, drama appreciation and songwriting competition to facilitate their learning and use of MTL. Such approaches help students learn better and reduce their anxiety.
Students who are gifted in other areas, such as mathematics and arts, are developed through special programmes in schools. While we develop our students to suit their strengths, we also seek to develop our students holistically so that they will have a wide range of skills to thrive in a dynamic world and connect with people around them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singaporeans Caught Consuming Cannabis or Related Products Unwittingly in Light of Thailand's Cannabis Legalisation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"70 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Home Affairs since the legalisation of the use of cannabis in Thailand, how many Singapore residents who have been caught for consumption of cannabis or cannabis food products claimed to have consumed them ignorantly or unwittingly.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Central Narcotics Bureau does not track the data requested by the Member.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rise in Public Flat Rentals Due To Income Increases and Quantum of Rental Increases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"71 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many public rental flat tenants experienced rent increases in the past year due to income increases; (b) what was the average percentage increase in such cases; (c) whether the Ministry has conducted studies into the extent to which rent increases may disincentivise work or income progression among tenants; and (d) whether the Ministry will consider further refining the current rent adjustment model to better support tenants' efforts towards financial independence.
Mr Desmond Lee: Rents under the Public Rental Scheme are reviewed during tenancy renewal, every two to three years. The Housing and Development Board (HDB) does not impose rent increases during the tenancy term, even if tenants' incomes increase during this period.
In 2024, about a quarter of public rental households that renewed their tenancies had experienced income growth. Among them, about one in five experienced a rent increase. Their median rent increase was about $150, significantly lower than their median income increase of about $1,300.
The Government provides higher subsidies to lower-income households as they require greater support. To maintain the incentive for work and income growth, the Government has made refinements to the public housing rent structure over the years. HDB generally ensures that rent increases are significantly lower than tenants' income growth, so that tenants are better off as their incomes improve. Factors, such as household size and individual circumstances, are also considered to ensure that the rent remains affordable. In addition, tenants who have signed the Agreement for Lease and made the downpayment for a booked flat do not experience any further rent increase, even if their income increases during the time they are waiting for the booked flat.
We will continue to review the Public Rental Scheme regularly to ensure it meets tenants' needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Potential Impact of Singapore-Johor Bahru RTS Link on Retail Businesses in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"72 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Government has conducted an assessment of the potential impact on retail businesses in Singapore with the commencement of the Singapore-Johor Bahru Rapid Transit System (RTS) Link in 2026.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: My response today also addresses the matters raised in the question by Mr Desmond Choo, which has been scheduled for tomorrow's Sitting. I would like to seek the Member's consideration to withdraw his question if he agrees. [Please refer to \"Impact of Johor Bahru-Singapore Rapid Transit System Link on Singapore's Retail, Manufacturing and Commercial Rental Sectors and Job Market\", Official Report, 8 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 149, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
The Johor Bahru-Singapore Rapid Transit System Link Project will improve our connectivity with Johor and grow the overall market for businesses on both sides of the border. At the same time, we recognise local retailers' concerns. Competition will exist whether with retailers in Johor, or even online. Through Enterprise Singapore's grants and assistance schemes, we will continue to help our local retailers build new capabilities and offerings to capture overseas demand, including through online retail.
The Government has also been helping our heartland shops rejuvenate their businesses and we will continue to do so. Enterprise Singapore provides support through initiatives, such as our Heartland Visual Merchandising Programme and our Heartland Enterprise Placemaking Grant. Heartland entrepreneurs may also approach the Heartland Enterprise Centre Singapore for business advisory services and upgrading support. The Housing and Development Board (HDB) also undertakes regular upgrading works, including in HDB towns in the north, to improve the shopping environment of selected Neighbourhood Centres (NCs) to strengthen their appeal to Singaporean shoppers. Five NCs in Woodlands were recently upgraded, with more to come.
The Government also launched the Community Development Council (CDC) Voucher scheme, to provide support to Singaporean households and heartland enterprises. Overall, since the launch of the CDC Voucher scheme in December 2021, $907 million has been spent at participating heartland enterprises and hawker stalls. The sixth tranche of CDC vouchers was recently launched on 3 January 2025, which will benefit 1.33 million households, 23,000 heartland enterprises and hawker stalls and eight supermarket chains.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Dedicated Workspaces in Camps for NSmen to Handle Urgent Work during In-Camp Training","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"73 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Defence (a) whether the Ministry has considered creating dedicated workspaces in camps for NSmen during In-Camp Training (ICT) to handle urgent work without disrupting training; (b) what measures are in place to ensure employers do not interrupt NSmen's ICT obligations with work-related demands, particularly in roles requiring continuous availability; and (c) whether the Ministry will review policies to better balance ICT obligations with professional duties and ensure that NS obligations do not disadvantage Singaporean men in career progression compared to female and foreign counterparts.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: National Servicemen (NSmen) are called up for In-Camp Training (ICT) for periods necessary to meet essential operational and training needs. To minimise disruption to NSmen and their employers, NSmen are typically notified of their call-ups up to six months in advance so that suitable work coverage arrangements can be planned early. NSmen with critical work commitments during the stipulated ICT period can apply for deferment and make up for their ICT at a later time.
During their ICT, NSmen who need to address unforeseen or urgent work exigencies are allowed to do so on their own devices in designated non-sensitive areas of the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) camps. Wireless@SG is also being progressively installed in SAF camps, which provides NSmen better connectivity.
NSmen's duty to perform ICT is backed by legislation. Under the Enlistment Act, employers are required to grant their NSmen employees leave of absence during their ICT period. Employers who contravene the legislative provisions are liable for fines or custodial sentences. The Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) has not had to take such legal actions against employers because employers in Singapore understand the critical need for NS and have been supportive of their NSmen employees. In the small number of cases whereby NSmen felt that they were not supported or discriminated by their employers, the causes were predominantly misunderstandings or miscommunications which were resolved after MINDEF's facilitation.
MINDEF also has a range of efforts to further encourage employers to support their NSmen employees. These include regular engagements as well as recognition of exemplary employers via the NS Mark accreditation and Total Defence Award.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Typical Nature of Youth Offences under Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"75 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the typical nature of youth offences under the Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act; (b) whether the Ministry is aware of any key factors leading to the rise of such offences between 2019 and 2023; and (c) if not, whether there are plans to study this trend to come up with mitigation measures.\n
Mr K Shanmugam: The majority of youth arrests under the Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act (CESOWA) are for the possession of offensive weapons.
Youths commit offences for complex and multi-faceted reasons. All stakeholders, including educational institutions, law enforcement agencies, social services and parents, have a role to play in reducing youth crime. It requires a holistic approach, including upstream preventive measures, downstream rehabilitative programmes as well as enforcement.
The Police have been working with schools, the Institutes of Higher Learning and National Crime Prevention Council to educate youths on the consequences of crime, including the possession of offensive weapons. This is done through school talks, crime prevention exhibitions and crime awareness programmes.
In the first half of 2025, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) will operationalise the Guns, Explosive and Weapons Control Act (GEWCA), which expands the list of regulated offensive weapons and subjects such weapons to tighter controls. This is to further restrict access to such weapons and deter members of the public, including youths, from acquiring or possessing them.
MHA will continue to monitor the number of youth arrests under CESOWA and consider further mitigation measures where necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Lifetime Funding Cap in Assistive Technology Fund amidst Rising Costs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"76 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Ministry will review the lifetime funding cap of the Assistive Technology Fund in light of the rising costs of assistive technology products and services.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Applicants who have exceeded their Assistive Technology Fund (ATF) lifetime cap may already be considered for additional assistance under ATF 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":"Timelines and Environmental Impact Assessments for Planned Developments in Marsiling, Woodlands and Sembawang Areas","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"77 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are URA's development plans for the Marsiling and Woodgrove Divisions; and (b) what are the timelines for these plans.
78 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for National Development with regard to the planned Sembawang and Woodlands housing developments on sites with endangered species (a) what criteria will be used when evaluating the recommended mitigation measures in the Environmental Impact Assessment report for these developments; (b) how will the Ministry oversee the implementation and monitoring of these mitigation measures during and after the construction works; and (c) whether independent ecological experts and community volunteers will be involved in this monitoring process to ensure accountability.
Mr Desmond Lee: My response will also cover matters raised by Ms Hany Soh and Mr Louis Ng1, scheduled for subsequent Sittings. [Please refer to \"Balancing Public Housing Demand and Environmental Preservation at Woodlands N1 Site\", Official Report, 8 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 149, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
Members have asked about development plans for various sites in the North, including planned housing developments at Woodlands N1 and Sembawang N4. I will first address our overall approach to land use planning, before talking about the specific sites.
Given Singapore's increasingly tight land constraints, we will not be able to keep every piece of vacant land undeveloped. As an island city-state, we must cater for everything that a country needs. We need space to continue meeting Singapore's economic, social, security, residential and recreational needs. These range from providing sufficient housing to training grounds for our national servicemen and land for industries to provide good jobs for Singaporeans. At the same time, we need to strike a balance with protecting our biodiversity and safeguarding our built heritage. We, therefore, take a long-term view towards land use planning, judiciously stewarding our scarce land resources to support competing needs.
The Urban Redevelopment Authority's (URA's) ongoing Draft Master Plan (DMP) 2025 review is part of this process, where detailed land use plans are developed to guide physical development in Singapore over 10 to 15 years. As part of this review, URA has been engaging stakeholders extensively, from all walks of life, through a series of workshops, consultations, discussions and exhibitions to gather diverse views and perspectives to ensure that DMP reflects the needs and aspirations of Singaporeans. URA has been inviting members of the public to share their inputs, to ensure a collaborative effort nationwide towards planning and development of the DMP. After the review is completed, Singaporeans can find out more about development plans for their neighbourhoods at the DMP 2025 exhibition that will be held around mid-2025 at the URA Centre and selected locations around the island.
Our land use plans also reflect our continuously evolving needs. In recent years, we have seen strong, broad-based demand for housing. This is due to strong household formation rates and societal trends towards smaller households after the COVID-19 pandemic. To meet housing demand, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) has been intensifying and optimising sites as far as possible. Nonetheless, agencies still have to develop greenfield areas to meet Singaporeans' housing needs.
This includes the North Region, where the Woodlands N1 and Sembawang N4 sites that Members have asked about are situated. Most of the Woodlands N1 site is forested and has been zoned for Residential use in URA's Master Plan since 1980; while around 10% of Sembawang N4 site is forested, and the site has been largely zoned for Residential use since 2003. Agencies will share more details on the development timelines for these sites when ready.
We recognise the ecological value of these sites and will develop them sensitively to balance the need for housing and other amenities, while retaining our natural assets. HDB, hence, commissioned an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to assess and recommend measures to mitigate potential environmental impacts arising from the development of the Woodlands N1 and Sembawang N4 sites. EIA reports were reviewed in consultation with Nature Groups and published online in November 2024 for public feedback, which HDB will carefully consider.
The EIA reports recommended measures to mitigate the impact of the developments on flora and fauna. These included, retaining a large part of the native-dominated secondary forest at Woodlands N1, shepherding of fauna to areas not affected by the development works and transplanting plant species of conservation significance. HDB will require contractors to implement these mitigation measures as part of the Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan (EMMP).
