1 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) when were the pumps in the tunnel between Bishan and Braddell MRT stations last inspected before a malfunction led to the tunnel flooding on 7 October 2017; (b) how often are MRT operators required to inspect such pumps in all MRT tunnels; and (c) what is LTA's oversight system on timely inspections of equipment/machinery and repair or replacement of faulty equipment/machinery carried out by the operators.
2 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport with regard to the tunnel flooding between Bishan and Braddell MRT stations on 7 October 2017 (a) why did the recent flood mitigation measures carried out by LTA for the MRT network fail to prevent the flooding; and (b) whether the mitigation measures included a review of the pump system and, if so, what was its outcome.
3 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the root cause of the flooding in the MRT tunnel on 7 October 2017; (b) whether there are standby pumps at each MRT underground tunnel; (c) how often are these pumps checked as part of regular maintenance; (d) whether there are CCTVs in the MRT tunnels for the control station to monitor tunnel situations; and (e) whether this occurrence is avoidable.
4 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Transport (a) other than the Bishan MRT station, what faulty pump items are found in the other four stations of Lavender-Kallang, Redhill-Tiong Bahru, Kembangan-Bedok and Expo-Changi; (b) whether their maintenance schedules have also been deferred; (c) what are the procedures for oversight and verification of the maintenance works carried out; (d) what are the standard operating procedures for maintenance works found wanting and how promptly are remedies carried out; and (e) how are the maintenance crew trained for such works.
5 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Transport (a) what was the root cause of the MRT tunnel flooding of 7 October 2017; (b) how will the Ministry seek to reduce, through regulation, the likelihood of a recurrence; and (c) what protocols are in place to keep passengers safe in the event water meets electricity within the tunnel or within the train.
6 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the transfer of all operating assets from SMRT to LTA has been completed; (b) whether these assets have been audited for their net book value and their operational condition; and (c) whether the anti-flood system at Bishan station is included in the assets transferred and audited.
7 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Transport in light of the MRT train breakdown due to a flooding of the tunnel near Bishan (a) whether more risk assessments will be done on the entire train system to identify other possible risk spots; and (b) whether more regulatory supervision will be carried out on the public transport operators.
8 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the \"deep-seated cultural issues\" the SMRT CEO alluded to as reasons for multiple malfunctions of SMRT's rail transit network; (b) whether these issues caused the separate malfunctions over the past two years, including the incidents on 7 July 2015, 22 March 2016, 25 April 2016 and 30 August 2017; and (c) if so, whether the Ministry has plans to address these issues to ensure reliability and safety of the rail network.
9 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Transport how does LTA balance its role as the regulator that determines whether rapid transit system operators should be imposed penalties for failing to discharge their responsibility with the desirability of ensuring that the same operators work closely with LTA, in its capacity as the system owner, as a team to resolve problems affecting the system's reliability.
10 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the preventive maintenance schedule for the MRT system over the next six months; (b) how effective are these plans at reducing the frequency and scale of breakdowns and delays of our train services; and (c) whether there are plans to close MRT lines for major maintenance works.
\tThe Minister for Transport (Mr Khaw Boon Wan): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 1 to 10 as one bloc and to respond to them through a Ministerial Statement later?
Mr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMr Khaw Boon Wan: Members are welcome to seek clarifications after I have delivered the Statement. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Updating Career Guidance Counsellors for Students on Industry Trends","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Education (Schools) (a) how does the Ministry ensure that the teachers and career guidance counsellors deployed to our schools are kept abreast with updated industry and employment trends; and (b) what collaborations does the Ministry have with SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG), Workforce Singapore (WSG) and Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) to provide an integrated career support for our students.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Ms Low Yen Ling) (for the Minister for Education (Schools)): Mr Speaker, to keep abreast of industry and employment trends, Education and Career Guidance Counsellors, or ECG Counsellors, in our schools regularly meet with industry practitioners and Government agencies at networking sessions and learning journeys. ECG Counsellors are also guided by the respective Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) and Skills Frameworks, as well as publications by agencies that help them stay up-to-date with the emerging trends, career pathways and kind of skills in demand by various industries. With this knowledge, they are able to advise and provide up-to-date, suitable career guidance to the students.
MOE, SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) and Workforce Singapore (WSG) have also developed MySkillsFuture, a one-stop ECG portal for both students and working adults. Through the MySkillsFuture portal, students gain insights into industries and occupations, as well as the education pathways leading to them. Upon graduation, students can continue to use the MySkillsFuture portal to manage their career and learning plans as they enter the workforce.
Furthermore, the Institutes of Higher Learning partner SSG, WSG and e2i to support students as they transit into the workplace. They regularly organise events, such as industry talks, pre-employment workshops and career fairs, to deepen the students' understanding of industry and career opportunities, as well as develop their job-seeking skills. These events also help to acquaint students with the services provided by SSG, WSG and e2i. We will continue to work with the agencies to expand the collaboration and increase the frequency of such activities.
\tMr Desmond Choo (Tampines):\tI thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for her comprehensive answer. I have just one supplementary question. MOE has a good suite of services provided to the students. What is critical for the ECG Counsellors is also a career path that they can build on, so that they grow their industry depth and knowledge to help our students and progress with them over the years. What are the plans that MOE has to grow the careers of our ECG Counsellors?
\tMs Low Yen Ling: I wish to thank Mr Desmond Choo for his very thoughtful question for the ECG Counsellors. I also want to assure the Member that ECG Counsellors are very well plugged into the latest on the various industries. So, we support them to make sure they are current and also that they are kept up-to-date and are kept abreast of the market and employment trends.
Our ECG Counsellors come with prior work experience from different sectors. When they join us, they are given professional training on education and career counselling. Even after they have joined us, we make sure that they stay updated through regular networking and sharing sessions with career coaches from WSG and e2i. We make sure that, on the job, they get the necessary support from industry, from MOE.
Each ECG Counsellor is really part of a committed team of ECG personnel, comprising teachers, class advisors and also lecturers in schools or even in post-Secondary Education Institutes (PSEIs). The ECG Counsellors are not working alone. They also have the support from the MOE Grange Road ECG Centre, especially during critical periods, such as the release of national examination results. So, they receive on-the-job support and, when they join us, we give them the professional training. We remain committed to nurturing our ECG Counsellors with regular training and also promising career prospects. As they perform in their job, we will ensure that they receive exposure and development through lateral postings across schools as well as other PSEIs. Opportunities will be made available for good performers for senior appointments, such as Senior ECG Counsellor and ECG Counselling Manager positions.
\tAssoc Prof Randolph Tan (Nominated Member):\tMr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether ECG Counsellors are able to deal with the types of questions that young people these days have about the disruptions that they are facing in the job market and whether there are any statistics or feedback about how well they are doing in meeting these concerns of young people.
\tMs Low Yen Ling: I wish to thank the Member for the supplementary questions. Other than the regular sharing and networking sessions that we arrange with WSG and e2i career coaches, MOE also works with private sector and public sector agencies on a monthly basis. The ECG Counsellors will set aside at least half a day every month to attend industry networking sessions and sharing sessions. Over the last two years, we have organised more than 24 of such sessions. Some of the organisations involved include CAAS, talking about the opportunities in T4 and the new T5; LinkedIn; MOH, talking about the job opportunities made available in healthcare; and also Action Community for Entrepreneurship, so that the ECG Counsellors are well-placed to advise students who are keen on entrepreneurial pathways.
I want to assure Members that there is a robust approach as to which industry partner to work with in terms of organising the regular industry networking and sharing sessions. Typically, these partners are selected to cover a broad spectrum of industries. We have, especially, a focus on sectors with opportunities for growth and where future jobs will be. Some of the sectors that have been covered in the last two years include aerospace, logistics, social services, media, the built environment and so on.
We make sure that even after they join us, with the prior work experience that they have, the ECG Counsellors are always given regular updates on the market and employment trends as well as industrial insights.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Encouraging Young Singaporeans to Pursue Overseas Immersions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Ms Sun Xueling –
12 To ask the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) (a) in the last three years, what has been the take-up rate for the Young Talent Programme and the SkillsFuture award for internationalisation; (b) how can the Ministry work more with the Institutions of Higher Learning to encourage young Singaporeans to pursue work and immersion experiences overseas; and (c) what have been the qualitative feedback from young Singaporeans on overseas immersions.
\tMr Chong Kee Hiong (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Question No 12, please.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Ms Low Yen Ling) (for the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills)): Mr Speaker, Sir, IE Singapore's Young Talent Programme (YTP) aims to provide students at our Autonomous Universities, Polytechnics and the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) opportunities for overseas exposure and market immersion to prepare them for future global careers. Since 2015, the programme has benefited about 1,900 University students and more than 1,100 Polytechnic students and 200 ITE students after its expansion to include this group of youths.
IE Singapore's SkillsFuture Study Award for International Business is targeted at Singaporeans with at least three years of working experience in a global role. It aims to deepen skillsets essential for navigating and overcoming the complexity of overseas markets. Since its launch in October 2015, a total of 432 study awards have been given out.
MOE recognises the benefits overseas stints bring. These experiences help young Singaporeans develop a global perspective, a healthy respect for other cultures, greater independence and adaptability to new environments. Beyond the YTP, all our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) facilitate a range of overseas exposure for interested students, including academic exchanges with foreign partner universities, community service projects and internships or industrial attachments.
Today, more than a quarter of ITE students, nearly half of Polytechnic students and close to two-thirds of university students choose to participate in an overseas programme during their course of study. The IHLs actively grow their overseas networks to expand the opportunities for their students. MOE also works with the IHLs to identify and address potential difficulties in gaining access to countries that may be of interest to their students.
Feedback from students on their overseas stints has been positive. Their exposure to different cultures and working environments abroad has challenged and enriched them immensely.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Government Support for Full-time Sportsmen After Sports","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Mr Teo Ser Luck asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth with the completion of another Southeast Asian Games and ASEAN Para Games, how does the Ministry support the post-Games and post-sports career plans of athletes, especially for those who went into full-time training to represent Singapore for these Games.
\tThe Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): The Singapore Sports Institute (SSI) seeks to provide comprehensive support to our Team Singapore athletes, through financial grants, training and coaching, sports medicine, as well as opportunities to prepare for a career after they retire from high performance sports.
To prepare our athletes early for a career after sports, SSI works closely with corporate partners under the spexBusiness Network to offer our athletes career development opportunities, ranging from internships and apprenticeships, part-time positions to permanent positions with flexible work arrangements. The Network also organises career-readiness workshops to guide our athletes, as well as networking opportunities with the corporate partners. More than 150 Team Singapore athletes have benefited since its inception in 2013. They include former national athletes, such as shuttler Derek Wong, who has made a successful transition to a post-sport career with Deloitte, and current national athletes, such as netballer Charmaine Soh who is also with Deloitte, as well as archer Christina Gunawan and CP footballer Khairul Anwar who are employed with other spexBusiness partners such as KPMG and MCCY.
Today, the spexBusiness Network comprises more than 50 companies across 25 industries. I would like to encourage more companies and employers to step forward to support our athletes, so that they can focus on doing their best for Singapore, whilst staying abreast in terms of their career development. With more companies on board, we are able to support more athletes in their pursuit of sporting excellence.
Besides the spexBusiness Network, there are also opportunities for athletes to pursue a career in their respective sports and continue to contribute to the sports' development after they have retired from competition. Our increased funding support over the years for the development of sport − from the learn-to-play entry level to the high performance level − has enlarged the ecosystems of many sports. This has created more employment opportunities for national athletes to work in the areas that they are passionate about and pass down their experience to the younger generation of athletes. Many of our former national athletes have led the way, such as former national swimmer Gary Tan, who is now the Head Coach of the National Training Centre for swimming, and former national shuttler Jiang Yanmei, who is now the Technical Manager of the Singapore Badminton Association (SBA) and Principal of the SBA Badminton Academy@ActiveSG.
\tMr Desmond Choo (Tampines):\tI thank the Minister for her comprehensive reply. Just a couple of supplementary questions. The first one is: our national athletes are great ambassadors of the sports for Singapore. Is there a structured process for them to take up permanent roles within ActiveSG? And the second question: within the different schools, we have been trying to promote sports. Is there also a similar structured process, or a Professional Conversion Programme (PCP) that allows them to take up these positions within MOE or in terms of promoting the different interest groups?
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: Mr Speaker, I would like to take both supplementary questions together. The short answer is yes. There have been structured programmes to allow our athletes to pursue education as well as skills training in the area of sports, including coaching, sports facilities management and so on. And we are looking at increasing the training opportunities for coaching while they are in the sports as well. So, it is both in Institutes of Higher Learning as well as outside. This is really to provide more opportunities and options for our athletes. Some of them may like to pursue a career in coaching − that is available to them.
As I had mentioned in my reply earlier, the ecosystem has been enlarged; we have been investing in development as well as in high performance sports over the years. Also, there are other opportunities, such as in the management of sports facilities, gyms and so on.
The idea is to give the athletes options. Some of them may like to stay in the sports that they are passionate about. Some of them may like to move on to other non-sports areas. We would like to see how we can support them better, including allowing them to have part-time, full-time internship, apprenticeship in the area that they are interested in.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Guidelines and Conditions for Arts Funding","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what are the processes behind the development of guidelines and conditions for arts funding; (b) how frequently are such processes, guidelines and conditions reviewed; (c) when is the next review; (d) who are the stakeholders and actors that participate in the review process; and (e) to what degree are local artists consulted in these reviews.
\tThe Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr Baey Yam Keng) (for the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth): As a steward of public funds, the National Arts Council (NAC) seeks to enlarge the space for the arts to flourish without compromising on social cohesion and stability. Hence, applicants will need to meet NAC's funding guidelines, which are public available on its website. They were updated recently in 2013 and are still relevant.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government remains committed to sustainable funding of the arts. Over the years, NAC has seen a growth in the number of deserving artists and arts companies. Therefore, it must prioritise projects, given finite resources.
For every individual grant application, artistic merit is an important criterion. NAC also takes into account the project's contribution to gaps and needs in the art form's development. The extent to which it is able to engage audiences is also of consideration. The criteria upon which funding applications are evaluated are available on NAC's website.
NAC regularly convenes grants evaluation panels, comprising many members of the arts community, to give NAC their views on the proposal's artistic merit. Annually, over 400 arts practitioners, researchers, industry professionals and others are appointed to these panels. These assessors offer NAC objective feedback and help NAC identify emerging developments in the sector. NAC has benefited from their counsel and appreciates their continued support.
In addition to regular engagement sessions and meetings with arts practitioners and groups on funding as well as on other issues of common interest, such as how to grow audiences, develop the various art forms and address the needs of freelancers, NAC also actively engages the arts community when embarking on major reviews of grant funding. For example, in 2016, NAC conducted an extensive year-long review of the Major Grant scheme, involving more than 100 members from the arts community. The revised Major Company Scheme was a response to the arts community's feedback on the need for a more customised approach that recognises different capabilities and contributions.
\tMr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his helpful reply. I just have three supplementary questions.
Firstly, regarding the condition that arts funding not be tied to undermining confidence in public institutions, political parties or figures − which I think we have discussed in the House before − will the Government be reviewing this in the light of the clear evidence from the case of Sonny Liew that good arts and artists can be penalised from this rule and that this politicisation of the arts is likely to set back the development of the arts in Singapore? That is my first supplementary question.
Secondly, has the Government sought feedback from artists specifically about this rule and, if not, why not? And, if so, does the feedback suggest that artists agree with this rule?
Thirdly, perhaps, I missed this, but just to clarify: is there a timeline for reviewing these guidelines? Is there a fixed schedule, say, every three or five years, to review them and, if so, when is the next review scheduled to be held?
\tMr Baey Yam Keng: Sir, I thank the Member for his questions. As mentioned earlier in Parliament, the NAC does not fund activities that undermine public institutions, political parties or figures, regardless of political affiliation. NAC takes the position that the arts should not be used for partisan politics and that confidence in public institutions is fundamental to the future of Singapore.
So, this remains relevant today. We respect the views of artists and members of the arts community on this. But as a public institution, we also need to take into account the views and concerns of the public at large beyond the arts community. This is a balance that we are striking and the position would, of course, need to evolve with the changes and needs of society, what the public can accept or not. The conversation remains open and that is why we are constantly also reviewing our guidelines. Currently, we will continue to review guidelines and engage artists in dialogue in order to understand their concerns and also to articulate the positions or the thinking of the Government. This reflects the shared ownership as well as responsibility in enlarging the space for our arts to flourish.
\tMr Leon Perera: Thank you, Sir. Just a quick follow-up question. I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his reply. The Parliamentary Secretary alluded to taking into consideration public sentiments. Is there any evidence that the general public is concerned about this issue that political parties or institutions should not be undermined via arts funding?
\tMr Baey Yam Keng: The views of the public are very diverse. Based on our conversations not only with the arts groups, but also beyond the MCCY family, there are also considerations of the Government at large, on the role of Government and how public funds should be used to promote the various sectors to grow.
In the case of the arts, artistic development is certainly of importance to us, but, at the same time, we also see the arts as a way to engage the community to build a stronger sense of national identity.
\tMr Kok Heng Leun (Nominated Member): I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his replies. Just to follow up on the same issue, so I would like to know what is the process like. For example, when there is a work that is deemed to be questionable, what is the process like to make the decisions? In between, are there any recourse, are there any possibilities for dialogue? And a follow-up question would be: just this year, may I know how many projects or works have not been funded because of this guideline?
\tMr Baey Yam Keng: The NAC or any funding organisation will always have a conversation with the applicant. In the case where there are some concerns over its content or the nature of the proposal, sometimes, it is about clarifications, about sharing the concerns, and the artist or applicant is always encouraged to respond accordingly and, if necessary, to make adjustments to the proposal, if the artist so desires.
It is a continued exchange of views and there is a process where the applicant can appeal against the decision but NAC retains the final say on whether funding will be continued, withdrawn or the decision could be changed.
Was there a second part to the question?
\tMr Kok Heng Leun: How many projects or works have actually not been funded due to this ruling?
\tMr Baey Yam Keng:\tThe number of projects that were declined funding or withdrawn funding based on this ruling are very, very few. In fact, very small numbers, compared to the thousands that we fund every year. Currently, I do not have the exact details at hand, but I would say, this year, except for those in the public domain, Sonny Liew's Art of Charlie Chan as well as Jeremy Tiang's novel, there are no such cases.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member):\tCan I just ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the prohibition against the undermining of political parties includes political parties in the past?
\tMr Baey Yam Keng: As a disburser of public funds, the Government does not allow the funds to be used to advance the agenda of any political party. So, is the Member alluding to current political parties or to parties no longer in existence?
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong:\tSorry, if I did not make myself clear. I meant, does it include, for example, any funding for any proposed works that deal with political parties in our history, in the past that may present to some people a different interpretation of what the party did or did not do in the past? Would this come under the prohibition that the Parliamentary Secretary has mentioned?
\tMr Baey Yam Keng:\tI think for any political party, the party would be still accountable and responsible for decisions made in the past. The government of the day would need to decide on how money is used. Such that the works do not undermine the authority of public institutions under the government which is formed by the ruling party, which sets its policies for the government to operate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Negotiations for Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Trade) what is the updated status on negotiations for the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, in particular, the headway made on (i) improving the liberalisation of goods, services and investment beyond the existing ASEAN+1 Free Trade Agreements (and other agreements) among the participating countries; (ii) reducing non-tariff regulatory barriers to ease the flow of trade and investment; and (iii) the inclusion of a dispute settlement mechanism that can provide an effective and transparent process for consultations and dispute resolution.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry (Trade)): The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) is a 16-party free trade agreement (FTA) currently under negotiation between the 10 Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) member states and the six ASEAN FTA Partners, that is, China, Japan, Republic of Korea, India, New Zealand and Australia. Accounting for almost half of the world's population and a third of the world's gross domestic product, the RCEP is envisaged to be a modern, comprehensive, high quality and mutually beneficial economic partnership agreement that will deepen ASEAN's economic integration with the region.
Since the launch of RCEP negotiations in November 2012, there have been 20 formal negotiating rounds and eight RCEP Ministerial Meetings. To date, two chapters have been concluded and they are: the Economic and Technical Cooperation (ECOTECH) and Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) Chapters.
The RCEP is reaching a critical juncture of negotiations. The negotiators are engaging extensively on challenging and complex policy matters in market access and rules. Trade Ministers of RCEP countries have provided guidance to the process. In September 2017, RCEP Ministers discussed and endorsed a guidance document, the Key Elements for Significant Outcomes by End of 2017. This document directs negotiators to focus on specific outcomes across the Chapters. The RCEP Ministers and Leaders will next review the progress of negotiations at the sidelines of the 31st ASEAN Summit to be held next week.
We have engaged extensively on market access negotiations. RCEP Parties have tabled the second revised offers across Goods, Services and Investments. The process takes time but it leads to incremental improvements at each iteration. For Investment, RCEP Parties are continuing with pluri-lateral engagements to discuss their Reservation Lists with a view to further improvements.
Apart from market access and investment, RCEP Parties are committed to improving the regional business environment through the reduction of non-tariff barriers and non-tariff measures to facilitate trade and investment flows across RCEP countries. Regular consultations with the business community are held at the sidelines of each Negotiating Round and, at the national level, by individual RCEP Parties with their respective stakeholders to identify non-tariff measures to be addressed in the RCEP agreement.
The RCEP will also include a dispute settlement mechanism to provide an effective, efficient and transparent process for consultations and settlement of disputes. Negotiations are still on-going on this, with officials working through the basis and process for initiating dispute resolution.
While there is steady progress in the negotiations, finding a landing zone that is acceptable and agreeable to all RCEP Parties on the numerous issues remains a gradual and complex process. Even though ASEAN and our corresponding FTA Partners have existing ASEAN+1 FTAs to form a starting basis for the negotiations, it is much more challenging for ASEAN FTA Partners who do not already have an FTA with each other to arrive at a common landing zone.
Singapore will do our part to facilitate the process where possible, but the final positions between third countries are, ultimately, dependent on their own calculations.
In taking negotiations forward, the task remains for RCEP partners to find a balance between achieving a high level of ambition and accommodating the specific sensitivities of individual RCEP partners. Singapore remains committed to work closely with our RCEP counterparts to bring the agreement to fruition.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Efforts to Ensure Singapore-European Union Free Trade Agreement Comes into Force","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"16 Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Trade) if he can provide an update on efforts since May 2017 to ensure that the Singapore-European Union Free Trade Agreement comes into force in its concluded or an alternative form.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry (Trade)): Mr Speaker, on 16 May 2017, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) issued its legal Opinion of the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (EUSFTA) as a \"mixed agreement\". Specifically, the ECJ ruled that all provisions in the EUSFTA fall under the exclusive competence of the EU with specific exceptions. These exceptions are provisions relating to, firstly, non-direct foreign investments, such as portfolio investments; and, secondly, the regime governing dispute settlement between investors and states. Both these provisions fall under the shared competence of the EU and its member states.
Since the release of the ECJ Opinion, the EU has been discussing internally on the modality for negotiating and ratifying FTAs, including the EUSFTA. This includes the possibility of having the FTA cover the provisions that belong to the EU's exclusive competence, while provisions that are of shared competence are incorporated into a separate Bilateral Investment Agreement.
This would allow for a more targeted ratification process. The FTA would then come into force after the approval of the Council of the EU and the European Parliament. The separate Bilateral Investment Agreement, which is of \"shared competence\", would have to go through the process of obtaining approval at the Council, the European Parliament, as well as the 38 national and regional parliaments of all EU member states.
The Commission is in the process of consulting internally with member states and other stakeholders on the best way to take the EUSFTA forward. Singapore has conveyed to the EU that our priority remains to ensure an expeditious ratification of the EUSFTA. We will continue to work closely with the Commission to have the FTA ratified in order for our businesses to benefit from the agreement as soon as possible.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Allowing Ambulances to Run Red Lights in Emergencies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"17 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether ambulances are allowed to run red traffic lights when attending to emergencies; (b) if not, whether there are plans to allow this; and (c) what are the steps that the Ministry is taking to encourage motorists to give way to ambulances.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Amrin Amin) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Today, the law does not expressly provide for ambulances to run red lights in an emergency.
However, SCDF officers are given the discretion to do so when responding to life-threatening emergencies, such as cardiac arrest and stroke, where every second counts. Similar discretion is given for the drivers to make U-turns at places where it is not authorised by traffic rules.
To reduce the likelihood of an accident, SCDF has in place operating procedures. An ambulance driver who intends to run a red light or make an unauthorised U-turn is required to sound the siren and activate the blinker lights to alert other road users. When approaching the traffic junction, the driver must slow down and come to a complete halt, so that he can make a situational assessment of the traffic conditions before proceeding further.
Should an SCDF driver be issued a \"Notice of Traffic Offence\" for running a red light or making an unauthorised U-turn, an appeal will be lodged and Traffic Police will evaluate the case. They will waive the offence if the driver was responding to a life-threatening emergency.
This appeal and waiver process can be avoided by providing legislative clarity that SCDF's ambulance drivers are allowed to run red lights and make unauthorised U-turns, where necessary.
To this end, MHA is working towards exempting SCDF's ambulances from the legislative provision that prohibits red-light running and unauthorised U-turns. Such exemptions already exist in foreign jurisdictions, such as California and the United Kingdom.
Other road users must play their part. They should exercise civic responsibility and give way to SCDF's emergency vehicles, as this can make a real difference in saving lives. MHA is updating the Highway Code to include pointers on how motorists should respond when they encounter emergency vehicles. We will also continue to raise public awareness. For instance, SCDF has worked with LTA to display \"Give way to emergency vehicles\" messages on electronic signboards located along expressways.
Motorists who refuse to give way to emergency vehicles are liable for four demerit points and a composition fine. If there are aggravating factors, the offenders will be prosecuted in Court.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his reply and for sharing the good news that MHA is reviewing it. I know my Parliamentary Question is asking only about ambulances, but I am wondering whether the review can also cover other emergency vehicles like the Police and fire engines. The point is if a fire engine can be there early, there might not be a need for an ambulance to come in the first place.
\tMr Amrin Amin:\tYes, we will include fire engines and the Police in the review.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Use of Steel Supplied by Company that Falsified Data","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"18 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for National Development regarding our infrastructural projects under construction (a) whether any of the materials used in our infrastructure projects have been sourced from Kobe Steel which had admitted to data-falsification; and (b) if so, what rectifications are being made to ensure the safety of these projects.
\tThe Second Minister for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, of the products that Kobe Steel supplies, only structural steel is an important construction material for infrastructure projects. BCA has checked with the major steel stockists and fabricators in Singapore and determined that no structural steel from Kobe Steel was imported into Singapore to date. But BCA will continue to remain vigilant and to carry out checks.
Structural steel used by projects in Singapore has to comply with the requirements in our building standards. This includes having project parties carry out tests to ensure that the structural steel conforms to standards.
For instance, during the construction phase, Qualified Persons (QPs) and site supervisors must ensure that building materials used, like structural steel and concrete used for structural elements, have been tested by accredited laboratories and meet required standards and design specifications.
For example, steel bars used in reinforced concrete are tested for tensile strength and tests are carried out to assess the weld quality of steel connections. QPs are required to maintain the test certificates for audits by BCA. BCA also conducts site audits of projects under construction to check that building regulations are adhered to and that all parties carry out their duties as required.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Importance of Generalist Doctors' Roles","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"19 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Health what is being done to elevate the status and standing of generalist doctors, enhance the health infrastructure to support generalist doctors and promote generalist medicine among young doctors beyond moral suasion.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Lam Pin Min) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, generalist doctors play a central role in providing patient-centric and holistic care for an ageing population. The Ministry recognises and supports them in a few ways.
To elevate the status and standing of generalist doctors, we are giving them more recognition. In 2014, the Chapter of Family Medicine Physicians was formed under the Academy of Medicine Singapore. This recognises family physicians with fellowship as being on par with that of specialists.
MOH is encouraging doctors to take up training positions for family medicine as well as specialties with broader generalist competencies, such as geriatric medicine and advanced internal medicine. Through regular engagement sessions at various platforms, the Ministry is already creating awareness of our changing postgraduate needs to train the right mix of doctors and, at the same time, signalling the shift in priority by increasing the number of training positions for these disciplines. MOH has also been offering funding for in-service medical officers and general practitioners (GPs) to take up postgraduate Family Medicine training.
In addition, the Ministry is also providing support to help them improve their practice environment and deliver more effective care. This includes supporting private GP-run family medicine clinics, funding Community Health Centres to support GPs, and extending allied health support for our polyclinic doctors. We are now in the process of resourcing Primary Care Networks (PCNs), to enable our GPs to better manage patients with chronic diseases.
I would also like to acknowledge Dr Tan Wu Meng who had also raised similar concerns in a separate written Parliamentary Question on postgraduate medical training and how MOH has strengthened and empowered family physicians, internists and other doctors in playing a generalist coordinating physician role to meet Singapore's future healthcare needs. I am glad to share that a Generalist Competencies Standing Committee has been appointed and is currently reviewing the core set of generalist competencies every resident should have.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rates of Return for GIC and Temasek Holdings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"20 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Finance (a) why is the gap between GIC's nominal return and its reference portfolio return higher over the past five years versus the past 20 years; (b) how have GIC and Temasek Holdings performed in terms of annualised rate of return over the past 10 years versus major international sovereign wealth funds, such as those of Norway, Qatar, UAE, China, Hong Kong, Australia and Saudi Arabia; and (c) how do GIC and Temasek Holding's total management and operating expenses as a share of assets managed compare against the average for leading global sovereign wealth funds.
\tThe Second Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong)\t(for the Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, the answer to Mr Perera's first question can be found in GIC's latest Annual Report, which is, in fact, available online.
But since Mr Perera has asked the question, let me quote the answer from page 15 of the GIC Annual Report, which states \"…the difference in the returns between the GIC Portfolio and Reference Portfolio is largely due to the difference in risk exposures. The GIC Portfolio has a more diversified asset composition, as well as a lower exposure to developed market, or DM (Developed Market) equities. In addition, increasingly stretched valuations in DM equities have prompted a reduced allocation to this asset class in the GIC Portfolio in recent years. This has resulted in lower returns compared to the Reference Portfolio over the five-year period, as DM equities, especially those in the US, have done particularly well. However, we believe the high valuations of DM equities portend lower future returns.\" This was explained in the GIC Annual Report.
Mr Perera also asked for a comparison of GIC and Temasek with other Sovereign Wealth Funds, in terms of their returns and expenses. It is not meaningful to compare returns and expenses across different entities globally as they have different mandates, risk profiles and operating constraints. All else being equal, a fund of a higher risk profile should generate higher returns over time, but the outcomes will be more volatile. As another example, a fund that is purely invested in publicly-listed equities and bonds would likely incur lower expenses than a fund that invests in real estate and private equity, as these are markets which are harder to access, but have the potential to yield further returns.
Therefore, the Government's approach is not to apply a single benchmark, as my colleague Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah had explained in a reply to another Parliamentary Question in July 2017 on a related matter. Instead, the Government evaluates the investment entities' performance by looking at their long-term returns, taking into account risk exposure, underlying market trends and other factors relevant to each entity.
On the whole, the Government's view is that GIC and Temasek have performed creditably in challenging market conditions.
\tMr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister for his reply. I have a few supplementary questions.
Firstly, if the gap between the Reference Portfolio returns and the actual GIC returns widens in the future, under what conditions or what trigger point will MOF actually intervene to request for changes, either to the strategy or personnel of GIC?
Secondly, just to follow the line of questioning about the allocation to developed market equities: why did GIC reduce its allocation to developed market equities in such a big way in the years 2010 to 2012 and then continue to do so gradually until 2016, missing the surge in developed market equities within the last five-year period? Because even if one takes the view that these developed market equities might not hold good long-term returns, one could still have executed a strategy whereby this asset class was used to generate short-term returns before taking profit and exiting over the past five years. That is my second question.
My third supplementary question is really about benchmarking of performance. In response to what the Minister said, I would like to ask: why the fact that the different Sovereign Wealth Funds may have different risk profiles and so on is the reason for not benchmarking performance against them? One can still compare one's performance against other Sovereign Wealth Funds, even if they have different strategies, different risk profiles, for the sake of referencing the performance and referencing the strategy as well.
The fourth question: if such benchmarking is not being done against other Sovereign Wealth Funds, how does the Government derive an understanding of what is a good return and a good performance versus one that is less than good?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, there is a series of questions. I will take them in turn.
First, under what conditions will the Government intervene? Of course, if, on a continuous basis, there is under-performance by GIC, then certainly MOF and the Government will have to review fundamentally what has gone wrong and whether the strategies that GIC has undertaken are, indeed, the right ones.
On DM equities, I think it is easy to judge the reduced weightage by GIC on DM equities on hindsight and say that, \"Look, they could have easily kept the weightage on DM equities over the last five years and rode the wave\", but this is looking back on hindsight.
I think the assessment by most market players and investment entities are that DM equities are, indeed, high in valuation and there is considerable uncertainty in DM equities today. One can take a short-term view, of course, and say, \"Let's play the short-term game\", but GIC is not a short-term player. GIC invests in the long-term and, in situations where there is market exuberance like now, GIC correctly, we think, takes a view that is more conservative and reduces its weightage on DM equities accordingly.
On benchmarking, that is really a function of risk and return. As I have said earlier, the higher the risk, then, potentially, the higher returns one gets. The Government has already set a Reference Portfolio which expresses the risk that we are prepared to take and GIC is allocated that risk budget and has to perform and achieve maximum returns according to that risk budget that it is accorded.
So, the way we can easily evaluate GIC's performance is by looking at what is the amount of risk it takes and whether the returns it is getting are commensurate with the risk that it is undertaking in its portfolio. That is the benchmark or evaluation that we have put in place for GIC's investment strategies.
\tMr Leon Perera:\tThank you, Speaker. Just a quick clarification of what the Minister has said. So, is it right to say that the benchmarking is done only with respect to the Reference Portfolio which is the primary means of benchmarking good performance and differentiating good from bad performance right now with GIC?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, the matrix that we have put in place is, indeed, as I have described with the Reference Portfolio, with the risk budget and the returns that we measure based on the risk that is allocated. Of course, we always look at other investors, not necessarily Sovereign Wealth investors, because GIC also engages external fund managers. So, there is always a look at what other investment entities are achieving for the risks they are undertaking and the returns they are achieving.
We can also track performance by looking at the benchmarks like MSCI. There is a range of benchmarks that we look at. But, ultimately, when we look at GIC's performance, we look at the risk that we have accorded to them, how much risk they are taking based on the budget that is allocated to them and the returns that are commensurate with the risk that they have taken.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Consideration of Environmental, Social and Governance Factors in Investment Decisions of Singapore's Government Investment Funds","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"21 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Finance (a) whether environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors are considered in the investment decisions of Singapore's sovereign wealth funds; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider requiring these institutions to adopt ESG standards used increasingly by private investors and sovereign wealth funds in countries, such as Malaysia and South Korea.
\tThe Second Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong) (for the Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, GIC and Temasek operate on a commercial basis in order to maximise long-term risk-adjusted returns, and their individual investment decisions are independent of the Government. While the Government does not prescribe how they invest, both emphasise sustainability in their investment activities.
The investment activities of GIC and Temasek are oriented towards generating long-term returns on a sustainable basis. Both entities recognise that good sustainability practices are good for business and can have a positive impact on long-term returns. Conversely, companies with poor sustainability practices carry business and reputational as well as environmental, social and governance risks.
And that is why GIC integrates sustainability considerations holistically into its investment processes, in order to protect and enhance the long-term value of its investments.
Likewise, Temasek is committed to delivering sustainable value over the long term as a responsible investor. It takes a strong interest in not only understanding sustainability-related challenges but also the opportunities for innovation, business growth and new investments.
And more than just considering environmental, social and governance factors when making decisions as an investor, asset owner and shareholder, Temasek is a strong advocate for sustainable economic and social development. For example, it has seeded independent public good institutions to build new capabilities and established six Temasek Foundations championing various causes, including sustainability and innovative solutions, to improve liveability and mitigate climate threats.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Video Recordings of Parliamentary Proceedings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"22 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) which entity owns the copyright to the video recordings of parliamentary proceedings; and (b) if these video records are protected by copyright, whether the Ministry will consider removing such copyright and making all video footage of parliamentary proceedings freely available for use.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information (Mr Chee Hong Tat) (for the Minister for Communications and Information): Mr Speaker, Sir, Mediacorp, as Singapore's national broadcaster, is commissioned by the Government to cover Parliamentary sittings on various platforms, including free-to-air TV, Channel NewsAsia (CNA)'s Parliament microsite and CNA's Facebook page.
The public can use the recordings for personal and non-commercial purposes with proper attribution to Mediacorp. This practice is consistent with well-accepted online etiquette, and the arrangement has worked well so far. Mediacorp's recordings have been regularly used by social media sites as well as political parties, including the Workers' Party.
\tMr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. Just a few supplementary questions. Firstly, why is Parliament not given the modest funding and ability to make its own live feed and video recordings available and provide a searchable archive? This is common in other developed countries and legislatures like Australia, Taiwan, Japan, UK, US and France, for example, many of whom have their YouTube channel or some other ways of archiving video recordings of sittings. That is the first one.
The second one is: why does a corporate entity own the copyright to record a Parliamentary proceedings − an activity where other costs associated with creating the proceedings, such as the cost of the Parliament team, for example, are paid for by the taxpayers? Why should a corporate entity be given so much power to choose what to put up, when to put it up, when to take it down, how to edit it before presentation? And I do know from direct experience that, at times, these clips are edited and they are not archived and made available verbatim.
Thirdly, if the consideration behind this is cost, is it possible to rethink the allocation of cost by collecting fees on a pay-per-use basis from a variety of media outlets?
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I think Mr Perera may have forgotten the discussion that we had during the Committee of Supply. Mr Pritam Singh asked about these issues and I have explained at that time to Mr Pritam Singh and others that the reason why we do not have a live feed is because this is not in great demand.
At the moment, the Parliament footages are shown on television under Parliament Highlights and within a few hours will be put on the CNA microsite. The arrangement has worked well so far. It has provided the footages online; used to be one month and it has been extended to six months.
Just to recap what we discussed at the Committee of Supply. The people who watched a major Parliamentary speech like the Budget speech, the number of people who watched it live was only about 10%, compared to what was shown on free-to-air television on the news that evening. Less than 1% of the viewers watched the Budget live using web streaming.
Mr Perera has also mentioned that the copyright belongs to Mediacorp. That is not true. What I said in my reply earlier was that the copyright belongs to the Government and the Government then commissioned Mediacorp, as Singapore's national broadcaster, to cover the Parliament sittings and to show the footages on various platforms, including free-to-air television, Channel NewsAsia's Parliament microsite and Channel NewsAsia's Facebook page.
Mr Perera also mentioned that the footages have been – I think he used the word \"edited\" – and he mentioned that not everything is shown. I wish to clarify that is not true. I have also explained this during the Committee of Supply that the footages are all put up. They are edited to show, to arrange and to sort them out based on the speakers and the reply given. If Mr Perera feels that there are certain examples that have been left out, maybe the Member can give me some specific examples and we will certainly look into those.
