1 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) (a) whether he can provide a detailed account of the recent spate of fraudulent claims from SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG); (b) what are the counter-measures taken; and (c) whether a full review will be undertaken to prevent future breaches.
2 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) what will be the measures taken to prevent future abuses of SkillsFuture claims without stifling the growth of the SkillsFuture movement.
3 Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) (a) what is the outcome of the Government's internal investigation into the weakness of its controls over the $40 million scam on SkillsFuture claims; (b) whether there have been additional safeguards put in place since $2.2 million have been identified as false claims earlier in March 2017; (c) why did the rectification measures put in place from the earlier incident failed to prevent the recent occurrence; and (d) whether any staff or personnel have been suspended pending investigations on the lapse.
\tThe Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Mr Deputy Speaker, can I take Question Nos 1 to 3 together, please?
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Yes, please, carry on.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: The Members asked about two separate cases of fraudulent claims. They were unrelated and of different natures.
In the first case, more than 4,400 individuals were found to have made false SkillsFuture Credit claims within a very short period last year, amounting to over $2 million. The fraudulent claims were made by individuals who did not attend any training but falsely claimed to have done so. They acted largely on their own accord, prompted by a viral WhatsApp message. As of December, over 90% of these individuals have either made full payment or have made arrangements for instalment payments. Those who did not respond will be blacklisted for all future SkillsFuture grant claims until they have repaid. We will also not rule out further legal and enforcement actions.
Arising from that episode, SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) has reviewed the claims processes for SkillsFuture Credit. Individuals can no longer be directly reimbursed by SSG for use of SkillsFuture Credit. It has already been implemented. Instead, payments will be made to training providers, who then reduce the course fees chargeable accordingly. This arrangement has significantly reduced the risk of false claims under SkillsFuture Credit. At the same time, the claim process is still convenient and easy and has not affected the number of individuals using their SkillsFuture Credit every month.
The second case involves $40 million of fraudulent claims. It did not involve SkillsFuture Credit or new SkillsFuture programmes. Instead, the fraudulent claims were for training grants drawn from the Skills Development Fund (SDF). SDF was established in 1979 to support the training and retraining of workers and workforce upgrading programmes and is built up through levies collected from employers. It is, therefore, a scheme that has been around for many years.
From its preliminary investigations, the Police believe that a criminal syndicate was behind this. The syndicate operated an organised network that utilised business entities, comprising employer companies and training providers to submit fraudulent claims. Central Provident Fund documents provided by the syndicate listed employees that the Police believe were fictitious. In short, this appears to be an elaborate and conscious effort.
These fraudulent claims were made in 2017, with the majority being made in October. When these irregular claims were detected, SSG immediately suspended all payments of grants to the relevant business entities and reported the case to the Police. Five persons have been charged with various offences, such as engaging in a conspiracy to submit forged documents and concealing the benefits from criminal conduct. The Police have also seized $6.7 million in cash and 11 kilogrammes of gold, and frozen slightly more than $10 million in bank accounts.
As investigations are ongoing, I am unable to disclose more details about the case. But what is clear is that this case involves fraudulent claims amounting to a large quantum. This should not have been allowed to happen. While we cannot always prevent all forms of fraudulent activities, SSG should have detected this case much earlier, especially when it was so egregious and the amounts involved were so large.
SSG's priorities are as follows: firstly, work with the enforcement agencies on the current prosecution to ensure that any perpetrators will face the full consequences of the law; secondly, systematically plough through other claims it has received over the past year. And thankfully, so far, there is no evidence of other cases of a similar nature.
Thirdly and very urgently, improve the system of fraud detection, checks and audits. SSG has formed an Interagency Process Review Task Force, overseen by its Board, and comprising members from SSG management, the Accountant-General’s Department, Commercial Affairs Department and the Ministry of Education (MOE). The task force is conducting a thorough review of how the fraudulent cases happened and will evaluate the current fraud detection system and make recommendations to improve the system.
Specifically, I have directed SSG to strengthen its fraud detection system through data analytics. Fraudsters, who are going all out to cheat, are getting more sophisticated and their plans more elaborate. They will also evolve their approach. SSG's detection system must improve and become more sophisticated, too. Through appropriate use of data analytics and drawing on data across Government agencies, we can better detect false claims without significantly affecting genuine employers applying for training grants to upgrade the skills of their workers. SSG is currently getting help from both private sector consultants and Government Technology Agency (GovTech) to get this done. It has restructured and strengthened the fraud detection and audit team. SSG has started implementing some of the measures manually and will progressively automate and systematise them. By the third quarter of this year, we will have a good and effective data analytics system in place.
In response to Mr Zaqy Mohamad's question, as of now, no staff member has been disciplined or suspended arising from the latest fraud case as there has been no evidence of wrongdoing by any staff member thus far. But SSG will take necessary management measures to remedy this weakness in fraud detection capability. We must also take the real culprits to task, send a strong deterrent signal, so that SkillsFuture continues to serve the working people of Singapore.
We cannot afford a repeat of fraudulent claims of such egregious nature and of such scale. SSG will do a thorough review and rectify any shortcomings in grant administration that it may have. But at the same time, we should not allow this case to detract from the important task of reskilling and upskilling the workforce in this period of technological disruptions and economic restructuring.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.
\tMr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Minister for the answer and response. The Minister agrees that because of the large amount of public funds involved, we need measures to prevent such occurrences from happening in the future. Will the Ministry consider raising the bar or, in fact, having greater sanctions and harsher penalties in the review for the SDF Levy Act as well as related legislation involving public funds?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: This will clearly come under the Penal Code. Administratively, we have a process. When we set up SSG, we enacted the SSG Act. We have provided for higher penalties. But for cases, such as this, of such an egregious nature will have to come under the Penal Code.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Sir, I have one supplementary question. I have received feedback from residents that, very often, they were falsely told that SkillsFuture Credit will expire, for example, while some are being told that they would need further courses in order for their certificate to be valid. I would like to ask the Minister whether there is any plan to make the reporting of such service providers easier. For example, is there a hotline set up for residents to report such service providers?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: I thank the Member for the suggestion. We will definitely consider having such a hotline. I believe a hotline to SSG does exist, but we probably have to make it more widely known. The Member can assure her residents that SkillsFuture Credit does not expire.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Zaqy Mohamad.
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang): I welcome the Minister's approach and strategies to combat such scams in the future. Bearing in mind that this may also mean tightening of the processes, firstly, how would SSG balance not having to make it more onerous for employers to claim and, secondly, given that $40 million was involved in the scams, how does it affect the performance and results that SkillsFuture had earlier reported? Will some old numbers be taken out and the adjusted numbers re-reported?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: We cannot count those numbers as training; that would not be honest. In any case, training numbers are not really the full outcome of what SkillsFuture is trying to achieve. We work closely with the Ministry of Manpower. The Adapt and Grow numbers drawing on SkillsFuture funding and programmes are much more important. Thus, outcomes are one thing, key performance indicators are one thing, but understand the spirit of what we are trying to do and the real ground impact of what we want to do.
How to make it not onerous? That is an excellent clarification. The natural instinct is to think, \"Because this thing happened, let us double-check everything and let us check a huge number\" but this will impede the whole system. That is when genuine employers who want to train their workers will get affected. But we do not have to do that and, if we do that, we will end up putting out efforts in the wrong areas. What we want to do is, through data analytics, work out the pattern of cheating and then we can detect them much better. That pattern of detection of cheating has to keep on evolving because they are evolving, too.
If we can do that well – and we must do that well – we will not over burden employers. We can improve the audit and fraud detection system while not over-burdening employers. The bottom line is this: the system has a big capability gap today, this could have been prevented and it should have been prevented, and we will take the necessary actions to remedy this.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Sun Xueling.
\tMs Sun Xueling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): I have two questions for the Minister. First, will GovTech be involved in the move to use data analytics to prevent fraudulent claims and, secondly, what are the terms of reference for the Interagency Task Force and will they be making their findings public?
\tMr \tOng Ye Kung: The answer to the first question is yes, GovTech is involved. Beyond GovTech, we are also inviting private sector expertise to help us in this work. Second, on the Interagency Task Force, I do not have the terms of reference with me, but essentially, it has to, firstly, review the entire circumstances of the fraud case, how it happened; secondly, what are the gaps in our system today that led to us not being able to detect this and led to us detecting it so late; third, implement the measures; and fourth, to take a hard look at the whole structure and system, and what are the changes we need to do, including personnel, organisational reporting lines. So, it will be a comprehensive review.
If the Member files a question, I will be happy to report on the findings of the task force.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Investigation and Review into Fraudulent Claims for Government Schemes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Finance (a) whether he can provide a detailed account of the recent spate of Wage Credit Scheme claims; (b) what are the countermeasures taken; and (c) whether a full review will be undertaken to prevent future breaches.
5 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Finance in light of recent fraudulent claims made under the Productivity and Innovation Credit, Wage Credit Scheme and SkillsFuture (a) what considerations determine whether additional audits or investigations of a forensic nature ought to be carried out for claims under these schemes; and (b) whether there is any threshold of fraudulent claims which can lead to the suspension/review of such Government schemes in view of the administrative burden of assessing fraudulent claims.
\tThe Second Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong) (for the Minister for Finance): Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission, I would like to take Question Nos 4 and 5 together.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Yes, please proceed.
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Sir, the Wage Credit Scheme (WCS), Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC), and the SkillsFuture movement were designed for specific economic and social objectives. For businesses, especially small and medium enterprises, the PIC provides funding support so that they can become more productive and, hence, more profitable over time. Through WCS, the Government supports businesses by sharing in sustainable wage growth for workers, especially for our lower- and middle-income workers. As for SkillsFuture, this is a national movement to empower individuals to take charge of their own learning and adapt to a changing world.
Mr Patrick Tay asked about WCS. A total of more than $4.7 billion in Wage Credit payouts has been given out to employers from 2014 to 2017. This includes the recent payout in 2017, where more than $0.6 billion of Wage Credit payouts were made to over 85,000 employers.
Over the same period, which is from 2014 to 2017, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) denied or clawed back $5.57 million of WCS payouts. IRAS found a total of over 1,000 cases where employers either gave false information or contrived to fraudulently obtain payouts that they did not qualify for or which were otherwise non-compliant. The vast majority of these payouts were denied upfront, with the remainder being clawed back by IRAS largely within a year. These figures cover cases of attempted fraud which IRAS detected and acted against over the four-year period. The media had reported the figures recently, but they were not a recent phenomenon. So, the 1,000 cases were all acted upon over the entire period of WCS, since it started. But IRAS recently publicised these figures to caution employers against attempts to abuse or game the system.
Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Pritam Singh also asked how Government agencies go about investigating fraudulent claims. The Minister for Higher Education and Skills has covered SkillsFuture, and so I will cover WCS and PIC.
Essentially, IRAS uses a risk-based approach to safeguard against abuse. This methodology is used for all IRAS programmes, including WCS and PIC. All potential WCS payouts and PIC applications are first checked upfront against a set of predetermined criteria for signs that indicate possible gaming. This is complemented by the use of analytics, field intelligence and other sources of information, including a whistleblowing platform.
Cases that are assessed to be of a higher-risk profile, say, claim amounts that are not commensurate with the scale of the business, are subject to more detailed investigations. For WCS, this may entail examination of supporting documents, such as payslips and bank statements, and conducting phone interviews to verify the authenticity and accuracy of the submitted wage increases. For PIC, this may entail examination of transaction details and verification of documents, such as suppliers' invoices and payment evidence. IRAS may also conduct field visits to understand the applicant’s business, for example, how the PIC equipment is used in the business.