To ensure compliance with EMMP during construction works, HDB will hire an independent EMMP consultant, to carry out regular inspections of the project site and submit findings to relevant agencies. As an additional layer of checks, HDB will also be required to submit monitoring reports to the National Parks Board, who will review them and conduct site inspections. Where there are non-compliances with any regulation or the EMMP, including during the post-construction phase, the respective regulatory agencies will investigate and take relevant enforcement actions.
Even as our land use needs evolve, I would like to assure Singaporeans that the Government remains committed to building a home and City in Nature for all Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for National Development what mitigation measures will be implemented to reduce the impact on flora and fauna at the upcoming Sembawang and Woodlands HDB projects, respectively."],"footNoteQuestions":["77","78"],"questionNo":"77-78"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans for Eunos Community Club and Timeline of Club's Reopening","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"79 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what are the People's Association's plans for the Eunos Community Club (CC); (b) why has the CC remained hoarded up and closed to Eunos residents for many years; and (c) when does the Ministry intend for it to be reopened for resident and community use.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: For all Community Clubs (CCs), the People's Association (PA) maintains a periodic Upgrading and/or Cyclical Maintenance Programme to keep our CCs well-maintained, functional and fit-for-purpose. Eunos CC was selected for upgrading in 2023 under this programme.
A tender for upgrading works was called in September 2022. The scope of works included, the enhancement of existing spaces and also partial demolition and construction of a new four-storey block, which included a rooftop basketball court and extension of the multi-purpose hall with a new foyer. In anticipation of the impending upgrading works, Eunos CC was closed.
However, the tender bids for the upgrading works were returned at a substantially higher amount than had been expected. This was due in part to the increased construction costs immediately post-COVID and other factors. After an assessment, it was decided that it would not be prudent to proceed with the upgrading works at that time. Instead, in consultation with the Grassroots Advisor, PA decided to scale down the works to only essential ones, at a lower cost, and defer the other larger items to a later date.
The intention, subject to exigencies, is to complete these works and reopen the CC by Q4 2025 or early 2026.
In the period of time since the closure of Eunos CC in September 2022, the Eunos Cultural Centre has been used to serve residents' needs and hosting regular community activities, events and programmes. This will continue until Eunos CC is reopened.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Improving Public Recognition of Mental Health Conditions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"82 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Health what measures are being taken to improve public recognition of mental health conditions such as obsessive-compulsive disorder and schizophrenia which, based on a recent study by the Institute of Mental Health, remain less recognised by the respondents of the study despite overall improvements in mental health literacy.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: My response will also cover the matters raised in the written questions by Dr Wan Rizal for today's Sitting. [Please refer to \"Reducing Stigma Towards Individuals with Mental Health Conditions\", Official Report, 7 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 148, Written Answers to Questions section.]
Mental health literacy plays a pivotal role in addressing public misconceptions and false perceptions about mental health, which cause stigma. Singapore has made significant progress in raising awareness through initiatives, such as the Health Promotion Board's (HPB's) \"Supporters who Listen, Support Better\" campaign and the National Council of Social Service's (NCSS') \"Beyond the Label\" (BTL) campaign, which features stories on the lived experience of individuals with mental health conditions, such as Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) and schizophrenia. These campaigns are complemented by educational resources available on platforms, like Mindline.sg, as well as public education and outreach efforts by the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) and HPB. AIC also trains frontline personnel and community partners to recognise and support people with common mental health conditions.
Community-level support for vulnerable groups, such as older adults and individuals with lower education levels, are provided through the Well-being Circles, Community Outreach Teams and Community Intervention Teams. Seniors, in particular, benefit from targeted outreach by Silver Generation Ambassadors and offline support through CareLine, a 24/7 social support hotline.
These collective efforts have improved public awareness and recognition of common mental health conditions, as shown in the Mind Matters study conducted from 2022 to 2023. Even OCD, a condition not so well understood, has become more recognisable. In addition, the 2021 survey by NCSS reported improved public attitudes toward individuals with mental health conditions compared to the initial study in 2017.
We will continue to strengthen our ongoing efforts as part of the National Mental Health and Well-being Strategy and explore more targeted approaches to address stigma affecting specific populations, for example, with the BTL campaign promoting inclusive workplaces and employment support.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Deaths and Injuries from Traffic Offences Related to Making Illegal Turns, and Accidents within Silver and School Zones","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"83 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) in each of the last five years, how many motorists have been caught for making illegal left-, right- and U-turns; (b) how many injuries and deaths have been caused by such violations; (c) how many of these injuries and deaths have occurred near or within Silver Zones and School Zones; and (d) what measures are in place to strengthen compliance and enforcement of traffic laws and rules.
Mr K Shanmugam: Over the past five years, about 4,300 motorists per year were caught making illegal turns. The total number of motorists caught making illegal turns has trended down, from about 7,700 in 2019 to about 2,000 in 2023. The majority were making unauthorised U-turns.
The Traffic Police does not track the number of injuries or deaths caused by such violations.
We had provided a reply in May 2024 on the various measures in place to strengthen compliance with and enforcement of traffic laws. [Please refer to \"Measures to Improve Safety on the Roads and Increase Penalties following Recent Spate of Fatal Accidents\", Official Report, 7 May 2024, Vol 95, Issue 135, 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":"Revising Quantum Amounts for Government Assistance Schemes to Better Help Low- and Medium-income Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"91 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the current support quanta across all Government assistance schemes for low and medium-income workers can be further revised to enable them to stay above the increased cost of living resulting from cyclical and non-cyclical inflation.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Government regularly reviews the scope, coverage and payout quanta of our social support schemes. These reviews take into account macroeconomic trends, including inflation and wage growth, to ensure that our support is sized appropriately and targeted at those with greater needs.
Over the past year, we have enhanced social support schemes that benefit lower- and middle-income workers. For example, we enhanced the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) scheme from 1 January 2025, with the qualifying monthly income cap raised from $2,500 to $3,000 and the maximum WIS payments per year increased from $4,200 to $4,900. These enhancements ensure that WIS continues to support lower-income workers amidst the rising cost of living.
The Government has also rolled out measures to support all Singaporeans with their cost of living, with more help given to lower- and middle-income families. In particular, we have enhanced the Assurance Package to more than $10 billion. The enhancements include measures, such as the Budget 2024 Cost-of-Living Special Payment that was disbursed in September 2024, Community Development Council (CDC) vouchers and additional utilities save (U-Save) and service and conservancy charges (S&CC) rebates.
While social support measures play an important role, the most effective way to help lower- and middle-income workers cope with the rising cost of living is to enable them to increase their real wages over time. This is why one of our priorities is to continue growing the economy to create more good jobs and support Singaporeans to take on these jobs through skills upgrading and lifelong learning.
Our efforts have helped our workers increase their real income over time. This is the increase in their income, which is above the rate of inflation. Based on the Ministry of Manpower's Labour Force in Singapore Advance Release 2024, real median income grew at 0.7% per annum from 2019 to 2024. Real income for lower-wage workers grew at a higher rate of 1.2% per annum.
The Government will continue to monitor the situation closely and, where required, we will make further moves to strengthen the support for our workers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Developing New Technical Solutions to Detect High-rise Littering","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"92 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what progress has been made in developing new technical solutions to address current constraints in detecting high-rise littering; and (b) how will these advancements support NEA's efforts in investigating and resolving cases where conventional surveillance methods are unsuitable.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: This question will be addressed in the next Sitting on 8 January 2025, together with similar Parliamentary Questions, for a more holistic reply. [Please refer to \"Deployment of Surveillance Cameras to Catch High-rise Littering and Trial of Other Technologies to Supplement Present Efforts\", Official Report, 8 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 149, 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":"Data on Credit Card Fraud and Quantum of Losses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"93 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) how many cases of credit card fraud have been reported over the past three years; (b) what is the quantum of losses; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider a framework similar to that of the Shared Responsibility Framework to set out the responsibilities of banks in credit card fraud, especially in clarifying what constitutes an act of gross negligence by the cardholder and the reasonable timeframe for notification of credit card fraud.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): According to statistics compiled by the Singapore Police Force, an average of 790 cases of credit card fraud were reported per year from 2021 to 2023, with an average loss per year of $2.1 million. The safeguards against credit card fraud put in place by global card schemes, such as those operated by Visa and Mastercard and card issuers, such as banks, have strengthened over time.
Card scheme operators have established the 3-D Secure protocol, or 3DS, as an added layer of security for online credit card transactions. This requires cardholders to separately authenticate the transaction, meaning that transactions cannot proceed with just static card details like the card number, expiry date and Card Verification Value code.
Banks have strengthened existing measures to protect consumers from card fraud, such as real-time card transaction monitoring, and will notify card users where possible fraudulent transactions are picked up. Cardholders should promptly contact the bank if they are notified of any unauthorised transactions. Banks are also moving away from SMS One-Time Passwords (OTPs), to push notifications on the digital tokens of banking apps to authenticate 3DS transactions, which cannot be phished, unlike SMS OTPs.
The Shared Responsibility Framework is not suitable in the context of credit card fraud. There are already well-established rules protecting credit card holders and limiting their liability in the event of fraud.
Consumers are protected under The Association of Banks in Singapore Code of Practice for Banks – Credit Cards, where the maximum liability due to unauthorised transactions is $100, provided the cardholder has not acted fraudulently and was not grossly negligent and has reported the unauthorised transactions to the card issuing bank as soon as reasonably practicable. This is to cater to situations, such as when a cardholder loses his physical card but promptly reports the loss to the Police and the bank. This $100 limit will not apply to a cardholder who unwittingly authenticates a 3DS transaction that turns out to be fraudulent, as that would be considered negligent.
Consumers are also protected under the chargeback mechanism from card scheme rules, that allows credit card holders to dispute a charge and request for their money back. In a case of a disputed online transaction, the card issuer will investigate the facts of the case. For example, if the merchant had not enabled 3DS and a transaction was put through without 3DS authentication, the cardholder would generally not be liable.
Card schemes and card issuers have in place mechanisms to combat credit card fraud, protect consumers and limit their liability. Members of the public should also play their part and remain vigilant in safeguarding their cards and card information, monitoring their card transactions regularly and promptly notify their card issuers of the loss or theft of their cards or any unauthorised transactions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Food Available to Foreign Workers in Dormitories Is Safe and Nutritious","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"95 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower whether the employer's obligation to ensure that a foreign worker has access to food when the worker is a resident of a dormitory includes an obligation to ensure that the food is not only safe but also nutritious.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Employment of Foreign Manpower Act requires employers to ensure that their migrant workers living in dormitories have access to food. Employers can fulfil this obligation by catering food, enabling the purchase of cooked food or providing their workers with facilities to cook their own meals. Most migrant workers prefer to cook or purchase their own meals.
The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) educates and reminds workers on the importance of good nutrition through the distribution of posters and videos and working with partners, such as doctors and non-governmental organisations. Employers that directly cater food for their workers are required to do so from licensed food caterers, who, in turn, have to adhere to food safety requirements. MOM is also working on how to encourage such employers to provide more nutritious food for their workers.