\tMr Leon Perera: I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. There was a specific example where a clip was put up in relation to the Presidential Election Act debates. If my memory serves me well, it was in January or February and the clip that was put up of certain exchanges, there were certain bits removed. It was actually communicated with Mediacorp and, through the correspondence, they actually made the rectification and put up a different clip. So, I think that was resolved quite amicably.
My point is that, in general, is it the case that all the clips that are put up are completely free of editing? I think the Senior Minister of State himself conceded that there is a certain degree of editing. So, those decisions are decisions which involve a high level of discretion. Should they be decisions handled by a private entity or should they be handled by a Government body subject to scrutiny, subject to questioning?
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I want to reiterate the point that what I said by \"editing\", I think my definition of editing may be different from what Mr Perera was alluding to. When I said \"editing\", what I meant was Channel NewsAsia would take the footages and they would sort them out based on the person who asked the question, the person who answered, so as to make it more convenient for viewers to search and to access these footages. The editing that is done is not to remove certain parts of what was said. It is shown as per what was said in Parliament and what is reflected in Hansard, on the microsite and on the video footages of Facebook page and so on and so forth.
It is important, Mr Speaker, that when we discuss such issues, we have to recognise, is there a problem that we need to solve? And if no problem exists, I think one should not go around looking for imaginary problems to tackle. That is like having a hammer and then wanting to knock everything around you as though they are nails. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information\", Official Report, 7 November 2017, Vol 94, Issue No 54.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Installation of Screens in Public Buses to Protect Bus Captains and Minimise Risk of Hijack of Public Bus","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"23 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport whether LTA will consider the installation of protective screens in our public buses to protect our bus captains and to minimise the risk of a hijack of a public bus.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Lam Pin Min) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, LTA will be conducting a six-month trial for 16 public buses in early 2018 to test the effectiveness of impact resistant protective screens in protection and whether they would affect the bus captains' ability to carry out their duties. The trial will also allow LTA to gather feedback from commuters and bus captains, as similar implementation elsewhere has attracted some complaints, such as the blinding glare off the screens.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Progress in Construction of North-South Expressway","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"24 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the progress in the construction of the North-South Expressway; and (b) whether its completion deadline can be brought forward so that traffic conditions along the Central Expressway can be improved.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Lam Pin Min) (for the Minister for Transport): LTA has launched tenders for eight out of the 16 major civil contracts for the North-South Corridor. Construction works are expected to commence early next year and complete in 2026. This timeline takes into account traffic conditions, the complexity of the project and the need to ensure construction works are carried out safely.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): I have a supplementary question. The North-South Expressway was announced in 2008 and then it was stated that it will commence in 2017, this year. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State the tender that is called − may I know which stretch of the North-South Expressway is it for and whether it serves the residents in the northern part? Because a lot of my residents in Yishun are finding that the CTE is jammed most of the time, so we are waiting for the North-South Expressway.
The completion date announced at that time was 2023, and now it is 2026. May I know what is causing the delay?
\tDr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank the Member for the questions. Yes, the North-South Expressway project was announced in January 2008 by LTA, but along the way, I think there was a change in plan because we wanted to convert this into a North-South Corridor, rather than just an expressway, that will link the towns in the north which include Sembawang, Woodlands and Yishun to the city. And this will, hopefully, help reduce bus journey time by up to 30 minutes.
As this will be our first integrated transport corridor in Singapore, in addition to just vehicular access, there will also be cycling and pedestrian pathways throughout the surface of the 21.5-kilometre expressway, and the vehicles will ply mainly underground on a highway which will have one of the three lanes in each direction dedicated for bus services.
As to the reason for the delay, I would like to explain to the Member that the North-South Corridor will run through heavily used roads and built-up areas and interface with multiple road and rail infrastructure, making the construction more complex. In fact, an advance engineering study has highlighted a major challenge for construction work at the section of the corridor's tunnel close to MRT lines.
Hence, there are construction and engineering challenges that will require sophisticated construction methods to ensure that existing adjacent infrastructures are not affected as far as possible. Planning and construction will also have to be carefully executed without compromising safety standards.
I would also like to address the Member's question on how we mitigate the congestion along the CTE while waiting for the North-South Expressway (NSE)'s completion. LTA has adopted several measures to mitigate the congestion. There were road-widening projects done in 2009. LTA has completed the widening of the CTE between Ang Mo Kio Avenue 1 and Ang Mo Kio Avenue 3, from the dual three lanes to four lanes.
In 2011, LTA also completed widening projects of the CTE between Bukit Timah Road and Yio Chu Kang Road. And, of course, with the deployment of ERP, LTA has implemented nine ERP gantries along CTE and slip roads leading to the CTE.
Last but not least, the Thomson-East Coast Line, as the Member is aware, is undergoing construction and traffic conditions are expected to improve after the opening of the Thomson-East Coast Line in stages from 2019 to 2021, as commuters would be able to take the MRT to Shenton Way and Marina Bay.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah:\tI think the Senior Minister of State did not answer my first question. I understood that not the whole North-South Expressway tender has been called. The Senior Minister of State mentioned eight out of the 16. So, which are the eight that have been called? Does it include the portion that will be serving the residents in Yishun?
\tDr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank the Member for the clarification again. I would like to just highlight that the tender calling is done progressively for different parts of the project. I do not at present have the details exactly which are the projects that have been called out of those that I have mentioned but I will be willing to share some of this information with the Member subsequently.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Sufficient Vacancies in Primary Schools Given New HDB BTO Projects in Yishun","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"25 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Education (Schools) with more families moving into HDB BTO flats in Yishun (a) how will the Ministry ensure that there will be sufficient vacancies in neighbourhood Primary schools to meet the increased demand; and (b) what assistance is available to help new residents' children enrolled into a nearby school.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministers for Education (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Education (Schools)): Mr Speaker, MOE regularly reviews the demand and supply trends at the national and regional levels to ensure that there are sufficient school places for school-going children, taking into account the current and projected population as well as planned housing development programmes.
Due to the families that are moving into the HDB BTO flats in Yishun that were completed in recent years, we have projected a slight increase in the demand for Primary school places at all levels. To cater for this increase, we have introduced several measures, including increasing the number of available school places in some of the schools in certain years. There should be sufficient Primary school places to meet the increased demand from these families.
MOE has always been assisting families which had a change of address to transfer schools throughout the academic year. Parents can participate in the annual Student Transfer Exercise for Primary Schools (STEPS) conducted around November each year, which serves to facilitate the transfer of students who have relocated to another address, to schools nearer to their new residences. If parents prefer to directly approach the school they would like to transfer their children to, they could do so at other times of the year. Alternatively, parents can approach their child's current school and submit their request for school transfer.
However, the Member may wish to note that for transfer cases, parents may sometimes not get the school of their choice due to the lack of available vacancies. MOE cannot keep increasing the intake of particular schools beyond the capacity of the school as it would affect the learning environment of all students. In such situations, we seek parents' understanding to consider other Primary schools near their residential address.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Yes, residents approached schools in Yishun to transfer their children from other parts of Singapore when they shifted into Yishun. They could not get it and then they approached the Member of Parliament, the Member has experienced problems. Because we found out that the schools in Nee Soon South currently are unable to take in any student in Primary 2, in particular. I would like to ask whether there is any detailed study. Because now, only about half has shifted in. There will be another half shifting in progressively over the next one year.
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: I thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for her supplementary question. As I have said earlier, there are available schools and places to accommodate all the transfer cases in Yishun. However, there are certain schools that, as mentioned by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, may only be able to take in students at certain levels. In these schools, there are school places for the majority of all levels.
There are a few other schools that are close to the planned BTO development that have available places, for example, Ahmad Ibrahim Primary, Xishan Primary as well as Yishun Primary, which are all within three kilometres from the new BTO estates.
From our correspondence with Er Dr Lee Bee Wah as well as the residents, we have placed a few of these students who have made requests to transfer schools due to a change of address. Some are very appreciative, while others may have their own choices.
At the end of the day, I want to assure the Member that we are very committed and we will do our best to place and facilitate the transfer of all the children when their parents make the request. However, we seek parents' and Members' understanding that, at times, we may need to facilitate to transfer them to a school that is maybe their second or third preferred choice.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Lapse in Insurance Coverage for Home Protection Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"26 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Manpower (a) in the last three years, how many policy holders had their Home Protection Scheme (HPS) cover lapse because of failure to pay the premiums; (b) how many appeal cases were there from family members claiming HPS benefits upon the HPS member's death or cancellation of the insurance shortly before death; (c) whether measures are taken to ensure that HPS members know the consequences of lapsed insurance and, if so, what are these measures; and (d) whether there are plans to make HPS compulsory for HDB homeowners, including those with pre-existing medical conditions.
\tThe Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Sam Tan Chin Siong) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Home Protection Scheme (HPS) is an insurance scheme that protects surviving family members from losing their homes if the insured member meets an untimely death, terminal illness or total permanent disability. In such a situation, HPS will help to defray the outstanding mortgage of the home, hence, enabling surviving family members to continue to live in their flats.
Under the CPF Act, it is mandatory for all HDB flat owners who use their CPF savings to pay for their mortgage instalments to take up HPS. HDB flat owners who do not use their CPF savings to pay for their mortgage can take up HPS on a voluntary basis.
As at December 2016, about 1.5% of HDB flat owners who used CPF savings for their mortgage instalments lapsed on their HPS policy because they failed to pay the insurance premiums. This was lower than the corresponding figure of about 1.6% in 2015 and 1.8% in 2014. So, we see a decreasing trend over the years.
In 2016, CPFB received 19 appeals from family members who requested to make a HPS claim even though the deceased policy holder had lapsed or cancelled his HPS policy. These appeals were considered on a case-by-case basis.
CPF Board and HDB have put in place several measures to help HDB flat owners minimise the risk of lapsing on their HPS coverage.
One, at the point of flat purchase, HDB explains to flat buyers the benefits and coverage of HPS.
Two, subsequently, HPS premiums are automatically deducted from the flat owners' CPF Ordinary Account (OA). Flat owners can also use their co-owners' OA savings to pay for their HPS premiums if they themselves do not have sufficient OA savings.
If members miss their premium payment, CPF Board sends them a notification within one week, reminding them to pay their premium and, if necessary, a second notification after one month, informing the members that HPS claims are not possible if their policy lapses. If premiums are not paid within the two-month grace period, CPF Board sends a letter notifying members that their policy has lapsed and the letter also requests them to re-apply for HPS. For members who are required to take up HPS but their policy has lapsed, CPF Board will continue to send them letters every six months reminding them to re-apply for HPS. So, there is a continuous measure to keep reminding members who had lapsed on HPS to re-apply so that they can enjoy the coverage.
Today, HPS already covers members with mild pre-existing illnesses, such as well-controlled diabetes and hypertension. MOM is reviewing the extension of HPS to those who suffer from serious pre-existing medical conditions. We are also exploring with MND and HDB on how we can further strengthen the continued payment of HPS insurance premium to minimise the number of HPS lapses.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Classification of Electric Personal Mobility Devices that Require Charging as Controlled Goods","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"27 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) whether electric bicycles, electric scooters and other personal mobility devices requiring the charging of their batteries are designated as controlled goods under the Consumer Protection (Safety Requirements) Registration Scheme and, if not, whether they should be so designated to ensure they meet safety standards.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry)): The Consumer Protection (Safety Requirements) Regulations (CPSR) were introduced to safeguard consumers' interests in ensuring that household consumer goods are safe for use. There are currently 45 product categories of typical household goods that have been designated as controlled goods under the Regulations. These include the adaptors that are used for charging of Personal Mobility Devices (PMDs), such as electric bicycles and scooters, which have to be registered with SPRING Singapore as the appointed Safety Authority and affixed with the Safety Mark before supply or sale in Singapore.
\tAssoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member):\tI would like to ask the Senior Minister of State if this covers the batteries for PMDs because these are problems that are causing consumer safety issues in the households.
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: There is a specific list of items that are included. I do not see batteries as being listed but that is something that I am sure SPRING Singapore can take a look at to see if batteries need or ought to be included as well.
\tAssoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong:\tIs SPRING Singapore actually looking into this issue because the number of incidents of fires caused by batteries charging overnight for PMDs is increasing.
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: There is a slight increase in incidence of such electric fires, partly also because of the increasing adoption of devices like these. This is something that we can ask SPRING to have a look at.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Foreign-registered Motorcycles or Scooters Used in Singapore for Delivery Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"28 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether foreign-registered motorcycles or scooters are allowed to be used in Singapore for delivery services, carriage of goods within Singapore for hire or reward, or as part of their employment and, if so, how does LTA ensure that such owners or users have valid motor insurance policies allowing such uses in Singapore; and (b) what actions will be taken against those who do not have motor insurance policies allowing such uses.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Lam Pin Min) (for the Minister for Transport): Foreign-registered motorcycles and scooters can be used in Singapore for delivery services, provided that the rider has a valid work pass and complies with MOM's work pass regulations and the vehicle is insured against third party bodily injury and death.
Drivers caught by LTA for using a vehicle without valid insurance can be fined up to $1,000 or imprisoned for up to three months, or both.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer. I am not sure the gist of my question has been addressed. I am asking about whether or not the foreign-registered motorcycles or scooters are required to have insurance issued for the use of delivery of goods, carriage of goods within Singapore for hire or reward, or as part of the employment.
The rationale for my question is simply this: normally, for passenger vehicles or motorcycles in Singapore, the insurance for these vehicles, there is a caveat that says that you are not allowed to use them for any commercial use. So, when a vehicle is then deployed for commercial use, such as carriage of goods for hire or reward, for delivery services, technically, the insurer can reject liability when a claim is presented as a result of an accident.
So, would the Senior Minister of State address my question in that light? Also, what actions have been taken or will be taken in respect of this possibility, so that in the event of any claim arising out of any accident, the victim or the person who has collided with such a vehicle or is a victim of such an accident, will still be able to present a claim against the insurer of such motorcycle or scooter?
\tDr Lam Pin Min: Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Member for the supplementary question. The Member is correct. The drivers providing delivery services must ensure that their motor insurance policy provides coverage when the vehicle is used for delivery services. This will commonly require the purchase of additional insurance policy coverage, that is, insurance riders, for use of the motorcycle for commercial purposes. Employers are also obliged to ensure that their delivery service employees have the valid insurance coverage.
In addition, to further ensure that motorcyclists have valid motor insurance for delivery services, LTA, together with the General Insurance Association of Singapore, the Monetary Authority of Singapore, the Singapore Police Force and Workplace Safety and Health Council, will be issuing a joint advisory to the employers of these riders to remind them on the motor insurance requirements and the importance of safety.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Sufficient Engineering Graduates for Projected Needs in Rail Engineering","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"29 Ms Sun Xueling asked the Minister for Transport (a) how does the Ministry ensure that there are sufficient engineering graduates from our Institutes of Higher Learning to meet the projected needs for rail engineering and the opening of the Thomson-East Coast Line; and (b) whether the Ministry has plans to train young engineers to develop \"deep engineering expertise\" as recommended by SMRT's technical advisory panel and, if so, what are these plans.
\tThe Minister for Transport (Mr Khaw Boon Wan): Mr Speaker, Sir, the railway industry employs more than 2,000 engineers and 4,000 technicians today. By 2020, we expect to employ 1,500 more engineers and technicians to build, operate and maintain our expanding rail network. The Singapore Rail Academy, which was established in February this year, will coordinate and drive industry-wide efforts to grow engineering capabilities in the railway sector. This was one of the first initiatives that I launched when I joined MOT. I see this growing need for greater expertise in this area and I have not even talked about the HSR and RTS yet.
\"Deep expertise\" is the most valuable currency in the railway industry. To facilitate skills development and upgrading, Government, industry and the unions are working in partnership to develop the Public Transport Skills Framework. This is an important framework because then, everybody, all the stakeholders, will know what to do as we go forward.
The Framework provides consistent industry-wide standards on the skills and competencies required at different levels in the railway sector and the corresponding training courses. With this, training institutions can better design their curricula to cater to the attainment of different skill levels. Employers can also use this framework to put in place structured on-the-job skills development programmes. Students and workers seeking to upgrade themselves will also have information on the programmes available to help them reach the next skill level and concrete milestones to work towards.
At the same time, we are also stepping up training efforts. Over the past three years, ITEs, Polytechnics and Universities launched seven new railway engineering courses, ranging from NITEC to Masters. The first few batches of graduates will be ready to join the industry in the next one to two years.
We are also working with programme partners to launch more rail-related Continuing Education and Training programmes. For example, Singapore Polytechnic has launched the Earn-And-Learn programme that enables ITE graduates who are working in the rail industry to upgrade their skills by taking courses that can eventually add up to a diploma. NTU has just introduced a new Specialist Certificate in Civil Infrastructure Engineering to help environmental engineers gain civil engineering knowledge. In addition, we are also looking to supplement the pipeline of engineers by offering more Professional Conversion Programmes (PCPs) for potential mid-career hires. To date, some 108 PCP placements have been taken by the two rail operators.
Ms Sun Xueling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): I thank the Minister for his explanation. I have some clarifications to make. Based on what the Minister has shared about on-the-job training, I would like to understand when he mentioned \"deep engineering expertise\", may I know what is the proportion that can be accomplished through classroom training? How much on-the-job training is required and, if a lot of on-the-job training is required, do we currently have sufficient experienced engineers to provide the on-the-job training to the young engineers?
\tMr Khaw Boon Wan: Clearly, middle-level mentors are in short supply because, especially when we are in such an accelerated programme of trying to do so many things. Therefore, the traditional or tertiary institutions play a major role but we will do what we can.
By \"deep expertise\", I also have in mind the higher end of the eco-system because the whole rail industry, not just in Singapore, world-wide, is transforming. One of the first things I observed when I joined MOT was how backward the rail industry was compared to the other transport sectors, like aviation and shipping, worldwide. Aviation is way ahead, shipping is behind and railway engineering is really, really behind. I was, for example, looking at the way they maintained things.
I spent quite some time visiting the aviation industry, how do they do their maintenance. Railways are really way behind. And I have been pushing, for example, for predictive maintenance and it was still a very new concept for the railway operators. As I said, not just in Singapore but world-wide. But there lies an opportunity. If we can, along the way, build up deep expertise in this area, I think it could again create a new sub-industry for Singapore the way we created the NEWater industry. So, even though we have tonnes of problems trying to resolve the immediate basic needs of upgrading maintenance, I tell my stakeholders to also look far ahead. The rail industry globally is a sunrise industry.
I talked about HSR just now. That is just between Malaysia and Singapore but hundreds and thousands of kilometres of HSRs are being built in Asia. You look at the Belt and Road Initiatives. There are plenty of opportunities. Singaporeans who have that kind of interest and, given the opportunities, I think we should try to gain a slice of that opportunity.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adequacy of Reserve Buses to Minimise Disruptions to Commuters Caught in Train Breakdowns","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"30 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Transport (a) how large is our reserve fleet of buses and drivers; (b) whether it is sufficient to minimise disruptions caused to commuters during MRT breakdowns; (c) whether there are plans to involve taxi companies and their network of taxis during such disruptions to minimise the impact on commuters; and (d) whether there is a system currently in place to hold the operators to task in cases of service disruption.
\tThe Minister for Transport (Mr Khaw Boon Wan): It is not prudent use of resources to maintain a fleet of reserve buses and drivers to cater purely for train disruptions. It is just not possible. In the event of a prolonged disruption, operators will use buses that are off-duty or cross-deploy buses from less crowded services to provide bus-bridging services. Taxi companies are also alerted to inform their drivers of high demand areas along the affected routes, so that more drivers can make their vehicles available in those areas.
As part of their licences, rail operators are required to have a robust Rail Incident Management Plan, which includes accurate and timely information dissemination and the provision of bus bridging services. LTA will take regulatory action if there are failings in the implementation of this plan. The bottom line is this. That when we have a prolonged disruption, we will try to ease the pain by providing free buses for bridging. But it is never satisfactory because the bus capacity just cannot cope, especially if it happens during peak hours. That is why MRT is always preferred to buses. The moment the MRT starts to run, the queue, even though it is for free buses, just disappears. Everybody just goes straight into the MRT. Therefore, our priority is straightforward − focus on the basic needs, ensure train reliability. We are not there yet but we will get there.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Continuous Operation in MRT Network Even with Service Disruptions along Some Parts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"31 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the contingency measures to ensure that the rest of an MRT line's network still operates when there are service disruptions at other parts of the line; (b) whether the driverless nature of underground lines hamper the detection of abnormalities along tracks, such as the presence of debris and arcing and what are the measures to circumvent this limitation; (c) whether pump systems are installed along the underground network where flooding is generally thought to be less likely; and (d) what age-reliability issues are our trains and stations facing.
\tThe Minister for Transport (Mr Khaw Boon Wan): Mr Speaker, during a service disruption, train services on unaffected parts of the line will continue to operate if it is safe to do so. For example, if a section of one track is down, the operator may run bi-directional services on the unaffected track. If train services are disrupted on a section of both tracks, the operator may turn trains around to run loop services. Buses may also be used to ferry commuters across stations with no service.
We do not rely primarily on train drivers to detect abnormalities along the tracks. Condition monitoring equipment is deployed to monitor the status of key systems, such as trackside power and signalling. Staff also patrol the tunnels regularly to conduct visual checks.
Pump systems are installed in underground tunnels and stations to drain away water from tunnel washing and seepages. I am sure we will talk a lot more about this shortly.
The North-South and East-West Lines are our oldest MRT lines and they have started to exhibit age-reliability issues, such as wear-and-tear and equipment obsolescence. We have, therefore, embarked on a multi-year programme to replace all the key components, including the power supply, the signalling system, track circuits and trains. Some stations are also being refurbished. The lines will be fully renewed by 2024.
We will also be carrying out extensive renewal works on the Bukit Panjang LRT. In my subsequent Statement, I will mention the need, certainly my desire, our desire, of speeding up this renewal programme because, until they are renewed, the lines always have to face this risk of some sort of disruptions.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Since the Minister of Transport has built up a good momentum, the Ministerial Statement next. Minister for Transport.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 32 and 33 on the Order Paper 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":"7 October 2017 SMRT Flooding Incident and Related Issues","subTitle":"Statement by Minister for Transport","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Minister for Transport (Mr Khaw Boon Wan): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to make this Statement. My Ministerial Statement will address Question Nos 1 to 10 of the Order Paper. It will also address Question Nos 36, 37, 40, 45 and 46 on the Order Paper for the Sitting yesterday. [Please refer to \"Measures to Prevent Future Flooding in MRT Tunnel\", Official Report, 6 November 2017, Vol 94, Issue No 53, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
Mr Speaker, on 7 October at 5.14 pm, an alert SMRT train captain, Mr Choo Ah Heng, reported flooding on the southbound tunnel tracks between Bishan and Braddell MRT stations. At 5.27 pm, the Braddell Station Manager reported the same on the northbound tracks. At 5.30 pm, the SMRT Operations Control Centre (OCC) suspended train services on both bounds between Ang Mo Kio and Toa Payoh MRT stations. Although the flooded stretch was only between Bishan and Braddell, services had to be suspended on a longer stretch, up to stations with crossover tracks for the trains to turn around. By 5.38 pm, SMRT reported that water at the deepest section of track had risen to almost meet the electrified third rail. The system was designed such that power would have cut off automatically if water levels had risen past the third rail. Nevertheless, as a safety precaution, SMRT cut off all traction power to the affected tracks at 5.58 pm after all passengers had been safely de-trained to the station platforms, so no commuters were left in the tunnels.
In an unrelated but concurrent incident, train services were suspended in both directions between Marina South Pier and Newton MRT stations from about 5.50 pm, when the same train captain who reported the flooding, spotted electrical arcing at the trackside between Raffles Place and Marina Bay MRT stations. Electrical arcing occurred because accumulated debris caused a short circuit between an electrified baseplate and a bolt in the ground. The bolt had been left in place after some renewal works many years ago in 2003. It should have been removed but it was not. The short circuit generated sparks and heat, causing the debris to smoulder.
The debris quickly burnt off and the sparks extinguished before the SCDF arrived. However, the service suspension was only lifted at 9.22 pm after SMRT had completed the necessary safety checks.
Although the electrical arcing incident was resolved and services resumed between Marina South Pier and Newton by 9.22 pm, it took multiple agencies working through the night to clear the flood waters between Bishan and Braddell MRT stations. These flood waters were up to one metre deep and covered 100 metres of tracks on both bounds. Hence, train services between Ang Mo Kio and Newton remained suspended until the end of scheduled service that day.
Despite assistance from PUB and SCDF, the waters could not be cleared for normal train service to begin the next morning. The flood waters were only cleared to a safe level at 11.06 am the next day. Train services fully resumed at 1.36 pm, after various safety and operational tests and checks to the tracks were completed.
This flood incident resulted in a cumulative disruption to service of 14.5 hours: seven hours on Saturday and 7.5 hours on Sunday. During the service disruptions, free public buses and bridging buses were deployed along the affected stretches. Announcements on services and alternative transport options were made in stations, on-board trains, on SMRT's and LTA's websites, as well as through mainstream and social media channels.
The two incidents were not related. While there was inconvenience caused to commuters, safety is our top priority. The SMRT Operational Control Centre (OCC) staff did the right thing and handled a difficult situation well. Chief Controller, Mr Tan Kwong Chye, took the decision to detrain the commuters and cut off the traction power to the affected tracks between Bishan and Braddell soon after receiving the first reports of flooding. Train Service Controller, Mr Tan Ming Hui, single-handedly managed both incidents at Bishan and Marina South Pier, ensuring that train services north of Ang Mo Kio continued to run, and train services south of Newton were resumed as quickly as possible by the same evening. As the flooding incident was much more serious, I will focus on it in my Statement.
The tunnel flooding incident was preventable. It should not have happened. It was not due to any inadequacy in the design of flood prevention measures. Neither was it due to an extraordinary storm. Even if it were an extraordinary storm, like what Penang experienced a couple of days ago, the system, if well-maintained, would be able to manage it. It was due to poor maintenance and neglect of duties by the specific SMRT maintenance team responsible for the Bishan storm water sump pump system.
MRT tunnels are fully protected against flooding. They should not flood. The primary flood protection measure is the storm water sump pit. As the name implies, its purpose is to collect storm water. The water is then pumped out to external drains, thus preventing it from flowing into and flooding the tunnels. Engineers size the sump pit and pump capacity at each location based on PUB's estimates for potential rainfall, with a huge buffer.
Specifically, the Bishan storm water sump pit has a capacity of over 5,000 cubic metres. This is roughly the size of two Olympic-sized swimming pools. In comparison, the total rainfall which was cleared from the tunnels was only about 640 cubic metres, not even 700, not even 1,000 cubic metres, much less than the 5,000-cubic-metre capacity. This would have filled 13% of the pit's capacity even if all the three pumps were not working. There is plenty of buffer.
A properly maintained storm water sump pit should be clean, free of sludge, silt and debris, and importantly, empty, in anticipation of the next storm so that it can do its job. It is also not difficult to check if the storm water sump pit is filled up. Any maintenance crew looking through the grating at the top of the storm water sump pit can easily tell whether the pit is full or not. Yet, on the day of the incident, the Bishan storm water sump pit must have been quite full, even before the rain started. As a result, the rain that evening flowed straight into the tunnels, flooding the stretch between the Bishan and Braddell stations.
The anti-flooding system at Bishan has served us well for the last 30 years and is designed with a huge buffer. However, the lack of maintenance, including the failure to check that sub-systems were in working condition, has led to this very sad incident.
While investigations by LTA are still on-going, we know now that all three pumps in the Bishan storm water sump pit were functional, as they could be manually activated after the flooding was discovered. Singapore Test Services has also independently verified that each of the five float switches controlling the pump system were functional in themselves. Why these float switches failed to function normally on 7 October is a subject of the on-going LTA investigation.
SMRT has completed its own internal investigations. They put out a press statement yesterday. Based on their findings, it appears that the Bishan anti-flooding system had not been maintained for several months. Such systems need to be maintained quarterly, and maintenance records were signed off and submitted for December last year, March and June this year − three occasions. However, these records do not match any corresponding logs for track access and pump activation. No track access approvals were issued for preventive maintenance of the Bishan portal sump pumps on these three dates. Pump logs also showed that the pumps were not activated for these same dates, which were required as part of the maintenance procedures. In other words, the maintenance records may have been falsified.
The maintenance team in question comprises a manager, an engineering supervisor and four other crew members. Of these, three have been with SMRT for more than 20 years, including one who was with SMRT for over 28 years. Of the remaining three, one was with SMRT for a little over a year; the other two for six and eight years. The engineering supervisor and four other crew members were directly responsible for maintaining pumps and other facilities in 15 stations from Sembawang to Dhoby Ghaut stations, while the manager is responsible for supervising and ensuring that the work was done. These six have been suspended and are assisting SMRT's investigation. SMRT is in contact with the National Transport Workers' Union (NTWU), and has assured the union that these suspended officers will be accorded due process.
Apart from Bishan, SMRT has also checked the storm water pump systems at four other tunnel portal locations in Redhill, Kembangan, Lavender and Changi. SMRT found that two out of eight pumps at Kembangan and three out of four pumps at Lavender were not in serviceable condition. SMRT is currently conducting investigations into the relevant teams responsible for these pumps under the Building and Facilities maintenance group.
Each portal sump is managed by a separate team. There are altogether five portal sump pits and five different maintenance teams.
This group, the Building and Facilities maintenance group, was headed by Vice President Ng Tek Poo. SMRT has suspended him, together with six other managerial staff, with respect to their discharge of supervisory responsibilities. The six include Mr Ng Tek Poo's predecessor, a Vice President who oversaw the unit in charge of maintaining the pump systems prior to May 2017, as well as the Chief Engineer, a Deputy Director and three Managers.
Apart from the Building and Facilities maintenance group, which makes up one-tenth of the total staff strength of SMRT Trains, SMRT has not found any evidence of falsification or wilful dereliction of duties in the core railway maintenance and engineering groups who are responsible for the maintenance of trains, signalling and communications, tracks and trackside equipment and power.
Nevertheless, SMRT declared an amnesty period for workers to come forward with information on poor work practices. This amnesty period closed on 3 November and will be followed by a series of audits by SMRT's Readiness Inspection teams. As regulator, LTA will also separately assess SMRT's findings on the extent of dereliction of duties and falsification of records.
While investigations by LTA will take a few more weeks to complete, the facts of the 7 October incident are not complicated, and the cause of the incident is clear. My Ministry will, therefore, not be convening a Committee of Inquiry.
Meanwhile, SMRT and LTA have taken a number of immediate steps. First, SMRT has replaced all existing float switches at the Bishan storm water sump pit. Second, LTA has enhanced the resilience of the anti-flood system by replacing the pumps at Bishan with heavier duty ones capable of handling water with more sediments and installing additional parallel float switches. Third, a new radar-based sensor system has been added to independently monitor water levels in the storm water sump pit. Fourth, the sump pump control panel has been relocated away from the tracks, to enable easier manual access to pump operations, if needed, during operating hours. The removal of accumulated sludge, silt and debris in the sump pit is also in progress. For the other portal systems, SMRT has replaced or repaired all the non-serviceable pumps. The float switches were also replaced as a precaution.
SMRT will take swift and stern action to root out any improper practices and prevent a recurrence of this incident.
First, it has reorganised the unit overseeing the maintenance of the flood protection system. SMRT has replaced the Vice President, Mr Ng Tek Poo, with Mr Siu Yow Wee, a senior mechanical engineer with SMRT. Mr Siu is known to be deeply committed and responsible. I expect him to enforce greater discipline and process controls within this group. Mr Siu will report directly to SMRT's Chief Maintenance Officer.
Second, it has increased the frequency of anti-flooding maintenance from quarterly to monthly.
Third, it is tightening the flood recovery plans and intends to strengthen coordination with SCDF and PUB through regular exercises. Additional emergency equipment, such as portable pumps, are also being procured to augment emergency response capabilities.
Fourth, it has invited a team of experts from the Taipei Metro to do a thorough and independent review of its operations, to flush out any gaps and recommend improvements in the areas of system management, engineering and maintenance. I happened to have a meeting with a few top Metro operators about a week after this incident. And amongst the experts was the former Chairman of Taipei Metro. Taipei Metro has done very well, as I have shared in this House before, in terms of achieving rail reliability.
They had plenty of problems, too, in the beginning. This particular gentleman, Prof Tsai, turned around the company. I have great respect for him. I got to know him very well and have met him four times in the last two years that I am in MOT. At the meeting last week, I asked him for help. He said, \"Sure\". He remembered many years ago, he came here for help when we were still running the system quite well. He said, \"饮水思源\". He was happy to help. Although he is the former Chairman, he still has huge influence within Taipei Metro. He immediately assembled a team of experts and they are coming in next month. I will be meeting them.
Last but not least, to develop and cultivate a stronger culture of accountability, ownership and open reporting across the whole organisation, SMRT is strengthening internal processes and staff support. This includes staff rotations and renewal, delayering of reporting chains for tighter management oversight, enhancing the supervision of night works, strengthening training and coaching of supervisors, and aligning the bonuses and incentives of senior supervisors to the performance of their teams and audit results.
SMRT's new Chairman, Mr Seah Moon Ming − he is here in the Public Gallery − has publicly stated that his company has zero tolerance for failures in supervision and diligence over maintenance tasks and will be undertaking a comprehensive audit of maintenance records and practices to uncover any lapses or impropriety. He has also shared that the Board will review the remuneration of its senior management, from the CEO through the relevant chain of command. This is as it should be. I commend the Chairman for taking these steps and for emphasising that it is the responsibility of management to set the right culture of professionalism and excellence. It begins from the top. If there is poor work culture, the CEO is responsible. You set the corporate culture.
At a media conference on 16 October 2017, CEO of SMRT Desmond Kuek commented on some \"deep-seated cultural issues\" within SMRT. In response to a journalist's query, he referred to a recent Organisational Climate Survey done by Towers Watson which found nine in 10 SMRT employees proud of, and engaged in their work. On the remaining one in 10 employees, he elaborated on the need to strengthen the level of accountability by supervisors and the degree of ownership and open reporting by staff.
Let me stress that growing the right culture is the responsibility of everyone ─ from the top leadership down to the workers. I look to the SMRT management to set the right tone of professionalism and excellence to complement the audit systems that are being put in place.
This is our Singapore way. Mr Speaker, workers and management are jointly responsible for the success of their enterprise. When we speak of \"culture\", we mean the culture of the whole ─ the values and practices of management, as much as the values and practices of the workers. At a senior level, we set the tone, we formulate, we share and then we see to it that the culture is what we have formulated.
I am certain of the new SMRT Chairman's determination and sincere efforts to transform the culture of SMRT as a whole. He was appointed Chairman just barely three months ago, but I have known him for many years. With the support of management and workers across the organisation, I have faith that he will succeed. Let us help him along, give him the time and space for him to do the transformation.
Since the incident, I have received questions about the different roles that LTA has played. For the rail network, LTA has three distinct roles: as a regulator, developer and asset owner. Although these three roles are separate, they are all geared towards achieving our vision of a well-connected, reliable and efficient rail network.
First, as regulator, LTA sets the Operating and Maintenance Performance Standards. It then conducts regular audits of the operators' maintenance regime and on-site inspections to ensure that the standards are complied with. To prioritise its resources, LTA adopts a risk-based approach. It focuses on the most complex areas where failure could have the most severe impact and damage to the rail network and on passenger safety. One example is the signalling system which is the central nervous system of our rail network and is made up of countless interconnected sub-systems located along the tracks, inside the trains, as well as in the stations, depots and Operations Control Centre. These complex and high-risk systems are where we place the most audit effort and regulatory focus.
The anti-flooding systems are considered less risky ─ much less risky ─ compared to other core railway systems because the constructs are simple, they are easy to maintain and they have ample engineering buffers. Nonetheless, during a recent meeting with SMRT on 29 September 2017, just a few days before the tunnel flooding incident, LTA had stressed the importance of maintaining tunnel sump pump systems. All these were recorded in the minutes of the meeting. SMRT, subsequently, agreed to review and surface a list of pumps requiring replacement to LTA. Unfortunately, the incident occurred before this review could be completed.
There has been no shortcoming or lapses in oversight by LTA staff in the present regulatory framework. Going forward, I have asked LTA to partner SMRT and to set up a new Joint Readiness Inspection team to supplement SMRT's own internal audit system. At SMRT Chairman Seah Moon Ming's request, ST Kinetics has released Dr Richard Kwok to head SMRT's augmented audit team. Dr Richard Kwok, who was Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer of ST Kinetics, will start work with SMRT next month. His team will report directly to SMRT Board's Audit and Risk Committee. He will also jointly head, with LTA, the Joint Readiness Inspection team which will report to the LTA and SMRT Joint Board Technical Committee. The tighter audit system will help to identify any deficiencies, so that they can be addressed early before faults occur.
However, let us be clear. No regulatory oversight can fully guard against intentional efforts to hide mistakes and negligence, especially if it is by a group. Our operator's efforts to create the right organisational culture of professionalism, excellence and discipline are, therefore, important and they complement the audit systems in place.
Second, as the developer, LTA is responsible for ensuring that our transport infrastructure is appropriately designed with the right specifications. In developing rail lines, LTA undertakes structured engineering reviews and system assurance assessments, including the Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis mentioned by Dr Tan Wu Meng, to ensure reliability and safety.
In this case, the design and construction of our MRT infrastructure has incorporated ample flood-resistant specifications and redundancies. This includes station entrances which are built at least one metre above prevailing flood levels, as well as the provision of ample pump capacity and holding tanks in close consultation with PUB. These specifications are more stringent than those for other building developments. For existing infrastructure, flood barriers have been retrofitted at older MRT station entrances, such as at Tanjong Pagar and Orchard, to protect these underground stations from the risk of flash floods. LTA also works closely with PUB to review the flood protection requirements from time to time, to take into account the impact of climate change and unforeseen weather events on our built-up environment.
In fact, climate change and all these recent freak storms in Asia worry us and Mr Tan Gee Paw, whom I asked to volunteer to be my advisor on rail reliability. Some four months ago, he wrote me a long email, because there were floods in China, Vietnam and India. He is worried that our specifications might not be adequate in this time of climate change and deteriorating weather. That was when he got LTA to start reviewing our anti-flood systems. And we were just in the midst of the review, including looking at existing systems when, unfortunately, this thing happened.
Third, when the North-South and East-West Lines transitioned to the New Rail Financing Framework in October last year, LTA took over the ownership of all rail operating assets and became an asset owner. This is the third role. As part of the asset transfer, LTA will assess the condition of the assets while Ernst & Young was engaged to perform due diligence on their Net Book Value. Payment to SMRT is contingent on the requirement that the condition of the operating assets should befit their age. This process takes several years to complete.
Members can then appreciate the extent of assets that we are taking over and that we have to manage and operate. This is not a simple operation. The process takes several years to complete. We are not even halfway there.
LTA has prioritised the condition assessment of critical or high-value operating assets, such as the trains and signalling system first, with the rest, including the Bishan storm water sump pumps, slated to commence later this year. Of course, we have a payment schedule, we would not pay until we have assessed and it is confirmed by Ernst & Young.