IRAS will continue to take strict enforcement and legal actions against those who abuse the schemes. This includes disqualifying offenders from other Government schemes and taking legal action against such offenders. Offenders can be charged under the Penal Code or the Income Tax Act for abusing the schemes. To date, IRAS has prosecuted 13 cases for fraud under the PIC scheme, and one case under WCS.
More generally, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) undertakes periodic reviews of Government schemes to ensure that they are relevant and achieve the purposes that they are designed for. Programmes which continue to serve their purpose will be retained. Others, which are intended to be time-limited, will be terminated at their end-date. Yet others may be continued with revised criteria, based on the actual experience of running the schemes and the assessment of the scheme’s overall effectiveness, which includes a weighing of the scheme’s benefits against its administrative costs.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): I thank the Second Minister for Finance for his reply. I refer to the latest Estimates Committee Report where it was made known that about 313,000 PIC cash payouts have been submitted over the years and 98,000 – almost one third of them – were selected for review and, out of that number, 64% of the claims were rejected upfront. The reply from MOF to the Estimates Committee also stated that for the remaining 215,000 PIC claims, I quote, \"they may be selected for review based on other factors\". Are there any additional factors that IRAS specifically considers for claims which fall outside their usual risk-based approach? From the reading of MOF's reply to the Estimates Committee, it appears that more review is going to be done for claims which were not originally audited.
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Deputy Speaker, as I had mentioned earlier, IRAS takes a risk-based approach. Taking a risk-based approach means not 100% sampling. As Minister Ong Ye Kung earlier mentioned, doing 100% checks is going to be counter-productive to a large extent because it will entail a large bureaucratic process.
So, taking a risk-based approach means sampling according to risks and when IRAS says that it has done audits for 98,000 cases, then it has identified these as the higher-risk cases and done detailed audits on them. To the extent that there are cases with lower risks, then the sampling will be lower as well.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Decision to Refuse Entry to Foreign Religious Preachers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Home Affairs what are the processes involved before the Ministry decides to ban a foreign religious preacher from entering Singapore.
7 Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the criteria used in banning foreign preachers of different faiths take into account the location and environment in which their speeches justifying their bans were made; (b) whether these views have been or would have been applied to their sermons in Singapore; (c) what is the estimated number of congregants who follow the banned preachers; and (d) whether the Ministry finds the move effective given that their speeches and sermons are still pervasive through other mediums, such as the Internet.
\tThe Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): Sir, with your leave, can I take Question Nos 6 and 7 together?
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Yes. Please proceed.
\tMr K Shanmugam: Sir, we hold a clear position on the preaching of religious intolerance and we draw a line on teachings that seek to divide our society along religious lines.
Second, we should also be clear that a foreigner's entry into Singapore is neither automatic nor a right. It is a privilege. It will only be granted if we assess that his entry will not harm Singapore's interests. In this context, the foreigner who wants to deliver a talk in Singapore, if the talk is related to religion, race or politics, he has to obtain a Miscellaneous Work Pass (MWP) from the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) because the issues are sensitive. MOM will consult other agencies in its assessment of MWP applications. Each application is assessed on its own merits, through a process.
From a security perspective, one of the principles is that a foreigner should not have antecedents of radical preaching and teachings. For example, if he has advocated violence or promoted segregationist, intolerant teachings that are inimical to our multiracial, multi-religious society, he will not be allowed in.
It is not material whether the previous comments were made in relation to Singapore or whether they intend to touch on these issues when they speak here. If they hold views that are inappropriate or unacceptable in our context, then it is not in our national interest to give them a platform in Singapore, whether to propagate their teachings or to build up their followings.
It is also not material to consider how large their following is in Singapore. We should be concerned even if a small number in Singapore take in their radical, intolerant or segregationist teachings. And we should not allow them to preach or speak here to spread these viewpoints amongst Singaporeans and build up anger amongst the different faiths.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked about the effectiveness of banning such foreigners, given the accessibility of digital platforms. There are obviously limits to the extent to which we can prevent access to such content, in particular, through the Internet. But this does not mean that we should make it even easier for such foreigners to spread their views more directly and personally to Singaporeans and build up a following here by allowing them to come into Singapore and giving them a physical platform. Preaching and grandstanding \"live\" and in person are quite different a proposition from doing so on the Internet.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.
\tMr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): I would like to thank the Minister for his reply. I have one supplementary question. I just want to know whether the Ministry engages these foreign religious preachers to give them an opportunity to explain themselves prior to the imposition of the ban or after the ban had been imposed, in a way to allow them to make an appeal against the ban.
\tMr K Shanmugam: Let us take someone who says, referring to Islam, communism and other societal problems, such as human trafficking, are referred to as \"goliaths standing at our door\". He had also described Allah as a false God, asked for prayers for those held captive in the darkness of Islam, refers to Buddhists as \"tohuw people\", which is a Hebrew word for lost, lifeless, confused and spiritually barren. Do you think we should invite him into Singapore and give him an interview? Let me know.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.
\tMr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: I believe the Minister did not answer my question. I just want to know whether there is a process involved or a channel for an appeal to be made.
\tMr Mr K Shanmugam: Let us look at specific facts. Will you answer my question, so that we can take this discussion further?\t
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: If the Minister does not mind, can the Minister repeat his question?
\tMr K Shanmugam: I started out by saying, often, it will be quite clear whether we should or we should not allow, and I gave you a passage. Let us say, a preacher says the following, he describes Islam, communism and other societal problems, including human trafficking, categorising all of them together, as \"goliaths standing at our door\", describes Allah as a false God, asks for prayers for those held captive in the darkness of Islam, refers to Buddhists as \"tohuw people\", which is a Hebrew word for lost, lifeless, confused and spiritually barren individuals, who can be saved by converting to Christianity. Do you believe we should invite him into Singapore and interview him, or should we ban him outright?
\tMr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: Sir, I have officially stated my stand on this issue when we discussed in this Chamber on the private Motion moved by Mr Christopher de Souza, regarding using multiculturalism approach as a weapon to fight against terrorism. So, my simple answer to the Minister is no.
\tMr K Shanmugam: That is the approach we take.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Zaqy Mohamad.
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang): I have a question on the issue of context. It is a tricky one because many scriptures of the various religions do deal with the non-believers, and many religious leaders and preachers have had to address this and speak on such topics when they are overseas. So, it may not be easy for them to align the speeches to the context of multiracialism or multi-religionism, to what we believe here in Singapore; we are an exception. So, how do you differentiate whether it is through their views or it is a context in which they were giving that speech or sermon in those countries? And how can we do more to help our own religious leaders to also counter such radical beliefs?
\tMr K Shanmugam: It has a number of different facets, if you look at it within Singapore, then you look at it outside of Singapore. Within Singapore, we are very clear on the framework. We have complete freedom of religion. We encourage the different faiths to carry on, you have seen the consequences, we are ranked one of the most religiously diverse societies in the world. So, we guarantee freedom of religion, including to the minorities and, in fact, we support them. Both Members of Parliament as well as officeholders turn up at many of these events. The line that we draw and, if you look at it, the Penal Code has legal provisions. The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act has a framework. But essentially, if I were to identify one principle, do not do harm unto others, do not advocate violence, do not put down somebody else's religion. As long as you keep to that, propagate your faith.
That, I think, has seen us being an oasis of religious peace in a world that is highly troubled. So, when we look at foreign preachers, we would have to look at who is bringing them in, we will have to talk to them, and we will have to look at the context of their sayings. But on the whole, we take a fairly conservative approach in that whatever you have said elsewhere, if those represent your viewpoints, like what I just said, if someone calls Allah a false God and then he wants to come into Singapore and say, \"Well, you know, that was in a different context\", I think, nevertheless, it runs the serious risk of people following such a preacher, and then they go on to look at what else he has said elsewhere and the context is not always apparent to people to be understood. So, I think it is better for us to be careful.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Payment of Fines by Keppel Offshore and Marine to Settle Bribery Probe","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Law (a) whether the penalty of US$422 million to be paid by Keppel Offshore and Marine Ltd for corrupt payments between 2001 and 2014 to officials of Petroleo Brasileiro SA and Brazil's then ruling party was part of a three-nation plea bargain agreement, involving the United States, Brazil and Singapore, and Keppel companies; and (b) what are the considerations in reaching such arrangements, which have implications on local law enforcement and prosecutorial decisions.
9 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Law in respect of Keppel Offshore and Marine's (KOM's) agreement to pay a US$422 million fine as part of a three-nation corruption probe settlement (a) whether the US Department of Justice's (DoJ's) Deferred Prosecution Agreement on the KOM corruption probe settlement, or any other agreement, includes any condition that prevents the public disclosure of the identities of the Singaporeans who are involved; and (b) when does the Government expect CPIB and AGC to formally complete investigations and to charge the individuals in question in view of the criminal findings made against KOM by the US DoJ.
10 Mr Png Eng Huat asked Minister for Law (a) how much more time will the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) need to complete the investigations in respect of the Singaporeans involved in the Keppel Offshore and Marine (KOM) corruption case since KOM and its wholly-owned US subsidiary, KOM USA, have agreed to pay more than US$422 million in penalty to resolve corruption charges of paying about US$55 million in bribes to secure contracts; and (b) how far back in time will CPIB go to in its investigation into the Singaporeans involved since the corrupt activities were committed as early as 2001.
11 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Law (a) how many Singapore Government-Linked Companies (GLCs) or their subsidiaries locally or overseas have been investigated or continue to be investigated by local or overseas authorities for corrupt practices over the last 30 years; and (b) what role do the Ministry and Temasek Holdings play to ensure that GLCs or their subsidiaries do not engage in corrupt practices when conducting business overseas.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Law (Ms Indranee Rajah) (for the Minister for Law): Mr Deputy Speaker, may I take Question Nos 8 to 11 together?
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Yes.
\tMs Indranee Rajah: Thank you. As a country and as a Government, we do not condone or tolerate corruption. This has always been our position. It will continue to be so.
Domestically, corruption cases are investigated by the Corrupt Practices Investigations Bureau (CPIB). CPIB can investigate anyone. Thereafter, cases are assessed by the Public Prosecutor, who acts independently. Incorruptibility is a foundational value for Singapore. We must keep Singapore clean.
Internationally, we know that there are many places in the world where corruption is endemic and the business environment is very different from Singapore. We cannot be a global policeman. Singapore companies have to operate in all kinds of environments. But as a matter of principle, we expect that they must do so while keeping their systems clean and complying with the laws of the countries where they operate. They must develop ways of operating which enable them to do this. They cannot lower their own standards of integrity and they must not bring back to Singapore practices alien to the norms which we have established with such great effort here.
Let me now address the questions asked. How we handle allegations of corrupt acts overseas by Singaporeans or Singapore companies depends on a number of factors, including (a) whether the case is connected more strongly to Singapore or to other countries; (b) any practical or legal difficulty in investigating the case, bearing in mind that the evidence will mainly be overseas; (c) any actions being taken by third countries and the legal and regulatory tools they are bringing to bear; and (d) any cooperative mechanisms between Singapore and the other countries involved.
In handling the Keppel Offshore and Marine (KOM) case, the authorities in the United States (US), Singapore and Brazil worked with one another and reached an agreed approach. There was no \"three-nation plea bargain agreement\", as Ms Sylvia Lim puts it. What happened was that each jurisdiction acted under its own domestic laws, but in coordination with the other two jurisdictions.
In the US, the Department of Justice (DOJ) entered into a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) with KOM. This is an agreement under US law, between KOM and DOJ. Under the DPA, KOM has to pay a penalty of US$422 million. The amount was determined in accordance with US sentencing guidelines. DPA, which has been published, sets out how the amount was arrived at. Among other things, KOM was given maximum credit for its full cooperation with investigations. Out of the US$422 million, 50% would be paid to Brazil, 25% to the US, and 12.5% to Singapore. The last 12.5% is payable to Singapore, but subject to any further penalties the Brazilian authorities may impose.