Migrant workers with food-related issues can approach MOM's Forward Assurance and Support Team (FAST) officers or report the issues via the FWMOMCare mobile application. MOM will follow-up with the employer and/or the dormitory operator to rectify the issues.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of Childcare Sick Leave Provision to Civil Servants","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"97 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether his Ministry has conducted a study on the need for and effectiveness of the provision of childcare sick leave to civil servants.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): The Civil Service regularly reviews its leave provisions to meet the needs of officers. The utilisation for childcare sick leave has remained steady at around 50% over the years and remains relevant for officers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Amount and Percentage of Qualifying Child Relief and Parenthood Tax Rebate Not Tapped","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"99 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what is the amount and percentage of the total available (i) Qualifying Child Relief and (ii) Parenthood Tax Rebate, that effectively went unutilised in the Year of Assessment for 2024, because parents had sub-optimally left the relief or rebate to be allocated equally between them; and (b) whether IRAS will consider providing a simple tool for parents to provisionally calculate their taxable income and available reliefs before official assessment.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Qualifying Child Relief or Child Relief (Disability) and the Parenthood Tax Rebate can be claimed by either or both parents on the same child. When taxpayers first submit a claim for the relief or rebate, they will inform the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) how much of the relief or rebate is to be claimed by each parent. Taxpayers can adjust the apportionment for subsequent years of assessment.
It is up to parents to decide how to share the relief or rebate, or both, in a manner that is aligned with their family circumstances. The Government does not interfere with the parents' decisions as long as qualifying conditions are met.
Unlike tax reliefs which have to be claimed on a yearly basis, there is no expiration date for utilising the Parenthood Tax Rebate. Parents can carry forward any unutilised Parenthood Tax Rebate balance indefinitely for use in future years of assessment.
There are several tools on the IRAS website to assist individuals in understanding and managing their tax obligations. The \"Tax Reliefs Checker\" helps individuals identify the tax reliefs they may be eligible for; the \"Individual Income Tax Calculator\" allows individuals to estimate their chargeable income and tax payable based on their income and relief claims; and myTax Portal offers a personalised view of an individual's tax matters, including filed returns and assessments.
IRAS will continue to review its digital services to enhance user experience and provide more support to all taxpayers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tracking Rate of Miscarriages from IVF Pregnancies at Public Hospitals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"100 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry tracks the rate of miscarriages from pregnancies through in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) in public hospitals; (b) whether this rate of miscarriages is higher than that of normal pregnancies in the last three years; and (c) whether there are Government-funded clinical studies on measures that can reduce the risks of miscarriages from pregnancies through IVF.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry of Health (MOH) does not track the rate of miscarriages from normal and in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) pregnancies. Pregnancy loss from IVF may be due to other factors besides miscarriages.
MOH has embarked on a Pre-implantation Genetic Screening (PGS) study to improve IVF success rates for women with recurrent pregnancy losses. The Ministry is reviewing its clinical effectiveness and clinical safety outcomes to determine if PGS should become a mainstream clinical service.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans for Marsiling Lane Market and Cooked Food Centre Given Increasing Resident Population","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"102 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether NEA has any plans to upgrade and expand the Marsiling Lane Market and Cooked Food Centre to cater to an increasing resident population in the vicinity with more BTO projects to be completed in the future.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Marsiling residents in Woodlands Town are currently served by Marsiling Mall Hawker Centre, Kampung Admiralty Hawker Centre and Blk 20/21 Marsiling Lane Market and Food Centre. Besides hawker centres, there are other eating establishments, such as coffee shops and food courts, nearby that cater to the dining needs of Marsiling residents. With these options available to residents in the vicinity, there are no immediate plans to expand the Marsiling Lane Market and Food Centre.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Non-digital Applications for Singapore Citizenship, Permanent Residence or Long-Term Visit Pass","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"103 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Home Affairs what measures has ICA taken to provide non-digital access to applications, particularly in relation to applications for Singapore Citizenship, Permanent Residence or Long-Term Visit Pass by residents who are illiterate or not digitally able.
Mr K Shanmugam: For the convenience of applicants, online submission is now the default for applying for immigration facilities, like Singapore Citizenship, Permanent Residence or Long-Term Visit Pass. Nonetheless, members of the public who require help to submit their applications online may approach officers at the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority Services Centre for assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Rezoning Amber Road Plot to \"Residential\" on Traffic Flow and Creation of Parks Spaces in the Area","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"104 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Government has assessed the impact of the rezoning of the plot of land at Amber Road (MK25-06273M) from \"Reserved\" to \"Residential\", particularly whether the roads in the precinct will be able to support the additional traffic with the increase in the density of the residential homes in the area; and (b) whether the Government will consider the creation of more public parks and recreational spaces for residents in the Amber Road area.
Mr Desmond Lee: The land parcel at Amber Road is proposed to be rezoned from \"Reserve Site\" to \"Residential\" to support the strong and broad-based demand for housing, which is due to strong household formation rates and societal trends towards smaller households after the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Land Transport Authority has assessed that the additional traffic from the proposed Residential use can be supported by roads in the precinct, especially with the recent opening of the Tanjong Katong Thomson-East Coast Line Station, which is 200 metres from the land parcel, in June 2024. Notwithstanding, agencies will continue to study the traffic situation when the land parcel is developed and introduce measures to minimise traffic impact, if required.
The Amber Road area is well-served by public parks and recreational options, which are accessible by a network of park connectors and cycling paths. These include East Coast Park, Katong Park and the newly-completed Marine Parade Road Park. Residents can also look forward to a new 0.5 hectare park along Tanjong Katong Road, which will be completed in the next few years.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expected Increase in Peak-hour Train Frequency on North-East Line with Progressive Addition of Six New Trains","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"105 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the expected increase in peak-hour train frequency on the North-East Line (NEL) with the progressive addition of six new trains since July 2023 and the recent opening of the Punggol Coast MRT Station; (b) when will the increased frequency be implemented; and (c) what is the (i) maximum number of trains that can be operating on the NEL and (ii) minimum interval between trains based on current technical constraints of the NEL.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: With the opening of Punggol Coast station and the addition of new trains serving the North East Line (NEL), the NEL will be able to support the operation of a maximum of 42 trains, up from 36 trains.
The Land Transport Authority works with the operator to monitor ridership and will adjust NEL frequencies, within technical limits, to ensure that there is sufficient train capacity for commuters, taking into consideration the safety and reliability of the train services. This can vary throughout the day and during different periods of the week and year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cases of Failure to Report Change of Residential Address within 28 Days of Moving","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"106 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many complaints have been received in the past year regarding persons suspected of misusing an address or failing to report a change of residential address within 28 days of moving; and (b) what measures are in place to remove such persons' names and rectify the official records to prevent affecting the access to various Government schemes by households at these residential addresses.
Mr K Shanmugam: Under the National Registration Act, all identity card holders who change their place of residence must report the change to the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) within 28 days. They can do so online via ICA's website. Those who fail to comply may be fined up to $5,000 or jailed for up to five years, or both.
ICA received over 2,000 reports in 2024 regarding persons suspected of misusing an address or failing to report a change of residential address within 28 days of moving. ICA investigates all complaints and follows-up to update its records, where necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cause of Tuas South Accident Involving Workers Transported on Lorry and Update for Review on Safety of Transporting Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"107 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport in relation to the accident at Tuas South on 15 December 2024 involving a lorry transporting workers, which resulted in one fatality and two injuries (a) whether the cause of the passenger's death was due to the concurrent transportation of an improperly secured item in the rear deck area; and (b) whether the Ministry can provide an update on the review to further improve the safety of transporting workers and prevent future accidents from occurring.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Traffic Police has commenced investigations into the accident. Preliminary investigations revealed that the lorry transported one heavy metal box with three workers in the rear deck of the lorry when the accident occurred. The driver is being investigated for Negligent Act causing death under section 304A of the Penal Code 1871.
Upon completion of Police investigations, the findings will be presented during the Coroner's Inquiry. As investigations are ongoing, the Traffic Police is unable to comment further at this point of time.
The Government will continue to work closely with stakeholders to improve the safety of all road users.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Lorries That Have Complied with Speed Limiters Requirement","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"108 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Home Affairs what current percentage of lorries that are required to be installed with speed limiters have complied with the requirement.
Mr K Shanmugam: In January 2024, the Traffic Police (TP) commenced the mandatory installation of speed limiters for lorries with maximum laden weight between 3,500 kg and 12,000 kg. As of end-2024, only around 50 lorries have completed the installation.
TP is concerned by the low installation rate. They are working with Authorised Motor Distributors, the Motor Traders Association of Singapore and Authorised Inspection Centres, to encourage lorry owners to install speed limiters early, such as when their vehicles are sent in for regular maintenance. TP has also started sending out SMS reminders to lorry owners and will continue to do so at regular junctures.
We urge lorry owners to install speed limiters early, ahead of the compliance deadlines, to avoid a bottleneck at the workshops. Eligible lorries that fail to comply by the deadlines will be liable for an offence and will fail their periodic inspection.
As a reminder, older lorries are required to comply sooner, with heavier lorries by 1 January 2026 and lighter lorries by 1 July 2026. Newer lorries are given one more year to comply as speed limiters for such vehicles were not previously available.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposed Dedicated Feeder Bus Service between Woodlands Checkpoint and Woodlands Bus Interchange","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"109 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Transport whether LTA will consider providing a dedicated feeder bus service between the Woodlands Checkpoint and Woodlands Bus Interchange for travellers journeying to and from Johor Bahru so as to ease the congestion that especially affects residents who are commuting during peak hours.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Six bus services operate between Woodlands Checkpoint and the Woodlands Integrated Transport Hub (ITH). Based on ridership data, there is sufficient capacity for these bus services to serve commuters travelling between Woodlands Checkpoint and Woodlands ITH.
Out of these six services, services 903, 911 and 912 are feeder bus services that also serve local residents travelling to and from Woodlands ITH. Bus services 903 and 911 were recently enhanced to provide sufficient bus capacity for commuters who do not need to travel to Woodlands Checkpoint. During peak periods, short trips of service 911 skip the checkpoint, and more trips have been added to variant service 903M to serve the Marsiling area. These supplementary services have improved the bus service headways to two to five minutes during peak hours.
Service 967 will also be introduced on 12 January 2025 to serve residents along Woodlands Avenue 1 travelling to and from Woodlands ITH, complementing the existing service 912.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Allowing Retired Civil Servants to Continue Accessing Learn.gov.sg Accounts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Public Service Division will consider allowing retired civil servants to continue accessing their Learn.gov.sg accounts in the spirit of lifelong learning and continuing education.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): The Learn.gov.sg (LEARN) platform is designed to serve the learning and development needs of in-service public officers and the courses address specific job requirements. Retired civil servants who are re-employed by the Civil Service will have access to LEARN. Other retirees can continue to be lifelong learners by accessing SkillsFuture courses and other programmes available nationally, such as through the National Silver Academy and Institutes of Higher Learning.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulatory Requirements on Banks for Joint Accounts Upon Death of One Account Holder","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Monetary Authority of Singapore has any directives or regulatory requirements that compel banks to close joint accounts upon being notified of the death of a joint account holder; and (b) if not, whether it can consider allowing banks to let surviving joint account holders, especially the elderly, retain bank account numbers after the death of a joint account holder.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) does not stipulate whether banks must close joint accounts upon being notified of the death of one of the joint account holders. Some banks allow the surviving joint account holder to retain and continue using the joint account if the surviving joint account holder decides not to close it. Banks that require the joint account to be closed will assist the surviving joint account holder to withdraw or transfer the remaining funds. In either case, the surviving joint account holder will retain access to and control over the funds in the joint account.