There is also a fourth and unspoken role for LTA, which I have emphasised since I joined the Ministry two years ago. That is, to cultivate a relationship between LTA and the rail operators founded on trust and constructive collaboration towards a common mission of providing reliable rail transport as an essential public service. I started this because, when I took over, I did a lot of visits above ground, underground, day time, night time. I was unhappy with the state of adversarial relationship between the regulator and the regulatee. I told myself, you cannot achieve rail excellence this way.
We may be coming from different entities but, unless you think as one team, one team Singapore, there is no way you can achieve rail excellence, because with that kind of toxic relationship, every time any incident appears, it is finger-pointing. \"Not my fault, it is your fault\" and he or she says, \"not my fault, it is your fault.\" Then, no way can we solve this problem.
I am used to running hospitals. I do not care where you come from, who is your employer, where you get your salary from. When a problem crops up, it affects our patients, our customers. Let us solve the problem first. Look at it from the customer's point of view, get to the root of the problem and then we settle later who is culpable, who should pay for this, who should pay for that. But service recovery first and, more importantly, learn the lesson so that we can prevent future occurrences. That is the sort of work relationship which I am familiar with, which I think is the only way to achieve any kind of excellence.
So, this fourth and unspoken role is to cultivate this relationship between LTA and the rail operators founded on trust and constructive collaboration towards a common mission of providing a reliable rail transport.
This is especially important now, when our two oldest MRT lines are undergoing major renewal. There needs to be a relationship of trust at all levels so that information and ideas are openly, candidly and freely shared and exchanged. In fact, this helps LTA perform its role as a regulator more effectively as its investigations into any disruptions must always be fair-minded and thorough − having considered all factors like the age of the assets, the effects of weather, design and other extenuating circumstances.
Penalties will be imposed if they are warranted, but, at the same time, they must be calibrated reasonably to ensure fairness and accountability. Such a regulator-regulatee relationship engenders both respect and trust and is critical in our journey towards higher rail reliability.
I have done a lot in the last two years. I have aged five years along the way. I would like to believe that one of my biggest achievements so far in the last two years is building this one team. It is now very different from two years ago.
Looking beyond the North-South Line flooding incident, we remain focused on our larger mission to raise train reliability and to meet the high standards demanded by our commuters. This is a multi-year effort, involving many critical elements, including replacing ageing assets, investing in engineering skills and manpower, as well as exploiting technology for more effective maintenance.
In the past two years, we have strengthened scheduled maintenance based on the criticality, usage and age of the systems. We have also begun to go beyond preventive maintenance to predictive maintenance. Working with LTA, the rail operators will be using real-time condition monitoring and data analytics to track maintenance logs, detect and rectify potential faults before they occur. This is the next major leap in our efforts to improve rail reliability.
As I have told this House before, our maintenance ramp-up in the last two years is producing results. The metric for measuring train reliability internationally is the Mean Kilometres Between Failure (MKBF) of more than five minutes. For our MRT network, it has improved significantly from 133,000 train-kilometres in 2015, that is two years ago, to now 425,000 train-kilometres this year. So, 133,000 train-kilometres to 425,000 train-kilometres.
For years, it could not even reach 100,000 train-kilometres. We were struggling, five digits, cannot even achieve six digits. And that was not too long ago. That is how far we have come in the two years. The improvement is real and significant and is experienced by all the five MRT lines, including the oldest North-South and East-West Lines.
But I know the commuters, especially those using the North-South Line regularly, do not feel so. The MKBF improvements are not what they felt they had experienced. And I understand why, because we do have problems with the changing of the signalling system. In other words, as I have explained in this House, we are doing two major assignments: one, improve the rail reliability of existing systems and, two, we are doing projects. Re-signalling of North-South and, next year, East-West Line is a very major project with its own attendant problems, which I have discussed in this House many months ago. All metros hate changing signalling systems because, in this modern day of social media, you will get flamed because problems are bound to crop up.
That is why we pay particular attention to make sure that when we do re-signalling, we test and test and test again, without passengers, that means, during the early hours of the day, so that the bugs can all be identified and debugged and new software patches put in before we launch passenger service. If you compare it with the experience of London Underground, for our re-signalling project, we are doing very well, although, as I have said, commuters do not understand it. All they know is, every few days, there are some delays here and there. So, when I said we are doing well for re-signalling, what I have in mind is versus the experience of the other metros doing re-signalling.
Back to the North-South Line, because we do have problems with the change of the signalling system, commuters cannot relate with this so-called, from their point of view, improved MKBF and their actual real life experience. And other disruptions, both in the past and now, the flooding on 7 October, have made commuters lose faith. I can understand that. Actually, the problems are being resolved one by one.
Not too long ago, you may remember we had people jumping from platforms. We put a stop to that with platform screens. We used to have all kinds of third rail problems; now, no more, because we changed it out. We had lots of sleeper related problems; now much, much less, as we have also changed it out. The signalling system has to be changed and we have turned the corner for the North-South Line. The same is with flooding, it will not recur. As we keep going in this direction, there will be a major improvement in experience in the near future. I can only seek commuters' patience and understanding. This is not an easy task. If it were so easy, it would have been fixed years ago. I do not have to be in MOT.
To sustain the progress we are making, asset renewal works on our oldest lines must be completed as soon as possible. In the short term, this may cause disruption to commuters, such as during the implementation of re-signalling on the North-South Line. When these asset renewal works are progressively completed and as new rail lines open, they will translate into significant improvements in the resilience of our rail network and commuter experience. Our aim to cross an MKBF of one million train-kilometres by 2020 is within our grasp.
This is despite many challenges, the major one being the limited engineering hours available to us to do so many things each day. Rail operators, and especially SMRT, have to perform both scheduled and corrective maintenance work, and also the implementation of numerous asset renewal works, such as the re-signalling, within the few hours every night when trains are not running. The punishing schedule takes its toll on the workers and forces operators to prioritise between many urgent and important tasks.
So far, we have only been able to shorten train operating hours marginally, for example, on some Sundays, to provide more time for the operators to do their job.
In September this year, I shared with this House our urgent plans to renew the six core components of the North-South and East-West Lines. These are the sleepers, third rail, signalling system, power supply, track circuits and the old train, the first-generation trains. We are about halfway through this multi-year journey, with our final destination in 2024. I will not be in this House.
Metros elsewhere have the option to close down an entire line for a substantial period. We do not. Closing a major rail line like the North-South and East-West Lines to expedite these renewal works would certainly help us get to our destination sooner. Until all these key ageing systems are replaced or renewed, the North-South and East-West Lines remain at risk of major disruptions, even with diligent maintenance. We just got to do it as quickly as we can. It is a little bit like what my cardiologist advised me almost eight years ago, when he tested my calcium score and it ran out of the optimal range. He told me, \"I think you have a serious problem. You better do a bypass.\" I was in denial and said, \"I live such a disciplined life. How could it happen to me?\" And he said, \"No, until you fix this one, you are at risk of anytime falling dead.\"
As I was saying, we need to speed up the renewal of ageing assets. The limited engineering hours are a significant obstacle to achieving this. I have asked LTA to work with SMRT to see how we can squeeze out more engineering hours for the team. For the re-sleepering project, we shortened operating hours on Sundays but only marginally. But it was a great help. Given the scale of outstanding asset replacement programmes, we will need many more extended engineering hours, perhaps even on weekdays. So, I am serving notice.
Line closures will, of course, inconvenience commuters. I seek commuters' understanding and patience should we decide to do so. We are likely to do so. I hope to get Members' support for such a programme, especially residents living in the North, like Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and myself.
In summary, the 7 October incident should not have happened. The SMRT team responsible for maintaining the Bishan storm water sump pit had neglected their duties, falsified records and failed us. SMRT management has accepted full responsibility over this sad episode. The entire leadership is here, up in the Public Gallery.
We have worked hard to improve train reliability and we have made significant progress. That is why I got upset when people make generalisations that things have gotten worse. It has not. Things have gotten worse because you think it has gotten worse because of the re-signalling project − the new project. If we are not doing any of those new projects, the improvement would have been visible and palpable.
I have interacted with many SMRT staff working on the signalling system, power, trains and track maintenance. They are committed to the goal. They are determined to regain the trust and confidence of our commuters. I know they are just as upset as me that some of their colleagues in charge of maintaining the tunnel portal sump pits have failed us and pushed us back in this multi-year journey. I share their disappointment and also embarrassment, deeply. I have invested so much in this assignment. But we are determined to get back on our feet, back to our work and soldier on.
I am confident that the new SMRT Chairman, Mr Seah Moon Ming, will be able to turn around the company and that we can catch up with the best metros in the world in terms of service reliability. We can. We can do that. We are Singaporeans. The heavy-lifting has to be done by SMRT. But they will not be alone.
The resources of LTA and MOT will be there to support them. That is why my Permanent Secretary is here, too, as well as the CEO of LTA. I handpicked the CEO of LTA. I asked around and I persuaded PSD to post him to me when Mr Chew Men Leong, his predecessor, decided to leave for personal reason. He is fully committed to this cause. So, I think the planets are now very well-aligned − you have me in MOT, Ngien Hoon Ping in LTA, Permanent Secretary Loh Ngai Seng in MOT and Chairman Seah Moon Ming in SMRT.
Other agencies, especially PUB, DSTA, DSO and GovTech, have offered their expertise to help us in this journey. I am grateful for their assistance. This gives me the confidence that we can complete this job of raising train reliability. I have not changed my target of achieving an MKBF of one million train-kilometres by 2020. We just have to lean in, re-double our efforts and work smarter. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response. I now speak as the Executive Secretary of the National Transport Workers' Union.
The demands on our rail workers are much greater than before, particularly for the maintenance staff. Much of their work can only be done when revenue services stop. Many of our rail maintenance workers work hard to ensure that our rail systems are maintained properly, are functioning properly every day, 365 days.
They work in a challenging environment and under very tight time constraints − about three hours every night is the amount of time that they have. I know because I have seen them, I have talked to them in the middle of the night, in the tunnels, on the tracks, at the depots, in the trenches. I hope that the Minister and the Ministry would continue to support our rail workers, especially the maintenance workers, as they have always done.
The union does not condone any action by any worker that would harm fellow workers and commuters or damage the operations of our public transport system. The union will work with SMRT to ensure that due process is given to any worker who has been found not to have done their work properly. I would like to assure the Minister that the National Transport Workers' Union will continue to engage our workers and stand ready to support both SMRT and LTA to ensure that we have better rail reliability.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): I thank the hon Minister for his comprehensive Ministerial Statement. I have three supplementary questions.
First, does LTA intend to impose a fit and proper criteria regime on the senior management of rapid transit system operators?
Second, has LTA identified any backlog in maintenance of its rail assets to date and, if so, what action has been taken?
Three, how does LTA ensure that the rapid transit system operators devote sufficient time, resources and money on preventive maintenance of rail assets owned by LTA, so as prevent the premature degradation of these assets, having regard to its life cycle?
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members for the comments, especially that of Mr Melvin Yong. I welcome his statement from the union. I know because, on the ground, Mr Yong is almost always there. Whenever I am in a depot or the trenches, I always find him there − very committed, as a union leader, and motivating the staff towards this common goal.
We still have a lot of work to do, especially by SMRT, forging this relationship between employer and the workers. My advice to them has always been \"work with the unions\".
When I ran hospitals, I worked with the unions closely. When you have a good bunch of union leaders, you can achieve so much together. Conversely, if there is lack of trust, there will be trouble. That is why I worry a bit when I first read about this amnesty thing because if you do not manage it well, instead of forging trust, in fact, it can cause a deterioration of relationship.
Yesterday, over coffee, Mr Charles Chong was sharing with us the practice in the aviation sector, which I am familiar with. Amnesty is not something unique or unusual but what is different in the case of aviation, they do it all the time. In other words, it is an open system. At anytime, employees are allowed to own up and the employer would then look into the situation and decide. But amnesty does not mean a free pass: if you commit a crime or it is a deliberate act of sabotage, then nobody can help you. But other than that, if for various reasons, you did something stupid and you reflected, you come forward and own up; the employer can be generous in handling this particular case.
In the case of SMRT, this is a new experience for them. All the more, I think, they have to handle it carefully, so that we use this opportunity to build up this strong relationship between employer and employee, and unions will play an important part.
On Mr Murali's various questions, he had three points?
Mr Murali Pillai:\tMr Speaker, may I just quickly repeat?
Mr Speaker :\tYes, please.
Mr Murali Pillai:\tThe first question is: does LTA intend to impose a fit and proper criteria on the senior management of rapid transit system operators? The second question is whether LTA has identified any serious backlog in maintenance of its rail assets to date and, if so, what action has been taken. The third question is how LTA ensures that rapid transit system operators devote sufficient time, resources and money on preventive maintenance of rail assets, so as to prevent premature degradation of these assets.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Just now, I talked about the last two years and some of the things that we have accomplished. One major thing that we have accomplished was the change of the financing system. We call it New Rail Financing Framework (NRFF), whereby we are now owner of the assets. We were facing some difficulties in the past with the company, especially because it was a listed company, sometimes, there is disagreement about when to replace an ageing asset. But now that we have taken over, the decision lies with LTA. When I say I want to change, we will change. We think this would be much better. Because we are the owner, it is of great concern to us now what is the condition of the assets and we have to make sure that it is properly maintained. That is why we are the one; it is LTA who sets the maintenance standards and we will do audits to make sure that it is done.
Another major achievement in the last two years was helping Temasek take back the company, so that it is delisted, it is no longer a listed company, and now, it is a Government-owned company. In fact, that has always been my preferred model which I am much more familiar with. Members know my background: I spent many years running hospitals and the Restructured Hospital Framework or scheme is what I always preferred, probably because of my own experience and background. It has the advantage of commercial discipline but, at the same time, it does not have the other problems of being overly focused on the bottom line with results which may not be totally satisfactory from the rail reliability point of view. Because it is a fully-owned company of the Government, the Board of Directors, the appointment of senior officers are within our control.
Miss Cheng Li Hui (Tampines):Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister highlighted the work of individuals and agencies behind the scenes. I would like to acknowledge their efforts and that of MOT, LTA in enhancing commuters' experience.
My clarifications are: on these deep-seated cultural issues within SMRT, can the Minister shed some light on the rough make-up of the 10%? For a large workforce, 10% is a large number; it is not a small number. Are there also some in management? As the Minister mentioned, the culture and tone are set by management.
On increasing the frequency of maintenance from quarterly to monthly, it was mentioned in the press conference that the crew has problems getting access to the tracks because of other maintenance. So, by increasing frequency, would other works be compromised?
During the media conference, SMRT had also mentioned that they will be using technology and CCTV to monitor the sump pump area in future. The cause of the sump pump failure is because of no maintenance and not because of lack of frequency. As mentioned, the heavy rainfall would have only filled 30% of the reservoir that day. So, increasing the frequency, is that the way forward?
After the new revelation last week on the falsified maintenance records, would the Ministry review its earlier recommendation of not fining SMRT? How would this also impact the incentive and disincentive framework that is part of the Thomson-East Coast Line contract?
SMRT management has also accepted full responsibility over this sad episode. Can the Minister provide some clarity to this statement as well?
My last clarification is on the faulty pumps found in the other four stations. Is the training provided for the crew sufficient for them to meet their job duties?
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: As I have explained in my Statement, access was quoted as an issue for the water pump maintenance. But as the Member has heard, the team did not even bother to ask for access. So, it was an excuse which turned out to be not true at all. The shortage of engineering hours to do so many things is, however, real. That is why, wherever we can, using technology or otherwise, trying to improve the productivity of the maintenance staff is key. But no matter what we do, I think if we can squeeze out more engineering hours so that the team can do more work, it would be the best approach, going forward.
As to penalty, I think I do not want to comment on it yet. I did make some comment during the press conference because I was starting from the background of what I related to Members that, two years ago, what I observed was that it was not a conducive working environment between regulator and regulatee. I am worried that if we continue this or restart this adversarial relationship, I think the war is lost. We have worked so hard to achieve this one team that I really would like to preserve this, going forward, or at least until we can stabilise the whole situation and replace all the old assets.
I am not against imposing penalties or providing incentives for extraordinary performance. I am for that. But there is a time to do a certain thing. To me, for North-South Line, East-West Line, I think we are in transition. We are far from stabilising. And until you stabilise, \"stabilise\" perhaps defined as when you reach one million MKBF, then, maybe, at that time, you can re-introduce this incentive/penalty system to encourage above-average performance, as well as to discourage sub-average outcome. But during this transition, I prefer to preserve this one team relationship between regulator and regulatee.
The other various pumps in the other portals, I have spoken about it. There are five portal storm pits for the North-South, East-West Lines. Bishan storm pit is very unusual by its size. It is huge − 5,000 cubic metres − whereas all the others are tiny. That is why although you heard about many pumps – eight pumps, six pumps – they are not of similar capacity. These are very small pumps; the pits were all above ground. If you have visited − unlikely because this is closed to public − you will find Bishan pit to be very unusual. It is underground and because of the surroundings − the Member of Parliament for Bishan may understand it better − the water just flows all the way down. That is why we require this 5,000-cubic-metre capacity. The other sump pits' capacities are not even 10% that of the Bishan pit.
The cultural thing, I have spoken about, Desmond Kuek mentioned this point. He has mentioned it a couple of times before as well as during the recent press conference. I do not want to put words in his mouth, neither can I speak for him. So, I have quoted what he said during the press conference. I think he meant work culture. I know he has been working very hard to try to change the work culture.
Let me share a little secret. I do not know whether he made it public: 2011 was the last major disruption and then SMRT Board decided to remove their previous CEO. Mr Desmond Kuek volunteered for this job. He volunteered for this job. He was not parachuted in or being asked to go and fix this. He volunteered for this job. As a former Chief of Defence Force, I think his heart is in the right place. He is a proud Singaporean.
We all felt ashamed by these every-now-and-then disruptions in SMRT.
I am an engineer and I have many engineering friends. We really feel embarrassed. For a long time, we compared ourselves with Hong Kong and we said, \"We are far ahead of them as engineers\". But when their MTR is running much better than our MRT, it is terrible. That is why when I spoke to Mr Tan Gee Paw, he has no qualms. Immediately, he said \"Yes, I will help you\". He did say, \"I am pretty old\" and, of course, he is still chairing PUB. But he volunteered, came forward to help us because he felt it was important. This reflects on Singaporeans' reputation overseas.
That is why this revelation that this small group of people falsified records − this is not the Singaporean culture! We are known positively everywhere we go: China, India, people know us. There is a certain trademark of Singaporeans. We are honest, we deliver what we promise. And yet, to have a bunch of people seemingly doing very funny things, it is really odd.
I think some Members asked for the profile of these few people. I think I have briefly described them. Most of them are Singaporeans, some are not. I think four are Singaporeans, three are foreigners. All the racial groups are represented among them. In yesterday's press statement, SMRT went further to suspend their supervisors and former supervisors because this is a failure not just of the small team but, clearly, the managers who were responsible to check and double-check the team were negligent as well. And that is why they are being investigated.
I am sure there will be future updates by SMRT as they make progress in their investigations and take the necessary due process. But I can assure the unions that they are working together to make sure that staff will be fairly treated.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister for the extensive reply. After the Committee of Inquiry's (COI) Report which was released in the aftermath of the two train incidents on 15 and 17 December 2011, a number of recommendations were actually made to SMRT and LTA. One of which was calling for a profound transformation of the maintenance regime at SMRT. There was a requirement for LTA to impose and implement a maintenance management system audit on SMRT and for SMRT to perform a self-assessment every three to four years.
So, my first question to the Minister is: was this self-assessment actually carried out?
There were a number of other recommendations, one of which was to review documentary and record keeping to ensure a higher level of accuracy and reliability. Specifically, with regard to that recommendation, what did SMRT do which could have actually avoided the issue of falsification even though, I hope, it only involved a small number of staff?
In the aftermath of the COI, of course, there were some operational issues that came up. I think the most tragic was the death of the two SMRT workers. We had an anonymous source quoted in The Straits Times who shared that the train wheels were not grounded as per the maintenance regime. This was revealed only a few days ago. And, of course, the amnesty announcement by SMRT is likely to uncover a few more lapses.
In light of this, can I ask the Minister, with regard to the audits that are going to be carried out by SMRT in the weeks and the months to come, will there be an independent entity overseeing these audits, what will be their nature and will their findings be made public?
The other question I have relates to a speech Minister made on 30 May 2016 with regard to infrastructure maintenance. The Minister spoke of embedding LTA staff in SMRT, specifically audit compliance inspectors, to assist in maintenance. So, can I ask the Minister whether these inspectors could have uncovered some of the lapses that happened post-COI and, more specifically, with regard to the unfortunate flooding incident?
Mr Khaw Boon Wan:Yes, it was my suggestion and instruction to LTA. One, beef up, get more engineers on board and with the view to also embed quite a number of them in SMRT and it was done. So, quite a significant number of LTA engineers are actually on the ground with SMRT.
I have a couple of reasons for doing so. One was in anticipation of new lines that we would be opening − Downtown Line 3 and the Thomson Line. The whole market needs to grow. I just replied to a Parliamentary Question (PQ). The whole market needs to grow. We need many more people. Through LTA, we recruited as many as possible, so that some of them can then flow out to work for the operators. The embedding of LTA engineers with the operators is an on-going process.
I see them. Every time I visited them, I have to check first, \"Where are you from? Are you from LTA?\" And often, there will be a mixture. I was happy to see them working as a team, as a group. But as I explained in my Statement, in the last two years, we have been focusing on the most critical areas, which are the trains, the tracks, the signalling. That has always been our focus because those are the most complicated and the most important.
The other parts, which are the water treatment and so on, those are \"小儿科\" or \"simple stuff\" that anybody can do. You just need to follow the instructions. We assume it will be done. Because we were focusing on this side, this other part let us down. That is why I was so disappointed and so angry. But never mind, it has happened, we will fix it.
The follow-up on COI, yes, all those things were done. I do not have the details and the information to reply to the Member immediately but those implementations were done. All these happened before my time anyway. And that explains the improvement in the MKBF, especially in the last two years.
I know some Members would choose to ignore it and keep on saying, \"We have not improved, we have gotten worse\", and quote the glitches with the re-signalling to substantiate their criticism. But it is not so and that would be extremely unfair to the majority of the SMRT staff who are working their guts out.
That was also part of the reason why I reacted how I reacted during one media event several months ago. I was unhappy with some of the reporting on the re-signalling problems. I wanted to explain to the people, to the public, that the re-signalling, yes, has a lot of problems. All these were anticipated and, actually, we have done better.
But I can understand from a commuter's point of view, they cannot relate, because they have not experienced the re-signalling problems in London. So, they do not have a base line. From their points of view, yesterday there was no re-signalling, there were no problems. Today, how come every three days, there are some breakdowns, some delays here and there? To them, they think that the whole system has broken down, when it is not the case.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Thank you, Mr Speaker. On behalf of the residents in Yishun, I would like to thank everyone, especially staff from SMRT who have been working very hard while keeping our trains running on time, most of the time. I am sure the Minister's vision or ambition of having one million MKBF would be achievable soon.
I know Mr Seah Moon Ming and Mr Richard Kwok personally as we have worked in the Institute of Engineers.
I have two supplementary questions. Based on what has been reported so far, I think what is lacking in some of the staff is the pride in their jobs. I think no amount of audit can surface all the lapses or shortcomings. How can this pride in their jobs be instilled? Is the Ministry or SMRT looking into this aspect?
The second question is that we are quite worried about the morale of the existing staff. Once you have audit and you are trying to investigate, the morale of the staff would be affected, but we need them to work hard to keep the trains running. So, how can we help the morale of the existing staff? And for those who really work hard, are we going to reward them? Because over the last few days, we only heard about punishment, taking away their bonuses. How about those who work hard? Are we going to reward them?
I think we need to make sure that the morale of the existing staff is maintained and the pride in their jobs is instilled, instead of more and more audits or instead of \"I am trying to catch who are not doing their jobs\".
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: I totally agree with the comments from my favourite Member of Parliament. Indeed, these are the crucial issues. It is a huge organisation. I am clear in my mind all the time. I think I have described in this House two years ago when I took on this job, that this is a multi-year war, we are fighting a multi-year war.
Mr Speaker, you are familiar with the art of war. I am quite sure you have read Sun Tsu's \"Art of War\". I have. How do we keep morale high all the time is crucial, because along this multi-year journey, there are bound to be disappointments, some defeats and some losses. How we react the day after often determines whether the team is likely to win the war, or it is going to lose. If each time something disappointing happens and then everybody is onto the troop or the general, or worse, calling for a switch of the general, this is a sure strategy for failure.
We should not be blindly loyal to a particular strategy or a particular team. Therefore, we set targets and we observe. So long as they are doing their work conscientiously and the milestones regularly show there are improvements, I think we should lend them our support.
And I think we can help. As Members of this House, you are influential, you determine how you can help influence your residents' perception, particularly for those with residents living in the north, how they respond to each disruption. The more we can help to explain to them about the difficulty of the re-signalling system and explain to them that, yes, akan datang, that better days are coming. And, indeed, in the case of the North-South Line, better days are coming. We have really turned the corner.
Unfortunately, I will soon have to start re-signalling the East-West Line, so Members of Parliament who serve along that corridor, I will need to brief you slowly and carefully, but hopefully, the experience with the North-South Line will help us shorten the learning curve for the East-West Line.
As to pride in staff, that is always crucial. I think I have said in this House several times before, in my previous portfolio. I was comparing people. The Japanese people take pride in their work, even simple work. They may be rank-and-file, but because they take pride, they own the outcome of their jobs. So, the standard that they deliver is quite different. I have talked to some metro operators in Japan. They are finding the new generation not quite the same as the old generation. But in absolute terms, they are still much better than our people.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang): The Minister responded to my Parliamentary Question (PQ) that we are not holding a COI. My question relates then to the Audit Committee that is being formed. Does the Ministry plan to bring in international experts to augment the team, to put in best practices, for example, that we can learn from?
At the same time, to what extent does the Ministry plan to supervise this audit, in terms of how wide, how deep it has to go?
The second question relates to the technologies being used for the pumps. I understand that some of these are 30 years old, but would the designs be reviewed and relooked, because if we look at the sensors today, we do not need people to monitor that the sump pits are full, for example? Are all these developments being considered?
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Yes, I thank the Member. I thought I had mentioned some radar-based sensors that they have already put into the Bishan sump pit to help improve on the system.
As for COI, I have explained why I made the judgement call that there is no need for a COI because this is not a complicated puzzle. But the investigation by LTA continues. The intention is to make public once the investigations are complete so that the public will get to know what happened, what are the causes and how we are fixing them.
As for international experts, I thought I had mentioned it in the Statement that I have invited this Taipei team to come and have a deep dive into our system to see whether there are new things that we can learn from them.
Mr Yee Chia Hsing (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister regarding the amnesty. It is stated that staff who come forward would not be penalised. So, does that mean that they will get the same bonus as those staff who were diligently doing their job because this seems to run counter to the principle of fairness and accountability?
The other question I would like to ask the Minister is: is it possible to build more what they call cross-over tracks so that if there is a problem at any point along the track, the train can turn around and we can isolate the fault and we build up the system's resilience?
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: On the first question on the amnesty and how it will be handled, that has to be answered by SMRT. They are the ones doing this. The amnesty approach is not new. The Member Mr Charles Chong told me that, in the aviation industry, it is quite well developed. If you come forward, you own up on doing something that you should not do or forgot to do or did not do well a few weeks ago, then management will take that into account and, generally, the approach is to be generous.
Whereas when you talk about bonus, a bonus is to reward good performance. It is completely different. How amnesty works is if, for example, you did something stupid and you never owned up and when the inspection team discovers that, then you will get into serious trouble. That is how the amnesty approach works. But as I have said, it is something new for SMRT. They will have to find their way. I will advise them to discuss with the union to find out how best to do it with a view to quickly uncover gaps and, secondly, use the opportunity to forge a closer relationship between employer and the employees.
on track design and are there better ways so that it is more resilient: a couple of years ago, I was quite puzzled how New York Underground was able to run 24 hours. We have engineering hours of three hours and we are already complaining that we do not have enough time. How do they do maintenance with service going 24 hours? And London, too.
When I probed, I found the answer. Even though it was designed 100 years ago − probably that time, land was cheap − they catered for a lot of side tracks and alternative routes so that trains can move to other tracks. So, there are a lot of redundancies. That is why they were able to continue running 24 hours. There are bypasses and alternatives. That is how a well-designed network ought to be like. Unfortunately, we do not have this luxury, I think, mainly because we just do not have the land.
I am going to give a speech in a few weeks' time talking about \"a tale of two lines\", that is, the North-South Line and the new line which we are building, to show how much differences there were during these 30 years. Technology is one. Secondly, we were very short of cash 30 years ago. Remember the Government took a long time to debate, \"Should we or should we not build MRT?\" That is why when LTA designed the North-South and East-West Lines, they really cut cost. How?
Members know the North-South Line is a very heavily-used line. The East-West Line is another very heavily-used line. Together, they account for 60-odd percent of the total market. And, yet, for a long time, for 30 years, they were relying on just one depot − the Bishan Depot. Any other line you go and visit, whether it is in Tokyo, London, Taipei, a line like this, sometimes would have two depots or one-and-a-half depots. And for two lines, there should have been three or four depots. But I suppose because of budget constraints, we did not have that luxury. And, now, can we retrofit? Very hard. Unless you close down the lines for a longer period.
I am not giving excuses for our team. But I hope Singaporeans appreciate that it was a very different era when we started. You just look at the new lines − Downtown Line 3, for example − the number of exits per station, whereas the North-South and East-West Lines, with one or, at most, two. And the Hokkiens will say, \"Even one, and you will celebrate!\"
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, I just want to follow up on the Minister's comment on having alternatives in our rail system. Indeed, that was the case. Many of our lines are quite skeletal, we do not have alternative or parallel loops. I would like to ask the Minister whether he would consider the other alternative of giving up the bus resources, perhaps a \"Version 2\" of the BSEP to ply through some of these routes where there are limited alternatives and, especially, in some parts of the system where it is still not reliable and we still experience frequent breakdowns, such as the BPLRT, and to enhance their resilience.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan:\tFor the LRT, it is possible to think about it. For the MRT, the capacity difference is just too wide. For the LRT, in fact, a few weeks ago, I had asked LTA to take a good look at it, especially during off-peaks. I think we should seriously consider shortening the operating hours for LRT and use buses to take care of that. That will then allow a regular fleet of buses and drivers who may come in useful during peak periods should you have a disruption. So, LRT, I think, possible, and we are thinking along that line. For MRT, the capacity difference is just too wide. Even if we have the money to get all the buses and, if we can get all the drivers, the roads will be \"choc-a-bloc\".
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): I thank the Minister for his Statement and the leadership with which the Minister delivered it. I have three clarifications focused on SMRT.
The first point is this. SMRT is a line monopolist. It has no competition on the lines it operates, like the North-South or the East-West Lines. No competitors mean a lot more money. Corporate energy should be focused on operational reliability. Yet, we are seeing these maintenance lapses.
The second point is this: SMRT is able to apply to LTA for asset replacement grants for eligible operating assets like trains. So, that gives SMRT even more incentive to use its own revenue for maintenance. Yet, we see maintenance and serious maintenance lapses.
The third point is this: SMRT has a secure customer base. It provides an essential service − public transport. It does not have to advertise \"Please take my train instead of my competitors'\" because SMRT has operational monopoly over the lines it operates. So, SMRT has line monopoly, taxpayer subsidies and a secure customer base. Yet, we see maintenance lapses. Where a corporate institution provides an essential service, we cannot tolerate corporate complacency.
So, going forward, I have three suggestions for SMRT and I hope MOT will consider these.
First, revamp the fine model for regulating rail transport operators. The highest fine imposed to-date was $5.4 million on SMRT for the 7 July 2015 breakdown disrupting 413,000 commuters. Yet, that money was less than 0.5% of SMRT's total revenue. So, we should move away, in my humble view, from a mere fine model.
Second, we should peg the remuneration of SMRT's management to the overall reliability of SMRT and, where milestones are met by workers slogging it out, working their guts out in the tunnels, reward them with financial recognition. Every 500 hours without injury is a milestone. Every 10,000 kilometres without a breakdown is a milestone. Recognise it within the corporation.
Third, SMRT must be proactive rather than reactive. What does the amnesty tell us or tell me about SMRT? Is it that the top or middle management does not know what is going on in the tunnels or on the tracks? So, my third question is: how is SMRT going to be proactive rather than reactive in troubleshooting?
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: I think the key is the quality of the leadership. Two years ago, when the Prime Minister asked me to take on this job, I spent the first couple of weeks meeting a lot of people. Among the first few people I met was Mr Lim Boon Heng. He was, and still is, the Chairman of Temasek, and we had a very long chat. And one major topic was leadership. At our level, specifically, we were talking about chairmanship, that is, chairmanship of SMRT.
I was quite clear in my suggestion to him that I think because the former chairman had been there for years, it was time for a change. He took the point and said he had to start hunting. Over the months, I gave him names, including Mr Seah Moon Ming, and that is how Mr Seah Moon Ming is now the new Chairman. My only disappointment is it took so long before we got this done. If this change in leadership had been executed earlier, maybe we could have avoided this.
The Member's comments about SMRT's monopoly and not focusing on the right priority, I think were probably correct for the previous team. I have worked with this current team for two years now. There are a lot of imperfections, but I think they believe in the cause. So, it is not as if they are distracted, that \"I am a monopoly, I could not care less and, therefore, I just do as I wish and then you take it or leave it, customer\". That is not the attitude.
As I have said just now, let us give Mr Seah time and space for him to turn it around. He has turned around organisations before and I am confident he can do it. But he needs some time.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): I would like to ask the Minister when was the last time that LTA conducted any inspection on the pump system at Bishan.
Next, I note that the Minister had mentioned that there was some form of prioritising in respect of the audit by LTA on the different aspects. For example, I think the Minister mentioned that they were focusing more on the bigger rail reliability issues. Would the Minister agree with me that this was, actually, a grave oversight because the smallest of component can cause a train disruption, and a train disruption is a train disruption. It could be caused by a defective door or by a bigger component, a bigger fault in the whole system.
I think the Minister also mentioned, and I agree, the comparison with the aerospace industry. I agree with the Minister because in the aerospace industry, the air worthiness certification is required for even the smallest of components for the aircraft. So, they are very meticulous. The point I am trying to say is that, if you cannot get the small things right, you are not going to get the big things right.
So, moving forward, will the Minister agree that all audit regimes by LTA – or, in fact, by SMRT, – have to be very thorough? It has to cover both the small things and the big things. And, in fact, it was a so-called smaller issue, like the pump. The cause of the pump failure is actually quite small but if you look at the cause of it, the falsification of the records, the conduct of the whole team, it actually points to an organisational issue.
Finally, I am not sure if I have heard the Minister correctly. I believe my colleague Mr Pritam Singh has also asked about how extensive will the internal audit of SMRT or the review by the Taipei experts be. Perhaps the Minister can shed more light on how extensive this can be, and can it, for example, be akin to a forensic audit.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: We all only have 24 hours. For some of us, we hardly sleep. Soon after 7 October, I know Mr Seah Moon Ming and I, between the two of us, we probably cumulatively only chalked up 20 hours of sleep. We just do not have so much time to do so many things. When there are so many things to do, we have to set priorities. So, I am not giving excuses for not checking the pumps or other small things the Member talked about. But in the limited time that we have, we focused on the big ticket items which can cause severe problems. That is why we have been focusing our energy on those critical parts. But we were going to get, eventually, to check on these small things, too. Unfortunately, the small things cropped up and we got eggs on our face. But we will fix it.
The experts and the extent of audits, in particular, the inspection team that we are setting up, it will be as extensive as needed. There are separate teams going on. The internal audit teams will be augmented. SMRT is employing Dr Richard Kwok. So, that is SMRT's own assignment. But LTA will be coming in to work together with Dr Richard Kwok to form a joint team. What we have in mind is also to cross-audit the other operators and make use of some of their staff to cross-audit each other so that Operator One can also join in the auditing of Operator Two. And, if needed, we can bring in some of our metro friends from other cities to help us as well.
Mr Ang Wei Neng (Jurong): Firstly, I want to declare my interest as part of the ComfortDelGro Group that operates the North-East Line and Downtown Line.
Secondly, I would like to testify that Minister has been trying very hard to build a collaborative culture between operators and also has exercised strong leadership, particularly with his almost weekly meetings with the top management of the two train operators to improve the MKBF and also to learn from past disruptions, as well as to help other lines not to repeat the same mistakes and improve train reliability.
Thirdly, I would like to clarify with the Minister, what are the main learning points for the project of re-signalling the North-South Line and how can it apply to the East-West Line in reducing the timeframe of project completion, reducing disruptions and making the commuters happy? I would like to emphasise that, if there is, touchwood, a East-West Line disruption, the residents now in the East at least have the Downtown Line to fall back on, but the residents in the West beyond Jurong Point, will have no other lines to fall back on.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The Prime Minister has just reminded me of the need for the Cross Island Line. Unfortunately, it will not happen until 2030s. But we will do our best.
The North-South Line has been a great lesson for us, just as the London Underground experience has been a great lesson for us. The main takeaway for us from the London Underground re-signalling project was, do many more testing without passengers and debug as much as you can. That was why we completely changed the schedule of the timeline of the North-South Line project. Testing was supposed to start in January this year. We pushed it back to 28 May. That, I think, has saved us a lot of trouble and we were able to stabilise the system within a few months rather than the whole year that London Underground took.
For the East-West Line, because the equipment are similar, we believe that the software patches that were put in for the North-South Line ought to be applicable as well. But because every line is different as – the French engineer told me, every train is different – they have personalities. He told me, \"You have four generations of trains: old trains, new trains, some new trains and some, just delivered!\" So, that is some of the problems that we are facing. Please do bear with us but we will try our very best to minimise disruptions.
Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Mr Speaker, three points. I thank the Minister for taking the hot seat. For our Jalan Besar GRC, we have just had the construction of the new train line ─ the Downtown Line 3. I think a lot of these projects, the train stations actually are, what I know, engineering feats. I saw a lot of pride in the work by the teams and I just want to thank you for that. And my residents thank you.
A lot of solutions that the Minister has mentioned are to do with technical and operational issues. I wanted to know if the Minister and the agencies involved have gone deep-diving into any of the HR issues. Things like, we say very broadly, cultural issues. But cultures take two to three years to establish and to change. Or even the compensation, the total compensation packages. Those are specifics that I think need to be looked into. I am especially thinking of the 90% of the engaged and good staff that the Minister mentioned in the survey that was done by Towers Watson. So, how do we continue to retain the good staff and to balance the need for accountability, of course, versus the perceived intolerance for mistakes and even blaming should things go wrong? Because that could lead to a lot of fear at the workplace and, in fact, make the culture even more negative.