In Brazil, the Federal Public Ministry entered into a leniency agreement on similar terms to the US DPA. In Singapore, the Public Prosecutor directed CPIB to administer a conditional warning on KOM. In reaching this decision, the Public Prosecutor considered the following factors.
First, that KOM had voluntarily reported its internal findings to CPIB and the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) in September 2016 and had cooperated with all three jurisdictions in the investigation and resolution process, that KOM also indicated that it will voluntarily agree to the US DPA and the Brazilian leniency agreement.
And that the key elements of this case, in particular, the recipients of the bribes and the projects connected with the bribes, occurred outside Singapore, and the jurisdictions concerned are also acting against KOM, in coordination with Singapore.
A conditional warning allows Singapore to impose on KOM conditions that are closely aligned with the terms of the US DPA. If any of the conditions are breached, KOM can be prosecuted. The aligned approach results in a robust resolution to KOM's case.
The trilateral resolution requires KOM to pay a total of US$422 million. If KOM fails to pay the penalty, there will be consequences under the US, Singapore and Brazilian law. Of the US$422 million, KOM must pay US$52 million to the Singapore Government within 90 days. Another sum of up to US$52 million must be paid to the Singapore Government within three years from the date of the conditional warning, after taking into account any further sums to be paid by KOM to Brazilian authorities.
Any penalty or claim that KOM might be subject to under Singapore law would be far less than what KOM is now liable for under the coordinated resolution. Furthermore, KOM is also required under the US DPA to strengthen its internal controls and compliance and anti-corruption programmes. The current resolution, therefore, achieves more than what we would have been able to do if we had proceeded against the company solely under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA).
Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Png Eng Huat asked about the action to be taken against the individuals concerned. As AGC has stated, investigations into the individuals concerned are ongoing. The Singapore investigations are conducted on the same timeframe as the US and Brazilian investigations and go back to 2001, when the corrupt acts first took place.
There is no agreement, whether in the DPA or otherwise, which prevents the disclosure of the individuals under investigation. However, for criminal investigations, it is standard practice in Singapore, and in many other jurisdictions, not to identify individuals under investigation. This is for the simple reason that investigations can lead to the conclusion that no offence is made out, or that prosecution is unwarranted, in which case disclosure would have been prejudicial to the individuals concerned. Individuals will be identified if and when charges are preferred in Court.
As for the investigation's timetable, this is not a case where CPIB and AGC are acting alone in a domestic case. This is an international case where many different investigating agencies are involved. The case involves many projects in Brazil and goes back many years to 2001. Most of the evidence, including documents and witnesses, are located in different jurisdictions, including Brazil and the US.
Legal proceedings have also taken place in these jurisdictions. AGC needs evidence from these jurisdictions, and it has sought assistance, and it is continuing to work with foreign authorities. AGC has asked for certain information from them and some of its requests are still pending. AGC anticipates that further requests will have to be made as the investigations develop.
AGC is also working on a request for Mutual Legal Assistance. This is a procedure whereby one country formally seeks assistance from another to obtain or secure evidence for use in its own investigations and proceedings. This request will be reviewed and administered by the courts of the foreign country. How quickly and to what extent these requests and applications will be processed is a matter for the jurisdiction to which the request is made. Likewise, any incoming requests from foreign jurisdictions would also have to be considered and acted upon.
Obviously, the intention is to move as expeditiously as possible. However, as I have explained, not all aspects of the investigation are within our control. Only after the investigations are completed can the AGC properly assess the case and decide on the appropriate response. This is something for the Public Prosecutor to decide, independently.
How the Public Prosecutor decides will depend on several factors, including the culpability of each individual, the available evidence and what is appropriate in the circumstances. For example, it will be important to determine, for each individual, what he knew, the extent of his involvement, his motivations, any personal benefit he obtained, the circumstances under which the relevant acts took place and any cooperation rendered.
Mr Pritam Singh asked for statistics on concluded or ongoing investigations into corrupt practices by Government-linked companies (GLCs) by overseas and local authorities. I cannot speak for what foreign jurisdictions may be doing. Insofar as Singapore is concerned, past investigations which have resulted in prosecutions are a matter of public record. We do not comment on ongoing investigations, if any, for good reason: so as not to jeopardise the investigations or prejudice individuals or companies if it turns out that no offence is disclosed. Suffice to say, if there is good reason to investigate, the authorities will do so, whether or not the company is a GLC. For example, from 2014 to 2017, seven former Singapore Technologies (ST) Marine officers were investigated and subsequently charged and convicted for giving corrupt payments to secure business and for other offences under the Penal Code.
Finally, Mr Pritam Singh asked about the role of Government and Temasek Holdings in relation to GLCs. The Government's relationship with Temasek Holdings is that of a shareholder. Temasek is a shareholder of Keppel Corporation, with a minority stake of about 20%.
The Government does not interfere in, nor influence the business decisions or operations of Temasek and its portfolio companies. Likewise, Temasek does not interfere in the business decisions or operations of its portfolio companies. These are the responsibilities of the respective companies' boards and management. Temasek holds the boards of its portfolio companies responsible for running the companies honestly and competently. If the boards do not perform, Temasek can, collectively with the other shareholders, change the board.
To reiterate, the Government expects all Singapore companies, their officers and their employees to comply fully with the laws of Singapore and the laws of the jurisdictions in which they operate. They have to find ways to keep their own systems clean even when doing business in complex and challenging environments. Above all, they must not import corrupt practices into Singapore.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
\tMs Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Deputy Speaker, I have four supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State.
Earlier in her response, the Senior Minister of State mentioned that I was not correct to categorise the arrangements reached between Keppel and the Singapore authorities as a three-nation plea bargain agreement. What we read, however, from the statement by CPIB and AGC in December, is that this DPA in the US was reached, of course, with the US government. But in discussion with Brazil and Singapore, and as part of that global resolution, Singapore was issuing a conditional warning to KOM here. So, my question is: is the Senior Minister of State actually saying that these agreements that we have reached with Keppel for the conditional warning were not taken in consultation or as part of arrangements with the US and Brazil, which seems to be what the statement is implying, and that we reached it independently, and we could have actually gone on to prosecute KOM if we had wanted to, it would not be in breach of any global arrangement? So, that is the first question, whether we are completely free to decide whether to prosecute or not in these discussions with Brazil and the US.
The second question is that the Senior Minister of State mentioned in her response that the conditional warning, of course, carried certain undertakings from KOM which were closely aligned with the undertakings in the US agreement, but she did not really specify whether they were coterminous or whether there were variations. So, I would like the Senior Minister of State to give some examples of some of the key undertakings that we have included in the Singapore agreement with KOM.
The third question is, in the Senior Minister of State's response, she mentioned that by reaching this arrangement, we would have achieved much more than we could have on our own. The CPIB and AGC statement says that KOM is being given a conditional warning in lieu of prosecution under PCA. I am not sure whether the Senior Minister of State, in her response, was actually saying that it would have been quite difficult to successfully prosecute KOM, because the evidence was overseas and so on and so forth, in which case, then it is a question of whether this \"in lieu of prosecution\" really means anything.
Finally, of course, I think the Government would be aware that there has been much interest in this case. Looking at what has been happening to Keppel as a GLC, as a corporate entity, given the large sums of money involved and the damage to our reputation, people perceive that they are just being given a slap on the wrist, whereas it is a daily affair that individuals who are not well connected, they are prosecuted for corruption offences involving $10 or $20 and they go to jail. So, I would like the Government to respond to that because I think there is some public concern about this, what is perceived to be some lenient treatment being given to KOM.
\tMs Indranee Rajah: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for her questions and the opportunity to clarify certain things. Her first question was whether I had, in my reply, suggested that the actions taken by the AGC were not done in consultation or coordination with the other authorities. I did not say that at all. Let me just read what I actually said. I said that there was no \"three-nation plea bargain agreement\". What happened was that each jurisdiction acted under its own domestic laws, but in coordination with the two other jurisdictions.
What I was trying to explain is the legal basis or the legal concept behind it. Because when you say \"three-nation plea bargain agreement\", it suggests that there is either some kind of agreement or treaty to which all three countries are a party to and we are acting under the same instrument. That is not the case. What I was seeking to establish was that each country is acting in accordance with its own laws. But even whilst acting in accordance with its own laws, they reached a coordinated global resolution.
So, that is what I said in the main reply and the intent of it was to explain the underlying basis, which is, that each country is actually acting in accordance with its own domestic laws. That is why in the US, they are acting under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and they are using the DPA mechanism. In Singapore, we use the conditional warning and PCA. And, of course, in Brazil, they had the Leniency Agreement. So, that was all that was being said in relation to that.
The second question was in reference to the main answer where I said that the terms of the conditional warning were closely aligned. Ms Sylvia Lim wanted to know whether it was coterminous and, essentially, asking what are the terms of the conditions. It is not our practice to disclose terms of conditional warnings, not just for Keppel, but for all cases. In other words, conditional warnings are things which had been given in the past by the agencies but, as a general practice, we do not disclose their exact terms. What I can say is what I have said, which is, that it is closely aligned with what has been done in the US.
The third question was whether, when I said that we have achieved more than if we were acting on our own, and acting in lieu of prosecution, if I could just clarify with Ms Sylvia Lim her third question, what was the purport of that?
\tMs Sylvia Lim: Yes, what I was asking was that the Senior Minister of State has said that some of the considerations in such transactions which take place primarily overseas and whether we decide to prosecute locally is, for example, whether our local authorities might have difficulties getting the evidence or witnesses locally. That is what I understood the Senior Minister of State to have said. So, my question was that when CPIB and AGC said in their statement that they are giving a warning in lieu of prosecution, is it a real risk of prosecution or is it a case where there will be difficulties and that is why we are saying that we are not prosecuting them but, in reality, the case would be difficult to mount?
\tMs Indranee Rajah: I thank the Member for her clarification. In this particular case, since Keppel has actually come forward and cooperated, it has, in effect, as a company, admitted its part in this. So, the next question that arises is: do you prosecute or do you give a conditional warning in lieu of prosecution? And in this particular case, it was decided to give a conditional warning in lieu of prosecution because of the factors which I had outlined earlier.
But the point I was making, when I talked about being able to achieve more than we otherwise would have been able to do if we had proceeded solely ourselves, is for a number of reasons. First, the maximum fine under PCA is $100,000 per charge. So, this would not get us anywhere near the penalty under the global resolution or even Singapore's share of the current penalty. And with respect to disgorgement, there will be issues of which country gets what. So, under the global resolution, what it means, essentially, is that we are able to achieve all the things that we would have been able to do with prosecution, but even more. And, in addition, under the US DPA, there are requirements for an enhanced compliance programme.
So, all of these are things which we have obtained, which is more than what we would have been able to obtain if you had proceeded solely under DPA. That is what I meant by that.
Let me proceed now to the last question where Ms Sylvia Lim suggested that people may be getting off lightly because it is a conditional warning. For this, I think it is important to understand that there are actually two different things.
First, there is a company; second, there is the individual. Insofar as the company is concerned, it is not a light thing at all. They have not got off lightly. They paid something to the tune of ─ in the DPA, it says US$55 million worth of bribes. They have been slapped with a penalty of US$422 million. That is something like eight times whatever they would have paid out. They have been subject to an enhanced compliance regime. As I have pointed out, we have actually achieved more than what we would have been able to do if they were prosecuted solely under PCA and the company itself has obviously taken remedial actions. So, as far as the company is concerned, make no mistake. There has been a heavy price to pay and deservedly so.