MAS has been engaging the industry to consider whether banks' practices relating to post-death estate settlement, including the treatment of joint accounts, can be better harmonised and simplified.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Online Searches Performed when Full NRIC Numbers were Accessible on Bizfile Portal","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance during the period that ACRA's updated Bizfile portal was made publicly accessible (a) how many online searches for individuals have been performed; (b) how many of these searches are by NRIC; and (c) how many of such searches are from internet IP addresses (i) within Singapore and (ii) outside Singapore.
Ms Indranee Rajah: This Parliamentary Question will be addressed through a Ministerial Statement by the Second Minister for Finance during the Parliament Sitting on 8 January 2025. [Please refer to \"NRIC Numbers in ACRA's Bizfile Service\", Official Report, 8 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 149, Ministerial Statements section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of NRIC Numbers Exposed in Bizfile Portal's Unmasking of NRIC Number Incident","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Xie Yao Quan asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) how many unmasked NRIC numbers have been exposed on the new ACRA's Bizfile before the search function is disabled; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider targeted communications to affected individuals to give them assurance on how they may protect themselves despite the exposure of their NRIC numbers.
Ms Indranee Rajah: This Parliamentary Question will be addressed through a Ministerial Statement by the Second Minister for Finance during the Parliament Sitting on 8 January 2025. [Please refer to \"NRIC Numbers in ACRA's Bizfile Service\", Official Report, 8 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 149, Ministerial Statements section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Bizfile Portal's Unmasking of NRIC Numbers Incident Including Time Taken for Decision to Disable Function","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Xie Yao Quan asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Ministry's review of the incident involving the new ACRA's Bizfile will include (i) the time taken to reach the decision to eventually disable the search function and (ii) how the decision time could have been shortened; and (b) whether the findings and conclusions from the review will be made public.
Ms Indranee Rajah: This Parliamentary Question will be addressed through a Ministerial Statement by the Second Minister for Finance during the Parliament Sitting on 8 January 2025. [Please refer to \"NRIC Numbers in ACRA's Bizfile Service\", Official Report, 8 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 149, Ministerial Statements section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Persons Affected by Bizfile Portal's Unmasking of NRIC Numbers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in respect of ACRA's new Bizfile portal before the search function was disabled (a) whether NRIC numbers of individuals who are non-office holders or business owners in Singapore were made available; (b) what is the number of days the new Bizfile portal was online; (c) what is the number of individuals whose NRIC numbers were disclosed in searches before the search function was disabled; and (d) whether these individuals will be notified of the disclosure.
Ms Indranee Rajah: This Parliamentary Question will be addressed through a Ministerial Statement by the Second Minister for Finance during the Parliament Sitting on 8 January 2025. [Please refer to \"NRIC Numbers in ACRA's Bizfile Service\", Official Report, 8 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 149, Ministerial Statements section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reaching Out to Persons Whose Unmasked NRIC Numbers were Obtained from Bizfile Portal","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Ms Hany Soh asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) has or intends to contact those persons whose unmasked NRIC numbers were obtained from ACRA's Bizfile portal to allay any concerns they may have.
Ms Indranee Rajah: This Parliamentary Question will be addressed through a Ministerial Statement by the Second Minister for Finance during the Parliament Sitting on 8 January 2025. [Please refer to \"NRIC Numbers in ACRA's Bizfile Service\", Official Report, 8 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 149, Ministerial Statements section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Types of Data Displayed under Fee-based Access in Bizfile+ Portal and Efforts to Balance Privacy Concerns with Corporate Transparency","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the fee-based access policy for information from ACRA’s Bizfile+ portal will be extended to more personal data; (b) if so, what will these be; (c) whether the public will be informed ahead of time; and (d) how will individuals’ privacy concerns be balanced with corporate transparency.
Ms Indranee Rajah: This Parliamentary Question will be addressed through a Ministerial Statement by the Second Minister for Finance during the Parliament Sitting on 8 January 2025. [Please refer to \"NRIC Numbers in ACRA's Bizfile Service\", Official Report, 8 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 149, Ministerial Statements section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"US-Singapore Economic Cooperation and Trade in Past Five Years and Possible Growth Areas under New Trump Administration","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the Ministry's assessment of the state of economic cooperation and bilateral trade relations between Singapore and the United States in the past five years; and (b) what are the particular areas in which the Government would like to grow economic and trade ties further under the new Trump administration.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Singapore and the United States (US) share long-standing and robust economic cooperation and bilateral trade relations, underpinned by the US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement that came into effect in 2004. We have expanded and deepened these links over the past five years. Bilateral trade increased from $175 billion in 2018 to $287 billion in 20221. The US has also had a consistent trade surplus with Singapore over the past two decades and this stood at US$28 billion (approximately $38 billion) in 20232.
The US is Singapore's largest foreign investor with around 6,000 American companies based here. US investment stock into Singapore has almost doubled from $292 billion in 2018 to $574 billion in 20223.
Singapore's direct investment stock into the US increased from $36 billion in 2018 to $47 billion in 20224 and we were the third largest Asian investor in the US that year5. There are currently over 200 Singapore companies operating in around 40 US states.
Over the past five years, Singapore has worked closely with the US to deepen our economic cooperation in new areas, such as the digital economy, critical and emerging technologies, and civil nuclear cooperation. We are part of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity, which has brought into effect agreements on supply chains, the clean economy and fair economy.
Singapore has worked well with past US governments and will continue to work with the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump to strengthen our mutually beneficial economic ties.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Source: Department of Statistics' (DOS') latest figures available.","2 : Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).","3 : Source: DOS' latest figures available.","4 : Source: DOS' latest figures available.","5 : Source: US BEA, Foreign Direct Investment Position in the US on a Historical-Cost Basis, by country of Ultimate Beneficial Owner."],"footNoteQuestions":["9"],"questionNo":"9"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Actions against Businesses Flouting Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act and List of Specific Unfair Practices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) in the past five years, how many enforcement actions has the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore conducted against errant businesses that flout the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (CPFTA); and (b) whether the Ministry can provide a breakdown in accordance with the list of specific unfair practices as specified in the Second Schedule of the CPFTA.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Since 2020, the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) has taken enforcement action in 16 cases against 30 suppliers for engaging in unfair practices under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (CPFTA). CCCS issued a warning for 12 of these 16 cases, which were resolved through voluntary undertakings by suppliers to cease any unfair practices. For the remaining four cases, CCCS did so by obtaining Court declarations and injunctions.
Most of the cases CCCS took enforcement action against involved multiple misleading and false representations under section 4 of the CPFTA. The breakdown of the top five specific unfair practices under the Second Schedule of the CPFTA since 2020 is provided in the table below.
11 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what percentage of total electricity consumption are data centres forecasted to contribute when capacities increase by at least a third in the coming years; and (b) whether this increase remains in line with our aim for greenhouse gas emissions to peak in 2028.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: In May 2024, the Government announced our aim to provide at least 300 megawatts of additional data centre capacity in the near term and potentially more through low-carbon energy deployments. The growth in capacity is in line with our projections to peak emissions in 2028.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Malaysia’s Royal Commission of Inquiry’s Report on Pedra Branca and Its Impact on ICJ’s decision on Bilateral Dispute","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs in view of the Malaysian Parliament's debate on the Royal Commission of Inquiry report on the affairs of Pedra Branca (a) whether its deliberations on the report will have any impact on the International Court of Justice's decision on the bilateral dispute between Singapore and Malaysia on Pedra Branca; (b) what is the current state of bilateral matters surrounding Pedra Branca; and (c) whether there are any outstanding issues which the Ministry has to resolve with its Malaysian counterparts.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: The Royal Commission of Inquiry into Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge is an internal matter of Malaysia and should not affect the good bilateral relations between Singapore and Malaysia. On 23 May 2008, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) awarded sovereignty over Pedra Branca to Singapore in the case concerning sovereignty over Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge. Both Singapore and Malaysia have announced that we will accept and abide by the ICJ's decision, which is final and binding on both countries. Under the ICJ Statute, an application for revision cannot be made after the expiry of 10 years from the date of the ICJ's 2008 judgment, that is, May 2018.
Following the ICJ judgment, our two countries established the Malaysia-Singapore Joint Technical Committee on the Implementation of the ICJ Judgment on Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (MSJTC) to resolve outstanding bilateral matters concerning that area, including maritime boundary delimitation. MSJTC continues to be an important platform for our two countries to meet and discuss these outstanding matters in a constructive manner.
During Prime Minister Lawrence Wong's recent visit to Malaysia for the 11th Singapore-Malaysia Leaders' Retreat, our Leaders reviewed and discussed a wide range of bilateral issues, including maritime boundary delimitation. The two Prime Ministers have agreed to continue discussions on outstanding issues constructively.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics of Citizenships Granted in 2024 According to Gender, Age Group and Marital Status","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) with a breakdown by gender, what is the number of citizenships granted to those between the age of (i) 21 to 30 years old and (ii) 31 to 40 years old, respectively in 2024; and (b) of these, how many are married to Singaporeans.
Mr K Shanmugam: The number of new citizenships granted for 2024 is not yet available. The number of new citizenships granted for 2023 for the age groups of 21 to 30 and 31 to 40 by gender is reflected in the table below.
Of these, approximately 20% were to foreign spouses of Singapore Citizens, under the Family Ties Scheme.
14 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Home Affairs with the expansion of video recording of interviews (VRIs) to all non-capital cases involving vulnerable suspects (a) whether footage taken via body-worn cameras by police officers can be considered as part of VRIs and, if so, under what certain circumstances; and (b) what are the measures taken to preserve the chain of evidence of such footage and protect our Police and investigating officers against allegations of editing or tampering of the video footage especially given the prevalence of technological tools like deepfake.
Mr K Shanmugam: Video recording of interviews (VRI) was introduced to provide an objective account of the interviews and enable the Courts to determine the voluntariness and credibility of the interviewees' statements, if needed.
To facilitate the Courts' assessment, it is important for the VRI footage to be of good visual and audio quality. VRI is thus conducted in purpose-built VRI rooms, with adequate lighting and away from noise distractions. The video-recording equipment is also purpose-built for VRI. The cameras are mounted such that they focus on the interviewee and capture an overview of the room. New discs are used to record each interview.
Immediately after the interview, a copy of the footage is sealed in the presence of the interviewee and stored securely thereafter. A duplicate copy is made to facilitate investigations and Court proceedings, including viewing by the accused or the defence lawyers upon request. If there is an allegation that the duplicate copy has been tampered with, the sealed copy can be used, including to determine if the duplicate copy has indeed been tampered with.
A transcript of the entire interview is prepared for every VRI session, to facilitate Court processes. Transcripts may be voluminous, depending on the duration of the VRI session. The accuracy of the transcripts is ensured through checks by the Police and Central Narcotics Bureau officers against the entire duration of the video footage, which can be a few hours long.