Secondly, also in view of the larger talent pool that you wish to attract in terms of engineering and technical personnel into the rail industry, what are the HR strategies to make sure that we can continue to attract, especially engineering and maintenance personnel, into the wider pool that is needed? These are the questions that I have.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: I thank the Member for the very important comments. The internal HR policies and what changes they need to do, that is for SMRT to follow through. As the Member spoke, I looked at the SMRT leadership at the Public Gallery and they were nodding their heads. So, they know the importance of this.
At my level, it is more about the whole rail industry, how can we make sure that this rail profession remains attractive, especially to young Singaporeans. We do a lot of work together with institutions, doing roadshows. It is a hard slog because engineering as a profession, is itself not so attractive. And specifically to rail, and especially when you read about all these rail breakdowns, why would they want to join the industry?
At the Civil Service level, we have made a lot of changes. Salaries are adjusted, professional status has improved. We have to encourage young Singaporeans to realise that there is a lot of scope and opportunities to deal with very exciting projects. And also to reach out to the females. Each time when I visit the operators, LTA, I am very happy to find young girls joining the industry. And some of them are actually challenged by these problems that they regularly hear about SMRT's breakdowns. And they said, \"No, I think I want to make a difference.\" That kind of passion will translate into very good work practices and pride in their work.
I think we can be optimistic that we can tackle this problem and, at the same time, attract Singaporeans to join this sunrise industry.
Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): I, once again, want to thank the Minister, the team at LTA and also the SMRT new chairmanship for their efforts. There has been talk about the regulator-operator relationship. The relationship between the people and how they work together. I think we also have to think a lot about the relationships within the operator, how people at different levels in an organisation, especially one going through a tough time like this, relate to one another.
So, if I may just share a personal view, as part of clarification, I think it would be very important that staff always feel comfortable highlighting problems upwards to management, especially if the problem cannot be solved at their own level, and that management continues to want to know what the problems are, to try and fix them. Rather than engage in a culture of shaming and blaming, which we know does not work in aviation, neither does it work in healthcare.
Secondly, also a culture where the KPI or the checkbox is not the meaning in and of itself. It is what the KPI and checkbox represent, the work that is actually done. That, again, is the message in aviation as well as in healthcare.
Lastly, also, in addition to condition monitoring and technology for infrastructure and hardware, also using technology to strengthen the \"heartware\" and help people. So, just as we use technology today to improve audit of corporate finance or of whether tenders are being awarded appropriately in line with appropriate corporate governance, we see this in the corporate sector, likewise using technology to help HR and help workers look for blind spots in their work processes.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Those are all very important points. Both of us came from the healthcare sector and we know, healthcare learnt from the aviation sector on how to manage safety, how to recover from each incident and how to inculcate a culture whereby people come forward, especially to discuss near-misses, because those are important.
For trains or the rail industry, these constitute a new work culture that they would have to learn. Fortunately, there are other players in town who know how to manage those things. Everywhere I go, whether it is health, when I move to a new hospital, I take a \"eat humble pie\" approach. Do not be shy about asking and you will discover that there are so many people most willing to share their experience and expertise with you.
Conversely, if you are arrogant, you think \"I am the greatest, I know what to do and so on\", then you are doomed for failure. So, at the end of the day, it is still about leadership, it is still about how we share and propagate that kind of culture and encourage feedback from the workers and work closely with them. In the case of Singapore, work closely with the unions because you will find them extremely helpful and useful to you.
Mr Speaker: I will take one last question. Mr Sitoh Yin Pin and then the Minister can wrap up.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin (Potong Pasir): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. The Minister has used the phrase \"小儿科\" in discovering the maintenance of those pumps and has also described it as low-risk. I completely agree with the Minister because these are waterpumps, these are not cardiovascular pumps that you put in your heart, which is quite different.
So, with that in mind, I would like to ask the Minister whether it is possible for LTA to work with SMRT to outsource some of these what I would describe as non-core business that we are doing, so that the management of SMRT today can focus on its core competency, its core businesses.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Indeed, I always believe that in every organisation, you must be clear what should be your core competencies, those that you must be able to do very well that distinguish you from your competitors or rivals. Those things you cannot outsource. There are areas which are non-core. Of course, it is good if you have the management bandwidth to also cover these without having to outsource, but when we are so short of time and have so many things to deal with, the quickest way, actually, is to outsource non-core.
In that case, selection of contractors becomes very important. Make sure you identify good chaps, trustworthy companies, vendors and, then, you can outsource to them. And, again, here we can learn from others − water, anti-flooding type of things, PUB will know which are the good contractors in town. Make use of them and consider outsourcing. I am told that the SMRT Chairman is seriously thinking about working on this strategy.
Mr Speaker:\tJust one last clarification. Mr Low.
Mr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister just now expressed his disappointment that Mr Lim Boon Heng, CEO of Temasek Holdings, took too long to appoint a new Chairman of SMRT. He must not forget that the mission of SMRT is to make money for the Government. I am of the opinion that the multiple problems of the train services, the core of the problem is money. The Government wanted to have the cake and eat it, expecting profit from the train operator and, at the same time, also expected efficiency, tip-top maintenance work.
I note that the Minister was steering the existing framework of the checks and balances between the Ministry, which holds the purse strings, the regulator LTA and the operator, towards one team.
I have two clarifications for the Minister. First, MOT, LTA and SMRT, each has a role to play. How does the Minister ensure that each of them can still play the functional role well when they work as a team and become good friends? The second clarification: hammering everyone to work together to solve the problem now as a team is important but what about instituting the structural system of checks that should be embedded to ensure efficiency, honesty and integrity?
Mr Khaw Boon Wan:Before I reply to the Member's two clarifications, I think I must disagree with the Member's preamble that SMRT is there to make money for the Government. There are easier ways to make money. We do not have to use SMRT to make money.
It is the same thing with restructured hospitals, which I have a lot more experience with. We need to provide a public service. The reason we restructured is so that we can exploit the financial discipline of the commercial sector, so that in the process of providing this public service, you can get the best cost effectiveness of the operations achieved.
It is the same thing with SMRT. We could have done it as a Government department but I think the decision was not wrong to put it to a corporatised company, fully-owned by the Government. They know and the leadership of such a company must know and Mr Seah knows it that this is, for example, an engineering outfit. Making money is not your objective but you must not lose money. There must be financial discipline. You cannot just anyhow go and spend money – buy this, buy that, gold plate everything – and then, of course, you can have marvellous operations. But at great cost to whom? It will be to the taxpayers.
There is no free lunch, Mr Low. The Member knows it. He runs a Town Council. He needs to balance the accounts, too. And he knows the importance of governance. So, when your team fails you, what do you do?
So, those things are important lessons for everyone. What happens in SMRT has applications for the others as well.
How do you achieve one team and yet be clear of the boundary, that there are different roles we play? I thought I had explained that in my Statement. We are all very clear. As far as LTA is concerned, the three roles and the unspoken fourth role.
But the importance of working as one team − especially at the stage where SMRT is in, whereby you have to renew the assets of North-South-East-West Lines. If you cannot work as one team, I think there will be trouble, as there were troubles in the past. That is why it is so important that they function as one team. So, each time a problem crops up, we settle it as one team. That does not mean that we blur the boundary and, therefore, forget about individual roles and checks and balances. Yes, it may sound to the Member as schizophrenic, but we are quite clear in our mind and it can be done.
Mr Speaker, I must thank the various Members for contributing their suggestions, comments and advice and, importantly, for their encouragement. This has been a difficult challenge but not something that we cannot manage.
My main takeaway in the last two years is, yes, it has cost us, individually, maybe personal health and maybe family life. But I think it is a meaningful job that we decide to take on, whether it is Desmond Kuek or Seah Moon Ming. For us, we have choices. We can do so many other things. But if we can fix this, turn it around, it will be a good public service that will benefit three million, 3.5 million people who make use of our system every day.
We know the responsibilities on our shoulders. What we are asking of commuters is \"Please bear with us because a 30-year train system is a very challenging one\".
I was talking to the Hong Kong MTR operator. Some of their lines will soon be 30 years old and that is why they are watching what is happening here very carefully because they know, we are all engineers, we know systems will get into trouble. Of course, if you do not need to worry about bottom line, it is straightforward. Thirty years' shelf life, but let us change everything at 20 years. Great cost. The Japanese do that. As a result, very high cost. Are our commuters ready for that?
Look at our fares. Look at the fares elsewhere being charged in other cities. It is no comparison.
These are some of the trade-offs that we have to make. We made it on behalf of Singaporeans. We do our best and within the revenue that we can collect from the people and with the subsidy we get from the Government − that means from the taxpayers − we try to run as good a show as we can.
Yes, we are not perfect. But as I have shared with this House, it is a four-year, five-year journey. We are halfway through. I genuinely believe that we have made significant improvements. The re-signalling is a separate issue but we will overcome that and then I think commuters will be able to experience what the MKBF improvement figures actually show. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Ministerial Statement. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health (Mr Amrin Amin) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Health, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Smoking continues to be a significant public health problem in Singapore. While smoking rates have decreased from over 18% in the 1990s, they have stagnated at around 12% to 14% in the last decade. Twenty-three percent, or one in four, Singaporean men still smoke, much higher than in countries, such as Australia, which stands at 14.5% and the US at 15.6%. Every day, six Singaporeans die prematurely from smoking-related diseases.
Singapore adopts a multi-pronged approach to tackle tobacco addiction. This includes public education, taxes, tobacco control laws, regulations on smoke-free areas and help for smokers to quit. In recent years, we have enhanced our control measures. Our goal is to denormalise the use of tobacco products over time.
Mr Speaker, please now allow me to highlight the major provisions of the Bill. First, let me elaborate on the proposed increase in the Minimum Legal Age (MLA) for tobacco from age 18 to 21 for the purchase, use, possession, sale and supply of tobacco products.
Clause 2 of the Bill inserts a new definition of \"under-aged person\" in section 2 of the Act, to provide for a phased increase in the MLA. Consequently, provisions in the Act that refer to \"persons aged below 18 years old\" would be amended to an \"under-aged person\". The details of the changes are in clauses 3, 4, 5 and 9 of the Bill.
We are increasing the MLA for tobacco for several reasons.
First, adolescent brains are especially vulnerable to nicotine addiction. This is according to a 2015 report by the US Institute of Medicine. The 2012 US Surgeon-General's report also showed that the younger someone tries smoking, the higher the probability of him becoming a regular smoker. Smokers who start earlier also find it harder to quit smoking later in life.
Secondly, our data shows that we need to do more to discourage smoking among our young. Close to 95% of smokers had their first puff before they turned 21, 45% of smokers became regular smokers between their 18th and 21st birthdays. Based on HPB's student health surveys, among youths below 18, two-thirds of smokers get their tobacco from friends and schoolmates. Raising the MLA to 21 will mean that retailers cannot sell tobacco to youths between their 18th and 21st birthdays, thereby denying such youths and those in their social circles easy access to tobacco.
We know that social and peer pressures strongly influence youths to start smoking. By raising the MLA, we are further denormalising smoking, particularly for those below 21. This will further reduce opportunities for youths to be tempted and take up smoking before they reach the age of 21.
We have consulted extensively on the MLA increase. There is strong support from all segments of society, from youths, parents and businesses. The MLA will be progressively raised over a period of three years to minimise impact on smokers currently between the ages of 18 and 21. We plan to raise the MLA to 19 on 1 January 2019, 20 on 1 January 2020 and, finally, to 21 on 1 January 2021. Nonetheless, during the transitional years from now till 2021, we will encourage all youths to refrain from smoking as smoking is harmful.
Quitting is a journey and it will take time for smokers to successfully quit. The phased implementation recognises this. The Health Sciences Authority (HSA) will be distributing the new \"no-sale of tobacco to underaged persons\" signages and educational materials to all tobacco retailers. We will continue to work together with tobacco retailers, schools, Institutes of Higher Learning and agencies like MINDEF and MHA to ensure smooth implementation of the MLA increase.
During the public consultation, some have raised concerns that youths will turn to the illicit market for cigarettes if they are unable to buy cigarettes legally. We will work with Customs and relevant agencies to monitor the situation regarding illicit trade and step up enforcement and educational efforts.
Next, MOH will further tighten control over emerging and imitation tobacco products to protect our young and the general community.
At present, the importation, sale and distribution of shisha and other emerging tobacco products, such as smokeless tobacco, as well as imitation tobacco products, such as e-cigarettes and other types of vaporisers, collectively known as Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems or ENDS, are prohibited. The purchase, use and possession of these products are, however, not prohibited currently.
The World Health Organization has urged countries to regulate ENDS, including banning them where feasible. Twenty-eight countries, including Australia, Brunei and Switzerland, currently ban the sale of ENDS.
To tighten regulation of emerging and imitation tobacco products in Singapore, clauses 6 and 7 of the Bill provide for new subsections under sections 15 and 16 of the Act respectively to prohibit the purchase, use and possession of these products.
Effectively, the importation, sale, distribution, purchase, use and possession of emerging and imitation tobacco products shall be prohibited with this Bill. Why are we taking this step?
First, ENDS and all tobacco products are harmful to health. ENDS produce toxic substances in the vapour, including carcinogens, which increase the risk of cancer of the throat, stomach and bladder. ENDS also contain nicotine, which is highly addictive. It is well-known that nicotine has harmful effects on fetuses and brain development in adolescents. There are claims that ENDS are less harmful than cigarettes. Some of these actually come from research sponsored by the tobacco industry. So-called lesser-harm tobacco products still expose the user to toxic substances that are harmful to health and keep the user addicted to nicotine.
Second, we do not want ENDS or other emerging tobacco products to become entrenched in Singapore. We have seen an exponential increase in the number of people using ENDS in other countries. For example, an estimated 2.8 million adults in Great Britain used e-cigarettes in 2016, representing a four-fold increase from 700,000 users in 2012. The use of e-cigarettes among students has also increased significantly in countries, such as New Zealand and the United States.
Overseas, tobacco companies are increasingly marketing ENDS the same way as tobacco products were marketed. There is also growing evidence that ENDS manufacturers are targeting the youth market, for example, by using flavours, such as chocolate, strawberry and mint, and with sleek videos and marketing them as trendy choices.
Third, ENDS can be a gateway or \"starter product\" which gets the user hooked on nicotine and lead to cigarette use later. A systematic review of nine studies involving more than 17,000 youths in the United States found that e-cigarette users were three times more likely to become cigarette smokers compared to non-users. Another study showed that among more than 19,000 Canadians, aged 14 to 18 years old, those who used ENDS were twice as likely to go on to regular smoking. Other studies in England, Scotland and Poland similarly support this \"gateway effect\".
MOH has received feedback arguing that we should consider allowing the use of ENDS by smokers to quit smoking. There are also views that offering a less harmful product like ENDS is a way to reduce the harm of smoking-related diseases in smokers. We have considered these arguments, but are not persuaded.
We have already approved nicotine replacement therapies, such as nicotine inhalers, gum and patches, to help smokers quit. These are registered as therapeutic products under the Health Products Act. Such products have undergone stringent evaluation of their safety, quality and efficacy as a smoking cessation therapy prior to registration. They are exempted from the Tobacco Act.
While there are some studies which suggest that e-cigarettes may help smokers to quit, the current limited evidence is neither robust nor conclusive. If any ENDS manufacturer has supporting data from credible and robust scientific studies, it can submit its product for evaluation as a smoking cessation therapy. Till now, none has done so. If registered under the Health Products Act, the product will be exempted from the ban in the Tobacco Act. For smokers who wish to quit, there are proven methods and products, and ENDS have not been proven to be one of them.
Next, I will turn to other amendments in the Bill.
Clause 8 of the Bill provides for a technical amendment to section 18 of the Act, to specifically restrict every licensed retail outlet to having only one point of sale. This amendment eliminates the need for HSA to specify the location of the point of sale in each licence issued.
Clause 2 of the Bill inserts new definitions of \"tobacco product\" and \"tobacco substitute\" to improve clarity.
Clause 6 repeals section 15(6) of the Act, to align the definition of smoking for section 15 with the general definition of \"smoking\" in section 2(1).
Clause 10 of the Bill amends section 35 to state that composition sums collected shall be paid into the Consolidation Fund, instead of being retained by HSA.
Clause 11 of the Bill inserts a new definition of section 35A, which provides that persons involved in the administration, collection and enforcement of payment of any composition sum collected under section 34 shall be treated as public officers for the purposes of the Financial Procedure Act.
Mr Speaker, Sir, smoking is a major cause of premature death in Singapore. The changes proposed in this Bill will go towards protecting our population and, especially the young, from the harms of tobacco products. There is mounting pressure, especially from self-interested parties, to relax our position on ENDS. Our interest is in protecting our people. I seek the Members' support for this Bill. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Dr Chia Shi-Lu (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Bill.
I am particularly worried that smoking prevalence remains sticky amongst the young. As Parliamentary Secretary Mr Amrin Amin has just noted earlier in his speech, 95% of Singapore's smokers first smoked before the age of 21 and 45%, became regular smokers between the ages of 18 and 20. If we were to look at the age of inception, that means, at the age at which smokers took their first puff, the statistics also bear grim reading. In 2001, our youth smokers started when they were 17. That was the age when they took their first cigarette. In 2013, we found out that they were actually taking their first puff at 16 years of age. And all these occurred despite current legislation which makes it illegal to smoke under the age of 18.
As noted, adolescent brains are more sensitive to the rewarding effects of nicotine. Hence, young persons who start smoking early are more likely to continue smoking into adulthood and become addicted. The intensity and persistence of smoking also correlate with how early smoking started. We should take note of the 2008 World Health Organization report which states that people who do not start smoking before the age of 21 \"are unlikely to ever begin\". Bearing this in mind, this leads to the first of my four clarifications.
First, this Bill proposes to increase the minimum legal age (MLA) over three years to 21 years. Twelve months from the day the law is passed, the MLA will be raised to 19. Then, we have to wait another 12 months for it to go up to 20, and another year before it is raised to the age of 21. As a result, smokers aged between 18 and 21 at the time the Act is amended will be exempted. The rationale is to give youth smokers who may be already addicted some time to adjust.
However, I am of the opinion that such stepped implementation is unnecessary and perhaps too gradual. If someone who has just turned 18 has also just started smoking, this gradual implementation will continue to allow him/her to buy and use cigarettes until he/she is well and truly hooked. If we stop this smoker at the early stage of the addiction, it may be easier for him to quit. Therefore, I would like to urge the Ministry to increase the MLA for smoking to 21 as soon as possible.
We should supplement our efforts with a stronger public campaign to highlight all the negative impact on smokers' health − from the more obvious damage to the lungs to less widely known disease-causing DNA damage which can last more than 30 years after a person has stopped smoking. We have to engage our youths through every platform available as their future can be greatly affected by this life-changing addiction. In addition, the adverse impact of smoking on our National Service personnel, and the financial and resource burden upon our national health system should also not be under-estimated.
Second, we also have to consider the impact on tobacco retailers' employees, some of whom are aged between 18 and 20. With this increase in the MLA, staff aged below 21 will not be able to sell tobacco. I think this is a move in the right direction, as constant exposure to tobacco products in the course of their work could tempt these young persons to try smoking themselves. Nonetheless, I would like to ask if measures can be taken to diminish the economic impact on these young employees over this period of implementation.
Third, while I laud the ban on Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS), I am concerned that there are many online vendors. And I would like to check with the Ministry what its strategy is to control this source of ENDS.
And for my final point of clarification, the Bill proposes to align the penalties for the possession of tobacco products and imitation tobacco products for the purposes of sale to that for import, distribution, sale or offer for sale. For a first offence, a fine of up to $10,000, or jail of up to six months or both; and for the second and subsequent offences, a fine of up to $20,000 or jail of up to 12 months or both.
May I suggest that we set minimum sums for the fines but remove the ceilings in order to introduce fines based on the quantity and value of the products seized? In addition, we should consider imposing fines on the logistics companies used by the importers to motivate them to inspect their cargo more carefully. An additional layer of checks would be useful. Thank you and I support the Bill.
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, smoking substantially harms human health − the health of the smoker, the health of those inhaling second-hand smoke. It has been causally linked to conditions like lung cancer, stroke, heart disease, emphysema and chronic bronchitis.
I support the raising of the legal smoking age to 21 as well as including online transactions under the Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) Act. In fact, I would urge the Government to make restrictions on tobacco marketing even more stringent by studying the case of Australia and emulating what Australia has done in imposing plain packaging if legally permissible. This idea has been implemented in Australia, New Zealand, France, the United Kingdom, Norway, Ireland and Hungary. There is promising evidence that plain packaging can change people's attitudes towards smoking and may help reduce the prevalence of smoking and increase attempts to quit. I hope the Government will explore this in the next round of amendments.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to spend the remainder of my speech on the issue of e-cigarettes or heat-not-burn tobacco products. Once this Bill is passed, we will be in a curious position. It will be illegal to possess e-cigarettes but it would not be illegal to possess and smoke regular cigarettes.
I am certainly not suggesting a ban on normal cigarettes. That would, I suspect, lead to consequences like what was seen in the USA in the 1920s when they attempted the prohibition of alcohol. I would like to explore if we can take a more nuanced position with regard to e-cigarettes by allowing confirmed smokers' access to them in a controlled way.
While there is some division of medical opinion about the extent to which e-cigarettes are less harmful than regular cigarettes, surely, there is no evidence and no one would argue, and surely, it is not the Government's argument that e-cigarettes are as harmful or more harmful than regular cigarettes.
Yet, after this Bill is passed, it would seem that the possession of e-cigarettes will be an offence, but possession of normal, duty-paid cigarettes will not be.
Earlier this year, I asked a Parliamentary Question (PQ) about the Government's stance on e-cigarettes. The reply was that the Government will not relax its stance because there is insufficient evidence that e-cigarettes are significantly less harmful than conventional cigarettes. The reply also stated that e-cigarettes contain similar levels of nicotine as normal cigarettes.
In my supplementary question, I alluded to a study by the British Royal College of Physicians (RCP) that concluded that there is evidence to suggest that e-cigarettes can reduce harm by enabling smokers to move from a more harmful to a not harmless but less harmful class of products.
I would like to repeat the observation that there is no evidence that e-cigarettes are more harmful than normal cigarettes. If the Government has any such evidence, it would be useful to share that evidence with the wider public, but to the best of my knowledge, no such evidence exists.
In response to my supplementary question, Senior Minister of State Amy Khor said – and I will quote this in full for a more well-informed debate: \"Our concern really is with the fact that allowing the use of such products could attract a much larger group of users, especially among the youths, and that could be the gateway to nicotine addiction and, eventually, smoking. We note the UK reports but despite reports from the UK, the experience of the US is quite different. The US CDC has reported that e-cigarette use among high school students between 2011 and 2015 increased by more than 10 times, from 1.5% to 16%. The US Surgeon-General also reported that the use of e-cigarettes is closely associated with cigarette smoking among youths and young adults.\"
There are two distinct points here. The first is that legalising e-cigarettes may induce non-smokers to take up smoking of e-cigarettes. The second is that legalising e-cigarettes may provide a gateway to smoking regular cigarettes.
I agree with preventing non-smokers from having access to e-cigarettes. We do not want to expand the pool of smokers of any kind of cigarette. We want to move in the opposite direction.
I would like to argue that both the points made by the Senior Minister of State in her reply to my PQ on 2 March 2017 are not arguments against allowing smokers who are trying to quit to have access to e-cigarettes, which was the argument I made in March.
Why not allow a controlled quantity of e-cigarettes to smokers who register with, say, the Health Promotion Board, for a smoking cessation programme and sign a declaration that they are smokers trying to quit?
Why should we allow this? The reason is simple. If e-cigarettes are truly less harmful, allowing non-smokers access to e-cigarettes will enable them to reduce the harm they cause to themselves and others. Over 10% of adult Singaporeans are smokers. The number of people this could benefit is not small − in fact, it is massive. If some of the claims being made about e-cigarettes are even remotely true, for example, the headline claim is that they are 95% safer − this could end up extending the lives of smokers and reducing their suffering. This could also reduce state spending on treating the medical conditions associated with smoking normal cigarettes, state spending in the form of hospital subsidies and so on.
It is not easy for smokers to quit. Surely, the humane thing to do is to allow the smokers − both those seeking to quit and reduce consumption − an avenue to use a less harmful product.
I agree with MOH's statement, however, that there is no harmless level of smoking. What I disagree with is what is the best, most humane path to take on the road towards that goal.
Next, let me come to the clinical evidence about e-cigarettes. In a report released in February 2016, which I also referred to earlier this year in this House, the British Royal College of Physicians (RCP) reviewed the clinical evidence and concluded that e-cigarettes are beneficial to public health and much safer than smoking. I quote from their press release: \"…the possibility of some harm from long-term e-cigarette use cannot be dismissed due to inhalation of the ingredients other than nicotine, but is likely to be very small, and substantially smaller than that arising from tobacco smoking. With appropriate product standards to minimise exposure to the other ingredients, it should be possible to reduce risks of physical health still further. Although it is not possible to estimate the long-term health risks associated with e-cigarettes precisely, the available data suggest that they are unlikely to exceed 5% of those associated with smoked tobacco products, and may well be substantially lower than this figure.\"
A report from Cochrane, a global non-profit group that reviews all the evidence on healthcare interventions and summarises the findings, came to similar conclusions. I will quote from the report from Cochrane: \"While our conclusions are limited because there are not many high quality studies available yet, overall the evidence suggests that one, e-cigarettes with nicotine can help people quit smoking; two, they do not seem to have any serious side effects in the short- to mid- term (up to two years); and three, in some cases, switching to them leads to changes in your blood and breath that are consistent with the changes you would see in people who give up smoking altogether.\"
We can say that the evidence on e-cigarettes is not 100% fool-proof. But is the evidence for any policy ever 100% fool-proof? Rarely so. The point is: where is the evidence that e-cigarettes are as harmful or more harmful than normal cigarettes? There is none. The reason is well-known among professionals in the field but not among the wider public so much.
The vast bulk of the harm caused by cigarettes is from tar and other harmful chemicals, not nicotine. Nicotine, in and of itself, is not of benign chemical but would seem to be no more harmful in a significant way than many other substances that are perfectly legal, such as alcohol and trans-fats, for example.
Again, I am not arguing that e-cigarettes be made legal but that we allow confirmed smokers access to e-cigarettes at least for a certain period of time as part of their efforts to quit smoking or reduce consumption. To quote from the RCP report: \"…among smokers, e-cigarette use is likely to lead to quit attempts that would not otherwise have happened, and in a proportion of these to successful cessation. In this way, e-cigarettes can act as a gateway from smoking.\"
There are a number of possible objections to this suggestion. Let me deal with them one by one.
The first objection is that there is no evidence that e-cigarettes help people to quit. But there is. The RCP study and the Cochrane study I cited state, and I will quote again from the RCP study: \"Among smokers, e-cigarette use is likely to lead to quit attempts that would not otherwise have happened…\"
Public Health England also released a report in August 2015 and I will quote from some of the academics who collaborated on this report. Firstly, from Prof Anne McNeill of King's College London, \"…the evidence consistently finds that e-cigarettes are another tool for stopping smoking and in my view, smokers should try vaping and vapers should stop smoking entirely.\" From Prof Linda Bauld of Cancer Research UK, an expert in cancer prevention: \"In fact, the overall evidence points to e-cigarettes actually helping people to give up smoking tobacco.\"
The second objection is that non-smokers could game the system and declare themselves to be smokers trying to quit just to get access to e-cigarettes. But this moral hazard argument applies to many other areas of policies. For example, employers can and frequently do over-declare the salaries of workers on employment passes and special passes and take kick-backs in cash from those workers. Willing buyer, willing seller. Very hard to enforce. But we do enforce it by advertising penalties, investigating complaints, prosecuting offenders, encouraging whistle-blowing and so on and so forth.
The possibility of moral hazard is not a reason not to enact a certain policy in and of itself. It would only be so if there are no reasonable methods to bring some degree of reasonable control over the moral hazards, downside risk, and if the downside risk outweighs the upside benefit. In this case, smokers who enrol into a programme to get access to e-cigarettes could be asked to sign a declaration that they are smokers, have friends or family members sign a declaration, too, and they could be given a detailed questionnaire and, perhaps, even physical tests, if possible, to ensure that they are, indeed, smokers. Penalties would be attached to false declarations.
The third objection would be that people could use this technique and procure e-cigarettes through such a programme and sell them into the black market for profit. However, each individual, under this suggestion, would only get enough for their own consumption, a controlled amount that could be reduced over time. The supply could be decreased over time to encourage them to quit. It would be risky, difficult and costly for a prospective black marketer or syndicate to use this method to obtain such small quantities of e-cigarettes when they can simply resort to the kind of smuggling to bring in quantities in bulk that is often seen in cases where non-duty paid cigarettes are seized by customs authorities.
The fourth objection would be that e-cigarettes are a gateway to smoking. My suggestion is not to legalise e-cigarettes for the general public − I cannot emphasise this point enough − but only for confirmed smokers who are trying to quit or reduce smoking. So, this objection is not applicable as it would give access to e-cigarettes only to those already smoking conventional cigarettes, people who have already gone through the gateway, as it were.
But in any case, in passing, I would note the point that the UK RCP study made, which is that they did not find any evidence that e-cigarettes were a gateway to smoking conventional cigarettes or that they normalise smoking.
In conclusion, I would urge MOH to review its position and allow some degree of access to e-cigarettes for confirmed smokers. If we can extend the lives of smokers and those exposed to second-hand smoke, if we can reduce their suffering and, at the same time, reduce medical costs borne by the state and individuals, we should explore every option to do so. We have a duty to explore every option to do so.
If the Ministry will not change its position, would the Ministry at least agree to review the evidence and re-consider its position if more evidence emerges that e-cigarettes really do reduce harm? What standard of evidence would satisfy MOH on this issue if that is the case?
Having said that, Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe the good in this Bill outweighs the bad and I do support the Bill with the reservations mentioned above.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, promoting a smoke-free environment in Singapore is an enduring challenge that is close to my heart. From championing for designated smoking points to rallying ambassadors to educate and spread awareness, it is my wish for residents to enjoy living in a clean and green environment. More importantly, good health is crucial for one to lead an active and fruitful lifestyle. I fully support the view that smoking and the presence of second-hand smoke are detrimental to one's well-being. It is also an immense burden on public health.
I am pleased to note that in recent years, the Government has been actively introducing new measures aimed at gradually making smoking a thing of the past. Having received disturbing feedback about students spotted smoking in their school uniforms, or even forming smoking cliques in school and National Service, I am supportive of the Bill to raise the legal smoking age to 21. I believe this will, to some extent, serve as an additional impediment to discourage teenagers and adolescents, at their most impressionable age, to pick up smoking. There are ample studies, including by the World Health Organization, to indicate that a huge percentage of smokers pick up the habit or get addicted before they turn 21. Cities across the US are raising the legal tobacco purchase age from 18 to 21. Experts have rationalised that this would reduce peer pressure to smoke.
Meanwhile, members of the Eliminate Cancer Initiative in Australia are lobbying to convince federal and state governments to raise the legal tobacco purchase age from 18 to 21, which they believe will not only save lives but up to A$3.1 billion a year from the government's coffers. So, we are catching up with what a number of countries had done.
I should add that this is only a small part of the solution. Determined young smokers will find ways to get around the law. They can ask their older friends or even strangers to help them to buy cigarettes. In spite of a smoking ban in many public places, that is not stopping smokers from lighting up, as long as no NEA officer is around to enforce the smoking ban. If enforcement is inadequate, the policy will become a white elephant.
Understandably, NEA has limited resources and is unable to station officers throughout Singapore at the right time, at the right place. I hope the agency would have to think of ways to overcome this. Perhaps more education, more campaigns by MOH and more enforcement by NEA.
May I suggest agencies work closely with the public to track down and penalise errant smokers. One way is to make it easier for the public to report illegal smoking. There should be a dedicated hotline for the public to call in. Or, better still, use mobile applications like OneService and incorporate a new function that allows people to quickly submit reports on the spot. Once multiple feedback is received about particular hot spot areas, then NEA can deploy more enforcement officers to book the culprits.
I have also had feedback from residents who would dutifully call NEA to report smoking on prohibited premises, such as HDB void decks. But they told me they did not receive any follow-up on their feedback. In fact, later on, they would see the culprit committing the offence again. So, they are disappointed. They told me their feedback was not taken seriously. We need to walk the talk.
Also important is equipping young Singaporeans with knowledge to make informed decisions for themselves. Our schools are doing a fairly good job imparting the relevant knowledge on hazards of smoking. There have been several anti-smoking campaigns as well. Perhaps, more must be done to highlight the financial and health burden of smoking on the individual, family, environment and the nation. We should home in on how smoking negatively impacts the eco-system, from littering to producing of carcinogenic smoke that can assassinate our young children.
Next, give assistance to addicted smokers, especially those under the age of 21. Just as we now have professionals in counselling and career guidance stationed in schools to meet changing demands of the youth population, are there counsellors in schools who are trained in smoking cessation?
In pursuing a smoke-free nation, we must not alienate the smokers. Many might have picked up the habit due to external influence and pressure or because they did not know what they were getting themselves into and now find it difficult to quit. Some grew up with smoker parents. Furthermore, there should also be more resources to educate family and friends on how they can help their loved ones. Smokers will require compelling reasons and supportive, accessible platforms to kick their addiction willingly. A well-informed and conscious decision to quit is more effective than any law and policy to keep the cigarettes away. In fact, I believe that no amount of law can keep both smokers and non-smokers happy.
Just two days ago, I had a block party. A young mother came to share with me her problem. She lives on the ground floor and, beside her block, there is a staircase that leads to the main road. And every morning, she says that there are lots of people standing at the staircase there, either waiting for friends or waiting for transport. And while waiting, they are smoking, puffing away. And she says that the smoke affects her child very badly because her child has asthma. She tried to talk to the smokers but the smokers stared blankly at her and looked into the sky and told her that, \"This is open air. You go and call NEA, lah.\"
I have received another feedback from a resident. She says that she lives with her father-in-law. She has two young children. Her father-in-law always smokes in the living room. She wanted to protect her children, brought her children upstairs, because they live in an executive apartment. But then she says that the smoke went up and she is asking for help. But her father-in-law smokes in his own home − not against any law.
So, I would like to take this opportunity to urge all smokers − be responsible smokers, be more considerate. Before you light up the next cigarette, look around whether there are any other young children, whether the smoke will affect other people, because, in both cases, I can feel that the mothers are so helpless. Sir, in Chinese, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Smoking damages the health of our young people. Hence, I fully support the amendment to increase the minimum smoking age to 21. Besides upping the smoking age, I hope the Government can also think of ways to bring down the smoking rate in Singapore.
For example, there are many places that ban smoking in Singapore. However, when there are no NEA officers around, smokers will still light up. The public should be able to report these smokers via OneService or a designated hotline.
We should also step up anti-smoking efforts at IHLs, including educating students on the harmful effects to themselves and to the country. If the school finds out that a student is addicted, it should not just punish him but also find experts to help him quit smoking.
I hope smokers can be more considerate towards others. Before they light up the next cigarette, they should look around to see whether his second-hand smoke will affect his family, friends and neighbours, and be a responsible smoker.
Mr Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah's quote about our young smokers requires some time for reflection. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.30 pm. Order.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.09 pm until 3.30 pm.
Sitting resumed at 3.30 pm
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Yee Chia Hsing (Chua Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. However, I would like to bring up the issue of second-hand cigarette smoke, especially those suffered by HDB residents who stay above chain smokers.
Typically, the resident who is smoking will stand near the window and the smoke then blows up to the unit above. Prolonged exposure to second-hand cigarette smoke can be very harmful. During the Second Reading of the Community Disputes Resolution Bill in March 2015, Members, such as Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Zainal Sapari, had brought up this issue of second-hand smoke in HDB homes. And usually, the solution is for the residents to go for mediation. One of the main shortcomings of mediation is that it will not happen if one of the parties is uncooperative.
Sir, our current regulations allow smokers to smoke within their own homes. While we respect the rights of residents to smoke in their own homes, the right to clean air for the neighbours must also be respected.
Mr Speaker, Sir, there had been instances where the rights of residents in their own homes have been curtailed in the spirit of public interest. For instance, I understand it is unlawful for anyone to exhibit indecent exposure even within their own homes if their neighbours complain.
Sir, I would like to suggest that MOH set some guidelines, together with NEA, on what constitutes unhealthy levels of second-hand smoke. To the extent where there is evidence to prove that second-hand smoke in the upstairs' neighbours' homes have reached unhealthy levels, then the affected residents can apply to Court for the residents downstairs to take measures to reduce the level of second-hand smoke. Such measures may include prohibiting the smoker from smoking near the window.
Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding my comments, I support this Bill.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar):Mr Speaker, Sir, I am heartened that the Ministry has taken this step to increase the minimum legal age (MLA) for smoking from 18 to 21. I think it would have been better, however, that we increase it as soon as possible, instead of incrementally over three years. While I understand the logic for this decision, which is to provide time for smokers to adjust, I feel that it is even more important and more urgent to prevent any youth from getting started on smoking in the first place. The risk of addiction by those under 21 necessitates fast and firm implementation to reduce any exposure.
Furthermore, increasing the MLA year by year over the next three years will cause confusion. It is not easy for the man-in-the-street to keep track of the schedule and, even worse, this arrangement may tempt certain youths who are exempted to try their first smoke earlier, since they enjoy the so-called unique chance to be among the last batch of those who get to smoke legally below the age of 21. Hence, I appeal to the Minister to seriously consider removing the gradual phasing and raise the legal age in one swift stroke.
Next, I am concerned by the wide availability of cigarettes. One can purchase them anywhere: 24-hour stores, supermarkets, mom-and-pop shops. It is really so easy to lay one's hands on a packet.
Despite their fairly high costs, we still have a pretty high number of smokers − roughly about 13% of Singaporean residents smoke. Given the tremendous harm smoking and second- and third-hand smoke do to our people, I think it is completely justifiable to reduce the number of stores which are licensed to sell cigarettes.
I would like to reiterate what I had said here during the COS debates about third-hand smoke. Third-hand smoke refers to the residual nicotine and chemicals which accumulate on surfaces and resist normal cleaning. This is what clings to the hair, your clothes and any surface in the vicinity long after the smoking activity itself has stopped. Research has found that third-hand smoke poses a potential health hazard to anyone exposed to them, especially our young children.
It is imperative that we drastically reduce the availability of these toxic products. And, I would like to ask the Ministry how many licensed retailers there are presently and if we can aim to reduce these outlets, in phases, if necessary, say, by about 5% every year.
With the proliferation of social media, the general public has become more image conscious, especially the youths. I would like to suggest more targeted public education by tapping on this trend. As smoking is so damaging to health, smokers generally end up looking much older than their years. So, by the time a smoker reaches the age of 40, he or she would probably look 10 years older. We can use this awful impact on smokers' visages to encourage smokers to quit.
In addition, I urge the Ministry to work more closely with our Primary and Secondary schools to educate our young on the harmful effects of smoking. More can certainly be done to inform our children about the evils of cigarettes. Would the Ministry share with us what are the current measures and educational campaigns in our schools and how effective they have been? In addition, we should look into ways we can educate older family members and friends of our young about not sharing their cigarettes with impressionable teenagers.