With respect to the individuals, as I have explained in my earlier reply, investigations are still ongoing. That outcome has not been determined. Nobody has got off or not got off, as the case may be. That is something that the Public Prosecutor has to decide, and I have explained some of the challenges that the Public Prosecutor is facing in terms of getting the evidence. But that is something we have to let the Public Prosecutor deal with independently.
But let me just say one other thing on this, which is that it is not a matter of letting individuals off lightly. We have, in the past, taken actions against people irrespective of their status. In the ST Marine case that I mentioned, all seven individuals were senior management, including former Presidents of ST Marine. There was Patrick Lee, the former Group Financial Controller of ST Marine; there was Ong Teck Liang, former Group Financial Controller; Han Yew Kwang, former Chief Operating Officer; Mok Kim Whang, former Senior Vice President; Tan Mong Seng, former President (Commercial Business), ST Marine; Chang Cheow Teck, former President, ST Marine; See Leong Teck, former President, ST Marine.
Government officials and politicians have been investigated in the past by CPIB and charged. These include the Minister of State Wee Toon Boon, sitting and former Members of Parliament Phey Yew Kok and Choo Wee Khiang, the Singapore Civil Defence Force Commissioner Peter Lim, National Kidney Foundation Chief Executive Officer (CEO) TT Durai, and the Deputy Chief Executive of the Public Utilities Board Choy Hon Tim. There was a Cabinet Minister, Teh Cheang Wan, who took his own life after CPIB started to investigate him.
So, there is no doubt about CPIB's record and there is no doubt that we will take action if there is cause to do so.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission, I would like to ask three supplementary questions. As background, if a prominent company, especially one linked to the Government, fails to uphold the law and proper standards of conduct wherever they are, it hurts our national reputation. As my residents have told me, it is not enough just to win or get the job done.
My first question is: even if the Government or Temasek Holdings do not manage the day-to-day operations of GLCs, what measures are there to send a clear signal that Singaporeans and Singapore companies overseas must not engage in corrupt behaviour, whether directly or through proxy agents?
My second question is: does the Government have a view on whether KOM should conduct a claw-back of bonuses paid out to ex-employees implicated in illegal behaviour? Even if KOM has no legal means of claw-back, should such bonuses be subject to forfeit by law under the Penal Code or the PCA, if not so already?
Thirdly, for Government tenders, what incentives are there to shape the behaviour of proxies and agents to minimise the risks of illegal activity? For example, should there be punitive liquidated damages written into a tender in the event that a contractor is found to have breached the law either in Singapore or overseas?
\tMs Indranee Rajah: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for his questions. I certainly agree that it does hurt our reputation and, for that reason, we do not condone this. We are extremely disappointed as well in what has occurred.
With respect to the first question that the Member asked about what measures Temasek can take to send a clear signal to Singaporeans and Singapore companies, as I have said − and I repeat − the Government expects Singapore companies and Singaporeans to do business honestly and lawfully even in complex environments.
For Temasek, their position is that they foster an ethos of integrity and good governance and sustainability, and they, too, do not condone improper conduct and malfeasance. So, Temasek expects companies in its portfolio to abide by sound corporate governance and robust codes of conduct and ethics. Temasek holds the respective boards and managements responsible and accountable for the day-to-day decisions and actions of these portfolio companies, but Temasek does not direct the day-to-day business decisions or operations of the Temasek portfolio companies. But what Temasek can and does do is to conduct regular roundtables, forums, educational programmes, all essentially directed at encouraging not just its portfolio companies but all other companies to keep and maintain clean systems and avoid corrupt practices.
The second question the Member asked was about whether we have a view on whether KOM should claw back bonuses paid out to ex-employees and so on. The Government does not intervene in internal corporate disciplinary actions. This is a matter for KOM and its board. But, as stated in the US DPA, KOM has imposed about US$8.9 million in financial sanctions on 12 former or current employees as part of the disciplinary process.
The third supplementary question, I think, was with respect to tenders. Government tenders explicitly state that tenderers can be debarred if, for instance, they are convicted of corruption by our Courts. Debarred entities will not be eligible to participate in any tender by Government agencies for a period of time. The directors of a disbarred company will also be debarred, and any new companies or businesses they set up during the debarment period will also not be considered for award of tenders. Beyond disbarment, the track record of a supplier is typically an evaluation criterion in Government tenders. Any known facts that reflect on the commercial integrity of the supplier will be taken into account in evaluating the supplier's track record.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Sir, I have five questions for the Senior Minister of State. The first question is, in view of the Government's status as the largest single shareholder of Keppel, will Temasek Holdings call for an extraordinary general meeting with a view to pursue civil action against board members and senior executives found responsible for the bribery scheme for breach of fiduciary duties and to seek equitable compensation from those responsible?
The second question pertains to the questionable P-61 contract which amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars. It would have likely required board approval for it to be approved. Is the Government aware whether the Keppel board gave the CEO broad powers to enter into the contract? If not, what is the nature of the board's oversight and their culpability in the bribery scheme? Is this something the Public Prosecutor or CPIB is going to look into, or is this a matter for shareholders to consider?
Thirdly, in its information release, the US DOJ shared that a KOM subsidiary in Singapore paid the bribes amounting to $17-odd million into an entity based in Miami, Florida. What is the name of this subsidiary? This is only a question of fact. And who are the officers of this subsidiary?
Fourthly, a former Keppel CEO and Senior Adviser, Mr Choo Chiau Beng, was the Singapore Ambassador to Brazil from 2004 till 2016, I believe. Was Mr Choo removed as Ambassador because of his involvement or knowledge of the bribery scheme and, if so − and I stress, if so − which month or year did the Government first come to know of Mr Choo's involvement? Finally, is CPIB or the Public Prosecutor investigating whether Mr Choo used his position as Ambassador to dishonestly assist Keppel secure contracts corruptly in Brazil?
My final question pertains to the matter of the identities of the individuals identified in the DPA. There is a dissonance between what the public reads in the newspapers for individuals who are being investigated, for example, the General Manager of Ang Mo Kio Town Council. No charges, I understand, have been preferred against him yet, but his identity, his name, is well-known to the public. How does the Minister reconcile that with the non-disclosure of the names of the individuals involved in the Keppel matter?
\tMs Indranee Rajah: Let me just deal with the last question first, in which I think the Member wanted to know how does the Government deal with the fact that the names are out there. The Government's position is very simple. The Government deals with the Government's actions. So, the Government's actions are that when investigations are ongoing, we do not disclose the identities of people being investigated. What other people may say outside, what other information may be floating outside, what other comments may go on in social media, that is separate. But as the Government, as an investigation authority, the Government does not disclose names of individuals who are being investigated. And we are not alone in that. All civilised jurisdictions which observe the rule of law uphold that principle simply because, as I have mentioned earlier, we do not want to prejudice either the investigations or the persons being investigated, depending on how the investigation might turn out.
With respect to the first question, I think Mr Singh asked can the Government, as a shareholder, call a meeting and ask for a resolution to be passed to commence civil action. I think that was the thrust of the question.
Let me just correct a few factual inaccuracies here. First, the Government owns 100% of Temasek. The Government is not a direct shareholder of Keppel. That is number one. Temasek owns just over 20% of Keppel Corporation, which is not the entity in question here, which means that there is 80% of other shareholders. Keppel Corporation then owns 100% of KOM, which is the entity in question here. So, the general principle of corporate governance, with which Mr Singh is familiar as a lawyer, is that the shareholders deal with their companies in which they have shares at the shareholder level. Shareholders appoint the boards. The boards then, depending on whether the members are executive or non-executive, it is their business to make sure that the policies and so on for the company are proper, that governance is proper, and then the day-to-day operations are done by the executive team or the executive management.
As I had mentioned earlier, in this particular instance, the Government and Temasek do not interfere in the day-to-day running or management of the Temasek portfolio companies. What I can say and what I can point Mr Pritam Singh to, is what is already in the public domain which is in the DPA, paragraph 4(d) – which I am sure Mr Singh is familiar with – the company has engaged in extensive remedial measures, including taking disciplinary action against 17 former or current employees in relation to the misconduct described in the statement of facts. They have caused seven employees who participated in the conduct described in the statement of facts to separate from the company. They have issued demotions and/or written warnings to seven employees who failed to detect the misconduct and failed to take appropriate steps to mitigate corruption and compliance risks. They have imposed approximately US$8.9 million in financial sanctions on 12 former or current employees as part of the disciplinary process and have conducted individualised anti-corruption and compliance training for six employees.
Anything further than that is a matter for the Keppel group, or for the company in this case, to determine, not for the Government.
Going back to a couple of other questions asked by Mr Pritam Singh, on the P-61 contract, he asked whether—I am sorry, could the Member clarify his question on the P-61 contract?
\tMr Pritam Singh: The Senior Minister of State said that the question really pertained to the nature of the board's oversight over that contract. If, indeed, they had knowledge or they were involved in that contract, what was the nature of their oversight and their culpability in the bribery scheme and, specifically, is this something that CPIB or the Public Prosecutor is looking into?
\tMs Indranee Rajah: That is actually not so much a question for the Government. As to what is known and not known within the Keppel group, that is, really, a Keppel matter. The only thing that I can do here which would be useful is to point Mr Pritam Singh to one of Keppel's media releases, where Keppel said that the current boards of directors of Keppel Corporation and its unit KOM were not aware of the illegal payments made to secure projects in Brazil. That is Keppel's position. As far as the Government is concerned, as I have explained, the Government is a shareholder in Temasek, Temasek has a just over 20% shareholding in Keppel Corporation and the operations of Keppel are run by Keppel itself.
Mr Pritam Singh also had a question on the name of the subsidiary company. I do not have that information with me. And he asked about the circumstances in which Mr Choo Chiau Beng may have stepped down as ambassador, I do not have that information. What I can say is that he has stepped down and he is not involved in an ambassadorial role at the present time.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: The Senior Minister of State is beginning to repeat herself in her answers. And so, I will allow two supplementary questions. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Sir, US$422 million is a huge sum. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State who will pay the US$422 million if KOM is unable to pay? Will it be paid from our Government budget?
\tMs Indranee Rajah: Mr Deputy Speaker, the monies will have to be paid by KOM. It would not come out of the Government budget. There will be no impact on the Government's fiscal position. Temasek's 20% stake in KOM is just one part of its portfolio. The Government's spending limit in relation to its Reserves held by the Monetary Authority of Singapore, the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation and Temasek depends on the long-term expected returns on those assets. It is not based on actual cash contributions of the entities to the Government.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: The last question, Mr Png Eng Huat.
\tMr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): Sir, three supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. She mentioned whether any KOM staff will be prosecuted depends on whether they benefited from this scam.
One, would the Senior Minister of State clarify whether bonuses and salary increases given to senior staff, past and present, for meeting profit and revenue targets are deemed as personal benefits?
Second, the Senior Minister of State also mentioned that the corruption is done outside Singapore. Can the Senior Minister of State clarify whether the email trail leads back to senior staff in Singapore? In the investigation of the scam, did the email trail lead back to Singapore, which means were senior staff in Singapore actually orchestrating or sanctioning all these from Singapore?
Third, would the Senior Minister of State not agree with me that the money earned by KOM through illegal and corrupt means are highly improper, and would the Senior Minister of State not agree that the dividends paid out by KOM who knew very well that its earnings were derived from bribing people and the political party in power would also be deemed illegal, and would then need to be clawed back from members of senior staff, board of directors past and present, and the only way to ascertain the amount is through a forensic audit? Would the Government be ordering one?