All of these arrangements and procedures ensure the integrity of VRIs and their utility to the Courts. The Ministry of Home Affairs' assessment is that body-worn camera footages in uncontrolled environments do not provide the same level of reliability for use as VRIs in Court. But this is a matter which will be reviewed regularly.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Storage Capacity and Cost of Video and Audio Files Recorded by Police Body-worn and Other Cameras","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the storage capacity needed for data including but not limited to footage and audio for Police body cameras and other existing Police cameras; (b) what is the cost for such storage; and (c) what additional storage requirements and costs are estimated for including recorded video Police interviews.
Mr K Shanmugam: For operational security reasons, the Ministry of Home Affairs does not divulge details of storage capacity for body-worn cameras and other police cameras. The Member may refer to the Budget Book for the overall project costs for body-worn cameras and other police cameras.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Keeping Track of or Assessing Singapore Citizens or Residents Placed On INTERPOL's Red Notice","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Government keeps track of the presence of persons in Singapore who have become the subject of INTERPOL Red Notices; (b) how many of such person currently are (i) Singapore Citizens and (ii) Permanent Residents (PRs); and (c) in the case of such PRs, what is the Government's approach towards their PR status.
17 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether there are individuals who are currently wanted persons on INTERPOL's Red Notice residing in Singapore and, if so, what is the number of such individuals; (b) what levels of monitoring or investigations are imposed on such persons; and (c) whether the requesting member countries or the individuals' country of citizenship are notified of their presence in Singapore.
18 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority conducts checks against the various INTERPOL notices, including Red Notices, as part of the routine process for assessing citizenship, permanent residency and work permit applications; and (b) what action is taken if a match is found.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Police closely monitor INTERPOL Notices.
An INTERPOL Red Notice is not an arrest warrant, but an international alert for a wanted person published at the request of a member country. Hence, an INTERPOL Red Notice does not confer the Police with powers to arrest a fugitive wanted by a foreign jurisdiction. The Police would only be able to do so pursuant to an extradition request made under an extradition treaty.
Nevertheless, we will take action against such persons, if there is sufficient evidence against them to take action in Singapore and if the offences are such that action can be taken in Singapore. Depending on the evidence, their immigration facilities may also be revoked if they are foreigners. When an individual with links to Singapore is the subject of an INTERPOL Red Notice, we will keep the individual under close watch and commence investigations, in the above circumstances. In addition, if such persons, who are foreigners, are deemed to be an immediate threat to the safety and security of Singapore, we will take action to remove them from Singapore, including declaring them as prohibited immigrants.
All new applications and renewals for immigration facilities are screened against available adverse information. The presence of any adverse information, including INTERPOL Red Notices, are considered during the assessment.
As at December 2024, about 80 individuals linked to Singapore are traced to INTERPOL Red Notices. About half of them are Singaporeans. About half of them are not in Singapore. We are unable to share more details as such information comes from INTERPOL and the issuing countries.
Where the issuing country of an INTERPOL Red Notice has contacted us, our relevant authorities cooperate with them within the ambit of our laws. We may also contact them proactively if we have significant security concerns or there is sufficient evidence that offences might have been committed under our laws.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Minimising Potential for Traffic Police's Anti-drink Driving Operations to Cause Traffic Congestion","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Home Affairs in light of the recent anti-drink driving operations along the Central Expressway which have caused significant congestion on the expressway, how will the Traffic Police balance the need to enforce robustly against drink-driving against traffic congestion which impacts the accessibility of emergency vehicles and livelihoods of private hire drivers.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Traffic Police (TP) recognises that roadblocks pose inconvenience to motorists, including those who drive for a living. They are, however, a critical means of detecting and deterring drink driving and keeping other road users safe. TP judiciously manages the number and conduct of roadblock operations to reduce the impact on motorists, while maintaining the safety of our roads.
For the roadblock on 21 December 2024 along the Central Expressway (CTE), TP gave early notice to the Singapore Civil Defence Force and Land Transport Authority to enable the rerouting of emergency vehicles. TP officers stationed along CTE were also on hand to direct traffic as necessary, including emergency vehicles.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Issuance of Advisories against Individuals at Conclusion of Police Investigations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) in each of the past five years, how many Police advisories against individuals have been issued at the conclusion of Police investigations; and (b) what are the types of cases that warrant the issuance of such advisory notes.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Singapore Police Force does not track the number of advisories issued against individuals at the conclusion of investigations.
An advisory is issued, in consultation with the Attorney-General's Chambers, to put a person on notice about the law. It can apply to different cases, but, in general, is issued upon the conclusion of investigations where no further action is taken against the individual. This can happen if the act done by the individual is possibly criminal, but an offence cannot be made out for various reasons, such as when there is insufficient evidence to establish the requisite intent to commit the offence.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Increased Safety Measures or Training for Staff at Places of Worship in Light of Recent Knife Attack","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Home Affairs in light of the recent knife attack incident in a place of worship, whether there are any increased safety measures to be taken and awareness or training on emergency or crisis response, for staff and volunteers of all places of worship with regard to such emergency situations.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Government has in place various measures to ensure the safety and security of places of worship. The Police conduct patrols in areas where there is potentially more crime, for example, where we have received more reports from members of the public. The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) works with places of worship through its Crisis Preparedness for Religious Organisations programme, where religious organisations participate in security self-assessments, develop contingency plans, attend counter-terrorism seminars and have their employees and volunteers trained in skills, such as psychological first aid.
These efforts complement the Ministry of Home Affairs' broader public engagement through the SGSecure movement, together with our partner agencies. These outreach efforts include sharing advisories, such as \"Run-Hide-Tell\" and \"Press-Tie-Tell\", as well as the importance of learning emergency preparedness skills, such as first aid, cardiopulmonary resuscitation and the use of Automated External Defibrillator.
After the November 2024 knife attack at St Joseph's Church, MCCY engaged various places of worship to remind them of relevant security advisories by SGSecure. The Police also engaged the relevant stakeholders to put in place appropriate security measures. We will continue with these measures and programmes to ensure safety and emergency preparedness at our places of worship.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Help for Stay-alone Seniors to Formalise and Execute Their Wills","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Law (a) what assistance is available to help seniors who live alone and have no family members or friends to draw up and formalise their wills; and (b) how can these seniors be sure that their wills will be accessed and executed accordingly after their death.
Mr K Shanmugam: Members of the public are encouraged to make a Will, as it would allow them to decide how their assets should be distributed after they pass on.
Seniors who live alone can write their Will themselves or engage a third-party to help them write one. They can also consult a lawyer, for example, if their Will involves complicated arrangements. A senior needs to be of sound mind when making a Will. After they have made a Will, seniors can deposit information on their Will with the Singapore Academy of Law Wills Registry (wills.sal.sg). This will facilitate access to the Will after they have passed on.
Those who wish to write their Will themselves may refer to My Legacy@LifeSG (mylegacy.life.gov.sg), which is a one-stop Government platform that assists individuals with legacy planning and end-of-life matters. My Legacy provides step-by-step information on how to make and deposit information on their Will.
Seniors can also approach Pro Bono SG's Community Law Centres and Community Legal Clinics for legal advice and assistance with Wills. They can also obtain assistance from the Legal Aid Bureau to draft their Will and deposit information on the Will, if they pass the means test.
To ensure that their assets will be dealt with in accordance with their Will, seniors should appoint one or more executors that meet the legal requirements and are able and willing to carry out their wishes. If necessary, a professional executor, such as a lawyer, may be appointed.
Once a Will has been validly executed, the executor appointed under the Will has to apply for a Grant of Probate to deal with the testator's assets in accordance with the directions contained in the Will. In applicable cases, the executor may choose to apply for a Grant of Probate through the Family Justice Courts' Probate eService, which provides a streamlined and simplified online service for the submission of the required probate documents to the Court.
As regards safeguards, it is a matter between the beneficiaries and the executor. If the beneficiaries believe that the executor is not carrying out his duties properly, they can seek recourse in the Courts. For example, the beneficiaries of the Will may apply to the Court for relief, such as an order directing the executor to do or abstain from doing a particular act in the executor's capacity as an executor. Dishonest executors may also face criminal consequences.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Holding Exiting Fish Farmers Accountable for Marine Debris and Dumping","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment what regulations are in place to hold accountable and support fish farmers who exit the industry so as to prevent marine debris and dumping.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Under the Temporary Occupation Licence and lease conditions, fish farmers who exit the industry will need to reinstate their sites to the original conditions. They have to obtain relevant regulatory approvals prior to demolition and engage surveyors to carry out sonar scans of the environment. The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) assigns farms with account managers who will provide guidance on the process and the requirements that farms need to adhere to. SFA also conducts physical checks and will investigate if there are signs of unauthorised dumping of marine debris. If a licensee is found culpable, SFA will take enforcement actions, which may include pursuing liquidated damages and recovering costs incurred by the Government to complete the reinstatement.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Probe into Food Contamination in Case of Coral Princess Cruise Crew and Passengers Falling Ill in October 2024","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment regarding the 70 passengers and crew members who fell ill on the Coral Princess cruise that departed Singapore on 17 October 2024 (a) whether the source of contamination has been traced to supplies loaded in Singapore; and (b) if so, what corrective and preventive measures will be taken for food supplies loaded into cruises departing from Singapore.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: As the Coral Princess was due to arrive at a United States (US) port1, the outbreak investigation was undertaken by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Based on the CDC's report2, there was no link between the source of contamination to supplies loaded in Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : The CDC conducts outbreak investigations on ships sailing in the US or within 15 days of arriving at a US port and when 3% or more of the ship's passengers or crew members report being sick with acute gastroenteritis symptoms. (Source: CDC. AGE Outbreak Response. 20 November 2024. www.cdc.gov/vessel-sanitation/php/our-role/outbreak-response.html).","2 : Source: CDC. Coral Princess November 2024. 20 November 2024. www.cdc.gov/vessel-sanitation/cruise-ship-outbreaks/coral-princess-november-2024.html."],"footNoteQuestions":["24"],"questionNo":"24"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Actions to Address Average Score in Literacy Component for Singaporean Adults in OECD Survey","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Education regarding OECD's Survey of Adult Skills 2023 which found that the average score of the literacy component for Singapore adults aged 16 to 65 fell below OECD's average (a) which sectors recorded a score that is below the Singapore average; (b) what are the whole-of-Government plans to improve the literacy of those in these sectors; and (c) what are the strategies to ensure that they can overcome literacy challenges to develop the skills needed to leverage on AI's potential fully.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Ministry of Education will provide an oral answer to this Parliamentary Question, together with other Parliamentary Questions which have been filed on this topic, at the next available opportunity. [Please refer to \"Addressing Survey Findings Which Showed Decline in English Literacy Skills amongst Older Workers and Average Scores for Adaptive Problem-solving\", Official Report, 8 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 149, 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":"Addressing School Attendance and Home Ownership Findings in Report on Supporting Lower-income Households","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what evidence-based approaches and interventions in other parts of the world are being studied by the Ministry to improve on home ownership and school attendance trends in lower-income families.
27 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Social and Family Development with regard to the latest report on Supporting Lower-Income Household Trends dated November 2024, whether the Ministry plans to conduct deeper studies on the practical, psychological and social reasons why (i) 93% of the ComLink+ families who are home-ownership ready have yet to buy a flat and move out of public rental housing and (ii) only 26% of ComLink+ families with preschool-aged children in Anchor Operator preschools were attending school regularly in 2023.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: In designing ComLink+, the Government considered the experience of other jurisdictions. These recognise that lower-income families face complex, interlocking challenges across multiple domains, which can hinder their progress. The families have limited bandwidth to work on meaningful longer-term goals, such as home ownership and education.