Finally, I want to say that I am very glad that the purchase, use and possession of e-cigarettes will be banned. I hope the Ministry would consider placing a heavier onus on logistics companies to prevent their services from being used to deliver these noxious products. This is in view of the fact that most of our e-cigarettes have been delivered via Internet orders. I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.
Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Speaker, if I had a choice, I would very much prefer that we be introducing a replacement to this Act called the Tobacco (Prohibition) Act.
Cigarette smoking is the second highest risk factor contributing to the burden of disease in Singapore. I have seen first-hand how the bane of cigarettes has led to many health problems. In fact, according to the US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, the number of deaths, directly or indirectly related to cigarette smoking causes one out of every five deaths in the US every year. That is more than 480,000 deaths in the US alone. This, compared to drug deaths, which only record a total of 64,000. That gives an idea of the scale.
I have seen it first-hand as well. My paternal grandmother was a heavy smoker. State Express 555 was her brand of choice. She was an opera singer by training and led an otherwise healthy life. But the puffs she took was to lead to a major heart attack and her untimely passing before she could undergo surgery. My dad was also a heavy smoker. He smoked packs, not a pack, but packs daily. Just before my grandmother passed away, he was trying to give up smoking. But perhaps the grief of losing his mother started him on cigarettes again.
I remember hiding his cigarettes in the garden, doing everything we could to convince him to give up smoking. He tried, but, like most smokers will tell you, it is hard to break the habit once it has started. Then, one day, while he was working in Shanghai, he broke out in cold sweat and had chest pains. He ignored it and slept over it. A few weeks later, he travelled to Macau. I was still in the army at that time. I remember receiving a call from my mother saying something had happened to him. He had said that it was appendicitis so we flew him home and he almost wanted to down some Po Chi Pills and just head home to rest. By sheer willpower, we managed to get him to hospital.
During the pre-surgery checks, the doctors noticed that there was something wrong with their ECG results. They changed to another machine and got the exact same results. He had had a major heart attack. What happened next was 24 hours of being in surgery for his appendicitis and, more importantly, for a major heart bypass. We are thankful that the doctors saved him. He is leading a healthy life with his grandchildren right now. But others do not have the same benefit like he had. I have also seen friends suffering from lung cancer, a slow lingering death, suffocating, painful, tragic.
These are just some examples, and there are many, of how something sometimes seen as cool or hip to have a cigarette in your hand, can lead to personal health risks and a major burden on our healthcare system. It is also a risk not borne just by the smoker himself, but also by those around them.
We have one of the strictest regimes in tobacco control in the world. We ban tobacco advertisements, we limit tar and nicotine, we ban shishas, we were the first in Asia to introduce graphic warning labels and we also have a strict Point of Sale Display (POSD) ban. Yet, while numbers have fallen, as pointed out by the Parliamentary Secretary, we are still amongst the highest in smoking rates amongst OECD countries.
I, therefore, welcome the efforts of the TCASA to further tighten regulations. The MLA has been raised to 21 in response to the statistics that show that the majority of smokers have their first experimentation before that age. Yet, I am confused as to why we should decide on a phased approach to this. Should we not have immediate implementation as the best way forward? Who does the phased approach benefit? If we believe that smoking is inherently unhealthy, should we not introduce the MLA with immediate effect? In fact, as I have mentioned earlier, if we believe that a burden on public health is a major one caused by smoking, should we not ban tobacco completely?
With regard to the use of ENDS, I applaud the Bill's response to these emerging products. However, I would like to ask how exactly will the Ministry police the import and use of these products, especially when travel is now very much a part of the Singaporean lifestyle. Many travel abroad and purchase items, such as vaporisers and nicotine substitutes, many of which are unregulated overseas and may contain harmful additives.
Just a few weeks ago, I was at Mount Alvernia Hospital and I saw a vape being used openly. When the user spotted me looking at him, he stuffed his vaporiser into his bag – something where you cannot really do with a lit cigarette – and boarded the shuttle bus. He is just one of those I have seen using vapes and e-cigarettes around Singapore. While we do not want to be inspecting every single online shopping parcel entering Singapore or to check every bag of a returning Singaporean at our ports or airports, how will we prevent such items from entering Singapore and being used?
The hon Member Leon Perera quoted a study in the UK on the low risk of vaporisers. The National Institute for Health in the US studied this particular report and came to the conclusion that only 181 self-selected respondents participated in this particular study and many other factors were not included in coming up with the results. So, I am highly doubtful that an initial study conducted with a very small group of respondents can be relied on for us to make exceptions to the rules that we are setting here today in this House.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe all of us in this House can agree that tobacco is harmful and a tremendous burden on families, for those suffering from the ill-effects of smoking, as well as a danger to the well-being of Singaporeans. I, therefore ask, why we should not be considering a complete ban on a product that we deem as having no benefit. Maybe not now, but perhaps at some point in the near future, such as the regulations that had been put in place by Bhutan since 2004.
I support any efforts to safeguard the health of Singaporeans and to discourage smoking. I, therefore, add my voice to call for the Ministry to consider all the possibilities to lead to an eventual ban on tobacco in Singapore. Perhaps, a rolling system of bans. But, that being said, with the current proposals in this TCASA, I support the amendments to the Bill.
Ms K Thanaletchimi (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion. Increasing the MLA for smoking from 18 to 21 is a move in the right direction and making it an offence to own tobacco substitutes, such as e-cigarettes, will surely prevent potential addiction to those substitutes.
Many youths today succumb to smoking for social acceptance by friends or peer pressure or falsely believing that it would reduce stress and for other reasons which they feel are justified. There is much anecdotal evidence, which we often heard, that the young male adults picked up smoking habits while serving National Service. Youths below 21 tend to be more vulnerable to fall into such undesirable and unhealthy habits as presently; at 18, they are able to purchase cigarettes freely. Research has shown that young adults would be less likely to start or be addicted to nicotine after the age of 21. However, there is apprehension whether by increasing the MLA, will the desired effects and intended outcome of having fewer young people being addicted to nicotine be realised in the local context.
Increasing the MLA will increase the social distance or age gap from social sources who can buy the cigarettes for them legally, but it may not deter teenagers who have been smoking daily. The main effect of doing so may simply be to drive 18 to 20 year-olds to find other means of obtaining tobacco, legally or illegally. For instance, purchase of cigarettes from commercial stores by this age-group will see a decrease, but this will mean that they will simply turn to their social sources, that is, soliciting help from someone who is 21 or above or being offered tobacco by relatives, friends or strangers.
One possible way to \"effectively\" pass a law to eliminate smoking or its onset in youth could be to introduce stiffer or greater penalties or punishments for the \"middlemen\" or social sources. There are existing laws in Singapore as deterrent that penalise underage teens who are caught smoking and teenagers or adult peddlers and commercial stores which sell them illegally. However, there is no safeguard from temptation; temptation aroused by social sources or acquaintances that continually provide easy access to tobacco or cigarettes as a form of temptation.
Introducing financial penalties that will progressively get harsher could be one way in which the state can not only ensure cigarettes are not sold to underage teens, but also ensure a reduction in access to social sources. Raising the age limit may potentially be a cosmetic deterrent that will not be effective enough if the availability of cigarettes from social settings in social events is not addressed.
Secondly, more needs to be done to change the image of smoking being \"cool\". Experimental smoking can stem from peer pressure, as a form of coping mechanism, but likely because these underage teens still think it is cool to smoke, and the Government needs to tackle mindset change in the way they view smokers.
Many youths look upon celebrities to be their role models and, therefore, it is important for such celebrities to be promoting abstinence from smoking. A series of public awareness campaigns and testimonies by famous sports talents and celebrities will be more impactful and a force to be reckoned with. It would also be worthy to consider helping individuals make their own decision to stay away from the smoking habit so that they feel empowered.
HPB pro-quitting campaign in 2014 was useful in the sense that it had moved away from the traditional campaign model of focusing on \"anti-smoking\" publicity as well as displays of debilitating and ill-effects of smoking on the individual and those around them by instead focusing on empowering individuals who had quit smoking. One should feel \"more cool\" not to smoke or quit smoking completely.
Perhaps, the Government can consider a campaign that is specifically targeted at youths below 21 years old and understand the psychology of preventing them from catching the habit of smoking at an early age. In addition to that, there could be more effective publicity put up in public spaces and crowded areas with the hotlines or alternative avenues, such as support groups or services, which current smokers can dial or visit if they ever want to consider quitting.
Our home is the first defence for our youths to stay away from cigarettes. Schools and social places where youths congregate should help in the education and sharing of testimony from fellow youths who had quit smoking and the start of an empowering journey of self-realisation for many other youths who have the intention to embrace smoking.
Importantly, public education campaigns will have to be met with sufficient funding so that the media components can achieve the necessary outreach to be effective. Perhaps, there can be more local research convened to study the ill-effects of smoking on the fertility of both genders and the effects on foetal development in pregnant women in the local context. Such facts can add to the realisation of not picking up the habit and, if individuals have done so, there is a possibility of such individuals dropping the habit due to better understanding of the perverse outcomes of smoking.
From the preventive health perspective, it is important that, as a society, as a caring community, we must put in all efforts to stop our young from being preyed upon by the smoking habit which will result in more chronic and critical illnesses, if left unchecked. Similar to the \"War on Diabetes\", HPB could consider a \"War on Smoking\" to stop this social ill and to mitigate against rising healthcare costs in the long run and reduce the environmental risks smoking poses. Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the concerns, I support the Bill.
Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on this amendment Bill. To me, this is a very important Bill − one which complements our current laws against drug consumption and abuse. In my speech, I will address two issues. One, that adolescent smoking leads to a propensity for drug consumption and abuse; and two, that more needs to be done to curb adolescent smoking.
Data from the national health surveillance surveys conducted in 2010 and 2013 have shown that the number of smokers below the age of 30 years old has dropped from 16% to about 13% from 2010 to 2013. However, according to HPB, the proportion of youth that picked up smoking and who then became hooked on smoking before the age of 21, remains high at about 80%. This is very worrying.
I support the amendments to this Bill that will raise the minimum age for the sale or purchase of cigarettes and other tobacco products from 18 to 21. I would go one step further to make it illegal for any person below the age of 21 years old to even smoke a cigarette or other tobacco products. Hence, I strongly support the amendments to section 11 that prohibit underage persons from using, possessing or buying tobacco products.
Here, I must disagree with the hon Member Mr Leon Perera who advocates allowing controlled use of e-cigarettes.
I am not convinced that addiction treatment which has used so-called safer substitutes has worked. Let us not forget when we introduced subutex as an alternative to opiates back in 2002. This use of subutex created a whole breed of addicts and a disturbing increase in the emergence of needle culture among these addicts, even more than that during the peak of the heroin addiction. The subutex used primarily came from licit or lawful sources and not from illicit sources, because it was meant to treat opiate addiction by General Practitioners.
A comprehensive study published in 2000 from the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health shows that \"cigarette smoking increases a person's risk of using illegal drugs\" and that, \"For all age groups combined, the 65.8% of participants who had ever smoked were: seven times more likely to have tried marijuana; seven times more likely to have tried cocaine; 14 times more likely to have tried crack; and 16 times more likely to have tried heroin. The results were even more startling when the statistical evidence was sub-divided by age groups. Associations between smoking and illegal drug use were significantly stronger for young people. For instance, people aged 12 to 15 who smoked cigarettes were 44 times more likely to use crack, compared with only a twofold risk in those 50 or older.\"
This study involved more than 17,000 respondents. Some may say this study is somewhat dated as it was published 17 years ago. However, another more recent research found that \"Adolescent regular smokers showed significantly higher odds of using marijuana, cocaine and heroin\", according to a longitudinal study spanning more than 35 years and which involved more than 1,200 individuals conducted by Strong, Juon and Ensminger, published in January 2016.
Research and academics aside, we cannot deny that curbing smoking among the young is not just about preventing them from picking up a bad habit. It is more than that. It is to help them to not pick up any form of substance addiction or abuse, as far as we can help it.
Mr Speaker, may I seek your permission and indulgence to do a little \"show-and-tell\" and share something with the House?
Mr Speaker: Sure. Please proceed.
Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar: This is a packet of loose tobacco leaves or \"Roll-Your-Own Tobacco\" that we can find in a lot of mom-and-pop shops here in Singapore. I think there are about five to 10 pieces of cigarette paper in here, and it is very cheap, costing only $2.60 a packet. Two persons I know have told me it is easy to buy them and that even students below the age of 18 have bought them, especially so when they are this cheap. Other than affordability, I have another concern regarding such \"Roll-Your-Own Tobacco\" products.
A few of our very enterprising students in our Institutes of Higher Learning are mixing such loose tobacco leaves with weed and selling them as drug-laced cigarettes to their schoolmates. When you see some of our students hanging outside our IHLs, since they can no longer smoke within the premises, and they are smoking, you might begin to wonder if it is just tobacco that they are smoking. While these numbers are small, it is still one too many. The possibility of having such numbers growing is high.
I would urge the Ministry to review the public sale of such small and affordable packets of loose tobacco leaves. If there is a need to sell such packets of loose tobacco leaves to cater to a select group of smokers who prefer rolling up their own tobaccos, there must be some parity to the price of rolled cigarettes sold in packets. If a packet of rolled cigarettes cost more than $10, so should these packets of loose tobacco leaves. Better still, ban them altogether. At this point, Mr Speaker, please allow me to say a few words in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Smoking is a habit that we must continue to eradicate, especially amongst our youths. Apart from causing health problems and wasting money, smoking is also a time-wasting habit. Just imagine, a stick of cigarette takes about five minutes to finish. If a person smokes 10 sticks each day, around one hour per day is burnt away − burning away the cigarette, burning away money, burning the lungs, as well as the health of that person. Is this habit not wasteful and highly unproductive?
Data on smoking from the National Health Surveillance Survey conducted by MOH in 2013 showed that the number of Malay smokers is more than twice the number of Chinese or Indian smokers. In addition, the proportion of our Malay youths under 30 years old who smoke is relatively higher, compared to Chinese or Indian youths. Malay youths who smoke daily are about 30%, whereas the national average is only 12.7%. This is a worrying trend.
Therefore, I strongly support the amendment Bill on advertisement and sale of cigarettes and smoking accessories, especially to our young people who are under 21 years old. Studies and research have shown that those who start smoking in their teens are more susceptible to drug abuse. If we wish to eradicate the problem of drug abuse, we must also stamp out the smoking habit. The amendment Bill that is being tabled is timely.
I would like to urge our youths to focus their time, effort, minds and energy on activities and projects that are useful and beneficial to others.
One example is the These-Abled group started by Ms Nur Aryssa Jumadin, Mr Mohd Haiqel Jamaludin and Mr Muhd Asyraf Mustaffa, who organised the IQRA Project where religious knowledge is taught using the Qur'an in Braille for the visually handicapped.
Another example is Mr Riduan Zalani. He is a well-known percussionist and a recipient of the Singapore Youth Award 2013 as well as the ASEAN Youth Award 2013. Mr Riduan used to smoke, but he successfully kicked the smoking habit. Currently, his time is spent on creating music and enhancing his artistic abilities, which have brought him to the regional and global stage. Mr Speaker, I will end my speech in English.
(In English): Mr Speaker, I would also like to propose for the Ministry to review current efforts in curbing smoking among the young and in public places. The Health Sciences Authority officers and employees may be authorised to take to task those who flout the laws governing the sale of cigarette or tobacco products, while NEA officers and employees may be authorised to take to task those who flout the laws governing littering, including errant smokers who litter their cigarette butts and ashes around.
However, at the same time, there has to be a more concerted effort to curb both smoking and littering in public places and should involve more public officers to extend this outreach effort and raise public awareness against smoking and littering, similar to how our Pioneer Generation ambassadors reach out to seniors. It would also be useful for MOH to appoint members of the public who are trained to advise and or even issue summons as to errant litterbugs and smokers who continue to litter and/or smoke in prohibited places.
More importantly, the role of these MOH-appointed representatives is to ramp up outreach and public education against smoking, specifically among our youths. Granting these appointed members of the public with some level of authority will also help alleviate the demand on our current HSA or NEA officers to carry out similar responsibilities. The remuneration framework for these MOH-appointed members of the public can be similar to that for our PGAs.
Mr Speaker, enacting new laws to curb smoking is just one of the various approaches we need to rein in on smoking among us. The public education and awareness efforts have to continue, as do efforts to reach out to our young to redirect their energies and focus on meaningful activities and projects and away from smoking and addiction. \"What hurts more than losing someone is knowing you are not fighting to keep them from harm.\" We need to continue to fight to keep our children safe from the harms of smoking and drugs.
Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the concerns and proposals I have shared above, I strongly support this amendment Bill.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, as I have shared several times in this House, I was a former smoker and I smoked for 17 years. I celebrated my quitting anniversary just last month, on 12 October. I have not smoked for more than four years now.
I started smoking when I was about 18 years old and it was during my National Service days between 18 and 21 years old that I smoked the most.
When we debated the previous Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) (Amendment) Bill, I shared with this House that \"research by WHO shows that people who don't pick up smoking before the age of 21 are unlikely to ever start smoking\". And I asked why the proposal to raise the minimum age, 21 years old, was not included in that Bill.
I am heartened to see that it is included in this Bill and that we will be increasing the minimum legal age of smoking from 18 to 21. This is a positive and huge step forward.
However, I would like to seek some clarifications about other aspects of this Bill.
Firstly, we are proposing to extend the prohibition on importation, distribution and sale of other tobacco products, such as e-cigarettes, to include possession, purchase and use of such tobacco products.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary clarify whether other than the preliminary research by HSA mentioned by Senior Minister of State Amy Khor in March 2017, any detailed research or study has been done on the potential of such e-cigarettes or other reduced-risk products as a means to assist smokers to quit smoking as an alternative step-down from traditional cigarettes? If so, whether details of such cigarettes and data can be shared in this House?
I can attest to the fact that quitting smoking is not easy. I can tell you that looking after twins at 3.00 am is difficult but quitting smoking is more difficult.
Quitting smoking is probably one of the most difficult things that I have accomplished in my life. The withdrawal symptoms are severe and the urge, the craving to have a puff, is extreme. Having gone through it, I know that people who want to quit need more help.
Through a Facebook comment, Mr Daniel Yap shared with me that research has shown that allowing alternative reduced-risk tobacco products has been proven to be an effective means for smokers to quit smoking.
I understand that the United Kingdom, New Zealand and most states in the United States have conducted studies and endorsed policy approaches which allow for alternative reduced-risk tobacco products as ways for smokers to gradually quit the habit of smoking.
I do understand the Ministry's position and fear regarding, one, the gateway effect of allowing such alternative reduced-risk tobacco products; and two, that such products contain similar nicotine levels as traditional cigarettes.
However, on the gateway effect fear, there are numerous studies done and publicly available results which show that this fear may be overstated.
As Mr Yap pointed out, the Minister's evidence in the March 2017 reply supporting the rise in the use of e-cigarettes amongst US youths ignores the other data trend across the same period which shows a significant decline in the use of cigarettes.
Most recently, a study by Prof Linda Bauld at the University of Stirling published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, showed that this fear of the gateway effect is overstated.
In fact, the study involving data gathered from 2015 to 2017 of youths in the UK, shows that e-cigarette experimentation by teenagers is simply not translating into regular use.
So, I do question the argument of youths picking up the habit of smoking via e-cigarettes. If we increase the minimum legal age and if HSA follows up with enforcement efforts, our youths under the age of 21 will still be protected from access to such e-cigarettes.
Hence, can the Parliamentary Secretary clarify the scientific basis of this fear of the gateway effect in our policy? And whether Singapore may be missing out on a chance to benefit from a policy which allows controlled use of alternative reduced-risk tobacco products to continue our fight against smoking?
Further, I understand that Phillip Morris has a research lab facility in Singapore researching and developing such e-cigarettes. Hence, access to primary data and resources for a study partner does not appear to be a challenge. Can the Parliamentary Secretary clarify whether there are plans to conduct in-depth studies on potential ways to use such e-cigarettes as a means to help smokers quit?
Secondly, on the similar nicotine levels, Mr Yap raised this point and I quote: \"Smokers are addicted to nicotine but killed by tar and other chemicals. Shouldn't the answer be about tar and carbon monoxide instead? Or at least one of the many other chemicals in cigarettes that could harm your body? And if lower levels of other chemicals are detected in heat-not-burn products, then the same level of nicotine would be a good thing because it would be easier for addicts to switch products because they get the same high while causing less harm to themselves and others. We practise 'reduced harm' policies for other vices. If heat-not-burn products and e-cigarettes reduce harm, we should allow them, and then the health authorities should commit to this and research\". Can the Parliamentary Secretary provide clarifications on the above points raised?
Sir, raising the minimum legal age is a positive step forward and it will prevent people from starting smoking. I do hope we will also devote more resources into helping people to quit smoking and look into every available means to help them in the quitting process.
Sir, notwithstanding the above clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Speaker, Sir, much work has been done over the years to curb the scourge of smoking and I appreciate the difficulties of this task as mentioned by other Members. On one hand, we want to discourage Singaporeans from picking up this harmful habit or kick the addiction. On the other hand, we also do not want to drive it underground. This is a setback that we have to guard against. I think that raising the minimum legal age of smoking from 18 to 21 over three years is reasonable. In fact, in my recent house visit, I did check with some residents. They have also pointed out that by having it staggered over three years is a good move.
In view of the existing measures to control smoking, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he can share with the House how effective the current measures have been in reducing the prevalence of smoking. These include, for example, the illustrations of the harmful effects of smoking on cigarette packaging, the increase in the number of non-smoking public areas and the implementation of non-display at points of sale.
In addition, I would suggest that the authorities consider public education through more intensive media advertisements, such as over the radio, television and the Internet. I understand from some of my residents that the recent advertisements on our free-to-air channels which promote upcoming programmes are overly repetitive. Perhaps the Government can consider tapping on these pockets of under-utilised television time slots to run various public education advertisements which share different aspects of the harmful impact of smoking and methods for quitting.
Next, I am curious how we can enforce the ban on unauthorised imports of tobacco products. How does the Government check on online purchases and curb online sales by overseas vendors or suppliers? All these foreign sellers are not within our jurisdiction, how can we take these overseas suppliers to task? Do we have any collaborative enforcement agreements with foreign governments?
Another issue which we need to address is that of smokers smoking at home at their windows and in lifts, affecting their non-smoking neighbours, as pointed out by hon Member Mr Yee Chia Hsing. The problem here is second-hand smoke, as mentioned, which drifts out and pollute the environment and, especially the third-hand smoke, which are the harmful chemicals which accumulate on surfaces in the vicinity of smokers. Is it possible to require smokers to close their windows or require buildings to install smoking cubicles or cabins to solve this perennial problem?
Lastly, I would like to suggest that we look at having empowered volunteers, especially the youth volunteers, to help carry out public education and enforcement, similar to the community volunteers who tackle litterbugs. I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Parliamentary Secretary Amrin.
Mr Amrin Amin: Mr Speaker, I thank Members for speaking up in support of the Bill. I will now address Members' queries on the Bill.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Ms Joan Pereira asked about the effectiveness of our current measures. MOH tobacco control measures are based on best practices recommended by the World Health Organization and are designed to work at multiple levels. No single measure operates on its own. Collectively, the measures work together to reduce smoking prevalence in the longer term. As tobacco use is an addiction, we also do not expect to see significant drops in prevalence immediately after new measures are introduced.
Our smoking rates have fallen from 18% in 1992 but they have remained at about 12%-14% for the last decade. Progress has been made but we need to do more.
Dr Chia Shi Lu, Mr Alex Yam and Ms Joan Pereira suggested to raise the MLA to 21 with immediate effect. I understand their concerns. However, we are mindful of the impact on current smokers between the ages of 18 and 21. Smoking is an addiction and, even as we encourage smokers to stop smoking, they need some time. The phased implementation provides a realistic timeframe.
Raising the MLA alone will not eliminate youth smoking. We will continue to send a strong message to young people to stay away from cigarettes.
Educational efforts and support for youth smokers to quit must complement legislative measures. I agree with what Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar has shared. We must encourage our youths to devote their time, effort, mind and energy to useful and meaningful activities and stay away from tobacco products. This is, indeed, the holistic approach which we have adopted.
HPB's smoking cessation programmes for youths adopt a strengths-based approach to build confidence for behaviour change. In response to Er Dr Lee Bee Wah's question, there are Student Health Advisors trained in smoking cessation who are stationed full-time in 50 schools and Institutes of Higher Learning. And Er Dr Lee Bee Wah will be happy to know that there are also Student Health Advisors stationed in schools in Yishun. Since 2015, HPB's smoking cessation programmes have reached out to more than 4,400 youths.
We also work closely with MOE to incorporate anti-tobacco messages into the curriculum. HPB conducts additional educational programmes in schools and, in 2016, we reached out to close to 50,000 youths. Youths are also taught skills to refuse cigarette offers in social settings.
In response to Mr Louis Ng, we have looked at Prof Linda Bauld's study in detail. It was actually a cross-sectional study that looked at the situation at one point in time. This study design is not suitable for studying the gateway effect. There have been studies in the US, the UK and Canada, which followed up with more than 40,000 youths over time and found that e-cigarette users had a greater risk of becoming cigarette smokers. All these studies have found evidence to support the gateway effect.
On Mr Leon Perera's question regarding standardised packaging, we are still studying standardised packaging. Our final decision on whether to proceed with the measure will be made only after the upcoming public consultation. The decision on whether to proceed on standardised packaging would be based on several considerations, including public health, intellectual property and international law perspectives. We will ensure that any measure, if introduced, is consistent with our domestic law and international obligations.
Mr Leon Perera has asked whether e-cigarettes are as harmful or more harmful than conventional cigarettes. That is the wrong question to ask. The correct question should be whether e-cigarettes are harmful to health, and the answer is yes. E-cigarettes expose users to chemicals and toxins that cause adverse health effects.
Mr Louis Ng and Mr Leon Perera asked about MOH's stance on tobacco harm reduction. We opt for high and precautionary levels of public health protection. While there are studies to claim that there is no gateway effect, there are as many, more authoritative, studies which point to a gateway effect.
In response to Mr Leon Perera and Mr Louis Ng's comment on other countries allowing ENDS, there is actually no consensus among public health authorities. While the UK has advocated for e-cigarettes to have a central role in smoking cessation, the US is pushing for tighter regulation of ENDS and, in other countries, sale of ENDS remains banned.
We have looked at the claim that ENDS are \"95% safer than cigarettes\" made in a 2015 report by Public Health England and repeated by the Royal College of Physicians. A number of studies used by the report were of limited quality. In fact, an editorial in the Lancet, a leading medical journal, has criticised the report for using weak evidence.
Mr Leon Perera cited the Cochrane Review to support the claim that e-cigarettes can help smokers to quit. We have studied the report, I have read the report, but what he did not emphasise was the report found that the overall quality of evidence that e-cigarettes can help smokers to quit is low. The report mentioned about the small number of trials, low-event rates and wide confidence intervals. The study concluded that the long-term safety of the use of ENDS was unknown. I am sure Mr Leon Perera does not want to put our smokers who are trying very hard to quit at risk.
Of note also is that e-cigarettes are still not available to the UK National Health Service for Smoking Cessation. No electronic cigarette has been licensed by the UK Medicine and Health Regulatory Agency. Why? The World Health Organization does not recognise e-cigarettes as a legitimate cessation aid. Why? It is because there is no conclusive scientific evidence proving the product's safety and efficacy. Australia, too, does not recommend ENDS until there is more evidence on safety. And Australia also does not recommend ENDS until there is more evidence on its effectiveness in smoking cessation.
Some tobacco companies are pivoting from smoke-producing cigarettes to smoke-free but nicotine-containing products, such as e-cigarettes and heat-not-burn tobacco products. They hire researchers and lobbyists to help them with this pivot. The form of nicotine delivery may differ. Smokeless, electronic, but make no mistake, the revenue-generating base product is still nicotine. ENDS are marketed as \"healthier\" alternatives and youths are targeted. We must not let our guard down and we must protect our young.
Our goal is not just a smoke-free future, but a nicotine-free one. So-called lesser-harm tobacco products still expose the user to toxic and addictive ways that are harmful to health. In response to Mr Leon Perera, we are open to evidence proving that ENDS are safe and effective for smoking cessation. ENDS manufacturers, as I have mentioned earlier, can submit evidence for us to evaluate their products for registration as smoking cessation therapy under the Health Products Act. But, so far, none has done so.
A number of Members have raised concerns on the online sales and smuggling for ENDS. MOH is similarly concerned. HSA enlists the help of e-commerce sites to shut down listings for prohibited products, such as ENDS and their refill liquids and cartridges. ICA and Singapore Post also assist to conduct regular checks for prohibited products.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked if we can take action if sellers are not within our jurisdiction. This is a challenge because we have limited powers to act against parties located outside Singapore. But we are doing what we can. Persons who purchase prohibited products from overseas will be liable for an offence even if the seller is based outside Singapore. We also take action against Singapore-based sellers. Since 2012, HSA has prosecuted 14 sellers of e-cigarettes and other types of vaporisers.
Dr Chia Shi-Lu highlighted the possible impact of the MLA increase on retailers, in particular, how employees who are below 21 will not be allowed to handle tobacco sales. We have met with retailers and have heard their concerns. I would like to clarify that businesses can still continue to hire persons below 21 but they just cannot participate in selling tobacco. Current employees who are above 18 will not be affected as the MLA increase would be phased in. We have also conducted a survey among tobacco retailers. We have found that 5% of retailers currently hire employees who are aged 18 to 21 to sell tobacco products. Thus, a small number of businesses will face challenges after the MLA is implemented. We seek the support of the industry in supporting the MLA policy. This is to ensure we achieve our wider public health objectives. We will continue to work with tobacco retailers to ensure the smooth implementation of the MLA increase.
Dr Chia Shi-Lu and Ms Joan Pereira suggested that we place greater onus on logistics companies to curb the importation of prohibited products. We have been reaching out to major logistics companies, as well as the Singapore Aircargo Agents Association, to educate and remind the industry of the ban on emerging and imitation tobacco products.
Dr Chia Shi-Lu also asked if we can remove the ceilings for fines for sale, distribution and import of ENDS and to base the penalties on the quantity and value of the products seized. Fines that are meted out for such offences will generally take into account the volume and potential profit that could be made. We note Dr Chia's suggestion and will consider it when we next review the penalty framework of the Act.
Public education remains a key pillar of our tobacco control programme and it is vital to make the public aware of the harms of smoking, including prohibited products, such as ENDS.
A number of Members have asked MOH to enhance our public education. Through portals like the Health Hub as well as the Healthy Lifestyle Festival Singapore, we raise awareness among smokers on how their habit has an impact on their children and motivate them to stay smoke-free. We will continue to explore ways to improve and are reviewing our public education and outreach strategy.
Ms Joan Pereira and Ms K Thanaletchimi highlighted the importance of stemming social supply for underage smokers. Supplying tobacco to underage persons is already an offence under the Act. You can be fined up to $1,000 for giving tobacco products to an underage person, and up to $5,000 for buying for them. We will look into ways to raise greater public awareness of this and to educate older family members and friends on this.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh suggested enlisting the help of volunteers to carry out public education and enforcement. Currently, we do not deploy volunteers for enforcement. However, we have volunteers for public education efforts, such as our \"I Quit\" Ambassadors. But we will study the suggestion.
Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar has expressed concern that the number of Malay smokers remains high. We are similarly concerned. HPB holds over 200 roadshows in the community island-wide every year. Specific to the Malay community, HPB is partnering with Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS) and mosques to help Malay/Muslim smokers to quit. The response to the \"I Quit\" Ramadan roadshows, held since 2012, has been encouraging. This year, we have over 5,700 sign-ups. We are studying ways to expand outreach and public education efforts to all segments of the population all year round.
I thank Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar for highlighting a potential problem of roll-your-own tobacco cigarettes among youths. Although Ang Hoon and other loose tobacco leaf products make up less than 2% of all tobacco imported in 2016, MOH will continue to monitor their use among youths and act accordingly. The MLA also applies to these products. MHA monitors the trend of the sale and abuse of controlled drugs, including those mixed with tobacco, and will take the necessary enforcement action against traffickers and abusers.
In response to Ms Joan Pereira's question on reducing the number of tobacco licences, we regulate where tobacco should not be sold. These places include healthcare institutions, educational institutions and places which may disproportionately attract the young, such as gaming arcades. The number of tobacco retailers has declined from 5,555 in 2012 to 4,663 as at 30 September 2017. This is an average decrease of about 3% per year. We encourage retailers to diversify their businesses to reduce their dependence on profits from sale of tobacco products.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Yee Chia Hsing have spoken up strongly against second-hand smoke and asked if there is more that we can do to minimise their effects in housing estates. I empathise with their residents' frustrations. MOH works with MEWR to minimise exposure to second-hand smoke in the community. MOH's measures are aimed at reducing the number of smokers over time, while smoking prohibitions in public areas will protect non-smokers from the immediate harm of second-hand smoke. We urge smokers to be socially responsible and considerate when smoking in private spaces so that their neighbours will not be affected. Residents who are affected should approach their neighbours to resolve the matter amicably in the spirit of neighbourliness. Residents can also approach the Community Mediation Centre for assistance.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah made some suggestions to enhance the enforcement of the smoking ban in public spaces. I agree that we should work more closely with members of the public to tackle errant smokers. I will refer her suggestions to my MEWR colleagues for their consideration.
Ultimately, by discouraging those below the age of 21 from smoking, this Bill helps to reduce the number of adult smokers in the population in the long run and will help reduce second-hand smoke.
Mr Alex Yam asked if we should ban tobacco completely since it is a major public health scourge. Cigarettes are entrenched in Singapore and globally. Our tobacco control strategy aims to reduce the prevalence of tobacco use significantly over time and, in the longer term, we do not rule out banning tobacco completely when tobacco use is at very low levels.
Mr Speaker, Sir, cigarette use had become so entrenched that millions world-wide are addicted and exposed to the harm. We should not make the same mistake with ENDS. We do not need nor want another addictive and harmful product to take root here in Singapore. This is why we are strengthening our regulatory measures against ENDS.
With the increase in MLA, we aim to reduce opportunities for youths to be tempted to take up smoking. Our aim is to ultimately denormalise tobacco use and protect our young from being lured into a lifetime of nicotine addiction.
I believe I have responded to the main concerns of Members. We are grateful for the support of the public received during consultations and the support from this House.
Mr Alex Yam:\tThank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his response and I am happy to hear that the Government will not rule out consideration for a ban. But, perhaps, if we could take the lead in this and set the standard for the international community and, perhaps, proceed on a ban at a far earlier stage. Opium use was quite entrenched in the early days in Singapore. We bit the bullet and we introduced —
Mr Speaker:\tPlease keep it short.
Mr Alex Yam: — a ban and we no longer have the problem.
Back to the point on the staggered system of introducing the increase in the age limit, can I ask the Parliamentary Secretary what exactly are the numbers that would be affected if we introduce an immediate ban? I understand that it is hard to break the habit. But if it is a relatively small number between the ages of 18 and 21, why not introduce it now?
Mr Amrin Amin: We estimate the numbers to be around 4,000 per birth cohort. But that is something that we need to take into account. It is not just a numbers issue. It is also to allow them some time to phase in because, as I have mentioned, smoking is an addiction. So, we are phasing in to allow them time to adjust.
Mr Leon Perera: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his details. I have just three clarification points.
Firstly, I cited three studies − Royal College of Physicians, the Cochrane Report and Public Health, UK. Is it the Ministry's view that all three studies seem to provide some initial grounds, even though they are not foolproof grounds, but some initial grounds that e-cigarettes, a controlled supply can be given to smokers? Is it the view of the Ministry that all three are methodologically flawed? And, if so, in what manner is that the case?
Secondly, the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that the relevant question is not to ask whether e-cigarettes are harmless. Nevertheless, I would argue that that is a relevant question because, if there is evidence that e-cigarettes have reduced harm, then we should seriously consider that can be an option for smoking cessation. And, in this context, the Parliamentary Secretary cited an article in the Lancet. The author of the Cochrane Report, Jamie Hartmann-Boyce, actually talked about some of the studies that his committee reviewed that purport to show that e-cigarettes prevent people from quitting, such as the one published in the Lancet − respiratory medicine which the Parliamentary Secretary cited from. And he mentioned that some of these studies are flawed because they did not follow the research gold standard of randomised control trials. He said that, I quote, \"The studies have found that —
Mr Speaker: Keep it short, please.
Mr Leon Perera: Yes, just 20 seconds. \"The studies...that find that e-cigarettes stop people from quitting are not randomised controlled trials. Instead, they surveyed smokers and asked if they are using e-cigarettes. Then, some months later, they asked the same people if they are still smoking.\" So, I would like to ask for that.
The last point is that I am heartened to hear that if new clinical evidence presents itself, the Ministry may review its position. What would constitute definitive proof in that sense? Would it be a randomised controlled trial?
Mr Amrin Amin: With regard to the three studies, I have explained in my response the counter studies or criticisms of the studies that were made and this is the Cochrane Review, as well as the Royal Physicians Report, that were cited. So, that has been dealt with. But, in any case, the door is still open for them to submit their evidence to be considered under our Health Products Act. And if they qualify as a smoking cessation therapy, it will be exempted from the Tobacco Act.
The examples cited in various countries from the UK, Canada, have shown that the prevalence, once you introduce e-cigarettes to the community, there is an increase in the number of e-cigarette users, especially among young people.
[(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 Amrin Amin]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Travel Agents (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Sim Ann) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Trade and Industry, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The number of licensed travel agents in Singapore has grown from approximately 800 in 2007, to 1,200 in 2017. Our travel agents play an important role in the tourism ecosystem as they deliver memorable experiences to both visitors and locals. At the same time, the travel agent industry provides good jobs for Singaporeans.
Since the Travel Agents Act came into force in 1976, MTI and STB had reviewed and amended the Travel Agents Act in 1993 and the Travel Agents Regulations in 2007 to ensure that the regulatory regime remains relevant. Compared to 10 years ago, the travel industry has evolved significantly, in particular, with the intensifying growth of e-commerce. Consumers can now browse and compare a wider range of travel products online on various platforms. There is also greater demand for experiential travel that is immersive and authentic while personalised for consumers' needs and preferences.
To keep up with these changes, many travel agents are seeking additional channels to reach out to customers. Some of them have evolved from the traditional brick-and-mortar model to new operating models, or developed new and niche areas of business. It is thus timely for us to amend the travel agent legislation to take into account these emerging business models and ensure that consumers continue to be adequately protected.
The majority of Singapore's travel agents provide quality travel experiences and contribute to a positive image of the industry. Unfortunately, there is a small minority that conducts their businesses irresponsibly. In this regard, STB regulates the travel agent industry through a licensing framework implemented via the Travel Agents Act and Regulations. The framework allows STB to take action against fly-by-night travel agents and provides safeguards against malpractices that pose risks to travellers. At the same time, the Government works with the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) and industry associations to safeguard consumer interests.