\tMs Indranee Rajah: Mr Deputy Speaker, the Member said that I had mentioned that whether or not there is action taken will depend on whether the individuals had benefited. Let me just go back to my original answer, which I hope will be clear. I said how the Public Prosecutor decides will depend on several factors; so not just one factor but several. It includes the culpability of each individual, the available evidence, what is appropriate in the circumstances, the knowledge of each individual, the extent of his involvement, his motivations, any personal benefits he obtained, the circumstances under which relevant acts took place and any cooperation rendered. So, it is not a single factor; it is a whole array of factors which the Public Prosecutor will have to take into account.
The second question was – could the Member just repeat the second question, that the corruption was done outside Singapore and therefore—?
\tMr Png Eng Huat: The corruption is done outside Singapore. Can the Senior Minister of State clarify whether the email trail leads back to senior staff in Singapore, as in whether approval or directions were given by senior staff from Singapore?
\tMs Indranee Rajah: All these are matters which are subject to investigation. I do not have this information and it certainly would not be appropriate for me to enquire on this point. This is something which the Public Prosecutor and CPIB are looking into. Let them deal with it. Let proper process, due process take place and, in time, they will have to make the appropriate decision.
\tMr Png Eng Huat: There was a third supplementary question on clawing back illegal payouts and thus, whether the Government would order a forensic audit since this is one of the biggest corruption scandals in corporate Singapore?
\tMs Indranee Rajah: As I have said, US$422 million is going to be paid out by the company. That is by the company. Insofar as the individuals are concerned, I have already pointed to the fact that in the DPA, it has been disclosed that the company has gone against the individuals. So, basically, as far as any monies that should not have been obtained, were obtained, they have actually, effectively, been disgorged.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Fee Benchmarks for Medical Procedures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the Ministry's rationale in introducing fee benchmarks for medical procedures; (b) how is this new guideline aligned to the spirit of fair competition; and (c) whether the Ministry is aware that the benchmarks may cause doctors who are charging lower fees to charge higher fees.
13 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Health whether the removal of the Singapore Medical Association fee benchmarks in 2007 has led to the inflation of medical costs in the last decade and how will the Ministry's fee benchmarks be independently derived so as to prevent anti-competitive price-fixing.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Mr Chee Hong Tat) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Deputy Speaker, the introduction of fee benchmarks is part of a larger strategy to keep healthcare costs affordable and sustainable as we prepare for an ageing population in Singapore. This is a shared responsibility and requires a collective effort from all stakeholders. We, as individuals, have to take good care of our health and make informed choices when we seek treatment. Healthcare professionals play a key role in providing quality care that is appropriate to patients' needs and charge reasonable fees for their services. The Government and healthcare institutions need to continue to improve productivity and look for ways to deliver greater value for patients. Employers and insurers can help to manage increases in healthcare costs by encouraging prudent use of healthcare services by their employees and policyholders.
Sir, the Singapore Medical Association (SMA) first introduced its guidelines on fees (GOF) in 1987. It withdrew the GOF in 2007 after it was informed by the Competition Commission of Singapore of anti-competitive concerns. There was no significant change in the average annual healthcare inflation rate in the decade preceding and following the 2007 withdrawal of SMA's GOF, which were 2.4% and 2.6% respectively.
Recent policy measures, such as the Pioneer Generation package, MediShield Life subsidies and the Community Health Assist Scheme, have helped to reduce the healthcare inflation rate to about 1.2% between 2013 and 2016.
Over the past years, the Ministry of Health (MOH) has been publishing historical transacted hospital bill sizes and operation fees for common medical procedures to enhance transparency of healthcare charges. The introduction of fee benchmarks will take this further by providing all stakeholders a useful reference. We believe this will encourage appropriate charging practices and provide useful information for patients and payors to make better informed decisions on their care options.
The fee benchmarks will be set by the Ministry with advice from an independent committee that comprises stakeholders representing the medical community, providers, patients and payors from both the private and public sector. The benchmarks will be reviewed and updated regularly, with references made to historical transacted data.
The fee benchmarks are not intended to restrict competition as doctors are not prohibited from charging lower or higher fees if they wish to. The fee benchmarks serve as references for the public, including insurers and professional bodies, to assess whether the fees charged by a healthcare professional are reasonable.
The Ministry will, however, continue to monitor the charging practices in the healthcare sector.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Lim Wee Kiak.
\tDr Lim Wee Kiak (Sembawang): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I would like to clarify with the Senior Minister of State regarding the fee benchmarks which MOH will roll out soon. Do they include the total bill, with breakdown into the components, such as the doctors' fees and facility fees? Part of the public concerns have to do with the facility fees charged by the hospitals, which have been increasing quite a fair bit recently.
The second clarification is on my last question asking whether these benchmarks will cause doctors who are charging lower fees now, to up their fees instead. So, we are worried that there could be a knee-jerk reaction.
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Sir, I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. Indeed, the concern about healthcare fees is not only about doctors' fees. It is about the overall healthcare cost. So, this will include doctors' fees, but it would also include facility fees and other components of the overall healthcare cost that patients, insurers, taxpayers and Government, on the whole, will have to pay.
We focused on doctors' fees for a start because these were also the recommendations of the Health Insurance Task Force. It made a report and recommended that fee benchmarks focused on professional fees in the first instance. For other fees, such as hospital charges, Dr Lim Wee Kiak is aware that we currently publish the facility fees for common procedures. If there are ways that we can present the information better to allow members of public and patients to have more information to make comparisons, we would be happy to receive feedback on how we can do better. We will also continue to monitor if benchmarks for other healthcare-related services will be required in the future.
Sir, the fee benchmarks, by themselves, will not be a silver bullet to address healthcare costs. I mentioned in my reply that we also need collective effort from all stakeholders as providers and institutions need to focus on improving productivity, improving appropriate care. Recently, we set up the Agency of Care Effectiveness (ACE) and they issued some guidance on appropriate care guides, drug guidances. These are ways to help medical professionals, patients and caregivers to identify what are the cost-effective treatment options. So, ACE will also be looking into medical technology guidance this year to guide the selection of clinical and cost-effective medical devices.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.
\tAssoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Senior Minister of State. I am presuming he was also answering Question No 13.
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: I meant to ask for Mr Deputy Speaker's permission to answer both Question Nos 12 and 13 together. I apologise for that.
\tAssoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: I have three supplementary questions. First, what other sources of information or expertise would the Ministry be using to ensure the independence of the benchmarks other than that of the Advisory Committee? Second, how would the Committee be involving the patients because they are not organised into associations or any other kind of bodies? Third, what would the Ministry do to prevent insurers from using the benchmarks to reduce the payouts or to reject legitimate claims?
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: I thank Assoc Prof Goh for his supplementary questions. I think it is important for us, when we do the fee benchmarks, to have representation from all stakeholders – the professionals, the professional bodies and, of course, from patients, consumers. We want to be able to reflect different perspectives as we set the benchmarks. These benchmarks are meant as guidelines, as references. When insurers refer to these benchmarks, it is not something that prevents them from treating each claim on a case-by-case basis. Depending on the merits of the case and, certainly, if it is within the appropriate guidelines, insurers, I am sure, would continue to be able to fulfil their obligations to their policyholders, in accordance with the terms of their insurance products.
Going back to the earlier point that Dr Lim Wee Kiak raised with regard to the concern that some doctors may, as a result of this, raise their fees. I certainly hope that would not be the case because I believe that the large majority of our doctors have their patients' well-being and concern at the foremost, and that is what they want to focus on.
But, of course, the benchmarks would help us to identify the small number of doctors who overcharge. This is information for us to be able to use, for patients to use, for insurers to use and for the authorities, including the Singapore Medical Council, for them to be able to take action and prevent the small number from raising healthcare costs for everyone else.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.
\tAssoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: I agree with the logic of representation. The question is: how do you select the patients? Because it is not really organised as a body.
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Sir, we have groups like the Consumers' Association of Singapore. We also have groups that can represent different stakeholders. It would not be possible to represent every single individual, as I am sure Assoc Prof Goh would agree with me. But to have the input and perspective from patient groups, from consumers, certainly, that would be something that could be taken as part of the process.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Prevention of E-scooter Accidents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether he can provide an update on the number of e-scooter accidents and near-misses in 2017 involving pedestrians on footpaths and walkways; (b) what avenues for redress or compensation are available for pedestrians injured in e-scooter accidents; and (c) how awareness of the relevant laws can be enhanced among e-scooter and electric bicycle users of (i) local and (ii) foreign origin.
15 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the current measures taken by LTA and the Traffic Police to (i) ensure that e-scooters are not used on roads and expressways, and electric bicycles are not used on expressways and (ii) address unsafe and inconsiderate usage of e-scooters on footpaths and walkways; and (b) whether more measures will be taken to (i) abate such occurrences and (ii) enhance public awareness of the laws governing the usage of e-scooters and electric bicycles.
\tThe Minister for Transport (Mr Khaw Boon Wan): Sir, may I take Question Nos 14 and 15 together, please?
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMr Khaw Boon Wan: There were about 30 reported accidents involving pedestrians and Personal Mobility Devices (PMDs), including e-scooters, on public paths from January to September last year. We do not have statistics on near-misses.
The Land Transport Authority (LTA) will step up efforts to prevent accidents through enforcement and education. Last year, LTA issued more than 1,700 advisories for unsafe riding behaviours. Offenders will also pay fines once the Active Mobility Act comes into force soon. LTA is working with 800 Active Mobility Patrol volunteers to conduct regular patrols in their communities and also to share safe riding practices.
LTA will soon be conducting a campaign to raise awareness of the active mobility rules and penalties. The Safe Riding Programme will be launched in schools, foreign worker dormitories and community centres. It will be compulsory for all cyclists and PMD users who are caught riding recklessly.
In the event of an accident, the victim should file a Police report, and the Police will investigate. If the offender is convicted in Court for committing an offence, the Court will consider if compensation to the victim should be paid. The victim can also seek compensation through civil lawsuits, mediation or private settlement.
All types of bicycles, including power-assisted bicycles or e-bikes, are not allowed to be used on expressways. Offenders can face prosecution, be convicted and pay a fine up to $1,000, or imprisonment of up to three months, or both.
The use of PMDs on all public roads is also prohibited. In response to the growing use of PMDs, the composition sum of $100 will be increased to $300 and $500 for offenders who ride on local and major roads, respectively, from next week, 15 January. Repeat offenders will face stiffer penalties, including Court action. If convicted, offenders face a fine of up to $2,000, or imprisonment of up to three months, or more.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): I thank the Minister for his reply. I have got two supplementary questions. Firstly, regarding near-misses, would the Minister feel it is beneficial for residents who have been involved in a near-miss to make it known to LTA and the authorities, so that we can draw lessons from such near-misses which may herald more serious incidents in future?
Secondly, would the Ministry continue studying or perhaps reviewing whether we should introduce some form of compulsory insurance for device owners, especially where the potential of harm from an accident from that device is higher than other device types? The reason I raise this is because some of my residents are worried that when an accident occurs, there could be a double financial tragedy. The injured party is injured, has medical bills, the person riding the device may be of limited means and unable to provide compensation even if the Civil Court finds him or her liable.
\tMr Khaw Boon Wan: Sir, I thank the Member for both suggestions. I think both are reasonable and good suggestions. I have actually asked the Active Mobility Advisory Panel chaired by my colleague, Assoc Prof Faishal Ibrahim, to review the code of conduct and practices governing active mobility devices (AMDs). We have now almost a year of experience and, in the light of that experience, we should see what other rules we should introduce, rules we should tweak or toughen.
Some of these suggestions, I am sure the panel will take into account as well, including insurance, wearing of helmets and whether we should register e-scooters. We have started registering e-bikes, so whether there is a case to also register e-scooters. I do not think we should be registering all scooters or all bicycles but I think those which are power-assisted and, therefore, potentially can incur greater harm, there may be a case of some sort of registration. I leave it to the panel to review this.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. End of Question Time.\tPersonal explanation. Mr Leon Perera.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Personal Explanation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the permission to make a personal statement regarding my supplementary question on the ownership of Parliamentary videos on 7 November 2017.