This is why in ComLink+, lower-income families are supported by the Social Service Office or the Family Service Centre. The family coach or social worker, respectively, works with the family to identify and set goals and organise support around their specific challenges.
Another adaptation is the successful use of conditional transfers in some countries. In Singapore, this takes the form of ComLink+ Progress Packages, which provide financial top-ups to recognise and supplement ComLink+ families' efforts towards goals, such as home ownership and education.
We are at an early stage of implementation and focusing on implementation, rather than conducting further studies. Family coaches are working on homeownership and preschool attendance issues with the respective families.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect to National Anti-Violence and Sexual Harassment Helpline, and Follow-up Actions Taken","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) for each year in the past five years, how many cases of child abuse and child neglect have been reported to the National Anti-Violence and Sexual Harassment Helpline, respectively; and (b) what are the types of follow-up actions taken after a case is reported.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The National Anti-Violence and Sexual Harassment Helpline (NAVH) was launched in February 2021. It received about 2,200, 2,400 and 3,400 enquiries relating to the abuse and neglect of children in 2021, 2022 and 2023 respectively.
Upon receiving a report, NAVH would assess whether there are concerns of abuse or neglect. Cases involving such concerns would be referred to relevant agencies, such as the Family Service Centres and Child Protection Specialist Centres, or escalated to the Ministry of Social and Family Development's Child Protective Service for intervention, depending on the risk and severity.
For calls without concerns of abuse or neglect, NAVH provides advice and resources to help individuals seek the necessary support and assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reducing Stigma Towards Individuals with Mental Health Conditions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Health (a) how is the Ministry addressing the higher levels of stigma towards mental health conditions observed in specific demographics, such as in older adults or individuals with lower education levels; and (b) what targeted interventions are planned to support such groups.
30 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Health (a) how is the effectiveness of existing initiatives aimed at reducing stigma against individuals with mental health conditions being evaluated; and (b) what plans are in place to sustain the reduction of mental health stigma over the next five years.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: These questions have been addressed in oral reply to Parliamentary Question No 82 in the 7 January 2025 Sitting. [Please refer to \"Improving Public Recognition of Mental Health Conditions\", Official Report, 7 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 148, 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":"Number of Singaporeans on Long-term Anti-depressant Medication","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry tracks the number of Singaporeans who are on long-term anti-depressant medication; (b) if so, what are the current figures; (c) how will the Ministry raise public awareness about the potential impact of inappropriate consumption and the long-term effects of anti-depressant use, given its accessibility from alternative sources; and (d) how is the Ministry addressing the root causes of young people's reliance on anti-depressants as a primary coping mechanism.\n
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Based on our national public health records, there were about 85,000 Singaporeans who were prescribed anti-depressant medication in 2023. The national public health records do not track the usage duration.
Doctors prescribe anti-depressants based on their clinical assessment and prevailing clinical practice guidelines. The risks and benefits of anti-depressant medication are explained to patients, including younger patients and/or their caregivers, prior to the start of treatment. Educational resources are available on Government agency websites, including the Health Science Authority, Agency for Care Effectiveness and HealthHub. These resources provide information on the safe usage and side effects of anti-depressant medications.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Prescription of Puberty Blockers to Individuals Experiencing Gender Dysphoria","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Health (a) what ethical considerations does the Ministry have regarding the prescription of puberty blockers to individuals who are experiencing gender dysphoria and under the age of 18; (b) what are the known and potential medical risks associated with the use of puberty blockers in minors; and (c) what safeguards are in place to protect minors from undergoing such medical interventions without their full and informed consent, even if guardians or parents have given their consent.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: In other countries, puberty blockers have been used for minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria. There is insufficient evidence to indicate that puberty blockers are safe for children or there is significant clinical benefit to them, especially when most children do not remain gender dysphoric later in life. The Ministry of Health therefore does not recommend the use of puberty blockers for minors with gender dysphoria.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing MediSave Limits for Delivery Expenses in Light of Parenthood Promotion","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry is reviewing or increasing the MediSave usage limits for baby delivery expenses in light of the Government promoting parenthood and childbirth.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: As part of the review of the MediShield Life Scheme announced recently, the Ministry of Health (MOH) will be raising the MediSave inpatient and day surgery withdrawal limits. From 1 April 2025, for a typical delivery episode comprising a two-day B2/C ward stay and related pre-delivery medical expenses, the amount of MediSave one can withdraw will increase from up to $2,750 today to up to $4,280.
MOH will also be raising the MediSave Grant for Newborns from $4,000 to $5,000 for every Singaporean Citizen newborn born from 1 April 2025. This will further help to offset the medical expenses of Singaporean children.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Option to Opt Out of Sharing Patient Health Data with National Electronic Health Record","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"34 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) whether outpatient clinics in private hospitals can opt out of sharing patient health records with the National Electronic Health Record (NEHR); (b) whether patients treated at private hospitals can opt out of contributing their health records to the NEHR; (c) if opting out is not possible, whether patients can restrict access to their NEHR records by other healthcare practitioners; and (d) how can patients be guaranteed that their health data in the NEHR system cannot be accessed by insurance companies.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The National Electronic Health Record (NEHR) information is for the purposes of clinical care. The information of a patient is therefore only accessible by clinicians or healthcare professionals who are caring for the patient. Healthcare providers are also prohibited from sharing NEHR information further with external parties not involved in the care of the patient. Hence, insurance companies or employers do not and will not have access to NEHR information. In the proposed Health Information Bill, to be tabled in Parliament this year, the Ministry of Health intends to make this even clearer.
Within a healthcare institution or clinic, patients' health information will always be captured. This is important for proper clinical care and is no different from any service provider, which must always capture the information of the customers they serve.
However, for healthcare, beyond capturing patients' health information, we also need to share it across the healthcare system. This is because patients move from setting to setting and the sharing of information will ensure proper continuity of care and also cut down on duplicative and unnecessary diagnostic tests.
Today, patients' health information is already shared across public healthcare institutions. However, this is not the case between private and public sector healthcare institutions, as contribution of patients' health information by private healthcare institutions is voluntary. The key purpose of the Health Information Bill is to make it a requirement for all licensed healthcare providers, including private outpatient clinics and private hospitals, to contribute summary patient health records to NEHR and share them across the healthcare system for better care of patients.
Patients, therefore, cannot opt out of contributing their records to NEHR, as this is required for proper clinical care. We intend to provide under the Health Information Bill provisions that enable patients some control over the extent which medical information will be shared with healthcare providers providing care to the patients. We will elaborate on this feature when the Bill is introduced and debated.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Timeline for Developing Guidelines on Next Generation Sequencing and Potential of Sequencing as Screening Tool","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"35 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the Ministry's timeline for developing guidelines on Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) for treating cancer; (b) whether studies have been conducted on its potential as a screening tool and its cost-effectiveness and included lessons learnt from other countries' experiences; (c) whether there are plans for wider NGS implementation as a diagnostic and treatment tool; and (d) if so, whether Medisave will eventually cover NGS.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) is a tool for genetic sequencing. There are two types of NGS: small panel NGS sequences specific segments of genes of interest, while large panel NGS analyses extensive portions or the entirety of an individual's genetic code.
Specifically, for cancers, NGS can be used to identify the makeup of genetic changes in a patient's tumour, for more targeted treatment. That said, for most patients, standard cancer treatments are effective. For certain cancers and patients, our public healthcare institutions use small panel NGS routinely for tumour profiling and such tests could be covered by MediSave and MediShield Life. Our clinicians are guided by international best practices on the most appropriate and best usage of NGS.
For cancers where there is insufficient evidence for routine testing, large-panel NGS is currently used in Singapore as a research tool in clinical trials, to gather evidence on which cancer gene mutations may be more susceptible to which treatments.
As this is an evolving field, there is an ongoing effort by the Ministry of Health to review emerging evidence and developing guidelines for use cases where the deployment of NGS is appropriate as well as clinically- and cost-effective.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Encouraging Stay-alone Seniors to Stay Connected with Community and Tracking of Seniors who Pass Away Alone","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"36 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry has plans to commission local studies to (i) examine how it can improve efforts to encourage our ageing and stay-alone seniors to stay connected with the community and (ii) consider the usefulness and practicality of tracking the number of senior citizens who pass away alone and undetected at home.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry of Health (MOH) actively funds research studies to better understand the needs of senior citizens, including stay-alone seniors, to support them to age well in the community. An example is the Transitions in Health, Employment, Social Engagement and Intergenerational Transfers in Singapore Study conducted by the Duke-NUS Medical School's Centre for Ageing Research and Education. This is a longitudinal study of health and social engagement levels among older Singaporeans.
Learnings from the studies feed into the relevant MOH initiatives. For instance, the Silver Generation Office under the Agency for Integrated Care proactively identifies vulnerable seniors, including those who live alone and connects them with the relevant support, such as the Active Ageing Centres, which provide active ageing programmes and befriending services. In line with these efforts, MOH tracks the number of vulnerable seniors who are referred to and supported by community services.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Improving and Measuring Effectiveness of Digital Literacy Programmes for Elderly Citizens","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"37 Mr Mohd Fahmi Bin Aliman asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what steps is the Ministry taking to improve digital literacy among elderly citizens to reduce feelings of isolation; (b) whether the Ministry has assessed the success of existing digital literacy programmes, and what metrics are used to measure their impact on elderly well-being and connectivity; and (c) what policies or programmes are in place to facilitate in-person social connections for elderly residents who may not be able to engage digitally.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Government supports seniors to age actively, stay socially connected and be cared for within their communities through Age Well SG. For example, the Silver Generation Office conducts outreach to all seniors aged 60 and above to identify their needs and refers them to relevant support or services. This includes the Active Ageing Centres, where seniors can participate in active ageing programmes and receive buddying and befriending services.
Meaningful engagement with technology is one of the ways that can help to improve social connectivity. A study by the DUKE-NUS Centre for Ageing Research and Education found that the regular use of digital technology among local seniors is associated with a lower likelihood of being at-risk of social isolation1.
In this regard, Singapore has made good progress in helping seniors participate in an increasingly digital environment and levelling up digital literacy. This is achieved through efforts led by the Infocomm and Media Development Authority (IMDA).
The Mobile Access for Seniors scheme was launched in 2020 to support lower-income seniors with subsidised smartphone and mobile plans. More than 13,000 lower-income seniors2 have benefited from the scheme. The SG Digital Office (SDO) and the Seniors Go Digital programme were established in 2020 to accelerate efforts to equip less-digitally-savvy individuals, including seniors, with basic digital tools and skills for daily living.
Building on this, the Digital Skills for Life framework was launched in January 2024 as a nationwide effort to equip Singaporeans with essential digital competencies, including the use of smartphones to communicate, transact and find information online as well as how to stay safe while connecting with others online.
SDO also collaborates with different partners to organise learning journeys and workshops for seniors. Seniors may join digital interest groups, known as Digital for Life: Digital Clubs, to learn digital skills alongside their peers at Community Clubs and community spaces. More than 340,000 seniors3 have been trained through these initiatives.