In the course of our review, MTI and STB have sought feedback from more than 180 industry stakeholders, including a diverse group of travel agents, industry associations, tourist guides and CASE. With their valuable input, we had put forth a draft Bill for public consultation earlier this year. The respondents were generally supportive and provided constructive input on how to facilitate more effective implementation on the ground. MTI and STB have carefully considered all feedback received and incorporated them where relevant.
Mr Speaker, the Bill before us is the outcome of our review and consultation. We have sought to balance consumer and business interests when finalising these amendments, which I will now outline.
One key objective of this legislative review is to better protect consumers against potential malpractice by travel agents. Sudden closures that affect a larger number of consumers also remain a concern, even though these cases are infrequent. To address these issues, we have proposed the following amendments.
First, we have tightened the criteria that travel agents must fulfil in order to be granted a licence. Clause 6 highlights that in making licensing decisions, STB will consider additional factors, including whether the individuals involved with the travel agency, such as company directors, are suitable to hold the licence. For instance, individuals who had previously contravened travel agent legislation might be denied licences.
Second, the amendments seek to equip STB with sufficient investigation and enforcement powers, so as to enable them to take action against errant operators more promptly and effectively. Clause 10 enhances STB's investigation and enforcement powers, for example, by empowering STB to take photographs, audio and video recordings that may facilitate investigations and that can serve as evidence for any contraventions of the travel agent legislation.
Third, we have reduced the \"show cause period\" for a travel agent facing potential suspension and revocation, from 21 to 14 days. The show cause period is the period after STB issues the initial notice of suspension or revocation, during which the travel agent will have the opportunity to explain why they should be allowed to keep their licences. If the travel agent is unsuccessful in making a case for retaining its licence, STB will issue the order of suspension/revocation after the show cause period. As travel agents are still able to conduct business and collect payments from customers during the show cause period, we have shortened the time required for STB to complete the licence suspension or revocation process, thus reducing the risk consumers are exposed to. The new 14-day period has been pegged to the provisions in other similar legislation, to ensure that licensees have a reasonable amount of time to present their case.
Fourth, we have adjusted the penalty amounts for contraventions of travel agent legislation, following their last update in 1993. The amounts need to be sufficiently high to deter potential malpractice. Clause 5 raises the penalty ceiling for the offence of unlicensed travel agent activities from $10,000 to $25,000. The maximum fine for other offences has also been doubled. For compoundable offences, clause 18 provides for a maximum composition amount of half the maximum fine prescribed or $5,000, whichever is lower. This is an increase from the current maximum composition sum of $1,000.
Even as we raise the penalty ceilings in some cases, we are also conscious that penalties imposed should be proportionate to the severity of the contravention. Clause 7 introduces administrative financial penalties set at a maximum of $2,000 for minor contraventions. Certain minor and technical contraventions will consequently be decriminalised. STB will thus be able to take swifter and proportionate enforcement action against travel agents in such cases, instead of going through a lengthy prosecution process.
Another key plank of our efforts to enhance consumer protection measures is based on the principle of \"caveat emptor\", or \"let the buyer beware\". While we have made the relevant changes to empower STB to do more to ensure that travel agents are professional and responsible, it is, ultimately, the consumers who make the final purchasing decisions. In this light, we have also taken steps to ensure that travel agents will provide the information necessary for consumers to make informed purchasing decisions, with a greater awareness of the potential risks.
Clause 7 allows STB to require travel agents to disclose to all customers that they have been issued a notice of suspension or revocation. If required by STB, travel agents have to make this disclosure during the show cause or appeal periods. This is important as travel agents are still able to collect payments from customers during these periods, when there is a chance that they may not be able to fulfil these obligations. With this disclosure by travel agents, customers can take this information into account when deciding whether to continue transacting with the travel agent facing suspension or revocation. STB may also publish the notice or order of suspension or revocation on its website, to further raise awareness of travel agents that are facing suspension or revocation.
Taken together, the measures I have outlined above are a comprehensive suite of consumer protection measures that facilitates STB's role as the regulator, while also empowering consumers to make more informed purchasing decisions. At the same time, we have also taken care to ensure that the regulatory regime remains fair to licensees, who will continue to have the right to show cause and not be subjected to overly punitive measures.
Mr Speaker, I will now elaborate on the second category of amendments which seeks to reduce regulatory cost where possible, so as to ensure that the business environment remains conducive for travel agents to innovate and thrive. We want our travel agents to remain relevant and enhance their capabilities in meeting the rising demand for experiential and customised travel.
To cater to travel agents with different areas of business, clause 6 provides for the creation of different classes of licences with different minimum financial requirements. For instance, we intend to introduce a \"niche licence\" tier in the Travel Agents Regulations targeted at travel agents who sell or arrange local tours with passenger-carrying conveyance, but without accommodation.
This refers to tours that bring travellers around Singapore with dedicated transport provided to ferry the tour group around, including coach tours or bum boat tours. Niche licensees will be subjected to lower minimum financial requirements compared to general licensees. At the moment, we intend to require niche licensees to meet a minimum requirement of $50,000 in paid-up capital and net worth, compared to $100,000 for general licensees. While we have reduced the regulatory costs, we will still need to retain regulatory oversight over such niche licensees so as to protect consumers from possible errant operators who may carry out malpractices, such as forced shopping expeditions, or commonly known in the industry as \"zero-fare tours\".
We are also making a related amendment to the Travel Agents Regulations to calibrate the licensing regime according to different levels of risk posed to consumers. We will exempt some entities from needing travel agent licences, such as entities who sell or arrange tours within Singapore without providing passenger-carrying conveyance. These tours tend to be more experiential as the participants operate the conveyance themselves, including bicycle tours, segway tours and kayaking tours. Walking tours will also fall under this category. Such entities pose much lower risk to consumers as prepayment is typically low or not required. We hope that this exemption will encourage more entities to offer consumers innovative and experiential tours and, in turn add to the vibrancy of our tourism landscape. As tour models constantly evolve, we will review the exemption from time to time to ensure that it remains relevant and balances innovation and consumer protection.
Collectively, these measures benefit entities who pose lower consumer risk, enabling them to obtain travel agent licences more easily and, in some cases, even exempting the need for a licence. By doing so, we hope to encourage more players to provide differentiated offerings to both tourists and locals, which will also help them to innovate, grow and maintain relevance in response to changing consumer preferences. With greater innovation in our tourism options, there could also be more appealing and flexible jobs available to Singaporeans who wish to join the tourism sector.
Mr Speaker, we have taken a calibrated approach in finalising the Bill, enhancing consumer safeguards while also remaining pro-business and pro-innovation. With these legislative amendments, we hope that the travel agent industry will be better positioned to grow and thrive in the fast-changing tourism landscape. MTI and STB will work towards implementing these changes in phases from 2018.
Effective legislation is just one component of the Government's continual efforts to strengthen the regulatory framework. The other key strategy is to step up our consumer education efforts. We will continue to work with all stakeholders, including the travel agent associations and CASE, to raise awareness of common malpractices and the benefits of purchasing travel insurance. We hope that these efforts will help consumers make more informed purchasing decisions. Mr Speaker, please allow me to say a few words in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, Parliamentary colleagues, there are currently close to 1,200 travel agents in Singapore. The majority of Singapore's travel agents are law-abiding and ethical operators. However, there are occasionally a few \"black sheep\" who tarnish the reputation of the industry. In such cases, the Government has to take action in accordance with the law to protect consumers' interest and safeguard the reputation of Singapore's tourism industry.
In order to better protect our consumers, the amendment Bill proposes the following key measures.
First, to tighten the criteria that travel agents must fulfil in order to be granted a licence.
Second, to enhance STB's investigation powers when dealing with errant travel agents.
Third, to reduce the \"show cause period\" for travel agents facing licence suspension or revocation from 21 days to 14 days and allow STB the option to require such travel agents to disclose this fact to their customers during this period. This will lower the chances of customers making misinformed decisions.
Fourth, to adjust the penalty framework to introduce administrative financial penalties for more minor contraventions, allowing STB to take more timely action against such contraventions, while raising the maximum fines to curb more serious contraventions.
In addition, after taking into consideration recent developments in the tourism industry, the amendment Bill will reduce regulatory requirements on lower-risk travel operators to encourage them to roll out more innovative and attractive travel products. This can also help to create more attractive and flexible job opportunities for Singaporeans who wish to join the tourism industry.
Besides amending the Travel Agents Act and Regulations, STB will continue to work with industry players to strengthen consumer education, encourage consumers to buy travel insurance and raise awareness of the updated provisions. I hope that all Members will support these measures.
(In English): Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to declare my interest in speaking on this Bill as President of the Consumers' Association of Singapore (CASE).
Over the past five years, CASE has received 792 complaints against the closure of travel agencies. Most of these complaints relate to loss of deposits paid by consumers due to the closure of travel agencies. And based on our records, there were a total of 17 travel agencies which ceased operations over the last five years.
Even established brand names, like Five Star Travels, Asia Euro Travel, Ho Wah, S-Travel and MISA Travel, who have been in the travel business for many years, were unable to survive in the tough competitive business environment and, eventually, they ceased operations. When they did cease operations, consumers who had made travel bookings and payment in advance were left in the lurch. There is nothing they can do when businesses fail; even lodging claims will not get back their payment because consumers are unsecured creditors and rank last.
As not all affected consumers lodge their complaints with CASE, these reported figures of 792 complaints may represent only a fraction of the total number of consumers affected by the closure of the travel agencies. Many consumers, after finding out that the travel agency had ceased operations, do not lodge complaints to CASE because they know that they cannot recover their losses.
CASE has been in constant dialogue with STB on the issue of closure of the travel agencies for the past few years. Allow me to put on record my appreciation to STB officers for meeting us regularly and discussing consumer protection with myself and my CASE officers.
In the consultation paper put up by STB in June 2017, it was stated that STB will enhance consumer protection by amending the regulations governing the Travel Agents Act. One such amendment to the regulations will prohibit travel agents from publishing \"inaccurate or erroneous\" advertisements. I welcome such an amendment as advertisements which contain inaccurate or erroneous details will be misleading to consumers. Thus, if a travel agent advertises its tours as \"zero costs\" and then recover its costs from consumers by imposing compulsory minimum spending or compulsory tips, that is clearly inaccurate and misleading.
I also welcome clause 10 of the Bill which imposes a requirement for travel agents facing suspension or revocation of their licences to disclose this fact to new and existing customers. This will allow consumers to be aware of the trading status of the travel agent. Hence, it is for consumers to make an informed decision whether to continue dealing with the same travel agent facing the restriction.
For this particular clause 10, may I ask the Senior Minister of State to clarify: for consumers who had already bought travel packages from a travel agent facing suspension or revocation of their licences, can these consumers be allowed the option of terminating their contract without compensation or losses?
For CASE, our main concern is about consumer protection whenever a travel agency ceases operations. Each time we read about a travel agency ceasing operations or had its licence revoked by STB, there will be losses suffered by consumers. There will also be loss of consumer confidence in travel agencies.
It has been reported in the media that the amount of sales generated by travel fairs every year has been about between $80 million and $100 million. And these figures exclude the sales recorded by some travel agencies which conduct pre-travel fair sales. And for each sale of a travel package, consumers typically pay deposits of between 20% and 50% of the package costs. Some consumers even pay for the entire package in full so as to obtain freebies from their credit card companies.
In response to our concerns about closure of travel agents, STB had implemented a policy that travel agencies must inform consumers about the importance and the need to purchase travel insurance. Unfortunately, not every consumer buys travel insurance as the insurance costs add up to the overall costs paid for by the consumers. So, I would ask the Government to consider requiring travel agencies to provide a performance bond or insurance to protect against business failure. It is part and parcel of doing business, just like lawyers and doctors are required to provide insurance against claims by their clients. The amount of insurance or performance bond may be set at 20% to 30% of the annual turnover of each travel agent so that their funds are not tied up excessively. And this, hopefully, will, at least, provide some form of protection for travellers who, for some reason or other, do not buy travel insurance.
I also urge STB to constantly check on the financials of the travel agencies. This will allow STB to better anticipate whether a travel agency may be facing financial difficulties and, thereafter, STB can step in to protect the deposits paid by consumers as early as possible.
I would also like to highlight another area, which is the prevalence of online travel portals like Agoda Travel, Hotels.com, Booking.com and so on. I understand that many of these companies are not registered in Singapore. In such a case, may I ask who regulates these online travel portals? In the event that these online travel agencies cease operations, how do consumers recover their payment made to such online travel companies? Perhaps, the Government can consider introducing regulations to regulate online travel agents as well. The Government should also consider an outreach programme to remind consumers who have bought their air tickets or hotels via such travel portal on the importance of purchasing travel insurance after making their booking.
In summary, CASE supports the amendments to the Travel Agents Act and the introduction of enhanced measures to protect consumers. We urge STB to regularly review the legislation and the regulations to ensure that consumer interests will always be protected.
Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Speaker, Singaporeans are big travellers, with more than nine million overseas trips made in a year by air and sea. Singapore also received 16 million visitors in 2016. Clearly, it is important that we strengthen our legal provisions for travel agents which are a key pillar of the industry.
The tourism industry has three key components: travellers, travel agents and workers. While I agree with the amendments proposed in this Bill, I hope that the Ministry can also review three other areas of enhancements: protecting consumers, having stronger travel agents and having a good workforce of tour guides and workers.
While many recreational travellers plan their own itineraries, there is still a strong demand for the services of travel agents as they are convenient. Yet, the sudden closure of companies, including established players, such as Five Stars Tours and MISA Travel, left many consumers in the lurch. In 2014, when Five Stars Tours suddenly closed down, customers were stranded and some only knew through reports in the media.
STB has a website called Travel Related Users' System (TRUST) where the public can check on travel agents that have had their licences revoked or those companies that have ceased operations. This is useful, especially to prevent fraudulent transactions. It can be made more useful if companies with chequered customer service track records are also included.
On the website, there are two companies which had their licences revoked and 125 companies that had ceased operations since 1 January 2017. This could be a result of a fundamental structural shift in the tourism industry. Can the Minister share what are the main reasons for tour agents closing down? The relatively large number of closures suggest that greater protection for both consumers and workers is needed.
Under the proposed amendments for restricted travel agents' licence, there is a requirement of a net worth capital of $50,000. Can we ring-fence a percentage of that net worth capital required for the travel agents' licence to be used to pay the travel agencies' workers and guides when the travel agencies cease operations? In fact, could this be used for all the net worth capital requirements for the licences?
The tourist guides are largely freelancers engaged by the travel agents to bring the tourists around Singapore. When travel agents close, they are adversely impacted. Most guides are not paid CPF or might not be covered under any insurance paid by the travel agent. How can we better protect the guides?
As the travel industry transforms, we need to ensure that the workers as well as the tourist guides are trained in the relevant future skills. Digital skills, customer service, language abilities and emotional intelligence capabilities are increasingly valued highly. What are the training plans that STB has in place to help the travel agents and tourist guides to upgrade and upskill their workers so that they can help to grow the tourism industry?
Could STB also consider having training content that is bite-size and on-the-go so that it is easily accessed by tourist guides who are often moving about as their work entails? As freelancers, their income would be affected if they are to take time off for training. So, formal learning can be difficult for them.
To ensure the professionalism of the tourism industry, the future skills of the tourist guides should be tested to renew their licences. In addition, tourist guides go through a Mandatory Refresher Course (MRC) as part of the requirements for licence renewal. MRC is now conducted in both English and Mandarin. This prepares for the future as Chinese tourists are expected to be an important group for the tourism industry. We must not forget the key markets, such as India and Indonesia. In view of the changing landscape of the tourism industry, how is STB ensuring that the future skills of guides are developed when they renew their licences?
This Bill also proposes several measures to encourage greater innovation in travel products and services offered in Singapore. One provision exempts low risk/incidental players from the licensing regime to foster innovative and varied tour options. These measures will increase competition within the travel sector and will spur smaller agents and non-agents to be creative in coming up with programmes.
Airbnb, for example, has a platform for visitors to sign up for \"Experiences\" in the city. While there are some options offered in Singapore, such as hiking, bike riding and watercolour painting, the offerings are somewhat limited, compared to what one can get, say, in San Francisco, where you could pay $50 to explore Victorian buildings with an enthusiast on the topic. In New York, you can pay $71 to explore the Garment District with a local designer. These types of \"off-the-beaten-track\" tours give life, vibrancy and variety to the kind of experiences a visitor could have in a city. Now, hopefully, with the change in provisions, more Singaporeans with knowledge or talent in different fields could come forward to offer such experiences.
With regard to this change, I have two concerns.
First, for those who are exempted from licensing, what kind of safeguards will there be against entities that are not providing legitimate services, or those who are out to scam visitors, or those who do not carry out their duties responsibly? Will we just leave it to the market to give them poor ratings and regulate itself?
We must balance fostering a culture of innovation and Singapore as a reliable place for vacation. Rouge operators must be taken to task. Could STB make it compulsory for these entities to register themselves with STB so that we know who they are and what services they are offering? This will help the authorities in the event where investigations need to be made and tracking needs to be done.
Second, since the penalties for unlicensed travel agents may be increased to $25,000, could STB also come up with clear guidelines to educate the public and the players in the sector on when one is exempt from licensing and when one is not, so that members of the public, including our overseas visitors, are clear on the guidelines and will not unwittingly get themselves into trouble?
The tourism industry is evolving rapidly. We need a robust regulatory framework, strong travel agents and capable travel workers and guides to prevail in the future. We are clearly in the correct direction with this Bill. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Ang Hin Kee (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard of travel agents who defaulted in fulfilling their commitment to travellers, going bankrupt or shutting their business without giving notice to consumers or staff. How do we ensure that the interests of consumers and tour guides and even staff who are engaged by the travel agents are safeguarded?
I agree with Mr Desmond Choo's emphasis on the vulnerability of guides and the need to do more to protect them, as well as Mr Lim Biow Chuan's plea for us to do more to safeguard the interest of consumers. We need to keep a tight rein on offenders and a tighter rein on repeat offenders, especially the key appointment holders and directors of travel agencies. Giving STB more or new powers to impose financial penalties, suspend or revoke a licence is a strong indication that we want to safeguard our reputation as a reliable travel hub. We want a healthy travel eco-system with honest players.
My question is: will the amendments make errant travel agents act more responsibly? Or will it lead to a cat-and-mouse scenario whereby evading the regulators becomes the mode of operation? I am, therefore, keen to know if STB will have adequate manpower and authority to intervene and act when signs of early concerns are detected. The Minister earlier mentioned that they will be able to act more promptly. But I think the need is to really focus on them coming in to rectify the issue rather than when major damage has been committed.
Apart from regulations, Mr Speaker, we also need to evolve a culture of co-ownership and investing to grow the industry.
Technological advances, coupled with changes in consumer travel habits, have seen the travel agent business evolve. We need to keep track of what is happening elsewhere. How future-ready is our travel industry? How will STB help to equip our travel agents and tour guides with the necessary skills and tools in order to compete in an ever-changing travel and tourism landscape?
I am glad to learn that this amendment will enable certain exemptions for travel agent businesses that are niche and unique in nature. I think that is a step in the right direction.
There is a strong impetus for STB to rally industry stakeholders to co-drive the transformation for the travel industry. In short, the authority cannot do it alone. It requires the commitment and partnership of everybody in the travel industry. I hope STB will have the staff to work alongside the travel industry's stakeholders to develop more professional agents and workforce. These are industry development and capability development in nature, not necessarily enforcement.
A more professional travel industry will mean fewer instances of bad practices that will require regulatory intervention. How do we start building that culture? As they say, more dialogues can only mean more understanding and that is a good thing. To this end, I would like to suggest a conciliation service or a platform whereby STB can set it up with the unions, travel associations, agents, guides, to resolve disputes, to discuss matters and to set standards for professionalism. Such a platform will enable views to be heard, even though they may be diverging. Eventually, they will come to a convergence whereby it will be used to promote the betterment of the industry.
Finally, I would like to commend STB for doing a great job in attracting tourists to Singapore and to facilitate our locals going overseas.
Beyond just ensuring that we have a healthy regulatory environment, Mr Speaker, we also need the right tools, the right people, the right players and the right culture. We have just started operations in Terminal 4. This is a key tourism infrastructure. We will need to continue to invest heavily into future-ready tools, make our travel manpower ready for the challenges ahead and create a platform for stakeholders to resolve disputes and set standards, so as to cement our status as a travel hub. Mr Speaker, I support the amendments.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I stand in support of this Bill. Providing better consumer safeguards against errant travel agents, while balancing this with measures to facilitate a pro-business environment for the travel industry is welcomed.
I have comments and queries on two aspects of the Bill.
Clause 19 expands the regulation-making powers of STB. Amongst other things, this clause introduces a new section 28(1)(ga)(i) which confers powers on STB, such as \"imposing restrictions or obligations on licensees in relation to any variation or termination of a contract for the supply by the licensee of a travel product\".
This is an important power which allows STB to step in and ensure consumers are well protected in the event that travel agents are unable or perhaps unwilling to fulfil their contractual obligations.
However, I wonder if this broad power, as it is currently drafted, will have any practical use in a more likely situation, such as if a repeat case of MISA Travel occurs. MISA Travel closed in June 2017 and customers who had paid for travel plans and products were left in the lurch.
For illustration purposes, let us assume that a travel agent is not fraudulent and has a legitimate business. However, this travel agent suddenly shuts down or is unable to fulfil its primary contractual obligation of ensuring travel products are supplied to travellers for reasons whether in its control or not. This is often the situation that consumers face.
Even if STB invokes the power in the new section to vary the contract or even direct that the said travel agent has to compensate or refund the travellers, it is unlikely that the travel agent can, will and want to be able to fulfil their obligation.
If the travel agent could, would and wanted to fulfil its obligations, there would not have been a need for STB to step in in the first place. Can the Minister clarify how this new section will be able to help consumers in cases similar to MISA Travel?
On this note, to complement this new section 28(1)(ga)(i), will the Minister consider establishing a Travel Industry Compensation Fund to provide reimbursements as a last resort to travellers in specific situations, such as insolvency of the travel agents?
The Compensation Fund can be financed by all registered travel agents. While this will mean that travel agents have to pay into this fund, it is beneficial in the long term to instil consumer confidence considering that the travel industry is one of the top 10 most complained about industry, according to CASE.
This may help with providing a more robust regulatory framework and, eventually, re-direct much of the travel purchases and revenue back to travel agents, benefiting the travel agents. This might also help in reversing the trend of travellers purchasing travel through direct channels.
From a policy perspective, this Compensation Fund provides accountability and immediate practical recourse to travellers. I understand that this is the model already adopted in Ontario, Canada, and Hong Kong. I do hope we can implement this in Singapore as well.
Secondly, a minor clarification on whether the Travel Agents Act and this Bill cover businesses which operate innovative travel models powered by technology, such as Airbnb Experiences, Tripadvisor or Wego. Travellers are able to purchase travel products on such platforms and, while I appreciate that such businesses have online terms of use, that is merely equivalent to the contracts that traditional travel agents have with travellers. I wish to clarify whether such businesses are caught by the definition of licensees under the Travel Agents Act. If not, what plans are there to regulate such businesses to ensure that travellers who purchase travel products via such businesses equally have consumer safeguards?
Sir, notwithstanding the above clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Sim Ann.
Ms Sim Ann: Mr Speaker, I thank the Members who have spoken on the Travel Agents (Amendment) Bill, for their support and comments. Let me now address the pertinent points they have raised which can be classified into four main categories.
First, dealing with closures of travel agencies. Several Members raised queries and suggestions on dealing with this matter.
Mr Desmond Choo noted in his speech that about 125 travel agents have ceased operations since the beginning of 2017. I would like to clarify that more than 95% of these 125 cessations were, in fact, orderly and voluntary, where the travel agents chose to cease their licences. In such instances, there is typically minimal consumer impact, as these travel agents ceased operations after fulfilling all contractual obligations. Over the past three years, we have also noticed that around 40% of business cessations were by travel agents who were already dormant. As such, we should not be overly alarmed by this kind of usual cessation of business.
As pointed out by Mr Lim Biow Chuan, the issue of concern is sudden closures. On this note, sudden closures remain relatively infrequent. From 2012 to 2017, there were 10 such sudden closures, making up around 1.5% of all business cessations in that period.
Nonetheless, every such closure can be a case of concern. The case of MISA Travel was widely reported earlier this year, where the business decision was made to not continue operating. In MISA's case, the business failure which resulted in its closure was not due to malpractice or any ill-intent on MISA's part. The Government does not have regulatory oversight over such business decisions made independently by travel agents.
Mr Ang Hin Kee asked for early intervention and Mr Lim Biow Chuan urged STB to constantly check on the financial health of our travel agents. STB conducts regular checks on the audited accounts of all licensed travel agents annually. While such checks can provide possible tell-tale signs of financial difficulties, we cannot safeguard against business failures.
What the Government does is to monitor such closures very closely and work with CASE and other industry stakeholders to minimise consumer impact. We will also continue encouraging consumers to take measures to protect their interests by purchasing travel insurance that covers against travel agent insolvency.
Mr Louis Ng asked how the new section 28(1)(ga)(i) would be helpful to consumers in cases of sudden closure, as even if STB varies the contract or directs that the licensee compensates consumers, travel agents might not be willing and able to do so. I would like to share that the purpose of this provision is to prescribe regulations to govern the business practices of travel agents in general, rather than to be overly intrusive and empower STB to intervene in each and every such case.
Mr Desmond Choo and Mr Ang Hin Kee expressed concerns for the impact of sudden closures on tourist guides. Thus far, the cases of sudden closures relate to travel agents dealing primarily with travel out of Singapore, which typically do not involve the hiring of local tourist guides.
In terms of impact to employees, voluntary closures are typically planned for, and travel agents usually make plans to account for their employees' welfare. Mr Desmond Choo suggested ring-fencing a percentage of net worth capital required for the travel agent licence, for the purpose of paying workers when travel agents close.
The minimum paid-up capital requirement was introduced with the intention of ensuring that travel agents have a certain level of financial resources before they are granted licences. The intention was not to dictate how these funds should be used, but rather to seek broad assurance that the travel agent is unlikely to default on its obligations. In the event of sudden closures, STB works with the appropriate Government agencies to lessen the impact on employees. Employees may also reach out to these agencies for assistance and STB can facilitate link-ups where possible.
I agree with Mr Ang Hin Kee on the importance of ensuring responsible behaviour by travel agents. Most of our travel agents act responsibly and fulfil their obligations to customers. Our proposed amendments are a further effort to improve transparency and help consumers make more informed purchasing decisions. A case in point is the power that STB will have to require travel agents facing suspension or revocation to disclose this fact to their customers. STB may also choose to publish information relating to such suspensions or revocations on their website.
To Mr Desmond Choo's query on whether there is a list of errant travel agents, consumers can access STB's TRUST platform to check the status of the travel agent they are transacting with, including whether the travel agent has had its licence suspended or revoked.
Mr Desmond Choo has suggested to include a list of travel agents with chequered customer service records. To clarify, the policy intent of the travel agent legislation is to take action against errant travel agents, rather than to police all service-related issues. That said, the Travel Agents Regulation does address more egregious service issues, such as the need to inform customers of any material changes to tours once a contract has been formed.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan has urged that travel agents publishing or distributing \"inaccurate or erroneous\" advertisements be taken to task. This will be punishable by a maximum administrative financial penalty of $2,000. For the specific example that Mr Lim has shared, whereby a travel agent advertises \"zero-fare tours\" but does not disclose to consumers that there will be forced spending on shopping or compulsory tips, such advertisements may be considered \"false or misleading\", which will remain a criminal offence under the Travel Agents Regulations, punishable with a higher penalty of up to $10,000.
Mr Ang Hin Kee asked if STB can set up a conciliation service to resolve disputes between travel agents and consumers or tourist guides. For disputes between travel agents and consumers, there already exists a regulation prohibiting travel agents from wilfully refusing or neglecting to resolve such disputes. There are also other avenues and bodies for dispute resolution between such parties.
As for disputes between travel agents and tourist guides, STB has worked with NTUC to review the feasibility of setting up a mediation centre or conciliation service to manage such disputes. However, there are only a handful of such disputes brought to STB's attention each year and they are typically resolved without the need for further mediation. STB is monitoring this closely and will continue discussions with NTUC and other relevant agencies. At the same time, we are already exploring ways to have clearer contractual terms between travel agents and tourist guides, which may help reduce the occurrences of such disputes.
While we have made a number of amendments to improve consumer protection, we also need to ensure that our travel agents are not subjected to excessive regulatory burden.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan has asked if the Government would consider requiring travel agents to provide a performance bond, so that consumers can have confidence that the travel agent will fulfil its obligations. Mr Louis Ng also asked if MTI or STB will consider establishing a Travel Industry Compensation Fund, which can provide reimbursement to travellers in specific situations, such as travel agent insolvency.
STB has previously considered these direct consumer protection measures. However, we have decided not to implement these measures as it would increase business costs across the board for all travel agents when, in reality, only a minority of our travel agents are likely to cause harm to consumers. Travel agents are also likely to pass on such increased business costs to consumers. In addition, such measures may duplicate the coverage provided by travel insurance, which a majority of consumers are already purchasing.
Instead, we will legislate in the Travel Agents Regulations that travel agents are required to inform consumers of their option to purchase travel insurance that protects against travel agent insolvency. STB will also continue to work closely with industry stakeholders to encourage the uptake of travel insurance via consumer education efforts. We hope that these measures will help to enhance consumer protection, without increasing business costs significantly for travel agents.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan also asked if consumers who had already bought travel packages from a travel agent facing licence suspension or revocation can be allowed to terminate their contract without compensation. I would first like to reassure Members that travel agents facing suspension and revocation remain obliged to fulfil their existing contractual obligations, failing which they should pass on these obligations to other travel agents to fulfil. Whether consumers can terminate their contracts with a travel agent will depend on the cancellation terms and conditions of each contract, which will apply even when the travel agent is facing suspension or revocation. Via the Travel Agents Regulations, we intend to require travel agents to make clear the cancellation terms and conditions before entering into a contract with consumers. Consumers will, thus, be fully aware of their rights under the contract before they sign it.
Mr Speaker, all the Members who have spoken have noted the emergence of new business models in the travel agent industry, particularly the increasing prevalence of online travel agents or booking platforms.
I agree with Mr Desmond Choo that it is important for the public and industry players to know which types of travel entities will now be exempted. STB will be raising awareness among the travel industry and the general public on this matter.
Mr Desmond Choo asked if we could make it compulsory for exempted entities to register themselves with STB, so that we retain some degree of oversight over their activities. I would like to share that STB has been very careful when determining which entities should be exempted and which entities should continue to be regulated. We wanted to allow more room for \"off-the-beaten-track\" tours to grow and bring vibrancy to our tourism landscape, as Mr Desmond Choo highlighted. This is why we have exempted walking tours or cycling tours from needing a travel agent licence, as these tours typically do not collect significant prepayments from customers and, in some cases, none at all.
However, I should also point out that if these tours are targeted at tourists and involve remuneration for the guiding services provided, these tours will still need to be led by licensed tourist guides. The tourist guide licensing framework gives STB some regulatory oversight and enforcement powers against irresponsible behaviour. Even as these entities are exempted, consumers can continue to reach out to CASE and STB if they require assistance.
Mr Louis Ng asked if the Travel Agents Act and this Bill would include emerging models like Airbnb Experiences, Tripadvisor and Wego. Mr Lim Biow Chuan also asked who regulates online travel entities in general, whether the Singapore Government can consider regulating them and how consumers may recover their prepayments if these online entities cease operations.
Whether an online entity falls within the jurisdiction of Singapore's legislation largely depends on whether it has physical presence in Singapore for the supply of travel products. For instance, if an online entity with physical presence in Singapore contracts with consumers for the supply of a travel product or sells or arranges tours in Singapore, the entity will require a travel agent licence.
If the entity in question has no physical presence in Singapore for the supply of travel products, meaning that it is a foreign entity, we do not have regulatory mechanisms to take action against its malpractice as we do not have extraterritorial jurisdiction. In such cases, STB has been running consumer education campaigns to increase consumer awareness of measures they can undertake to protect their interests. We will also continue to encourage consumers to purchase travel insurance to safeguard against unforeseen travel inconveniences.
Mr Desmond Choo and Mr Ang Hin Kee highlighted that as the travel industry transforms, we also need to ensure that our travel agents and tourist guides upskill and keep up with the times. Indeed, STB worked with the National Association of Travel Agents Singapore (NATAS) to launch the Travel Agent Roadmap last year, with the aim of enabling our travel agents to become designers of travel experiences. We have been encouraging manpower upskilling, technology adoption and greater innovation and productivity in the industry. Since the launch of the Roadmap, STB has supported more than 30 projects under the Business Improvement Fund, ranging from the development of technology solutions for better customer engagement, data analytics and the redesigning of business models. Employees can also tap on STB's Training Industry Professionals in Tourism fund to send their staff for further training and professional development.
Mr Desmond Choo asked how STB is ensuring that the skills of tourist guides are tested. All tourist guides are required to undergo a Mandatory Refresher Course (MRC) before they can renew their licences. The MRC keeps tourist guides abreast of new tourism industry developments, while ensuring that they continue to be equipped with appropriate guiding skills to deliver quality visitor experiences. Our tourist guides also continue to benefit from a wide range of professional development courses.
Earlier this year, STB published a prospectus covering 64 courses by 12 training providers, with the courses touching on a wide range of topics, including storytelling skills, intercultural training, guiding skills and Singapore's art, culture, heritage and even nightlife scene. There is also a range of subsidies that cover up to 95% of the course fees. I encourage our tourist guides to utilise these resources fully. We agree with Mr Desmond Choo that it would be useful if training can be conducted online and are exploring if this can be implemented.
Mr Speaker, I would like to conclude by thanking the Members once again for their valuable feedback and also for their support for the Bill.
The majority of our travel agents conduct their businesses responsibly and are important players in our tourism ecosystem that connects Singapore and Singaporeans with the rest of the world. The amendments to the Travel Agents Act and Regulations help to improve the travel experience by enhancing consumer protection and creating room for new business models to grow and thrive, while ensuring that regulatory cost remains manageable. We will also continue with our consumer education efforts to raise awareness of the measures consumers can take to protect themselves and to communicate the intent and implications of the legislative amendments we are making now.
Lastly, the Government will continue to work with all industry stakeholders to drive capability development within the travel agent and tourist guide industries, so that employers, workers and freelancers can all keep up with a rapidly changing tourism industry and reap benefits, as Mr Desmond Choo has also mentioned. Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg 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 Sim Ann.] (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Sale of Food (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"The Senior Minister of State for National Development (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for National Development, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
AVA administers the Sale of Food Act (SOFA) as part of our comprehensive food safety regime to ensure that food sold in Singapore is safe and suitable for consumption. The SOFA was last amended in 2002.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair]
Besides ensuring food safety, we also need to better regulate food labelling and advertising to promote public health and ensure that consumers get the right information to make informed choices. Today, we are seeing more innovative products entering the market, some of which are purported to give health benefits. Therefore, it is important for consumers to be provided with adequate and accurate information about the products they are consuming.
In addition, the Competition Commission of Singapore (CCS)'s market inquiry into formula milk concluded that companies competed mainly on building a premium brand image for their products through aggressive marketing. CCS also found that there is an insufficient understanding of the nutritional benefits of formula milk and the dietary requirements of infants and young children could have led some parents to perceive that the more expensive products were of higher quality.
In May 2017, the Government formed a Taskforce, which I chair, to address some of these issues that were raised by CCS. The Taskforce has facilitated the entry of more affordable options, strengthened public education efforts and encouraged hospitals to provide more support for breastfeeding as the preferred option. Parents have welcomed the positive impact of such measures.
To further strengthen consumer protection, we intend to tighten regulations on labelling and advertising of formula milk. Certain claims and images on tins create the impression, even when scientific evidence is weak, that these products can somehow do more for children. In this context, we are expanding the scope of the SOFA to regulate food labelling and the provision of information relating to food to help consumers make more informed choices.
Coupled with education campaigns, we want to facilitate better understanding of products so that consumers do not, for example, always end up equating price or marketing claims with quality. Mr Deputy Speaker, allow me to elaborate.
First, clause 2 of the amendment Bill will expand the scope of the Act from securing the wholesomeness, purity and safety of food, to ensuring that companies provide adequate and accurate information and preventing them from providing misleading information. This will strengthen consumer protection, help consumers make more informed choices and promote public health.
Second, clauses 9 and 19 provide a framework to better regulate the provision of information on food. Currently, AVA regulates false labelling and advertising of food to prevent misleading claims. In the event that a case is brought to Court, the prosecution has to provide evidence of falsity to assert a breach. The amendments will now require the defendant to produce evidence to show that the content of the advertisement or label is truthful. I should highlight that there is no presumption of guilt as cases still need to be argued before the Courts. Companies that can defend their claims will, therefore, not be unduly affected.
Beyond false advertising, we need to do more to safeguard consumer interest and promote public health. In this regard, clause 19 clarifies the scope of regulations pertaining to the provision of information on food, for instance, specifying what can or must be contained in labels, promotions and advertisements, as well as how this content is being presented. This will allow regulations to be enacted to ensure that promotional information is provided in a suitable manner that helps consumers make informed choices instead of confusing or misleading consumers. This amendment also allows us to require infant formula companies to place statements encouraging breastfeeding on their labels.
We already have a robust system that contributes to our reputation as a trusted and reliable jurisdiction when it comes to food safety. However, we are amending the Act to further enhance food safety, by allowing AVA to act more quickly on food recalls.
Currently, AVA stops the sale of food when it has been found, through testing, to be contaminated by food safety hazards. However, food supply chains are becoming increasingly complex, given multiple sources, players and products. It now takes more time to confirm the precise source and the nature of any contamination.
Instead of waiting for the outcome of such an investigation and testing, clause 8 allows AVA to effect food recalls when the safety or suitability of the food or food contact article is in doubt or contamination is suspected. This will prevent or reduce the possibility of serious danger to the public while investigations are still ongoing.
So far, our industry players have been responsible in taking quick remedial action when there are suspected cases and we are really grateful for their cooperation. For example, in February 2016, some chocolate confectionery products were suspected to have been contaminated with pieces of plastic. AVA was alerted to the incident via its scanning and worked with the importers to effect a recall. But this amendment will address future instances when there might be less responsible or cooperative industry players.
The amendment Bill also provides a recall framework that provides more clarity and certainty to the industry. Let me describe this in further detail. Clause 8 introduces a clear and gradated set of directions that AVA may issue to identified persons or entities for the purposes of food safety. If there is potential serious danger to public health, AVA may issue directions to recall food and food contact articles. In less serious cases, directions can be given for general corrective actions or to control product movements. AVA may also issue additional directions for follow-up actions, such as disposal, storage or publishing statements to the public. Failure to comply with any of these directions will be an offence.
We recognise that food recalls can cause reputational harm and disrupt business processes. Decisions to effect recalls are based on rigorous assessment. AVA will also work with the industry to address situations before a food recall is announced. In the unlikely event of a false alarm, the Bill puts in place an appeal and compensation mechanism that the affected person or entity can use to seek redress.