In my supplementary question on the Parliamentary video footage on 7 November, when asked for specific examples of editing, I said, and I quote, \"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\", unquote. I was asked to clarify my remarks later on that day.
I acknowledge that I could have recalled certain facts incorrectly about an exchange with Mediacorp that had occurred in February 2017, nine months earlier. I said that I would need to verify the facts with my email archive but that, and I quote, \"I am sure that that will be the case when I have verified. So, I am quite prepared to accept that fact\".
I would now like to definitively withdraw my earlier statements to the effect that the video had been edited with certain bits removed and that the video had been edited and only corrected after my intervention. I confirm that Mediacorp had explained this to me in February 2017 and that I had accepted that.
I would like to apologise to the House for all incorrect recollections of the chain of events in February 2017 contained in this exchange as per House conventions.
However, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I did not deliberately misrepresent the facts of that incident for this House. Firstly, I did not plan to raise this incident during supplementary questions. I did so off the cuff and only in response to the request to enumerate any incident of editing that I knew of. As it turned out, my memory of the incident was inaccurate.
Secondly, I did acknowledge that my memory of the incident may well be imperfect as I prefaced it with the phrase \"if my memory serves me well\".
Thirdly, I stated explicitly and twice on that day that the incident had been resolved amicably and had not accused Mediacorp of partisan editing of a video clip in that incident, which makes the matter of when the clip was corrected immaterial.
I would also like to reiterate that the main thrust of my Parliamentary Question (PQ) and supplementary question had been, firstly, the nature and ownership of Parliamentary video footage which was clarified as a result of the PQ. Secondly, whether and how videos are edited, which was also clarified by the PQ in that and if there is editing insofar as that means the arrangement of Parliamentary exchanges into the clips and so on, but not verbatim editing of exchange within a particular clip. And thirdly, why \"live\" streaming of Parliament is not provided, an issue where Senior Minister of State Chee Hong Tat explained the Government's position – which is one with which I disagree – since \"live\" streaming would tend to remove any concern about the reflectiveness of clips of particular exchanges uploaded sometime after the event.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, I apologise to the House for any mistaken impression created by my failure of memory. I agree that Parliamentary privilege is a privilege that should never be taken lightly. However, I did not deliberately misrepresent facts or deliberately mislead the House for whatever reason. Thank you.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Leader of the House.
The Leader of the House (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Deputy Speaker, allow me to clarify with Member Mr Leon Perera on his personal explanation. Notwithstanding his intention, whether he is deliberately misleading the House or otherwise, does he agree that he has, indeed, made a wrong allegation against Mediacorp?
Mr Leon Perera: I thank the Leader of the House for her clarification and I certainly agree that my recollections were imperfect. It had not been my intention to allege that Mediacorp had undertaken partisan editing of the clip. Having said that, I think the statements that I made contained inaccuracies. I have withdrawn them and I acknowledge that.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: And would he also agree that the allegations that were untrue has, indeed, misled the House?
Mr Leon Perera: Thank you, again. I do agree that the statements were inaccurate and, therefore, misled the House, but it was not my intention to make an allegation against Mediacorp of having done partisan editing to that clip.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: As I said earlier on, the Member's intention aside, the fact is that the Member has, indeed, made untrue allegations, and I thank him for acknowledging his misleading statements and also acknowledging his apology to Parliament.
Deputy Speaker, I would like to stress here that Members of Parliament are given Parliamentary privilege to speak freely and surface different views, but this must not be misused to misrepresent facts or mislead Parliament. I am glad that Mr Perera has clarified his statement by withdrawing his false allegations against Mediacorp and apologising to Parliament. Mr Perera has, indeed, acknowledged that he has made a mistake in recollecting his facts. I would not want to read too much into his intention whether there was, indeed, deliberate allegation against Mediacorp, but statements that were wrongly made in this House deserved to be retracted if it is, indeed, untrue in this House so that the Chamber, the Members, are able to benefit from the discussion and also to restore trust in one another's statements made in this House.
It is only in that way that we are able to have a useful and effective discussion in this House because we believe that what we say here we have a serious basis for them and that we will not make any statements unless we are very scrupulous with the facts that are backing the statements. So, I hope that this serves as a timely reminder for all Members of the House of the high standard of integrity and honesty that we expect in this House. Thank you, Sir.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) Act (Chapter 86 of the 2005 Revised Edition)\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Trade and Industry (Trade) (Mr Lim Hng Kiang); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cybersecurity Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to require or authorise the taking of measures to prevent, manage and respond to cybersecurity threats and incidents, to regulate owners of critical information infrastructure, to regulate cybersecurity service providers, and for matters related thereto, and to make consequential or related amendments to certain other written laws\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister for Communications and Information (Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enterprise Singapore Board Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to establish the Enterprise Singapore Board, to repeal the International Enterprise Singapore Board Act (Chapter 143B of the 2002 Revised Edition) and the Standards, Productivity and Innovation Board Act (Chapter 303A of the 2002 Revised Edition), and to make consequential and related amendments to certain other Acts\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) (Mr S Iswaran); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Public Utilities (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Public Utilities Act (Chapter 261 of the 2002 Revised Edition) and to make consequential and related amendments to certain other Acts\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for the Environment and Water Resources (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan)\t(on behalf of the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Public Sector (Governance) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) and Second Minister for Defence (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
The Singapore Public Service is made up of Ministries and Statutory Boards, which work together to deliver services to the public. Today, Ministries, which are led by Ministers, are responsible for setting policy directions, while Statutory Boards focus on implementation to achieve the policy outcomes.
Each Statutory Board has a constituting Act which spells out its powers and functions and the key governance requirements. These Acts provide for the Statutory Boards to be separate legal entities from Ministries, and to be governed by their own Board of Directors. This allows them greater autonomy over day-to-day running of operations, and ensure greater responsiveness, efficiency and effectiveness. To illustrate, Statutory Boards have broad discretion over operational issues, can exercise some flexibility over terms and conditions to hire employees, can own land and raise capital by issuing bonds.
At the same time, Statutory Boards are part of the Government and cannot be totally independent either, and Ministers are ultimately accountable for their performance in Parliament. How Statutory Boards operate must, therefore, be in line with the policy directions set by Ministers and their Ministries. They must also abide by important tenets of governance, such as standards of conduct and discipline, principles of remuneration, such as the clean wage policy, that apply to the whole Public Service.
In short, Statutory Boards are part of the Government, to be governed centrally, but deliberately constituted as separate entities for operational flexibility. Legislation must reflect that intent and that balance.
There are now 61 Statutory Boards in Singapore delivering services in respective areas listed in the Schedule of the Bill. They have been set up over the decades. The oldest Statutory Board in existence today is the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board which was established in 1955. A few were constituted only last year, namely, Workforce Singapore, SkillsFuture Singapore, Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) and Government Technology Agency of Singapore (GovTech).
Because of the considerable timespan during which different Statutory Boards were established, the key governance requirements in the Acts of our Statutory Boards are not even. The central agencies, which are the Public Service Division and the Ministry of Finance (MOF), together with Smart Nation and Digital Government Office and the Ministry of Communications and Information, recently did a comprehensive stocktake of all these Acts. This Bill will reduce and minimise this unevenness, with a view to institutionalise a clearer and more consistent governance framework for Statutory Boards.
It will, therefore, achieve three main objectives: first, standardise key governance requirements amongst Statutory Boards; second, make explicit requirements for Statutory Boards to comply with key corporate policies in human resource (HR), finance, office administration and information technology (IT), and they are already doing so by abiding the Government Instruction Manual (IM), but we should provide for formal legislative backing; third, improve the data-sharing scheme, and I am specifically addressing this governance policy because it is a more recent requirement; and finally, this Bill also makes related amendments to five Acts. Let me to go through each in turn.
Today, all Statutory Boards already follow the same practices for good governance. For example, most Statutory Board Acts provide for the Minister charged with the responsibility of the Statutory Board to approve the appointment of its Chief Executive (CE). However, for the five polytechnics, their Acts do not make this requirement, even though in practice, the Ministry of Education (MOE) and the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) search, shortlist, interview and bring about the appointments. There is no reason for the polytechnics to be different from the other Statutory Boards in terms of legislative provisions.
This Bill pulls together and standardises four main areas of governance that are already present in most Statutory Board Acts.
One, the power for the responsible Minister to give directions to Statutory Boards on the performance of their functions, with which they must comply. Divisions 1 and 3 in Part 2 reflect this. These directions must be consistent with written laws and cannot influence any statutorily independent or quasi-judicial functions of the Statutory Boards. To ensure impartiality of the Public Service, the Bill specifies that directions must not be given to achieve specific outcomes or to make employment decisions regarding a particular person or persons.
Two, personnel matters regarding the role, appointment, removal, promotion and discipline of the CEs of Statutory Boards are reflected in Division 1 of Part 3. This Division, first, clarifies that other than proper administration and management of the functions of the Statutory Boards in line with Ministerial directions, the CE also has to collaborate with the wider Public Service to deliver public value. This is important because, as our challenges become more complex, they cannot be solved by one agency alone. This change clarifies that agencies can go beyond a narrow interpretation of the functions described in their Acts to also support and seek support from other agencies, which they are already encouraged to do to achieve whole-of-Government objectives today.
The Bill also standardises the role of the Minister to approve the appointment and removal of CEs, subject to the concurrence of the Public Service Commission (PSC). Hence, it is a three-key system – the Board of Directors of the Statutory Board appoint the CE, the Minister approves, and PSC concurs. In cases where the President’s concurrence is also required, such as the Fifth-Schedule Statutory Boards, it is a four-key system.
Three, the requirement for Statutory Board Governing Board members to disclose conflicts of interest, as reflected in Division 1 of Part 4. This Part defines the circumstances under which a member of the Governing Board is deemed to be interested in a matter, and also the standard of disclosure. These provisions are consistent with corporate governance practices adopted by the private sector and are already in the recently-passed Statutory Board Acts, such as the SkillsFuture Singapore Agency Act, the Government Technology Agency Act, and the recently amended Town Councils Act.
Four, finance-related requirements relating to the preparation and adoption of budget estimates, the keeping of proper accounts, audit requirements and the presentation of the audited financial statements and annual reports to Parliament. These Part 5 provisions are basic requirements to ensure proper internal controls and governance over finance administration.
Now, let me move on to the second area: formalising today's administrative requirements to comply with key central policies.
Our Statutory Boards currently comply with a range of policies set by central agencies, developed in consultation with key stakeholders, such as the Statutory Boards themselves and public-sector unions. So, PSD issues directives on HR matters, and MOF on finance matters. The Bill empowers the Minister charged with the responsibility for the Singapore public sector to issue directions to Statutory Boards to comply with those central policies, jointly with the Minister responsible for the respective policy areas. This is reflected in Division 1 of Part 2.
Such central policies need to strike a balance between effective governance across the Public Service, and the flexibility Statutory Boards need for operational success. For example, Statutory Board salaries are benchmarked to the talent markets they compete in, and we do not expect every Statutory Board to pay exactly the same salary or to have the same salary scales. But it would be imprudent to allow Statutory Boards to have an absolute free reign in setting salary packages. Hence, we have a process where Statutory Boards must consult their Ministries and the PSD when reviewing their salaries and take their views into consideration. During this process, we will ensure that salary benchmarks are appropriately set, the Statutory Board abides by the clean wage policy and so on.