Based on IMDA's Annual Survey on Infocomm Usage by Individuals, 96% of seniors are communicating online in 2023, up from 87% in 2017, suggesting improvements in connectivity with seniors using technology to connect with one another online since the COVID-19 pandemic. Through the IMDA, the Government will continue its efforts to strengthen digital literacy among seniors to help them age actively and remain socially connected.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Visaria, Abhijit and Rahul Malhotra. 2023. Common factors in risk of social isolation and use of digital technology by older adults: Insights from Singapore. Chapter In Irudaya Rajan (Ed.), Handbook of Aging, Health, and Public Policy. Singapore: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1914-4_178-1.","2 : Data accurate as of August 2024.","3 : Data accurate as of August 2024."],"footNoteQuestions":["37"],"questionNo":"37"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Public Lending Rights Scheme for Locally Written or Published Works to Address Loss of Sales when Works are Borrowed from Libraries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"38 Ms Usha Chandradas asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the National Library Board has implemented any public lending rights schemes in respect of literary works written or published by local authors or publishers that may address potential related issues such as the loss of sales of these works when they are borrowed from libraries instead of being purchased; and (b) if not, why not.
Mrs Josephine Teo: A Public Lending Right (PLR) scheme is premised on the idea that authors or other rightsholders should receive some form of compensation for the loan of their books by public or other libraries. This has been implemented in some countries, such as the United Kingdom, Denmark and Norway.
However, there is no international consensus on the need for or benefits of PLR. The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions' (IFLA's) position is that there is little evidence that library lending causes such loss to authors that demand compensation through PLR. As such, IFLA does not support the principles of PLR, which can threaten free access to public library services. Instead, IFLA advocates for more appropriate and efficient ways to support authors. This is the position shared by the vast majority of libraries around the world. Given the lack of international consensus on the benefits of PLR schemes, the Government has not put in place legislation that requires libraries in Singapore, including the National Library Board (NLB), to implement such a scheme.
The lending by NLB promotes equitable access to knowledge and enjoyment through reading and is a key platform for the discovery of local authors and publishers. NLB supports local authors and publishers through the purchase of their books and raising awareness of Singapore Literature, authors and publishers through a broad range of initiatives. These include NLB's signature events like Read! Fest and the National Reading Movement, which aim to nurture a vibrant reading culture here. NLB also works with many partners across the literary ecosystem to organise talks by authors, support book launches as well as arrange discussions and hands-on workshops with Singapore writers. NLB even facilitates the sale of books by local authors at selected events. NLB will continue with such efforts to create a vibrant reading ecosystem in Singapore. The promotion of literacy and a love for books creates a society that is more likely to support local authors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons behind Government's Decision to Stop Practice of Partially Masking NRIC Numbers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"39 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what is the rationale for the Government's intention to stop the practice of partially masking NRIC numbers and why at the present time; and (b) whether the era of artificial intelligence and machine learning has accelerated the likelihood of organisations reverse engineering significant portions of the NRIC database through scraping and collating existing personal data collections, including lucky draw registrants and customer lists from the pre-PDPA era.
Mrs Josephine Teo: This Parliamentary Question will be addressed through a Ministerial Statement by the Minister for Digital Development and Information during the Parliament Sitting on 8 January 2025. [Please refer to \"Responsible Use of NRIC Numbers\", Official Report, 8 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 149, Ministerial Statements section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Protect Public from Fraud and Guide Businesses on Collection of NRIC Numbers Given New NRIC Advisory","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"40 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information in respect of the Government's new policy intent to stop the masking of NRIC numbers, what measures will be rolled out to (i) protect less savvy members of the public from fraud that may arise and (ii) guide businesses on how to interpret and translate the new policy intent with existing Personal Data Protection Commission's guidelines on the collection and use of full or partial NRIC numbers into business operations.
Mrs Josephine Teo: This Parliamentary Question will be addressed through a Ministerial Statement by the Minister for Digital Development and Information during the Parliament Sitting on 8 January 2025. [Please refer to \"Responsible Use of NRIC Numbers\", Official Report, 8 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 149, Ministerial Statements section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Privacy Risks of Current NRIC Number Structure and Proposal to Allow Alternative Checksum System or Other Safeguards","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"41 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Ministry has assessed the privacy risks of the current NRIC number structure; (b) whether measures will be considered to transition to a structure that excludes identifiable information, such as the year of birth, and mitigates reverse-engineering risks through improved cryptographic safeguards or an alternative checksum system; and (c) whether individuals may apply for an NRIC number change in cases of privacy breaches causing severe misuse or financial loss.
Mrs Josephine Teo: This Parliamentary Question will be addressed through a Ministerial Statement by the Minister for Digital Development and Information during the Parliament Sitting on 8 January 2025. [Please refer to \"Responsible Use of NRIC Numbers\", Official Report, 8 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 149, Ministerial Statements section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Separate Unique Identifier for Singapore Residents That is Different from NRIC Number for Use in Digital Systems","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"42 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Ministry will consider implementing a separate unique identifier for Singapore residents for use in digital and administrative systems, distinct from the NRIC number; (b) if so, whether such an identifier can be designed to allow updates or changes following data breaches or leaks; and (c) whether any feasibility studies have been conducted on such implementation.
Mrs Josephine Teo: This Parliamentary Question will be addressed through a Ministerial Statement by the Minister for Digital Development and Information during the Parliament Sitting on 8 January 2025. [Please refer to \"Responsible Use of NRIC Numbers\", Official Report, 8 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 149, Ministerial Statements section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Public Education on New Advisory to Move Away from Masked NRIC Numbers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"43 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information what are the Ministry's plans to conduct public education and communications on the wider use of NRIC numbers as unique identifiers and to move away from masked NRIC numbers.
Mrs Josephine Teo: This Parliamentary Question will be addressed through a Ministerial Statement by the Minister for Digital Development and Information during the Parliament Sitting on 8 January 2025. [Please refer to \"Responsible Use of NRIC Numbers\", Official Report, 8 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 149, Ministerial Statements section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reports of Suspected Scam Calls by Persons Citing Full NRIC Numbers Obtained Possibly from ACRA's Bizfile Portal","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"44 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information whether the Singapore Police Force has received any reports from complainants who received suspected scam calls by persons who cited their full NRIC numbers, possibly by obtaining their unmasked NRIC numbers from the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority's Bizfile portal when the search function was available.
Mrs Josephine Teo: This Parliamentary Question will be addressed through a Ministerial Statement by the Minister for Digital Development and Information during the Parliament Sitting on 8 January 2025. [Please refer to \"Responsible Use of NRIC Numbers\", Official Report, 08 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 149, Ministerial Statements section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for URA's Property Transactions E-service to Show Transactions where Caveats are Not Lodged","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"45 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for National Development (a) why the Urban Redevelopment Authority's (URA's) private residential property transactions e-Service does not show details of transactions where caveats are not lodged; and (b) whether the e-Service can be modified to include details of transactions where caveats are not lodged.
Mr Desmond Lee: Information on private residential property transactions, such as property title and property ownership information, is available on the Integrated Land Information Service portal managed by the Singapore Land Authority. This is regardless of whether a caveat was lodged for the sale transaction.
The Urban Redevelopment Authority's (URA's) private residential property transactions e-Service is intended to provide timely data that reflects dynamic market trends to relevant stakeholders, such as the real estate industry. It uses caveats data and data submitted by developers, which are available earlier in the transaction process and comprise the majority of private property transactions. This complements URA's other data e-Services, including releases of aggregated statistics, to provide timely updates of market trends.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Feasibility of Introducing Non-smoking HDB Blocks where Smoking Inside Homes is Not Allowed","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"46 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB has studied the feasibility of introducing non-smoking HDB blocks where smoking is not allowed even inside the homes, to give non-smokers the option of living amongst non-smoking neighbours.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) has not considered introducing non-smoking HDB blocks where smoking is disallowed within homes. The approach to tackle second-hand smoke in homes had been discussed extensively in this House, including the practical challenges of investigating and enforcing against smoking in homes. Without feasible and effective means of enforcement, smoking within homes could still arise even within dedicated non-smoking blocks.
HDB will continue to support the National Environment Agency in its efforts to urge smokers to exercise social responsibility and be considerate towards those around them, including family members and neighbours. If there is feedback on second-hand smoke from a neighbouring flat, a joint advisory by agencies will be issued to the flat to advise smokers to be considerate to their neighbours and emphasise the harmful impact of second-hand smoke.
Affected parties are encouraged to engage with their neighbour and try to reach a compromise that works for everyone. If they are unable to do so, they can approach grassroot leaders for assistance or attempt mediation at the Community Mediation Centre. If the dispute remains unresolved, the affected parties can consider filing a claim with the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal as a last resort.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Past Instances where Funds from Co-operative Societies Liquidation Account were Used to Support Co-operative Movement","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"47 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether there have been past instances whereby funds from the Co-operative Societies Liquidation Account (CSLA) were used under section 88 of the Co-operative Societies Act to support the co-operative movement; (b) whether there are future plans to use the CSLA funds to support the co-operative societies in Singapore; and (c) if so, what are they.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Under the Co-operative Societies Act, the Co-operative Societies Liquidation Account (CSLA) may be utilised generally for the furtherance of co-operative principles and for the benefit of the co-operative societies (co-ops), such as provision of training grants. Most recently, the CSLA is used to fund the Empowering Communities Fund, which aims to empower co-ops to drive community initiatives and projects to assist and support vulnerable communities and for co-ops to do their part to complement the Government's efforts in strengthening Singapore's social compact.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans for Former St Joseph's Institution and Former Catholic High School Sites","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"48 Ms Usha Chandradas asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth whether the Ministry has any updates on the new uses planned for the former St Joseph's Institution building on Bras Basah Road and former Catholic High School building on Queen Street.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) is exploring options for the use of the former St Joseph's Institution Building and former Catholic High School building, for possible arts and heritage uses. MCCY is not ready to announce the plans yet but will share more details when the study is completed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Relocation Plans for Singapore Art Museum at Tanjong Pagar Distripark under Greater Southern Waterfront Development Plan","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"49 Ms Usha Chandradas asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth in light of the planned developments for the Greater Southern Waterfront project, whether there are any relocation plans in place for the Singapore Art Museum at Tanjong Pagar Distripark.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The Singapore Art Museum (SAM) plans to remain at Tanjong Pagar Distripark in the near future. The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth will continue to work closely with SAM to ensure continuity in their operations and programming as the area develops.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Observing 10th Anniversary of Mr Lee Kuan Yew's Death","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"50 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth whether the Government has plans to observe the 10th anniversary of Mr Lee Kuan Yew's death on 23 March 2025.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: There are no plans to observe the 10th anniversary of Mr Lee Kuan Yew's death.
This year marks the 60th anniversary of Singapore's Independence. SG60 is an opportunity for us to reaffirm and reflect on our shared values, the same values that Mr Lee Kuan Yew and our founding generation of leaders lived by and fought for and commit ourselves to continue to build a better Singapore together.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Renovation Plans for Futsal Court and other Facilities at Petal Gardens in Eunos Ward of Aljunied GRC","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"51 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth in view of the state of the sports and community facilities at Petal Gardens in the Eunos ward of Aljunied GRC (a) when does the People's Association (PA) plan to renovate and modernise the futsal court and other facilities there; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider returning this area to the Town Council for management for community use as it was prior to the year 2011.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The People's Association (PA) currently leases the community site at Petal Gardens from the Housing and Development Board to run regular community activities for residents at this site.