The Bill also strengthens AVA's regulation of non-retail food businesses. Clauses 10 and 11 will empower AVA to license all non-retail food businesses, such as warehouses, wholesalers and distributors. The advent of new business practices makes this important. For example, third party logistics players are now providing space for businesses to store food and the storage conditions in some of these food warehouses are not ideal. So, AVA has assessed that licensing food warehouses is a necessary measure to protect public health. AVA has already started engaging the industry, and over 1,000 food warehouses have registered on a voluntary basis. AVA will progressively license these food warehouses starting with the ones storing high-risk items like infant or baby food and products that require proper temperature control like ice cream and yoghurt. Licensing fees will be pegged to the size of the warehouse and will not exceed $600 a year. As for the other non-retail food establishments, AVA will study the need for licensing.
Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Bill updates some existing provisions and provides operational flexibility to AVA. Clause 6 makes clear the circumstances when the power to require information may be exercised by an authorised officer appointed by AVA. For example, during investigations in the food poisoning cases, officers may ask for records like invoices, certificates issued by competent authorities or organisations, production records and so on. The amendment states clearly the circumstances under which authorised officers may exercise such powers.
Clause 18 enables the Director-General of AVA to grant administrative exemptions for a specified period from any provisions of the Act or its subsidiary legislation. These exemptions are governed by strict criteria to safeguard public health and can only be granted to avoid unnecessary restrictions on trade. For example, this will allow AVA the flexibility to allow new brands or parallel imports even if they do not meet certain labelling requirements. However, AVA will continue to ensure that these products still meet all the food safety standards and are safe for consumption.
In conclusion, the proposed amendments will benefit consumers and enhance public health as well as food safety. We have already started consulting the food industry and will continue to engage and partner them throughout this transition. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, please allow me to, first, place on record our thanks to the formula milk task force which has given a greater impetus to the passing of this amendment Bill so that tighter and clearer labelling requirements are put in place for infant formula and, by extension, to all food items in Singapore.
Sir, we are a nation of foodies. We go to the greatest extent to enjoy our food. But we are also a nation that is time-strapped, which means that we also rely heavily on processed foods. This has given rise to many challenges, including those relating to both food safety as well as health concerns due to the sub-nutritional content of many processed foods.
So, it is most opportune that the Act seeks to expand beyond just food safety and also take a big step forward in promoting public health, especially as we embark on the war on diabetes.
The new regulations on food labelling will also help to demystify that cloud of misinformation that surfaces occasionally with fantastical claims on the properties of certain foods. As a parent myself, trying to understand the jargon on some infant-food items, it is perhaps more challenging than putting together a bicycle from scratch.
Expanding the powers of the Act in effective recalls of food items suspected of contamination rather than only after confirmation will also further boost public confidence in our already strict food safety regime. The licensing of food storage warehouses would also strengthen oversight on our supply chain.
Having said that, I have a number of clarifications for the Senior Minister of State.
First, for food labelling and advertising. Much of the information on food products today and their nutrition or reported health benefits no longer occur at the shop fronts or on traditional advertising platforms. Many purchasers/consumers do their research online and this is where policing of misleading information may find its limits.
While a manufacturer may conform to standards required under our strengthened labelling regime, its claims online may paint a completely different story. How will AVA, therefore, enforce proper standards, especially if the claims are made through third party advocates or perhaps influencers that are seemingly at arms-length to the manufacturer but may well be paid for by them to promote their products in a misleading way?
Labelling extends beyond just words as we now live in a very visual world. A can of beans might just be a can of beans. But plonking a guy in a lab coat on a can and the advert suddenly makes the can, a can of super beans.
The same has befallen the infant milk industry previously. As parents, we naturally want the best for our children which makes us the perfect candidates to make rash but carefully considered choices after being bedazzled by the claims in infant food products.
WHO international food standards already has guidelines discouraging mislabelling practices for infant milk formula, health claims and over-hyping nutritional values based on the purchasing psyche of parents. Section 16(a) addresses this but I wish to seek clarity on how this policing can be achieved, as many of the claims that are stated by these products cannot be adequately tested or disproven.
Another case in point is fruit juices. Most of us think \"fruit\", and we think \"healthy\". But is \"fruit juice\" really fruit juice? One hundred percent pure juice? Are we very sure? There are juices and there are juice drinks and there are fruit cordials and there is nectar. There is an amazing number of different names for products when you go to a supermarket. Foods gaze at you from the bottles or boxes. But hidden within them may be extremely high sugar content, preservatives and the confusing list of E-numbers. Truth be told, reported health benefits might be outweighed simply by the sugar content.
With regard to the recall of food items, I hope the Senior Minister of State can also update the House and the public on the current processes and how the new process will better guarantee food safety for Singaporeans. How often are tests done on imported food items and how much control is there, especially with the advent of online shopping?
The old adage of \"buyer beware\" may still hold true but the online shopping bonanza that has opened up means that individual consumers are also befuddled by the attractiveness of importing small quantities of food items, perhaps for their own consumption or to share with friends but which may be contravening AVA's guidelines or be extremely harmful.
For example, the recent instant hotpot recall is telling. So much is being transacted online today that it will perhaps be very difficult for the agencies to be able to check every arriving parcel for food contraband. How then will the agencies or the Ministry respond to the changing consumer landscape?
Mr Deputy Speaker, food safety is important for Singapore and we must not take it for granted. Notwithstanding the concerns I have raised, which I believe that the Ministry will address comprehensively, I support the amendments to the Bill.
Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the expansion of purpose of this Act. I especially support clause 2 of the amendment's stated aim to \"ensure the provision of information relating to food to enable consumers to make informed choices\" and to prevent misleading conduct in connection with the sale of food.
I appreciate that the Act updates several definitions to bring it up to speed with the modern age of food and wellness bloggers, online shopping and multi-level marketing of alternative health and nutrition products.
Clause 3 amends section 2 of the Act to make an \"advertisement\" mean: anything \"used or apparently used to promote, directly or indirectly, the sale of food\"; \"any words, whether written or in an audible message\"; \"any still or moving picture, sign, symbol or visual image\" and \"any combination of two or more of these things.\"
The amendments do take pains to state that the definition \"does not include communications of personal opinion made by an individual for no commercial gain to the public or section of the public in relation to any goods or services, brand of goods or services, or person who provides goods or services\". The explanatory statement actually elaborates further that \"this will make clear the situation where a food blog is published, or comments are made on social media, for no commercial gain to the blogger or commentator.\"
I do not know how many young social media commentators and influencers are actually aware of the amendments being passed today. But this broadened definition of \"advertisement\" does appear to cover posts on all the platforms they currently broadcast on.
Quite a few social media influencers are already doing paid or paid-in-kind posts for food brands. And some have used their personal platforms to broadcast their clients' truth claims to their followers about food products. Some of the less experienced young influencers may even post unedited, whatever benefits the client forwards them to say, believing that it is not their job or their place to question their paymaster.
Some years back, there was a small fuss kicked up online about how some young influencers were promoting a particular brand of processed juice. One influencer had suggested lightly that drinking juice was better than water any day. And another used the #healthyliving while others made the truth claims that the juice was \"fresh\" and \"high in vitamins\". While it was clear to many commentators that drinking a litre of processed juice a day was probably not a good idea, what was less clear to many was whether an influencer's words should be shrugged off light-heartedly as private opinion or scrutinised critically as a professional piece of advertising designed to shift public choices.
Someone saying processed juice is part of healthy living may not seem like a big deal, but there are food and fashion influencers also crossing over into promoting food products created by the alternative health and wellness industry that makes far more ambitious truth claims. I have seen bloggers push products that could help your \"liver and circulatory system to return to optimal state\", \"neutralise free radicals\" and the ever-popular promise to \"reduce fats\" or \"eliminate toxins\". And pushing product through an individual's personal platforms seems to be a new place for brands to push their truth claims because of the greater leeway given to what appears to be personal opinion.
Some of our most successful young influencers under 35 have substantial followings. As a benchmark, our Prime Minister has about 300,000 followers on Instagram, but a top millennial Instagrammer in Singapore can boast over half a million followers. And that is why clients are willing to pay top influencers here between $1,000 and $3,000 per Instagram post. A 16-year-old micro-influencer in Singapore with a more moderate 10,000-20,000 followers may not pull in the same commercial rates, but can still receive paid-in-kind jobs because enough of their peer group perceive them as a legitimate source of information. So, such influence definitely has social impact and it seems they now could potentially bear legal responsibility.
On behalf of online influencers and ordinary individuals who need more clarity about how this law relates to their food and wellness product-related social media posts, I would like to ask a set of questions.
First, can I confirm what \"commercial gain\" to the food blogger, commentator or influencer means? Aside from an obvious exchange of money or cut of profits, does it also include any provision of sponsorship, freebies, gifts, discounts or commercial opportunity-in-kind?
Second, the current understanding of many online influencers and their management companies is that the law does not require influencers to use terms such as \"Sponsored Post\" or \"Advertorial\" to flag that their personal posts are actually advertisements. So, can I clarify whether this is true? And, if not, whether this Bill or laws elsewhere require that social media influencers declare openly to the public which of their personal posts selling food has commercial interests in it.
Third, some young people are getting into multi-level marketing of edible health and wellness products and are uncertain whether they would be construed as selling \"food\" by this Act. For example, therapeutic grade essential oils and essential oil-infused food and drink are a popular alternative health product despite the ongoing controversy in the United States of America about how this multi-billion dollar industry is being regulated. This industry primarily sells through multi-level marketing and social networking. While the American Food and Drug Administration has worked with the parent essential oil companies to keep their product's promises within legal bounds, the FDA and parent companies have struggled to police the social media posts of the millions of independent distributors for non-compliant language, such as claims that daily consumption of essential oils can cure Ebola and cancer.
The new section 2A now defines \"food\" to include \"any substance capable of being used or represented as being for use for human consumption\", \"any substance\t...capable of being used, or represented as being for use, as an ingredient or additive\" as well as \"anything that is or is intended to be mixed with or added to any food or drink\".
Can I clarify whether this definition would thus include any alternative health and nutrition products marketed as consumable, such as therapeutic-grade essential oils, detox teas and herbal shake powders? Would an individual, who sells such products to their networks online and offline, thus be considered as running a \"food business\" and, thus, will have their words advertising these products held accountable under this law?
I note also how the new section 16A of this Act makes non-compliant advertising that \"is false\" or \"likely to deceive a buyer\" as to \"the age, composition, effects, nature, origin, purity, quality or strength of the food or the safety or suitability of the food\" a legal offence. So, can I clarify: if an individual selling food products was simply reproducing the unedited health or nutritional truth claims passed on to them by a parent company or paying client, can they still be held personally accountable under this law should those claims turn out to be dubious or dangerous?
I also have a set of suggestions around the issue of food labelling.
Clause 19 expands the Minister's power to provide for regulations around food labelling. And an example given in the explanatory notes to illustrate these new powers was, for the sake of combating obesity, retail food businesses could be required by regulations to disclose the energy or sugar content of the food that they sell and display this information in a clear, simple and unambiguous manner.
I am fully in support of the push for clear, simple and unambiguous labelling. And many Singaporeans want to know what is actually in their food. So, I asked people online what kind of labelling they most want to see. And here are the five big suggestions that are close to their hearts.
First, to serve the rising number of people, especially children with serious allergies, allergens like nuts and seafood need to be highlighted and bolded. This is especially for imported products where translations can be unclear, inaccurate and even leave out ingredients.
Second, fish and meat should state country of origin, whether they are farmed or wild, whether they use growth promotants, antibiotics or other synthetic colouring to enhance their appearance. Few people are aware that a lot of cheap farmed salmon have their naturally grey meat tinted according to a colour swatch developed by a pharmaceutical MNC. Meat products must also reveal how much meat goes into their composition. For instance, people should know which of the fast-food grilled chicken patties have actually less than 50% chicken and are mostly composed of cheaper fillers that could contain allergens.
Third, to prevent food waste, there should be one clear label to replace the confusion of \"sell by\", \"packed by\" and \"used by\" labels. Clearer language needs to be used to distinguish when food changes in taste quality versus safety. A simple \"Best if used by this date\" and \"Unsafe after this date\" could be useful.
Fourth, serving sizes and measurement units used to help consumers compare nutritional data should be standardised, especially among locally produced goods, which are well within our control. I found a local kaya bottle that said one teaspoon is 15 grammes while another local spread said one tablespoon was 15 grammes.
Standardised measurement becomes important, especially if we want to inform people about sugar content. We need a simple, unambiguous label telling people exactly how much sugar, natural and added, is in their local and imported products. If we use recognisable units like teaspoons and tablespoons rather than jargons like per serving or per gramme, more people can make meaningful comparisons. Right now, not many people see that sugar content-wise, tablespoon for tablespoon, spreading chocolate hazelnut spread on our bread is actually the same as spreading on canned chocolate cake frosting. And drinking a cup of 100% \"no added sugar\" processed fruit juice is not that far off from drinking a cup of regular Coke.
And, by the way, there is a big-brand powdered formula milk marketed as a Healthier Choice \"lower sugar\" product for kids aged two years and above that has 52 grammes of sugar per 100 grammes of formula. As a benchmark, powdered Milo has 45 grammes of sugar per 100 grammes and regular milk powder has 38 grammes of natural milk sugar per 100 grammes. The formula tin said a 100 millilitres serving of prepared formula will contain 7.8 grammes of sugar. As a benchmark, a bottle of lower sugar Milo drink sold as a Healthier Choice for adults and teenagers says a 100 \tmillilitres serving of their prepared drink contains 5 grammes of sugar, which is less than formula milk.
So, I think it is worth looking at exactly how much sugar is being used to pad up expensive \"growing-up\" formulas marketed to parents in competition with regular, cheaper, unsweetened milk for children aged one and above. What appears to be a case of \"I do not know why my child somehow likes the expensive formula milk better than regular milk\" could turn out to be \"my child likes sugared milk better than regular milk\".
Fifth, I hope we can relook the design and wording of the Healthier Choice food label. The Healthier Choice food label has been useful in influencing the supply side, encouraging companies to reformulate products according to the state's guidelines to produce relatively healthier products in each classified category. But the key word here though is \"relatively\" and that is what is confusing a lot of people. People are writing to the press wondering how ice-creams, soft drinks, frozen french fries and highly sweetened yogurts, cereals and breads can bear the Healthier Choice label.
I have seen the Health Promotion Board's replies and I agree that there is no intrinsically good food and everything should be eaten in moderation. However, the term Healthier Choice itself is unambiguously a term that signals virtuosity and intrinsic goodness, especially because it only appears on some products and not others.
So, when a child reads the phrase Healthier Choice, they naturally think, \"Oh, it is healthier for me.\" They are unlikely to think, \"Oh, it is healthier, but only relative to products in their same category and healthier because of certain ingredients but not others\". It is not that obvious.
Even some adult shoppers I spoke to are unaware that there are tiny variations of qualifying text underneath the red Healthier Choice pyramid. An obtuse description like \"this drink has 25% less sugar compared to regular soft drinks\" is not that helpful.
I have found two groups of reactions to the Healthier Choice food label that are worth paying attention to.
One, there are those who completely trust it and actively buy products with that label, believing it is an unambiguous rubber stamp of nutritional approval from the state. I know several grandparents who let their grandkids drink multiple bottles of Healthier Choice-approved sweetened probiotic drinks, blackcurrant cordials and packaged chocolate malt drinks a day because of that.
And there are also those who are indifferent and even cynical of the label. They argue that a sugary yoghurt boasting an absence of trans-fat, an artificially flavoured sweet white bread with a perfunctory addition of fibre and soft drinks using artificial sweeteners are undeserving of that label. And I think they do have a point.
The Healthier Choice label will lose its value if it is increasingly perceived as just clever marketing strategy by the food industry that takes advantage of the added value created by the state's endorsement.
In conclusion, I am glad we are moving towards clearer information and food labelling for the sake of public health. And there are many lessons, I think, we can learn from America's years of experimenting with providing better information as a solution to public health. Despite years of having more detailed food labels around, Americans actually got more unhealthy and, overall, daily consumption of calories even increased by 400.
Researchers from the International Journal of Behavioural Nutrition and Physical Activity studied the effect on consumer behaviour after American fast food chains were ordered by the government to post calorie counts. They discovered that there was no clinically meaningful shift in consumer behaviour across all fast food chains except at Starbucks where the introduction of labelling did cause more consumers to eat a modest 6% fewer calories per transaction.
The law professor and consumer market regulation expert, Omri Ben-Shahar, pointed out that the difference could be that Starbucks customers were generally of a higher income bracket and argued that if America wanted to see the behavioural effect go beyond the elite food market, it had to go beyond providing just more information, to providing more practical help, like subsidies, to enable lower income families to eat better.
We have all tried eating healthy before, I am sure. And even with great sources available to all of us, it has been a pain and a puzzle to figure out what is a better food choice. Imagine how much more difficult it can be to commit to healthier eating if we were poor in either or all of these four domains of money, time, education and extra household help.
I hope, aside from just providing more information, we will continue to persevere and explore how to provide more practical support as well as accessible and affordable healthy food choices for the households who could really do with more help.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill seeks to enhance the regulation of the sale of food, to allow AVA to take food safety measures and to promote public health. While nobody can quarrel with such aims, the amendments potentially allow AVA to impose onerous obligations on a wide variety of activities and businesses. There is a danger that the duties of compliance and the costs of compliance may kill off small businesses and community activities which pose relatively low risk to public health.
This Bill increases AVA's power over the current law in a few ways.
To summarise, the existing law is focused on enabling AVA to inspect places where food is sold, to take food samples for testing and imposing certain specific duties on those concerned with food establishments. This Bill goes much further. As the new Long Title states, the Bill now has a more general purpose of ensuring that food for sale is safe and suitable for human consumption and to promote public health and to ensure that the public have accurate information to make informed choices about food that is sold. Compared to the existing law which focuses on punishing violations of baseline standards, the Bill now before the House is much more preventive and prescriptive.
This Bill casts AVA's net wide and installs AVA with new powers, especially in the proposed Part IIA of the Bill. While the new powers would be potentially useful in tackling errant businesses that produce or sell sub-standard food to the general public, it seems to me that other entities that provide useful services to segments of the public may potentially be subject to onerous requirements that are not commensurate with the risk. Let me elaborate.
In the Bill, there is a new definition of \"food business\" in the proposed section 2B. \"Food business\" is defined as a business or an undertaking or activity that involves, either in whole or in part, the handling of food intended for sale, the actual sale of food, including over the Internet and primary food production. It is further stated that an activity will be considered a food business regardless of whether it is of a commercial, charitable or community nature and even if it is a one-time activity.
A literal reading of the definition of \"food business\" will include the following types of activities: church fun fairs, which typically have stalls selling food and drinks; persons who host dinners or parties at their homes for a fee; a one-time private fund raiser which includes a meal; and traditional Chinese medicine shops, which also sell herbal tea eggs and herbal drinks. We can all agree that such activities are worth preserving and they make an important contribution to Singapore's social and cultural depth.
Under the new Part IIA, such activities would come under the new Food Safety Measures imposed by AVA. What are these new Food Safety Measures? AVA will be empowered to give new directions to persons involved in food business activities to take preventive or corrective action in respect of food or a food contact article. According to the new section 10D, these actions to be taken include complying with specific steps to ensure the safety and suitability of food that is raised, cultivated, harvested, caught, prepared, sold or otherwise handled; taking specific steps to ensure that food premises, vehicles, food contact articles and equipment are cleaned, disinfected or altered; and to ensure that requirements of the Act are complied with. All these requirements are likely to be very specific, since the amended section 56 provides that the Minister will make regulations on these matters. Section 10D further provides that until such corrective action is taken, the food business activity is to be suspended.
Besides section 10D, there are sections 10E, F and G which empower the AVA to impose controls over the movement of food, to recall food and to destroy and dispose of food. Section 10H will require a Statement to be published by the person in charge of the activity, with information on any food that was recalled by AVA, the reasons for the recall and what remedy the person will provide. Non-compliance with any directions carries a fine of up to $10,000 and imprisonment of up to a year or both.
Given that these are very draconian measures, will AVA devise a framework to differentiate between activities of high risk and activities of low risk and calibrate its regulatory response accordingly?
For instance, I have received concerns from owners of traditional Chinese medicine shops. These shops mainly sell herbs and Chinese medicines, but may devote a small part of their shop to selling herbal tea eggs or herbal teas; these form a very minor part of their business, earning some of them less than $50 per day. Recently, NEA informed them that they would need to obtain a foodshop licence; they also understand that they may have to undergo compulsory training as well. It is not clear what risks have emerged that necessitate more regulation of such shops. There are many such shops in HDB estates, where business volume may be moderate to low.
Sir, this Bill provides yet another major pillar for such shops to be closely regulated. How burdensome will it be for food sellers to comply with stricter conditions from both NEA and AVA? If AVA goes headlong into imposing onerous conditions on such businesses, some of them will find compliance difficult and too costly and may cease operations, to the detriment of their customers.
As for charitable and community initiatives which may be caught by the Bill, AVA should take an enabling and educational approach, rather than saddle them with costly and difficult requirements.
Sir, the other aspect of the Bill that I wish to comment on is the proposed section 10I. This is a very interesting section that provides for the possibility of AVA paying compensation to a person who may have suffered loss as a result of AVA making a direction based on insufficient grounds.
First, let me say I welcome this provision, as it recognises that AVA may make mistakes, and it is welcomed that AVA is undertaking a responsibility to pay compensation to persons who suffer loss due to such mistakes. I think the Minister earlier mentioned \"false alarms\".
I would like to ask the Ministry to clarify what they consider to be \"insufficient grounds\". For example, what if AVA relied on an expert report that turned out to be erroneous? Another obvious question is: what kinds of losses would AVA recognise? For instance, an order to recall food and to display a Statement on the recall would result not only in wasted costs, but also cause reputational loss to the business owner, from which he may never recover. Will AVA compensate the business owner for loss of reputation and future business?
Sir, to conclude, I appreciate AVA's intention of safeguarding public health by introducing this Bill. I am not opposing this Bill. My concern is that the new powers of AVA must be carefully calibrated for different classes of activities, to take into account the nature and extent of the risk posed. This Bill should not discourage community and charitable initiatives either. It should also be borne in mind that if we are serious about encouraging and supporting entrepreneurship in Singapore, the Government should not impose excessive burdens and costs on small businesses.
Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on this amendment Bill.
This is an important amendment Bill to strengthen our current Sale of Food Act, especially with new methods and platforms involving the sale of food, particularly, through online means. Buying food is no longer about visiting a shop or stall that prepares the food, ordering your food, paying for it, then consuming it. The food we order and eat now − whether we order from fixed premises or food establishments, or through online means − can come from many different sources, some of which we would never have fathomed of.
There is thus a need to be able to better regulate the sources from which our food items are prepared and made in. Hence, I support the comprehensive amendments made to clauses 3 and 4 of this Bill which relate to food, food items, food handling and preparation, as well as advertisements involving food.
Mr Deputy Speaker, during a recent house visit to a block of flats in my constituency, I received feedback from several residents living in the block who expressed their concern about a neighbour who seemed to be involved in food preparation in their flat. This neighbour was known to be preparing food items for a yong tau foo stall at a rather big food court. Their domestic helper can be seen pushing trolleys of prepared food daily and even throwing the food waste into the dustbin at the void deck.
While the residents of this block respect the enterprising spirit of their neighbour, they are concerned about two things: (a) the cleanliness and quality of the food prepared in the home of this neighbour, which is then delivered to the food court; and (b) the daily occurrence of raw food waste at the void deck dustbin, which has seemed to attract a bevy of rats to the block.
On a more personal note, about two months back, I purchased some pastries and cake from a rather established bakery chain. When I sank my teeth into a chocolate cream puff, I tasted something slippery and plastic-like. It turned out that it was a piece of sticky tape that had been churned in together with the chocolate cream. I ended up throwing up and throwing away the cream puff.
I am sure my experience is not unique as we have read of instances where inedible and unimaginable items end up in the food we eat − examples being plastic pieces, band-aids or even a rat. These are unpleasant encounters that we would never want happen on anyone.
I hope that with the amendments proposed in this Bill, food stalls, food courts and members of the public, in general, will be more discerning in their choices of food suppliers and food sellers. I would urge AVA to work with NEA to look into tightening the regulations and requirements for food handlers, food suppliers and food sellers to emphasise the need to have as much knowledge as possible about the handling, preparation and ingredients of the food they sell.
In addition, while we support the entrepreneurism of home-based chefs, cooks and bakers, we do need them to be part of a more regulated and accredited group of food handlers, preparers and sellers who (a) are trained in proper food handling, preparation and safety; and (b) who undergo regular audits to ascertain the cleanliness, quality and safety of the food they prepare, cook and sell. This will help inspire confidence among consumers and will help weed out fly-by-night or rogue food operators who cannot care less about food safety and food hygiene.
Other than food ingredients, handling and preparation, I am also concerned about food items which claim to provide certain levels of nutrients or to even provide relief or cure from specific ailments. For example, among the Malay community, Air Anugerah or bottled alkaline water sold at $2 per 500-millimetre bottle. It is claimed by the producers and sellers of this alkaline water that it \"combines science and medicine to relieve pain spiritually and physically. Alkaline water is known for hydrating the body while removing toxins, is an agent of anti-oxidants and able to neutralise acid in the bloodstream, leading to improved energy and oxygen levels\". Air Anugerah is easily available for purchase online and I know of individuals who trust that this alkaline water will cure their ailments, more so than regular visits to their doctors for follow-up checks would.
I am concerned about such food items that are sold online with regard to food safety and hygiene. It is difficult to regulate and monitor this entire segment of food item advertising and sale as there are numerous online platforms that do so, particularly where push advertising can be done very easily.
Will the new section 16A be able to fully address the advertising and sale of food items, especially those done through online means? How can the Ministry comprehensively monitor and regulate such online sources?
Mr Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding the concerns I have shared above, I strongly support this amendment Bill.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I welcome the amendments to the Sale of Food Act, which expands its purview to preventing misleading conduct in the sale of food and ensuring the provision of information to help consumers make informed choices.
On the issue of consumer empowerment, I would like to raise some concerns over business practices that affect decision-making over food for the most vulnerable consumers − infants.
I understand that one of the objectives of the proposed amendments is to support initiatives of the Formula Milk Taskforce to tighten labelling requirements for infant formula.
One of the most vulnerable groups of consumers are infants in hospitals and they are protected by this Act since the expanded meaning of \"sell\" in section 2E does include \"supplying of food in the course of providing services to patients in hospitals\".
In hospitals, I understand that a rotation system is used to provide infants with milk formulas. Majority of parents tend to continue with the brand of formula milk that their child was given in hospitals.
An inquiry report by the Competition Commission of Singapore in May found that milk formula manufacturers invest significantly into marketing activities in hospitals to try to leverage on this.
The report stated, \"In particular, the hospital channel receives a significantly higher share of marketing expenditure compared to its share of total revenue. Manufacturers provide sponsorship and/or payments to the private hospitals for participation in their milk rotation systems. Given that majority of parents who use Formula Milk in hospitals do not have a preferred brand and tend not to switch brands of Formula Milk after leaving the hospital, manufacturers have invested significant efforts and resources into the marketing activities in the hospital channel to gain a ‘first-mover' advantage.\"
Sir, I faced this problem when my babies were in hospital and, in the initial stages, Poppy had to be given some milk formula. In my case, they were in a public hospital and not a private hospital. My wife and I had a preferred brand of milk formula we wanted to give Poppy but were not allowed to. We were told that we could use the brand that we wanted only when Poppy was discharged but were told that a switch in brand might affect the baby.
I do understand that the Sale of Infant Foods Ethics Committee Singapore (SIFECS) under the Health Promotion Board is looking into this. But we must bear in mind that they are looking to address this through reviewing its Code of Ethics on the Sale of Infant Foods in Singapore. While I hope the review of the Code will address sponsorships and rotation fee practices, the Code is, ultimately, soft law and does not provide for penalties or consequences where the Code is breached.
As such, I would like to ask the Minister if the current proposed amendments to the Sale of Food Act could help to tackle this problem, too. While we seek to make amendments to prohibit idealised images and health claims on infant formula labels and advertisements, these amendments become redundant when parents do not have a choice of which infant formula is given to their infants in some hospitals.
Such practices by manufacturers which are calculated to get infants \"hooked\" on their brands at an early stage and remove choices for parents to switch to cheaper alternatives seem to be contrary to the spirit of this Bill of empowering consumers in decision-making.
Can Minister clarify if the proposed expanded scope of the Sale of Food Act will allow it to address marketing and distribution practices by manufacturers and sellers that are intended to limit choices for particularly vulnerable groups of consumers?
I also note that section 56 has been amended to allow any food regulation to incorporate any matter contained in any code. Would the Ministry consider incorporating the Code of Ethics on the Sale of Infant Foods in Singapore as a food regulation to give it the binding force of law?
In addition, can the Minister also clarify if the Act will cover the sale of food online, as many Members have raised previously? Even milk powder can be purchased online now and from outside of Singapore.
I appreciate this is not an easy area to regulate but as there is a trend towards buying things online and from overseas, do we have plans to regulate this under the Sale of Food Act?
Lastly, Sir, I would like to seek clarification on the new section 55. Why is there a need to grant exemptions from the operations of all or any of the provisions of this Act or the food regulations?
Can the Senior Minister of State provide some scenarios as to when these exemptions are needed or necessary? If there is really a need for such exemptions, may I suggest that a Board, which includes the Director-General rather than just one person, make the decision on granting the exemption? Sir, notwithstanding the above clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Sale of Food Act has been protecting Singaporeans since 1973 by ensuring that only safe and properly labelled food is available for purchase. The Ministry is proposing that the role of the Act be expanded from the regulation of food safety to the promotion of public health. It seeks to provide consumers with content on labels which will enable them to make informed choices. There will also be tighter control over advertisements to disallow certain health benefits claims or projections of misleading images.
I support these measures wholeheartedly. So far, sellers have been given much leeway to exercise their creative licence in marketing their products. Unfortunately, we have witnessed how harmful such practices can be and it is timely that the Ministry resumes a tighter rein on the information or misinformation which is provided to consumers.
I would like to ask the Ministry how will enforcement be conducted. Does it mean that, in future, all food manufacturers and producers will be required to present evidence for the benefits claimed before their products can be sold in Singapore? How would we ascertain the reliability of such information? For imported products, is there a list of accepted foreign bodies or government agencies which are certified authorities?
In addition, I would like to ask if consumers will be allowed to take legal action against manufacturers for false claims. In foreign markets, particularly the US, there had been such lawsuits in the past. Will the Ministry be able to support the affected consumers in prosecuting such sellers?
Lastly, with the amendments, AVA will be empowered to direct the storage and disposal of recalled food which poses public health safety concerns. Would the Ministry share how would it ensure that the food recalled would not be recycled, repackaged or even re-exported for sale? Do we have the manpower and expertise to conduct the necessary checks and investigations? With that, I would like to conclude my support for the Bill.
Ms Sun Xueling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to support the Bill. The Sale of Food (Amendment) Bill is noteworthy in that it seeks to expand the Act to regulate food to promote public health and ensure that the provision of information relating to food helps and enables consumers to make informed choices.
Earlier this year, this House discussed infant formula prices in Singapore and the marketing practices of suppliers of infant milk formula. Examples of misleading marketing claims used to justify high premium prices of infant milk powder were brought up and a taskforce was set up to look into such practices. I would like to highlight two amendments in this Bill and seek clarification as to the extent the amendments can potentially help regulate egregious marketing practices and protect consumers' interest.
Firstly, clause 19 amends section 56 which concerns the Minister's powers to make food regulations. The Minister's powers are expanded to provide for regulations which regulate the identification and labelling of food, including specifying the matter that must or must not be contained in labels and the manners of labelling.
In the case of the infant formula market, we currently see indiscriminate use of labels marketing health claims and nutrition claims. Health claims state or suggest that a relationship exists between a food or a constituent of that food and health, while nutrition claims suggest or imply a food has a nutritive property. Consumers can be misled into paying premium prices for infant formula when supplies play to the psyche of parents wanting the best for their children and aggressively label certain minerals as supporting overall mental functioning, helping in physical development or development of the brain of the child. Such labelling practices for infant milk formula are not allowed in many developed countries, such as Australia and New Zealand and also under the World Health Organization's (WHO) standards.
The selective playing up of certain nutritional elements in infant formula through labelling can also slant consumer purchasing decisions. I would thus like to seek clarification as to whether the current expansion of the Minister's powers to make food regulations extend to prohibiting health claims and nutrition claims on infant milk formula labels; and, if not, why. What would be the associated regulations to regulate such behaviour?
Next, the new section 16 prohibits the selling of food that is packaged or labelled in a manner that does not comply with the requirements of the Act and, importantly, the provision states that in the prosecution for such an offence, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the defendant intended to commit the offence. Further, the new section 16(A) places the evidentiary burden on the defendant where failing to adduce evidence to the contrary where it is alleged that a person has made a false advertisement will result in the advertisement being found to be false.
Currently, there is only indirect protection against misleading advertising under the Consumer Protection Fair Trading Act (CPFTA). The CPFTA states that a consumer can only commence an action if he has entered into a transaction in reliance on a representation in the advertisement and damages cannot be claimed, unless he has suffered a loss as a result of reliance on the representation.
For food products, and, in particular, for infant milk formula, this is almost impossible to execute as there is no way to prove that a child becomes less bright after the consumption of infant formula as compared to if the child had not consumed infant milk formula. The new section 16(A) thus helps regulate misleading advertising in the infant milk formula market as the onus is on suppliers of infant milk formula to prove that the health and nutritional claims they put on labels are, indeed, true. Failure to do so could result in a fine or imprisonment of a period not exceeding three months.
I, therefore, think that the amendment to the Sale of Food Act can play an important role in regulating misleading advertising.
Lastly, I note that the amendment allows a new power to make food regulations requiring or regulating the display or distribution of nutritional information of a kind prescribed. For example, as a means of combating obesity and to help people understand the implications of their purchasing decisions, proprietors of certain retail food businesses may be required by food regulations to disclose the energy or sugar content or food items they sell. In our nationwide war on diabetes, this will certainly play an important role in promoting public health. Notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.
Dr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members for their broad expressions of support for the Bill. I believe that we all see the value in having better measures to enhance food safety and public health. Having said that, Members have also expressed several important points which I will now address. Let me start with the points related to the provision of food-related information.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked how enforcement on claims will be carried out. He also asked if food companies will be required to present evidence about their product claims before their products can be sold in Singapore. There is already an existing framework for AVA to evaluate and approve health claims made on food labels and advertisements.
Health claims for food refer to any representation that states, suggests or even implies a relationship between a food product or its ingredients and health. Examples of approved health claims are sentences and claims such as, \"Calcium helps build strong bones and teeth\" or statements, such as \"Choline helps support overall mental functioning\".
Each time a company wants to make a new health claim, it has to submit an application to AVA with the relevant scientific evidence to back up the claims. The claim is then assessed by AVA's Advisory Committee on Evaluation of Health Claims, which consists of members from academia, Government agencies and also from the food industry associations.
The Committee evaluates these claims based on the principles recommended by Codex Alimentarius Commission. This is an international food standard-setting body that is established by the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). AVA will then review the Committee's evaluation to decide whether to approve that claim. Once a particular health claim has been approved, any company may then use that claim on food labels and advertisements.
This process applies to both local and imported products. Any company found using an unapproved health claim may be fined up to $5,000. In short, we already regulate health claims to a large extent.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh also asked if consumers will be allowed to take legal action against companies that make false claims. The existing legislation already prohibits the use of false or misleading claims. Consumers who have concerns regarding false or misleading claims on any of the food products can report these claims to AVA for their further investigation. Consumers may also commence an action against the company under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act, if they have entered into a transaction in reliance on these false claims made by a company and have suffered a loss as a result of the false claim.
What the Bill does is to strengthen our existing framework by allowing AVA to regulate a wider variety of claims on food labels, as well as advertisements and promotions. Regulations can now be made to specify what claims are allowed and the manner in which they are presented. So, in other words, a claim need not be false for AVA to take action. Any claim that negatively impacts consumers can be regulated, if necessary.
Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin made several suggestions on labelling. Under the Food Regulations, all labels of pre-packaged food must indicate the presence of allergens or ingredients known to cause hypersensitivity, such as milk, eggs or nuts. This is to ensure that consumers with food allergies can make informed choices and avoid a medical emergency. We will study the other suggestions that she has raised.
Mr Alex Yam asked about fruit juices. Any claim that a product is 100% pure juice will have to meet prescribed standards. Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin also asked about health products. I would say these are separately regulated under the Health Products Act and have been explicitly excluded from this Bill.
Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin also made some comments about the Healthier Choice Symbol (HCS) programme. As this programme is not covered under this Bill, we will pass her comments to MOH.
Ms Sun Xueling asked whether the amendments will enable regulations to be made to prohibit health and nutrition claims on infant formula. These amendments will allow us to limit claims to those that enable consumers to make informed choices and prevent any misleading conduct in connection with the sale of food. We intend to tighten regulations on health and nutrition claims and idealised images on infant formula labels. This will curb excessive marketing and improve clarity of labelling to ensure consumers can make informed choices.
We do not want parents to be unduly swayed into paying more for certain products due to aggressive or potentially misleading marketing. Companies may then also end up passing on costs from these aggressive advertising and marketing activities to our consumers. We are studying the scope of the prohibitions and are consulting with the industry. We will announce our regulatory changes by the end of this year.
Let me now address the other questions relating to infant formula. Mr Louis Ng has pointed out that some manufacturers have provided their products to hospitals and this could get infants \"hooked\" on to certain brands.
I understand Mr Louis Ng's concerns and agree that we should minimise brand lock-in at our hospitals. In this regard, MOH has been working closely with both private and public hospitals to achieve the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) certification. BFHI-certified hospitals must refuse gifts offered by milk companies and cannot distribute marketing materials or milk samples. Currently, all three of our public hospitals with maternity services, namely, KK Women's and Children's Hospital, the National University Hospital and the Singapore General Hospital, are BFHI-certified and they have been certified for the last three to four years. We will continue to encourage greater uptake of this BFHI certification. The Sale of Infant Formula Ethics Committee Singapore (SIFECS) is also conducting a holistic review of its Code of Ethics, including a review on the existing guidelines on industry sponsorships.
In public hospitals, the major brands of infant formula are rotated equally throughout the year. MOH is engaging hospitals and industry players to make available more affordable infant formula brands in the ready-to-feed form that are suitable for use in hospitals. This is so that parents need not be \"locked-in\" to expensive brands of infant formula at a very early stage, especially during the post-partum period within the hospitals.
As for Mr Louis Ng's question on how the proposed amendments apply to this issue, the short answer is that they will enable us to regulate marketing practices in hospitals in order to promote public health and consumer interests. However, as explained, we are adopting a multi-prong approach to address this. We will assess the need for additional regulations, where necessary.
Mr Louis Ng also asked whether the SIFECS Code can be incorporated into the Food Regulations. This would give the Code some legal backing. Indeed, we are intending to align some of the SIFECS guidelines on infant formula labelling with our Food Regulations. And these will be announced in due course.