To guide the setting of central policy directives, the Bill stipulates that the relevant Ministers are only empowered to give central directions for the following purposes: (a) upholding and promoting the values of the Singapore public sector; (b) securing economies or efficiencies for the Singapore public sector; (c) improving the efficiency or effectiveness of policies and programmes; (d) ensuring business continuity in case of emergencies; (e) ensuring accountable and prudent stewardship of Singapore public sector finances and resources; (f) managing risks to the financial position of the Government; and (g) finally, supporting a whole-of-Government approach in the discharge of the Statutory Boards' functions.
Central directions by the relevant Ministers must likewise be consistent with written laws. Directions cannot affect the performance of any statutorily independent or quasi-judicial functions of any Singapore public sector agency, including the Judiciary. This would mean, for instance, that the directions cannot undermine the independence of the Judiciary guaranteed by the Constitution. The Courts will continue to exercise their judicial function independently, unimpeded by any Ministerial directions, and Court orders will have to be obeyed notwithstanding any requirement contained in a direction. Directions cannot be given to achieve specific outcomes or to make employment decisions regarding a particular person or persons.
The third area that this Bill seeks to achieve is to formalise the data-sharing regime within the Public Service. The use of data has transformed the way services are conceived and delivered to bring greater convenience and faster, more seamless service to users. For example, when we drive, our location data is aggregated with the other drivers, shared with an app company to generate real-time traffic condition maps and to guide our travels. The Public Service is also using data to better serve the public, in two ways.
The first, is to better provide frontline service. One good example is the Ministry of Social and Family Development's (MSF’s) Social Service Offices (SSOs). When a resident applies for financial assistance at an SSO, he does not need to submit various documents before receiving assistance. The frontline officers already have access to data from multiple agencies to swiftly evaluate his or her eligibility for financial assistance.
Another example is MyInfo, a \"tell-us-once\" platform for Government services that the Public Service is currently developing. When an individual wants to perform an online Government service transaction, such as applying for a Housing and Development Board (HDB) Build-to-Order (BTO) flat, enrolment into polytechnics or applying for baby bonus, he or she needs to log in via SingPass, and MyInfo will automatically prefill the application form with his or her information. This is achieved by pooling an individual’s personal data from multiple agencies securely through a central platform, and the outcome is a more hassle-free and seamless online transaction process for the applicant.
Another way to improve public service is to use data for analysis and to develop policies and programmes. For example, Government agencies are using the Enterprise Data Hub (EDH), a central repository of business entity data, to better understand industries and companies, bring about better analytical insights and improved support strategies for industries and businesses. In the case of MOE, we can put together data on past education attainment, family background, jobs and careers to better understand the relationship between education and careers.
But in doing such analysis, we need to anonymise the data because it is the aggregated trend and the causal relationships that we are seeking to understand. Hence, we will set up centralised data custodians, where raw data from different sources will be matched and anonymised, before being released to relevant agencies for analysis.
Such cross-agency data sharing initiatives are already happening today because technology has made it possible. But we need to strengthen the rules which were written before we could envisage how we can leverage data to improve our work and deliver services better. There are three areas of improvement.
First, the Bill provides the bases for data to be shared between public sector agencies. Specifically, there are seven purposes supporting public interest, under which data can be shared under the direction of the Minister. This is backed up by amendments to the Civil Service’s internal guidelines to further elaborate the conditions for sharing. In gist, identifiable personal data is shared when services need to be better delivered to the individual, while non-identifiable data is shared to improve policy analysis, planning and formulation.
Second, under today's rules, there is an asymmetrical distribution of responsibility between data owning and data requesting agencies. The requesting agency is using the data, but yet the owner is responsible and accountable for the security of the data. This Bill will correct this asymmetry and make it clear that it is the user who will be accountable for the protection and safeguarding of data passed to them. So, it will actually enhance data security and safeguards.
Finally, the Bill further introduces criminal penalties for the unauthorised disclosure and improper use of information, and the unauthorised re-identification of anonymised data by the user of the datasets.
For avoidance of doubt, the Bill makes it clear that sensitive data protected by legislation would remain protected. This includes data exchanged or received by Statutory Boards, which are subject to confidentiality obligations under international treaties or agreements that are provided for under any written law.
All the changes proposed in this Bill will generally apply to all Statutory Boards, except where there are grounds for exemption. Exemption is due to the function of the Statutory Board and the context in which they operate. For example, the National Council of Social Services (NCSS) is unlike regular Statutory Boards in that its main functions focus on developing the capabilities and representing the interests of the voluntary welfare sector and serving as a bridge between the Government and the sector. As such, NCSS functions more autonomously from Government than regular Statutory Boards and is exempt from the requirement to obtain PSC’s concurrence in the appointment, removal, promotion and discipline of its CE.
Another group of Statutory Boards, like the Singapore Medical Council and the Land Surveyors Board, serve mainly to self-regulate the professional standards, training and conduct of their respective professions. Their core functions relate to the exercise of professional judgement on licensing particular persons to practise as a professional in a field. The Governing Boards, therefore, comprise registered practitioners of relevant professions with autonomy to exercise professional judgement. Hence, the Minister has a smaller role to play in their work and PSC is not involved in the appointment or removal of their Registrars.
Related to this, I will later move amendments at the Committee stage to bring the treatment of People's Association (PA) more in line with that of similar Statutory Boards. The text of the Bill currently exempts the PA from: one, the power of the responsible Minister to give directions to PA; two, the role of the Governing Board and responsible Minister in appointing the PA's CE; and three, the requirement for the Chairperson to sign the PA's audited financial statements. We had originally given the exemptions due to the unique constitution of the PA where the Prime Minister is the Chairperson while the responsible Minister is the Deputy Chairperson. But we have since relooked the exemptions and decided to have consistency in PA's governance with the other Statutory Boards. The only remaining exception is that volunteers who serve on PA's committees will not be subject to the protection as well as the offences that relate to public servants under the Penal Code, for the simple reason that they are volunteers.
Finally, the Bill makes related amendments to five Acts.
One, an amendment to the Interpretation Act, to set out the longstanding practice where subsidiary legislation made by a Statutory Board is signed by the chairperson. This clarifies that the chairperson's signature is sufficient to indicate that a Statutory Board has passed that legislation in resolution without further need for all members to sign the legislation. The amendment also clarifies that where a Statutory Board is permitted by any written law to delegate the performance of its functions or the exercise of its powers, this does not apply to the power to make subsidiary legislation.
Two, amendments to the Fire Safety Act and Police Force Act to remove references to the divisional status of public officers. This reflects the policy since January 2017 to stop grouping officers by divisional status to better emphasise skills and performance in the management of officers. This is in line with the national SkillsFuture movement.
Three, an amendment to the Government Contracts Act to allow Statutory Board employees on secondment to the Government to execute binding contracts on behalf of Government. This will improve the efficiency of our work processes and fairer to the officer, too.
Four, amendments to the PSC and Legal Service Commission (LSC) Act. Let me provide some background. Article 21 of the Constitution states that the President must, in exercising her statutory functions, act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet, except as provided by the Constitution. However, the text of two sections of the PSC and LSC Act is inconsistent with this because it states that the President can exercise her discretion to permit the communication, publication and disclosure of information relating to the Commissions' work, which should not otherwise be disclosed. This inconsistency exists because the PSC and LSC Act was enacted in 1956 before the Singapore Constitution was enacted in 1963. Article 162 of the Constitution requires any law pre-dating the Constitution to be brought into alignment with the Constitution. Hence, we are taking this opportunity to amend the PSC and LSC Act to remove the phrase \"acting in his discretion\" from two sections of the Act. This will not affect the President’s powers, and we have consulted the President’s office before proposing to streamline our statutes.
This Bill will strengthen the governance of Statutory Boards to better deliver services for the benefit of all Singaporeans. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Zaqy Mohamad.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak on this important Bill, which I support on three counts, focused on the data section.
Firstly, the need to improve governance. Streamlining processes in the Public Service would have obvious benefits to the public and make governance more efficient and effective. Let me share some areas where I propose this can be done.
From a public perspective, it can be frustrating, and I know many residents as well as businesses are often frustrated when Government agencies lob them from department to department and sometimes even Members of Parliament (MPs) are not immune to this. To make an application or appeal, one has to go online to different websites or to different departments to get the relevant documentation because the information among the different agencies cannot be shared.
Thus, I am sure that the public will welcome this move if they can see the direct benefits that it brings them in transacting with the Government and in how they use various Government services. I hope that with the implementation of this Bill, the Government will prioritise to start with areas that can have significant social impact, especially those for the low-income, seniors and the under-privileged. I see many possibilities that data sharing can make living better for the under-privileged and those in need.
Very often, I have had residents coming to our Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS) for help, especially for welfare appeals, home purchases and other declarations needed, such as immigration applications, where documents and statements are asked each time they make an appeal, whether it is CPF records, income statements, certified medical certificates and so forth.
Too often, many give up on these schemes or benefits because of the long process and when data and document sharing becomes onerous. The family situation for those in need is not always so straightforward. Family members may be difficult to locate and sometimes family members are also estranged. An example involves Government assistance schemes that need salary declarations to determine household income, but the Government may already have had some salary information either through income tax declarations or CPF contributions.
I ask that officers handling such sensitive cases for welfare, housing and health subsidies be given greater access to data to make decisions more easily and, more importantly, to reduce the burden on the residents to keep providing updated statements and data every few months when assistance needs to be renewed.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I understand that the sensitivities, as explained by the Minister earlier on, of allowing officers to see such salary data and declarations are, indeed, sensitive for the families. Thus, I have a suggestion. Can the Government work on a points-based system to determine the eligibility of citizens for various schemes, similar to what we do for credit scoring? So, systems can work in the background without having to reveal exact numbers to officers. So, in a sense, you go to the backend, get certain data, churn out a formula and, therefore, a score comes out to say whether a resident is eligible or not eligible.
So, officers making the assessments will see some form of points scoring to make it easier and quicker to approve one’s eligibility for a scheme. This will allow officers to make decisions without having to access actual data. For example, an agency can evaluate if an applicant’s household income exceeds the specified criteria through comparing CPF and/or Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) data, without having to be given actual details which will breach some of our laws. If the system can compute such a formula, this will help reduce trauma and difficulties by the applicant and reduce the burden on the processing for help. This way, more citizens will get help more expediently and with much lesser stress.
The second consideration is the possibility of achieving cost-effectiveness. In the sharing of data and making Government processes more efficient, would such services not become cheaper for the relevant agencies and, consequently, the public? I am not just talking about direct cost savings but also indirect savings in terms of neater allocation of resources, achieving optimal outcomes and leading to effective policy outcomes.
From the business point of view, for example, the amount of time and resources companies spend in administrative filings, whether for taxes, specific permits and licences or manpower quotas, can be drastically reduced through the sharing of data among Government agencies. So, I understand MyInfo is a good platform and I hope that more can be done, but also not in terms of pre-filling forms, when we were to carry forward some of these application data that was previously submitted.
In recent years, we have heard of many businesses attributing the low take-up rate of Government schemes and grants to complicated and long-drawn processes of such applications and reporting. Hopefully, we will see businesses more encouraged to do so now in light of easier data sharing among agencies, so they do not have to keep repeating their applications across agencies.
Last, but not least, the importance of taking concrete steps towards being a truly Smart Nation. Data and, more importantly, the insights that can be garnered from it, are proving to be critical and significant in this digital era. Companies and governments around the world are increasingly leveraging data to serve their customers and citizens better, and Singapore should leverage such capabilities to improve and enhance policymaking. After all, if we are truly driving Singapore towards being a Smart Nation, then the Public Service should be incentivised to lead by example.
I support this initiative to further our use of digital technology under our Smart Nation initiative, in areas that can better our lives, such as making our public transport services more efficient and enhancing our access to healthcare, amongst others. However, acknowledging these benefits, I would like to share the concerns I have on this Bill based on feedback gathered on the ground.