PA maintains and upkeeps these facilities at Petal Gardens, ensuring they remain accessible and in good condition for residents' use. A tender for the cyclical maintenance and improvement of the facilities at Petal Gardens, including the futsal court, was published on 16 December 2024. It is intended to complete the works by Q1 2026.
The current arrangement has been effective, with Petal Gardens and other community sites under PA's management being well-utilised for regular activities for residents. PA will continue to ensure that the facilities at Petal Gardens are well-maintained and that community activities are available and accessible to all Eunos residents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposed Short-term Work Permits to Allow Households to Temporarily Hire Additional Migrant Domestic Worker","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"52 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry can consider granting short-term work permits to allow households to temporarily employ an additional migrant domestic worker (MDW) over an interim period when their current MDW returns to their home country for an extended period of time.
Dr Tan See Leng: Households are eligible to employ a second migrant domestic worker (MDW) if they have caregiving needs and have the requisite financial ability. They are free to mutually agree with the MDW on an employment period that is shorter than the work permit validity of two years. Households that need interim help while their MDWs are on extended home leave may also consider tapping on the Household Services Scheme, which offers domestic, child-minding and elder-minding services on part-time and short-term basis.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Percentage of S Pass Holders Who Have Completed Cultural Orientation Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"53 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the annual percentage of S Pass holders who had completed the Cultural Orientation Programme (COP) since the pilot started in 2023; and (b) whether the Ministry is planning to expand the reach of such programmes, namely (i) implementing the COP after the pilot expires in 2025 and (ii) extending the mandatory settling-in programme for non-Malaysian work permit holders to those in services sectors.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Cultural Orientation Programme (COP) was launched as a pilot in December 2023 to familiarise new S Pass holders with working and living in Singapore. As of November 2024, about 10% of eligible S Pass holders have voluntarily completed COP. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) will review COP after the pilot ends in 2025.
MOM has implemented the Settling-in Programme (SIP) for the Construction, Marine shipyard, Process and Manufacturing sectors. We have no plans to extend SIP to the Services sector for now but will assess this in future.
54 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Manpower with regard to errant company owners who fail to comply with orders made by the Small Claims Tribunal or Employment Claims Tribunal in favour of freelancers and workers (a) which are the sectors that currently have higher percentages of firms that do not comply with such orders; (b) whether steps are taken by the Ministry and the relevant public sector agencies to stem the proliferation of such non-compliances; and (c) if so, what are they.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Small Claims Tribunals (SCT) and Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT) do not track compliance with their orders. We, therefore, cannot identify the sectors that have higher percentages of firms that do not comply with orders that were made in favour of freelancers or workers.
Under existing law, any person who intentionally disobeys or breaches an order of Court, including orders by SCT and ECT, may be subject to committal proceedings under the Rules of Court. If found to have committed contempt of Court, the person is liable to be punished with a fine or imprisonment under the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016. Employers who fail to comply with ECT orders may also face punishment, including warnings, fines, debarment from applying for work passes and prosecution in Court.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Actions to Encourage Employers to Comply with New Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"55 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Manpower in respect of the Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests (a) other than referring the non-compliance by employers to the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices or their respective unions, what other actions may be taken to encourage compliance by employers; (b) whether the Ministry has conducted any studies from other jurisdictions on effective measures to encourage flexible work arrangements; and (c) what are the plans to monitor utilisation and compliance with such Guidelines.
Dr Tan See Leng: To help employers understand and comply with the Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests (TG-FWAR), the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has worked with the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP), Singapore National Employers Federation and National Trades Union Congress to provide employers with practical resources, such as toolkits and playbooks, to implement Flexible Work Arrangements (FWAs) effectively. Employers can also tap on grants, such as the Productivity Solutions Grant, to offset the costs of adopting FWAs, such as for consultancy services to redesign jobs or business processes and upgrade their IT systems to support FWAs.
In drawing up the Guidelines, tripartite partners studied the experience in other countries, such as Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. These countries have legislations that give employees the right to request for FWAs, but do not mandate that employers provide the FWAs requested. Disputes are mostly resolved through mediation. Our Tripartite Guidelines, while not legislated, adopt a similar approach of allowing employees to request for FWAs, while employers retain the prerogative to decide on FWA provision in line with their business needs. Building on the strengths of Singapore's tripartite system, the tripartite partners have further taken on an enabling and educational approach to guide and support employers to comply with TG-FWAR.
TG-FWAR recently took effect on 1 December 2024 and MOM is working with TAFEP to monitor utilisation and compliance with the Guidelines.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Successful Applications by Foreign Workers to Work Temporarily While Assisting in Investigations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"56 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Manpower (a) since 2022, what is the annual number of foreign workers who have applied for and are granted permission to work under the Temporary Job Scheme while under investigation by the authorities; and (b) what are the main reasons for applications that are unsuccessful.
Dr Tan See Leng: Foreign workers who are required to remain in Singapore to assist in investigations will be issued a Special Pass by the respective law enforcement agencies. These Special Pass Holders are generally allowed to work under the Temporary Job Scheme (TJS), unless there are concerns over public safety or interference with investigations.
\tSpecial Pass Holders do not need to apply to participate in TJS. They will be informed of their eligibility to work under the scheme. If a Special Pass Holders chooses to take up this option, their potential employer can submit an application for a TJS work permit to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) to hire \tSpecial Pass Holders.
Since 2022, an annual average of about 850 \tSpecial Pass Holders have worked under TJS. \tSpecial Pass Holders may choose not to seek employment under TJS if they are able to support themselves. \tSpecial Pass Holders who face issues with their upkeep can approach MOM for assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cases of Abuse of In-principle Approval System by Employers to Prevent Migrant Workers from Seeking Other Employment in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"57 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry is aware of any abuse of the in-principle approval (IPA) system by employers to prevent migrant workers from seeking other employment in Singapore; and (b) if so, whether the Ministry intends to review the IPA system.
Dr Tan See Leng: Migrant workers are not prevented from seeking employment in Singapore by other employers who abuse the in-principle approval (IPA) system. Employers are required to obtain the worker's written consent before submitting a Work Permit application. Workers who discovered that an IPA has been obtained without their consent can approach the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) for assistance. MOM will require the employer to produce proof of consent.
In many of the cases where the worker alleged that consent had not been obtained, the worker had changed his mind about working for the employer and the employer was able to produce proof of consent. In a smaller number of cases, MOM revoked IPA as the employer was not able to produce such proof.
Depending on the circumstances of the case, MOM may also conduct further investigations and take enforcement actions. Employers who make false declarations on workers' consent when submitting Work Permit applications may face prosecution, which carries severe penalties, including imprisonment. MOM will continue to take in feedback to review and improve our processes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Service Pattern along Circle Line Once Stage 6 is Completed","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"58 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the proposed service pattern along the Circle Line once Stage 6, which will close the loop between HarbourFront and Marina Bay MRT stations, is completed in 2026; (b) whether the existence of the Dhoby Ghaut to Promenade branch of the Circle Line is expected to impact service frequencies on the rest of the Line once Stage 6 is completed; (c) if so, where might the issue arise; and (d) how might it be mitigated.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Land Transport Authority and the operator are reviewing the future service pattern for the Circle Line after the completion of Circle Line Stage 6 (CCL6) in 2026. Similar to today's service pattern, it will take into account current and projected ridership, including passenger demand along the Dhoby Ghaut to Promenade stretch, to ensure that capacity is optimised.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Sustainability of Public and Private Bus Services Given Ageing Profile of Current Bus Drivers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"59 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Transport in view of the ageing profile of local bus drivers and a lack of young entrants into the bus driving industry, how will the Ministry ensure that both public and private bus services remain sustainable and reliable over the next 10 years.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Since the adoption of the Bus Contracting Model in 2016, public bus operators have been offering more competitive salary packages and improving the working conditions and employment terms to attract and retain bus captains.
In response to the tight manpower situation in the bus sector, public bus operators have continued to step up their efforts by offering higher pay, more flexible work arrangements and attractive sign-on and retention bonuses. The Land Transport Authority is also working closely with public bus operators and the National Transport Workers Union to further enhance the welfare and working conditions of bus captains.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expediting Outstanding Projects on Connecting Covered Linkways to MRT Stations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"60 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Transport (a) how many projects on connecting covered linkways to MRT stations are still outstanding; and (b) whether LTA can better resource the LTA construction team in order to expedite the works so that residents can have access to sheltered linkways as soon as possible.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) endeavours for covered linkways to be completed in tandem with the opening of new stations. For the recently opened Thomson-East Coast Line Stage 4 stations, covered linkways to nearby commuter infrastructure, that is, bus stop and pick-up/drop-off points, were mostly completed at the same time as the opening of the stations.
Where we are unable to complete covered linkways in tandem with the station opening, this is typically due to site constraints and other ongoing construction works or because more time was needed to address concerns raised by local stakeholders in the community. LTA aims to complete the covered linkways quickly once these ground issues are resolved to provide residents sheltered access to mass rapid transit stations as soon as possible.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":6371,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Don Wee","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20250107/vernacular-Don Wee IRDA 7Jan2025_Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Don Wee IRDA 7Jan2025_Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6375,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Sun Xueling","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20250107/vernacular-Sun Xueling Scams 7Jan2025_Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Sun Xueling Scams 7Jan2025_Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6376,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Gan Thiam Poh","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20250107/vernacular-Gan Thiam Poh Scams 7Jan2025-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Gan Thiam Poh Scams 7Jan2025-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6377,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Hazel Poa","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20250107/vernacular-Hazel Poa Scams 7Jan2025 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Hazel Poa Scams 7Jan2025 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6378,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Sharael Taha","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20250107/vernacular-7 Jan 2025 - Mr Sharael Taha - Protection from Scams Bill.pdf","fileName":"7 Jan 2025 - Mr Sharael Taha - Protection from Scams Bill.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6379,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Hazel Poa","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20250107/vernacular-Hazel Poa RTA 7Jan2025 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Hazel Poa RTA 7Jan2025 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6380,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Dr Tan See Leng","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20250107/vernacular-Tan See Leng Workplace Fairness 7Jan2025 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Tan See Leng Workplace Fairness 7Jan2025 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6381,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Dr Tan See Leng","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20250107/vernacular-7 Jan 2025 - Minister Tan See Leng - Workplace Fairness Bill.pdf","fileName":"7 Jan 2025 - Minister Tan See Leng - Workplace Fairness Bill.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6382,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20250107/vernacular-7 Jan 2025 - Mr Md Faisal A Manap - Workplace Fairness Bill.pdf","fileName":"7 Jan 2025 - Mr Md Faisal A Manap - Workplace Fairness Bill.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6383,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Sharael Taha","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20250107/vernacular-7 Jan 2025 - Mr Sharael Taha - Workplace Fairness Bill.pdf","fileName":"7 Jan 2025 - Mr Sharael Taha - Workplace Fairness Bill.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6384,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Hazel Poa","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20250107/vernacular-Hazel Poa COE Adj Motion 7Jan2025 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Hazel Poa COE Adj Motion 7Jan2025 -Chinese.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}