But I must say that, on the issue of infant formula, it is not about just regulations per se. We need to continue to step up public education so that our young parents are equipped with the correct information and knowledge to make the right choices because the asymmetry of information is what allows them to be exploited by aggressive marketing. With informed choices, our parents can then make the right choice of the type of formula that is suitable for their infants. So, for that, we must thank Health Promotion Board and MOH as well as grassroots organisations for conducting plenty of outreach activities in the community to reach out to our young parents. I thank all these agencies.
Members have also made several comments about online and home-based food businesses. Mr Louis Ng and Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked if the Act would cover the sale of food online. The short answer is yes. Any food products that are put up for sale in Singapore must comply with requirements in the Sale of Food Act (SOFA). The current SOFA already allows AVA to regulate the sale of food, regardless of the manner in which they were sold. AVA will be able to take action against local agents, for example, the importer or distributor who makes the food available for sale through online platforms. However, consumers should exercise caution when purchasing food directly from overseas producers, including those from online sources, as their sources of distribution may not be regulated and AVA may not be able to subject the food to checks, if need be.
Mr Alex Yam asked broadly about how AVA is responding to the changing consumer landscape in its regulation of the sale of food. AVA carries out its horizon scanning to provide early alerts of overseas food safety and animal disease incidents. AVA also monitors other food-related trends. AVA will assess these latest trends and developments and take appropriate measures to mitigate the risks to consumers.
Mr Alex Yam also asked about how misleading claims made by third-party advocates or influencers online can be addressed. As I mentioned earlier, the amendments will allow AVA to regulate claims, including those made on local Internet sites. This includes third-party advocates who have been paid to promote the sale of the product. The onus will be on the local agents or the paid advocates to ensure that the claims that they are making are truthful. Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin asked what constitutes commercial gain. This could include monetary and in-kind sponsorships like freebies, gifts and discounts. There is no specific law that requires a social media influencer to declare which of their personal posts selling foods have commercial interests. However, I think it stands to reason that a responsible influencer should also be a transparent one.
Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar's concerns are about the food safety standards and potential dis-amenity caused by home-based food businesses. Residents are allowed to prepare small quantities of food for sale in their homes under the HDB's Home-Based Small Scale Business and URA's Home Business Scheme. NEA also does not regulate these businesses for food safety, unlike other food retail outlets. That said, residents operating home-based food businesses are encouraged to adhere to NEA's guidelines on good hygiene practices and to attend NEA's Basic Food Hygiene Course. Members of the public concerned about food safety or hygiene standards at these premises can contact NEA for further investigation.
If the scale of such activity to conduct within HDB homes, for example, remains small, dis-amenity should be minimal. But if the scale increases to an extent that creates inconveniences for neighbours, the business will then have to relocate to a proper food establishment. So, it is really a matter of scale and how much impact they have on overall public consumption and public safety.
Dr Intan \tAzura Mokhtar suggested tightening regulations to equip retail food business operators with requisite knowledge of good food safety and hygiene practices. All our food handlers working in NEA-licensed premises are already required to attend and pass the Basic Food Hygiene course and to attend regular refresher courses to equip them with the necessary knowledge and skills to guard against any hygiene lapses. Food safety and hygiene are critical and this is why AVA and NEA will continue to work with our local food establishments to raise the bar on food safety and hygiene practices.
Members also spoke about food recalls. Mr Alex Yam asked about how the new process for food recalls will enhance food safety. Currently, AVA works with the industry to stop the sale of food when it has been found to be contaminated with food safety hazards. This is usually done through testing. However, laboratory analysis takes time. A test needs time to run and the results take time to be available. It is often better to take quick action to minimise continued risks to public health due to this suspected food contamination. The amendments will now allow more timely interventions by AVA to stop the sale of suspected unsafe food or food contact articles.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked how we would ensure that these recalled food items do not re-enter the food supply chain. I would like to assure Mr Gan that AVA, firstly, will seal any recalled products to prevent tampering. And if the products are meant for disposal, AVA officers will either personally witness the disposal, or allow the company to appoint authorised third-party disposal companies to do so. Prior to the disposal, AVA officers will verify the details of the products to ensure that they actually match the batch of products which has been recalled.
These measures ensure that the recalled products cannot be recycled or repackaged for resale in Singapore. However, AVA may allow the recalled food to be returned to its country of origin, or be re-exported to a third country. For the latter, re-export to a third country, AVA will require evidence from the importer to show that the authorities in the country will accept the products, even after knowing the reason why the products were not allowed for sale in Singapore. The importer will also have to engage an AVA-appointed security escort service to supervise the transport of the food to the port or checkpoint.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh also asked if AVA had the necessary expertise and manpower to oversee the entire food recall process. The answer is yes. As I have mentioned earlier, this process is not new and AVA has already been working closely with the industry for many years on such recalls.
Ms Sylvia Lim asked questions related to Part IIA of the amended Act. Let me clarify that this Bill does not deal with the licensing of retail food businesses like Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) shops. As for her point on the reach of the new Part IIA, I need to clarify that these powers are discretionary. They are only exercisable under certain circumstances as set out in the new sections 10D(1), 10E(1) and 10F(1). In all these cases, AVA must reasonably believe that there is non-compliance or hazard that poses public health risks.
The new Part IIA will empower AVA to issue directions for the purposes of food safety. This covers not only just food recalls, but any rectifications that are needed to ensure that unsafe food does not continue to be produced and distributed to consumers. That is why the provisions on food safety measures need to apply to a wide range of food businesses or any establishment that produces food for public consumption. That said, these provisions will only be used when food safety lapses or issues are suspected, as I had said earlier. As long as there are no food safety concerns, this should not present an impediment for food businesses or events where food is sold.
So, if I may use the example that Ms Sylvia Lim quoted earlier about community events or, say, even a church event or a religious organisation giving out food, for example. It really does not matter what entity it is, as long as food that is produced in that facility is being consumed by the public. Just imagine a scenario where there is an outbreak of food poisoning. If many people, after they have been to the event, have been admitted to the A&E while the event is still ongoing, I think the onus is on AVA to now make sure that there is compliance to immediately stop the distribution of food in that facility for further public consumption. But, like I have said, this is only used in a time where there is a high suspicion or an actual incidence of food safety lapses. In the absence of those, business as usual in all these events and places.
AVA has rigorous Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to identify food safety issues and to then deal with food recalls, food poisoning outbreaks, as well as follow-up actions that are necessary when food businesses are found to have produced contaminated food.
In cases of food recalls, the new Act also allows AVA to take action when it suspects that the food is contaminated. This SOP is regularly reviewed to ensure that it remains effective and current. Any actions taken will be commensurate with the type of food-borne hazard that is suspected or detected, as well as the nature of the business itself. For example, control measures can be calibrated according to the extent and severity of the case in question because no two incidents are similar in its nature. In a severe case like when harmful bacteria or chemicals are detected in food, AVA can trigger a food recall and inform the public of this potential risk. But in less serious cases, like the presence of just an unapproved food additive, for example, AVA can restrict the movement of the goods while it assesses the additive so it can halt the sales or distribution of food while the testing is underway.
I would like to assure the House that, as in past cases where food safety measures were implemented, AVA will continue to work closely with the affected parties. This is to ensure that the measures are imposed only to the extent that is necessary and to minimise business disruptions. And so far, for all the cases of food recalls that have taken place, there has always been close communication with the industry. Many times, the industry players themselves would willingly want to recall the food items for fear of their own reputation risk of a persistent on-going food poisoning episode taking place in the community.
As for compensation, each case will have to be individually evaluated because they all have varied circumstances. Hence, AVA will assess each case on its own merits to determine if the party claiming \"insufficient grounds\" has actually a case. In the event that the party is dissatisfied with the decision, the party may apply to the Court for a review.
Let me now address questions about the administrative aspects of the Act. Mr Louis Ng asked about the need to allow the Director-General of AVA to grant exemptions from the provisions of the Act. This provision is needed to facilitate food innovation and trade, in situations where there is actually negligible risk to public health. For example, there was a case of a food additive that was called L-theanine detected in a brand of Taiwanese milk tea in 2016. At that time, L-theanine was not yet permitted for use as a food additive in Singapore, although it had been assessed to be safe by several countries which already allowed its use.
But because it was not gazetted at that time as a permitted food additive in Singapore, that product was not allowed for sale in Singapore. Hence, there was a certain delay and business cost. The product was only subsequently allowed for sale after our legislation was amended. Members would appreciate how much time it takes for legislation to be amended. The point is, we want to allow some flexibility and not have to wait until legislation is amended in cases where there are no food safety concerns so that we can be pro-business while pro-public safety at the same time.
But I understand Mr Louis Ng's perspective. Sir, let me stress that any exemption will only be granted under very stringent conditions and for a very specified period of time.
The Director-General will also be supported by AVA's risk assessment team, which will thoroughly evaluate the food safety risks of any exemption, based on scientific evidence. Any exemption made must also be publicised for transparency.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to conclude by thanking Members once again for their support and suggestions. The proposed amendments to the Act are important in enhancing public food safety, protecting consumer interests and promoting public health. With evolving business landscapes and products, it is crucial that we continue to ensure that our legislation is both current and effective. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
Ms Sylvia Lim:\tMr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have a clarification.
Mr Deputy Speaker:\tYes, Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Sir. I have one clarification for the Senior Minister of State. This is in relation to Part IIA of the Bill. I think earlier on, he mentioned in his round-up speech that those directives will be given based on certain suspicion or information that there might be a non-compliance with the Act. On the one hand, I find that reassuring, but on the other hand, if we look at the proposed section 10A, it does state that the AVA may give directions to a class of persons. So, it does seem to suggest that there may not necessarily be information relating to each particular case but the AVA could give directions to a class of persons who are running maybe a particular type of activity.
Dr Koh Poh Koon:\tMr Deputy Speaker, the class is to define who are subjected to the Act. As I had explained earlier, the whole idea is to ensure that this Act encompasses all establishments, whether they are public events or whether they are a food business that actually causes food to be consumed by the public for which a public health risk is present. So, it is meant to define a broader scope so that we can have the powers to compel someone who is actually creating a public health hazard to stop what they are doing based on the risk that we assess to be present.
Mr Deputy Speaker:\tYes, Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Further clarification for the Senior Minister of State. I still do not quite understand how it ties. Because the section says that the AVA is empowered to give particular directions to a class of persons. It could be persons running a particular food business or producing a particular food content article. So, it does seem to suggest that AVA could actually give preventive directions as a precaution rather than based on specific information about particular cases because it talks about giving directions to a class of people.
Dr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, section 10A defines the parties in which this Act will apply but the conditions in which AVA will then apply this Act on are specified in the other parts of the Act which specify situations and circumstances in which this Act will apply, where there is strong suspicion of a food safety hazard being present.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Koh Poh Koon]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of a Sitting","subTitle":"In Parliament","sectionType":"OS","content":"
Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Pursuant to Standing Order No 2(5)(d), I propose to extend the time of this day's sitting beyond the moment of interruption for a period of up to 30 minutes. Senior Minister of State Chee Hong Tat.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information (Mr Chee Hong Tat): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Sir, may I have your permission to seek two points of clarifications with Mr Leon Perera?
Mr Deputy Speaker: You have my permission.
6.50 pm
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Thank you, Sir. Sir, earlier during the supplementary question and answer time for Parliamentary Question (PQ) No 22, Mr Perera mentioned that there was an example of how he had emailed to Mediacorp regarding a footage of a parliamentary debate and he felt that some parts were left out. [Please refer to \"Video Recordings of Parliamentary Proceedings\", Official Report, 7 November 2017, Vol 94, Issue No 54, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
I have checked the facts of the correspondence between Mr Perera and Mediacorp. Based on what I understand, Mr Perera wrote to Mediacorp on 20 February this year and he made reference to a footage of the debate during the Second Reading of the Presidential Elections (Amendment) Bill on 6 February. Mediacorp replied to Mr Perera on the same day, 20 February, to explain that a technical error had led to a truncation of the clip and Mediacorp had fixed it on 18 February, two days before Mr Perera wrote to them. So, this was what they wrote in their email reply to Mr Perera.
I just wanted to confirm with Mr Perera whether what I described is factually accurate because, based on what I understand and as I explained to him and the House earlier today, the policy is not to leave out any parts of the debate; the footage will show the full debate.
What Mediacorp will do is that they would rearrange the footages by speaker to make it more convenient for viewers to choose which footage they want to view. So, that is the first point of clarification that I would like to seek from Mr Perera. Maybe I will let Mr Perera reply to the first point.
Mr Deputy Speaker:\tMr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State. That is, indeed, in accordance with my recollection of the exchange that I had with Mediacorp. What was communicated to me was that was a technical glitch on that occasion where certain parts of the video footage were truncated. So, I think as a result of that exchange I had with Mediacorp, they removed the video with the truncations and then they uploaded a new video without the truncations. As I referred to in my earlier comments during my exchange with the Senior Minister of State, the issue was amicably resolved.
The purpose of that exchange was to establish whether or not there is any editing that is occasionally done. If it is the Senior Minister of State's assurance that, generally, as a matter of policy, such footage is never edited, I am quite prepared to accept that assurance.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Member for his clarification. But I do need to further confirm one point with him, which is that his email to Mediacorp was dated 20 February. Mediacorp, in their reply to Mr Perera, said that they had already fixed the problem of the truncated clip on 18 February. So, in other words, it was not a result of Mr Perera's email to them. They had confirmed with Mr Perera in their reply they had already fixed the truncated clip on 18 February when he emailed to them on 20 February. May I please seek confirmation from Mr Perera that what I described is factually accurate?
Mr Leon Perera: I thank the Senior Minister of State for his comments. I do not have a specific recollection of the dates but I will say at this point that it could well be the case that there was the correspondence. I would need to go back and refer to my archive of emails to verify if that is the case. But I am sure and I am quite willing to accept what the Senior Minister of State has said that that is the case. I am sure that that will be the case when I have verified. So, I am quite prepared to accept that fact.
And, as I said earlier, I am quite prepared to accept the Senior Minister of State's assurance that video footage is not, as a matter of policy, edited, for whatever reason, and that it is uploaded verbatim with the exception of errors or technical glitches that I do accept will happen from time to time.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for his confirmation. I would like to seek a second point of clarification with Mr Perera and this pertains to the debate earlier on the Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) (Amendment) Bill.
During the debate, Mr Perera, in his speech, supported the use of e-cigarettes, which is also what tobacco companies have advocated. I would like to seek clarification from Mr Perera that I understand that he is the CEO of Spire Group, which is a research and consulting company. I wanted to ask and confirm if the Member has any interest that he wishes to declare.
Mr Leon Perera: I thank the Senior Minister of State for his remarks. And my comments are not in any way motivated by any prospect of financial gain. As a general matter of policy, the work that my company does, does not pertain to the tobacco business at all, in fact. And that is the position that we have taken historically. So, I do not serve tobacco clients in a private capacity in the work that I do for this company.
I would add that I take strong objection to any implication that the opinions I have expressed in my speech for the Tobacco Bill was motivated by commercial considerations in any way. They were motivated purely on matters of principle and matters of opinion.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I had only asked the Member if he had any interest to declare. Can I also ask Mr Perera if Henkel, a key manufacturer of adhesives for cigarettes is a client of Spire Group of which Mr Perera is the Chief Executive Officer?
Mr Leon Perera: The Senior Minister of State has asked if Henkel is a client. Henkel, I believe, has been a very small past client. But as I mentioned earlier, we do not support tobacco companies. We do not work with tobacco companies as clients − Philip Morris and so on and so forth. These are not clients of the company I work for and, therefore, there is no commercial motivation in the comments that I made.
And I would like to register my very strong objection to any insinuation that there is any commercial motivation to the comments that I made. They are matters of principle which are matters of my opinion and they are not motivated by any prospect of financial gain or commercial gain. So, I want to register a very strong objection to that.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to a day to be fixed\". – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien]. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Maximising Every Student's Potential in Classrooms of the Future","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, few subjects are as important to the future of our economy and our society as education. The quality of human resources is key to boosting investment, innovation, productivity and entrepreneurship in a developed economy like ours. Effective education is tied to quality of life, and good physical and mental health.
In this speech, I shall argue for smaller form class sizes in Primary and Secondary schools with consequent reductions in the size of all classes conducted. This is not a magic bullet solution. We should push for improvement on other fronts, like reducing the script marking workload for teachers which my colleague Mr Dennis Tan asked about recently.
But smaller class sizes for core subjects have the potential to unlock many other benefits, especially given the need to grow innovation, productivity and entrepreneurship in an era of artificial intelligence and disruption, where growing non-cognitive skills and attributes are so important. This is not a new subject and has been raised multiple times in this House by current and former Workers' Party Members of Parliament and Non-constituency Members of Parliament, such as Mr Yee Jenn Jong, Mr Png Eng Huat and Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.
Average and median form class sizes in Primary and Secondary schools range from 32 to 36. This is above the norm for other developed countries and also substantially above the norm for the Gifted Education Programme classes, private tuition centre classes and classes for most international schools operating in Singapore. Having said that, subject-based banded classes and remedial classes may be smaller, though I was informed in a reply to an earlier Parliamentary Question that the size of remedial classes is not tracked by MOE.
The overall class size in the OECD fell by 6.8% between 2000 and 2010 to a little over 20. Class size decreased in countries with the largest classes in 2000 whereas it stayed the same or increased slightly in the countries which already had small class sizes in 2000.
Let me first discuss the academic evidence for the benefits of smaller class sizes.
Smaller class sizes allow teachers to focus on obtaining more teacher-student interaction during class time. This achieves several benefits as demonstrated by research.
Firstly, smaller classes allow deeper internalisation of subject matter through more engagement − weaker or less engaged students have less room to stay quiet and not be engaged in the lesson. A literature review by the US Centre for Public Education based on an analysis of 19 studies showed a positive link, even if there are other factors at play. I quote, \"Some researchers have not found a connection between smaller classes and higher student achievement, but most of the research shows that when class size reduction programs are well-designed and implemented in the primary grades (K-3), student achievement rises as class size drops.\"
The famous randomised experiment Project Star in the US State of Tennessee concluded that \"students placed in smaller classrooms performed better than their peers in larger classrooms across all grade levels tested and across all geographic regions\". And I note that Project Star, while not perfect, meets the basic gold standard for research, namely a controlled, randomised experiment.
A University of Glasgow study by Valerie Wilson for the Institute of Education Sciences, the research arm of the US Department of Education, concluded that class size reduction does increase student achievement, especially among those who most need it. A 2008 British study by Blatchford, Bassett and Brown with the University of London involving close observation of classrooms in 22 primary schools and 27 secondary schools concluded that low attaining students were more than twice as likely to be disengaged in classes of 30 students than they were in classes of 15.
In a 2003 Review of Educational Research article, Finn, Pannozzo and Achilles cited evidence for the visibility principle − students in small classes experienced increased encouragement to participate as they may be called upon more frequently to answer questions or to participate in a class activity. There are many other studies that have arrived at similar conclusions, too numerous to mention here.
Secondly, smaller classes may stimulate non-cognitive skills (NCS) or soft skills among students, such as confidence, curiosity, leadership, communication and social skills through participating in discussion, arguing one's case, debating and encouraging students to pose questions and answers. These skills to do with communication, confidence and self-mastery are needed for competitiveness in the 21st century and may lead to economic benefits that would justify the additional investment.
A scholarly article by John Johnston of Memphis State University using STAR data also found that students in smaller classes were more willing to take risks, less inhibited, less afraid of being wrong, volunteered to answer questions more, felt safe with their ideas; were more curious, enthusiastic and eager to participate versus those in regular sized classes. In a 2015 article in the British Educational Research Journal, Harfitt and Tsui found evidence for smaller class sizes being linked to higher frequency of volunteered responses and greater interactions with teachers via asking questions or clarifications, which relate to communication and confidence.
In a US National Bureau of Economic Research article in 2008, Dee and West found links between smaller classes and non-cognitive skills that are highly predictive of long-term education and labour-market outcomes.
Thirdly, as a result of the factors above, smaller classes may reduce our dependence on Singapore's massive private tuition industry. In the tuition industry, much smaller classes are near-universal. Less tuition and less remedial classes as a result of more effective teaching in smaller classes would free up children's time to explore and develop other aspects of character, learning and skills.
Class size reduction also has an egalitarian dimension. Better-off students can always afford to cultivate soft skills and content mastery through private tuition, enrichment classes or parental coaching. Smaller classes may help level the playing field and enhance equality of opportunity for students from disadvantaged backgrounds − which, in turn, may crucially unleash talent from disadvantaged families, the kind of talent that our economy needs.
An analysis of multiple studies by David Zyngier of Monash University, drawing on data from several countries and reviewing 112 papers over 35 years, concluded that \"smaller class sizes in the first four years of school can have an important and lasting impact on student achievement, especially for children from culturally, linguistically and economically disenfranchised communities\".
In a previous exchange I had in this House with Minister Ng Chee Meng relating to class size, the Minister cited that smaller class sizes could be found in subject-based banded classes and remedial classes and classes under the Learning Support Programme, though it was revealed in reply to my previous written Parliamentary Question that the size of remedial classes is not tracked by MOE. However, remedial classes with smaller class sizes do not fully address the arguments I have shared here for two reasons.
Firstly, being sent to remedial classes or special pull-out classes may stigmatise students and erode their self-confidence. There is evidence that self-confidence or self-esteem affects academic performance, potentially creating a vicious cycle, for example, a 2011 study by Booth and Gerard.
Secondly, having to attend remedial classes on top of regular classes, as with tuition, erodes available free time, which has other adverse effects on weaker students, such as less free time to explore and develop other aspects of character and learning.
There is also some evidence that smaller class sizes may increase teacher retention. This a worthy goal to pursue. Continuity matters to learning outcomes because a teacher who knows his or her students deeply and builds rapport with them will be a more effective teacher.
A 2008 paper by Price and Terry of the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration in the USA found evidence of a link between smaller classes and a higher level of teacher satisfaction because smaller classes allowed for more and better enrichment activities. The same study also found evidence that smaller classes may reduce teacher attrition. Using data from the SAGE study, Molnar, Smith and Zahorik, in a 1999 paper, found evidence for a link between smaller classes and fewer discipline problems.
The 2015 Harfitt study found that teachers linked smaller class size to having more freedom to plan and interact, less trial-and-error, less worry over deadlines for marking and homework preparation, improved classroom management and the ability to know their pupils better.
Opponents of class size as a driver of outcomes often cite the work of John Hattie, an Australian researcher, which some have cited as disproving that class size makes a difference. This work has been criticised by other researchers, notably Ivan Snook from Massey University.
The criticism centres on the problems associated with Hattie's methodology of synthesising a whole range of meta-studies on a simple quantitative scale. No control separates good research from bad and more robust gold standard research, like the Tennessee STAR study, from other kinds of studies. Also, Hattie's work focuses on quantifiable academic performance, not attributes like non-cognitive skills and attitudes where evidence suggests smaller classes are of significant benefit.
The same objection applies to the work of Wormann and West in 2002 which, while it claims zero class size effect in Singapore, relies mainly on historical data from the TIMSS database on maths scores, is not a randomised experiment nor measures other subjects, let alone non-cognitive skills.
It should also be noted that class size is not the same as student-teacher ratio (STR). In terms of STR, the gap between Singapore and other countries may not be as large. However, favourable STRs may be consistent with unfavourable class sizes, depending on how much of a teacher's time is spent teaching, how many classes are held and so on.
If the issue is that academic evidence is divided, we suggest there should be a large randomised trial in Singapore, along similar lines to the massive, seminal Tennessee STAR project that is still being referred to by educators today, to study the impact of reducing average and median form class sizes to the 20-25 range. If the trial is positive, we should move towards a universal form class size of 20-25 as a goal. Twenty to 25 seems a good balance point between what is desirable and what is feasible in respect of cost and availability of teachers. It is a little above the 2010 OECD average.
Cost is never irrelevant. However, the cost implications of this suggestion should be less of an issue with current declining enrolments, which give us an opportunity to redeploy teachers to smaller classes. And I can think of few other more important national priorities in long-term spending than getting our education right.
Education is really one of the key, if not the key competitive success factor for our economy going forward because it potentially creates pathways to innovation, productivity and entrepreneurship. If incremental cost is an issue, let us debate this with the benefit of the numbers so that potential trade-offs can be explored in a concrete manner. And the speed at which we move towards this goal can thus be calibrated accordingly.
In summary, I urge the Government to conduct a large, randomised trial for smaller classes to determine the effects on academic achievement, levelling up poorer students in non-cognitive skills and attributes, such as confidence.
Such a trial should be designed and supervised by an independent academic panel of recognised professionals and the results published for scrutiny. If the results are positive, we should target a form class size of 20-25 as a mid-term goal and use falling enrolments while keeping the number of teachers stable to make the changes necessary, so as to minimise cost increases.
The reduction in form class size should have a cascading effect to reduce the size of most classes as they currently exist, be they remedial or banded. The change should be used as a pivot to revamp our pedagogy in schools, to shift it towards more classroom participation designed to engender non-cognitive skills and attributes, as well as to level up across students from different socio-economic and family backgrounds. The speed at which we can move towards this goal will depend on fiscal resources. But such a change should reduce the need for remedial classes, which may generate cost savings. This change may also produce benefits in terms of teacher satisfaction, which may be linked to productivity, effectiveness and reduced attrition of teachers, which has cost benefits, too.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, effective teaching − teaching that levels up and that instils non-cognitive and non-academic skills − is a critical goal for Singapore. Our economy's competitiveness as a developed country in the 21st century, amidst all the disruption from artificial intelligence and other factors that will unfold, hinges on the quality of our human resources. We need to churn out future entrepreneurs and disruptors.
MOE has reduced average class sizes before: for Primary 1 in 2005 and Primary 2 in 2006. In Parliament in 2007, the outcome of this class size reduction change was described by the Government as positive.
Let us not shirk from giving all students the kind of benefits of small class sizes that Gifted Education Programme students now enjoy and that established academic research has demonstrated. And not by way of remedial classes that have their own down-sides and side effects. Let us not shirk from making the changes needed to turn Singapore's future classrooms into incubators of innovation and catalysts for equality of opportunity.
The Minister for Education (Schools) (Mr Ng Chee Meng): Mr Deputy Speaker, my Ministry is committed to bringing out the best in every child by providing the opportunities and learning environment to enable every child to do so. We stay abreast of good educational practices and developments in other countries, and constantly review how we can take ideas and adapt them to our context, including ideas that have been discussed in this House by my esteemed colleagues, including Ms Denise Phua.
My Ministry has already embarked on this journey to nurture future-ready and responsible learners, bringing the future classroom into reality today. I will share briefly about our holistic approach in three areas: Learners; Learning Spaces, in which technologies are embedded; and Teachers. It is teachers and how they teach that make the critical difference, not class sizes.
First, maximising the potential of every child starts with the Learner. Our curriculum has shifted to focus more on 21st Century Competencies, such as Critical and Inventive Thinking, that enable our students to solve real-world problems creatively; and Collaboration and Communication skills that enable them to work effectively in teams.
Earlier this year, I spoke about the importance of nurturing the joy of learning in our children. This is so that they can discover their interests and passions. This intrinsic motivation is key to lifelong learning and success. I stressed the importance of developing an entrepreneurial dare so that our children will have the resilience, adaptability and enterprising spirit to apply their learning to real-world contexts and pursue their passions.
These are key aspects of a holistic education, not just simply class sizes. Taken together, these fundamental dispositions, attitudes and skills will help our students thrive in an uncertain and complex world. We will continue to enhance our focus on nurturing these dispositions, while moving away from an over-emphasis on academic grades.
This brings me to my second point. We are already evolving our Learning Spaces beyond the classroom to provide for a more authentic learning experience. To prepare our children for the future, it is not just about class sizes, but how we get them to apply their learning; because Applied Learning connects what they learn in the classroom with real-world contexts, be it in the STEM arena, the Arts or the Humanities domain. It combines content mastery with a more applied and practice-oriented approach to learning. Using their knowledge and skills, students can experiment, investigate and develop innovative ideas and solutions to real-world problems. Through hands-on experience and exposure, they can better discover their strengths and interests, as well as their future education and career pathways.
How is Applied Learning implemented in schools? We worked with different agencies. In the area of coding and technology, we worked with IMDA to expose students to basic coding and technology through various activities. \"Code for Fun\", for example, is an enrichment programme that has benefited 73,000 students in both Primary and Secondary schools since 2014. The \"Lab on Wheels\", a bus that travels from school to school, allows students to tinker with modern technologies, such as 3D printers, drones and other fun stuff. How do you calibrate class sizes in such activities? We should not fixate on a single dimension of success in education.
The Applied Learning Programme (ALP) is offered in all Secondary schools from this year. Coding and technology are just two examples of ALPs that are offered in our schools. Many of the ALPs in STEM areas, such as Health Science, Transport and Communication, and Robotics are very welcome. There are also non-STEM areas, such as in the Languages, Humanities, Business and Entrepreneurship.
In line with the chosen ALP focus, schools design and deliver activities to expose students to these new areas and fuel their passion for learning, in and outside the classroom. Many of the ALPs have been developed with relevant industry partners, Government agencies and even Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs).
Students with keen STEM interest can develop their interests through these programmes or relevant Co-Curricular Activities (CCAs). Again, how do we measure these programmes through class sizes?
Upper Secondary students can go one step further. They can take up Advanced Elective Modules or Applied Subjects. Examples of these include Computing and Electronics for the Express and Normal (Academic) courses and Mobile Robotics and Smart Electrical Technology for the Normal (Technical) courses. These are electives. Again, this is not in the era where Mr Perera and I grew up where they are all standardised – 40 in a class. These are all in different class sizes. Feedback from students who took these modules or subjects have been very positive. They enjoyed seeing their learning come alive and were engaged in the process, regardless of which course they are from.
In addition, we are also redesigning the education experience for students to provide a more customised learning space to help every child realise his potential. What I mentioned in ALPs are just one way we do so, to cater to learners with different interests and aptitudes.
A major change we are making this year is to allow Secondary school students to offer subjects at differentiated levels, based on their strengths. Lower Secondary students in the Normal (Academic) and Normal (Technical) courses will be able to take their stronger subject(s) at a higher academic level.
This, as the Member has mentioned, could be in class sizes of 10, 15 or 20. We are flexible. This flexibility allows students to stretch themselves in their areas of strength and build a strong academic foundation. Such a foundation will position them well to harness future technologies and future learning so that they can thrive. For example, many of the skills needed are already developed today in our classrooms, regardless of class sizes.
We are also making more learning resources available to students on the online space to enable them to pursue their interests in a self-directed manner. When we look at the classrooms of the future, on the online space, how do we define class size?
From next year, all students will be able to access quality learning resources through our Student Learning Space, which is a new online portal. Riding on this technology and with these resources, students can access additional material according to their interest, and at their own pace anytime, anywhere. This is learning in the future classroom, beyond class sizes.
Third, competent and dedicated teachers remain key to our students' learning. We invest in our teachers because teacher quality is critical to improving student outcomes. This is most decisive, backed by OECD research. In spite of the different research that the Member has quoted, these researches are not conclusive.
For example, John Hattie's work on the effects of class sizes says that these early advantages are not necessarily sustained. In fact, they can be short-term. But what I can say is having grown our teaching force by 20% over the last decade, our current pupil-teacher ratios at 16 and 12 for Primary and Secondary school levels respectively are already comparable to OECD standards. Instead of reducing class sizes across the board, schools deploy teachers flexibly to keep the class sizes smaller for students who need that extra support. Pull-out classes, as I informed the Member previously, for levelling-up, can be in smaller classes of six to eight. And, as I have said before, too, the form class size is not indicative of the learning support or attention that our students are receiving. The future classroom does not look like what it was yesteryear.
Schools already band students into smaller teaching groups based on their learning needs, for example, in the levelling-up programmes and Subject-Based Banding classes that I have mentioned.
For our teachers, we also invest in their continual professional development, because they are key. This year, we launched the Singapore Teaching Practice (STP), our very own model of teaching and learning that is backed by research evidence and this will be adopted by NIE and in our schools. It brings together the shared beliefs of Singapore educators − past and present − and effective practices that lead to engaged and joyful learning across our schools.
Mr Deputy Speaker :\tMinister, you have five more minutes.
Mr Ng Chee Meng:Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. With this common reference point, teachers can innovate their teaching practices to better meet the evolving needs of students today.
Our teachers also continue to keep themselves current with the latest pedagogy, as well as suitable education technologies. Within their schools, they are supported by trained mentors. And beyond their schools, they are committed to a range of in-service professional development courses, as well as networked learning communities.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I have laid out in brief what MOE has developed to prepare our students for the future, whether in the classrooms today or tomorrow, and certainly beyond a single dimension of defining what are the best tools we can use to ensure their success.
MOE is embarking on many exciting changes, but in all the things that we are doing, we are guided by values and character education that will always remain at the core of our children's education. With sound values, the right learning dispositions and the deep knowledge and skills, I am confident that our students can rise up to the opportunities and challenges of the future economy and Singaporean society. Thank you. [Applause.]
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
Adjourned accordingly at 7.28 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":"Government's Response to Proposed Reforms to Investor-state Arbitration Regime","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan asked the Minister for Law what is the Ministry's position on the proposed reforms to the investor-state arbitration regime, particularly the creation of a stand-alone appellate body in the current regime or a new international investment court as a multilateral permanent tribunal.
Mr K Shanmugam: MinLaw works closely together with our partners in the legal industry to steer Singapore's overall development and growth as a hub for international dispute resolution, including in the area of investment arbitration. Top international arbitral institutions which handle investment arbitration, such as the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), already have a presence or regularly undertake investment arbitration in Singapore. The Singapore International Arbitration Centre this year also released a set of Investment Arbitration Rules to handle such cases.
Investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) typically involves arbitration of investment-related disputes that arise against the backdrop of international investment agreements or free trade agreements. In these cases, investors may directly bring a foreign state to arbitration, without having to involve their home state as a party to the proceedings. Some concerns have been raised over the present regime for ISDS, such as the independence of arbitrators, the lack of a mechanism to dismiss unfounded claims early, and the absence of a review mechanism to ensure coherence and correctness in arbitral decisions, amongst others. A number of countries, including Singapore, have sought to address some of these concerns in their recent trade and investment treaties, for example, by adopting codes of conduct for arbitrators and building in expedited claims dismissal mechanisms into such agreements.
Some quarters of the international legal community have advocated for more structural reform, such as the establishment of an appellate body for appeals against decisions of arbitral tribunals, or a new multilateral investment court as a permanent tribunal. These proposed reforms have more recently been taken up in discussions at various international fora. The details are not yet fully developed. For instance, in July this year, the United Nations Commission of International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) tasked one of its constituent Working Groups to consider concerns regarding ISDS and whether reform was desirable in light of any of the identified concerns. ICSID also recently announced that it will be commencing a review of its rules and regulations to address a number of related issues.
Singapore welcomes a discussion of the issues arising out of the current ISDS framework. We take the view that it is important to first carefully consider what the gaps are, and all of the proposed reforms – whether they involve fine-tuning the existing ISDS framework or structural reform – in detail. To this end, MinLaw has been participating in the international dialogue on this issue. We look forward to the development of an ISDS framework that is fair, workable, and cost-effective.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Banning Practice of Declawing Cats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"33 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will consider banning the practice of declawing cats except for medical reasons.
Mr Lawrence Wong: AVA does not encourage the practice of declawing cats. Such a procedure should only be performed as an absolute last resort or as an alternative to euthanasia. The Code of Ethics for Veterinarians, which was co-developed by AVA and the Singapore Veterinary Association, requires veterinarians to advise their clients about non-surgical alternatives and to ensure that all reasonable efforts have been made to manage scratching problems prior to performing any surgery. Failure to do so can result in written warnings, composition fines or even suspension or revocation of veterinary licences.
That said, there have been occasions where persistent scratching can harm the cat itself, other pets or humans in the household. For instance, repeated scratches could seriously injure a person who has severe immune-deficiencies or bleeding disorders. In such cases, if the owners are unable to resolve the issue despite having tried all other measures, declawing could well be the only option left for them to keep their cats. The other option would be to give them up. This would be a worse outcome for both the animal and the responsible owner.
AVA will continue to educate cat owners and raise awareness on alternatives to declawing. Vets, animal welfare groups and the public can also help to spread the message.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Announcements on Peak-hour MRT Delays","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the peak hour MRT delays experienced on 24 October 2017 were announced to commuters through all the usual channels and, if not, what was the reason; and (b) whether the delay had exceeded the 10-minute delay threshold beyond which such announcements are mandatory.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: On 24 October 2017, SMRT operated the East West Line (EWL) train services at slower speeds due to a signalling fault. SMRT informed commuters through the usual channels, including regular station and train announcements.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Development of Aviation Industry from SIA-Boeing Deal","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) regarding the $18.7 billion SIA-Boeing deal that was recently announced (a) whether there will be economic activities to be undertaken in Singapore that can support the development of our aviation industry as a result of this transaction; and (b) whether economic activities, such as the manufacturing of parts of the aircraft being ordered or provision of related services, were negotiated as a condition of the transaction.
Mr S Iswaran: SIA's recent order of Boeing planes was a commercial deal negotiated between SIA and Boeing. While the Singapore Government was not involved in the deal, the deal could lead to economic spin-offs for Singapore, through new business opportunities for Boeing's aftermarket services and new maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) activities.
First, the new aircraft will provide new opportunities for SIA to expand its network while supporting fleet modernisation.
Second, Boeing has a substantial aftermarket services presence in Singapore today, covering activities, such as pilot training, flight services, fleet management and digital aviation services, which could support SIA's expanded Boeing fleet.
Third, SIA Engineering Company (SIAEC) and GE Aviation have announced an agreement to establish a proposed joint venture (JV) in Singapore, which will provide engine MRO services for GE90 engines, as well as GE9X engines powering SIA's new fleet of Boeing 777X aircraft.
The Government, has been supporting capability building efforts across the diverse segments of our aerospace industry, including engine overhaul MRO and airframe MRO. To this end, we are currently developing the Aerospace Industry Transformation Map (ITM), which will lay out comprehensive strategies to ensure that we are well-positioned to capture the growth opportunities in the aerospace industry.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Safeguarding Interests of Children and Employees in Pre-school Centres against Insolvency","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what safeguards are in place to protect the interests of children enrolled in pre-school programmes as well as employees of pre-school centres in the event that such centres become insolvent and cease operations.
Mr Desmond Lee: The focus of the Government's regulations for preschools is to ensure the safety, well-being and development of our young children enrolled in these preschools. Where operations are deemed to be affected and risk the safety and well-being of children, the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) will intervene decisively and involve other Government agencies to investigate more complex cases. In the event of unforeseen centre closures, ECDA will assist parents with alternative placement for their children. For teachers, it is an offence for employers not to pay salaries and CPF contributions.MOM and CPF Board will investigate such cases.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":1423,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Sim Ann","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20171107/vernacular-Sim Ann(1).pdf","fileName":"Sim Ann(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":1813,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20171107/vernacular-Lee Bee Wah Tobacco Bill 7 Nov 2017-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Lee Bee Wah Tobacco Bill 7 Nov 2017-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":1814,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20171107/vernacular-Intan(1).pdf","fileName":"Intan(1).pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}