The main concern some have on this move is the perception that \"big brother\" is watching. How does the Government plan to assure citizens that they are not actively being tracked? While governance and transparency are areas to keep in mind, we need to be clear on whether the Government will make public on what datasets that the \"directing\" Minister has asked for across agencies, and what they will be used for. This is especially for datasets that will be used for proactive enforcement of citizens, if any, such as tax compliance or declarations.
My other concern is the erroneous or non-updated data on an individual or business which could work against them when used by the Government to approve applications for schemes and services. With this Bill, an outdated or erroneous data is now transmitted across multiple agencies. So, how can a citizen or a business find out whether the data that the Government has on them is actually correct and if they can self-update easily, without the hassle of checking from agency to agency?
Also, given that Government officers now have access to a full suite of data, which, put together with reasonable deduction, may lead to market or sensitive insights and the possibility of what some may call \"insider trading\" for use of information for personal gain. Will there be measures put in place for such officers to declare interests beyond the grade ones that the Minister shared earlier, and holdings of investment and properties? Will the Government also consider stronger penalties for breaches of data access or leaks so as to create stronger deterrents?
While the Bill covers penalties for data leaks, I do have concerns that, in recent years, we have seen Auditor-General’s Office (AGO) reports where data and systems controls remain a concern for some agencies. So, what additional measures will be put in place in terms of data security? Once data is leaked, even if we can penalise the officer, there is no retrieving the data back. So, I would like to know how the Government plans to balance security, governance and accessibility of data.
If these concerns are addressed, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am confident that the Bill brings greater convenience and efficiency to Singaporeans and the Public Service. As such, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Public Sector (Governance) Bill makes interesting reading. According to the long title of the Bill, it seeks to provide for a consistent governance framework across the public bodies and to support the whole-of-Government approach to the delivery of services. To this end, the Bill has several aspects.
On the one hand, it aims to standardise certain policies and practices that cut across the different public sector agencies, such as personnel matters, governance and managing conflicts of interests and financial administration. These are set out in Parts 3, 4 and 5 of the Bill. More critically, Part 2 prescribes the accountability relationships between Government Ministers and the public sector agencies. These accountability provisions set out how Ministers should interface with public sector agencies which wield significant state power over Singaporeans on a daily basis, how should Ministers behave and what are the boundaries that Ministers should not cross. I shall focus my speech on this aspect of the Bill.
Sir, clause 3 of the Bill states that one of the Bill's aims is to, and I quote, \"clarify the accountability relationship between public bodies, their members, their responsible Ministers and the Government.\" As one would assume that the Government will not legislate without cause, I would ask the Minister to explain why it is necessary to clarify in explicit legislation the accountability relationships between the Ministers and the public sector agencies. Are Ministers or the agencies confused about their roles? Why legislate rather than issuing guidelines on this? Is there concern from the Public Service officials that they are being subject to political pressure from Ministers?
Part 2 of the Bill talks about Ministers issuing directions to agencies. However, the word \"directions\" is not defined. I note that under clause 9, it is provided that the directions may take the form of a circular, instruction or order. But clause 9 says that the directions may take such a format, not that they must take such a format. Is it safe to assume then that directions have to be in writing and signed or authenticated by the Minister? Can the Permanent Secretary, for example, sign off? Is there anything prohibiting directions in the form of emails or going further, can directions even be oral?
Part 2 envisages two types of directions from Ministers – directions for whole-of-Government approach and directions to certain Statutory Boards regarding functional responsibilities.
First, directions on whole-of-Government approach. Under clause 4, directions for the whole-of-Government approach will relate only to a pertinent subject matter. These pertinent subject matters are restricted to five areas as set out in sub-clause (3). First, employment, management and discipline of employees; second, management of official documents; third, financial and resource management and accountability; fourth, use or development of IT; and fifth, data governance and sharing.
Such whole-of-Government directions are to be issued by, I presume, the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) or the recommendation of the Minister-in-charge of the pertinent subject matter. In addition, the directions can only be issued for the purposes set out in clause 4(2), such as securing economies of scale, efficiency of public programmes, ensuring business continuity and managing financial risks. Overall, I welcome the thought process behind clause 4 and the implied reminder to Ministers that directions should not be issued for extraneous purposes.
Next, I move to directions to Group 1 Statutory Boards. The second type of directions are to be issued under clause 5 to specific Statutory Boards on the performance of their specific functions. The Statutory Boards in question are listed in the Schedule to the Bill under Group 1A and Group 1B of the First Schedule. These bodies total 50 in number and include major public functions that affect the lives of Singaporeans across the board, for example, the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority, Central Provident Fund Board, Housing and Development Board, Land Transport Authority and Public Utilities Board. I also understand from the Minister that he would be moving an amendment in Committee to include the Group 1C public body, namely, PA, under clause 5 as well.
Clause 5 states that such agencies' specific directions are to be issued by the Ministers responsible for those agencies. Implied here is a drawing of a line that other Ministers have no authority to give instructions to agencies not under their charge concerning the agencies' functions. In this regard, it would be important to understand the spirit behind this provision. According to the Explanatory Note, there are currently inconsistencies and this clause will help to avoid duplication of laws. Could the Minister give an illustration of this problem so that one can better understand how clause 5 will help?
Next, I move on to limits on Ministerial directions. This is contained in clause 11, an all-important clause which seeks to limit the Minister's powers to issue directions to public sector agencies. Clause 11 provides that the Minister's directions must not be contrary to written law. A Ministerial direction is also not binding if it would impede or affect the performance of a statutorily independent function of a public sector agency or a quasi-judicial function of a public sector agency in a particular matter. To enable greater public understanding of this point, can the Minister give some examples of such functions? Earlier, I believe he mentioned the Courts, which are an obvious example. But it would be helpful if he could mention other examples.
Furthermore, should there be a doubt as to whether a direction from a Minister is contrary to law or tantamount to an undermining of that body's independence or quasi-judicial function, how will such an issue be resolved? Who should the public sector agencies complain to?
Next, clause 11(3) goes further to say that Ministers are not authorised to direct any public sector agency or any public body or public officer to perform or not to perform a particular act with respect to a particular person or persons. I have a few queries about this.
First, the clause is very widely worded as there is no definition of what sorts of acts are contemplated. Read literally, does this mean, for example, that henceforth, a Minister cannot direct a Statutory Board to scrutinise the accounts of a particular company? Does this mean that Ministers cannot instruct Ministries or Statutory Boards to issue specific media releases affecting particular persons? Next, which agencies are protected under this clause from Ministerial abuse?
Clause 11 says that Ministers cannot issue the offending directions to public sector agencies, which are defined in clause 2 to mean Statutory Boards listed in Groups 1, 2 and 3 of the Schedule, a Ministry or department of Government, an Organ of State, or a public officer or person as gazetted by the Minister. Public bodies are also mentioned in clause 11 which means it protects all Statutory Boards, even those not listed in the Schedule.
To be absolutely clear, does clause 11 apply to the Public Service? We just defined to include the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF), the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) and the Police. Are these considered departments of the Government and, therefore, public sector agencies for the purposes of this Bill? This is important because if clause 11 applies to the services, a Minister would not be able to direct them to take particular actions, for example, to direct the Police to arrest a particular person.
Third, Sir, while these restrictions on Ministerial directions are impressive on paper, they appear to me easy to circumvent. For instance, what is there to stop a Minister from speaking to a public officer on the side to get such things done, thus bypassing the prohibitions in clause 11?
Finally, Sir, according to the Explanatory Note, clause 11 is there, and I quote, \"to ensure that the public sector, like the Singapore Public Service, does not become politicised.\" This sounds well and good on paper and there also seems to be an assumption that the Public Service is not politicised. But with the public sector that has known only one ruling Party for nearly 60 years, how do we entrench a culture of political neutrality of the Civil Service in substance? How do we achieve depoliticisation in reality?
For instance, buried in our Statute Books is a piece of legislation called \"The People Association's conduct and discipline rules\". These rules expressly state that, I quote, \"Every employee shall refrain from engaging in party political activity and shall maintain complete reserve in all matters of party political controversy.\"
Besides this, I believe there are similar pronouncements elsewhere. But are these quotes being observed on a daily basis? Are the Ministers themselves all mindful of letting public servants do their jobs professionally and not putting them under political pressure?
Sir, let me conclude. This Bill is an attempt to entrench the relationships of accountability and demarcate out-of-bounds markers for Ministers vis-à-vis the public sector agencies. That is certainly a good thing. The Workers' Party welcomes this development, after nearly 60 years under the same ruling Party. Nevertheless, as I have said, I have some doubts and concerns about how the Bill will be operationalised and what appear to be gaps that may allow the Bill's intentions to be circumvented.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill. It is laudable that efforts have been made to establish a consistent system of governance across public bodies in Singapore as well as to enable a whole-of-Government approach to make policy planning and service delivery more efficient via this Bill.
Under the Bill, the Minister may give sector agencies directives to share information under the control of the sector agency with another sector agency to improve, whether directly or indirectly, the efficiency or effectiveness of policies, programme management or service planning and delivery by public sector agencies, whether by carrying out data analytics work or otherwise. This is a step in the right direction, especially as we develop Singapore into a data-centric Smart Nation.
Corporations are leveraging big data insights to improve their processes and bottom lines and spark innovation, the public sector can also tap on data to identify valuable insights which can be used to develop and enhance initiatives for public good.
As we recognise data as a valuable strategic asset, we have to ensure that data is not subject to abuse as the data residing in public sector agencies are personal data of our fellow Singaporeans. Data security must be a priority. I have a few questions arising from these concerns.
First, could the Minister share some examples of data sharing projects which are envisioned in the promulgation of this Bill, such as which sector agencies are involved in these data sharing projects, what are the objectives of these projects and the types of data that are being shared. I really hope provision of data and information can be one-stop so that we do not to provide the same piece of information or document to many different Government agencies.
Second, under the Bill, data sharing includes the sharing of information or re-identification of anonymised information under the control of the sector agency. Under what circumstances would a re-identification of anonymised information be required?
Third, are there guidelines in place to ensure that the collection, transfer and handling of data are secure, bearing in mind that the public sector is exempted from the provisions of the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA)? For example, data could be categorised by different levels of sensitivity and different guidelines on collecting, transferring and handling of data would apply to the different categories. Also, what safeguards are in place to ensure these guidelines are complied with?
As we embark on developing data-centric digital solutions to enhance service delivery by sector agencies, I would also like to ask the Minister if there is a framework in place to evaluate the costs, benefits and risk of data sharing projects envisioned under this Bill. What audit processes are in place to ensure that any automated processing of information and algorithms are soundly evaluated to minimise bias and error?
Are there are any guidelines for sector agencies to comply with in the implementation of initiatives which require people to engage in a new way with new digital channels? Take for example, the recent Centrelink debacle in Australia. Centrelink is an Australian government organisation responsible for administering welfare services. Centrelink had launched an automated debt recovery system which used data supplied by organisations, such as the Australian Tax Office, to match information recipients gave to Centrelink. The automated system promised to be more accurate than the manual matching process and would improve the capability for the identification and recovery of debt owed to taxpayers while avoiding mistakes that would adversely affect the recipient’s payments.
While the system resulted in thousands of debt recovery notices, in a significant portion of cases, there was no debt or the amount had been over-estimated and thousands of clients had to spend many hours and days disputing debts they did not actually owe. As clients were only given a three-week deadline to repay the debt, some were forced to repay debt they did not believe they owed because they could not successfully dispute the debt before the deadline. Service delivery was worsened and this impacted people’s trust in the government organisation.
Following a probe into the system, the Commonwealth Ombudsman found that the implementation problems could have been mitigated through better project planning and risk management at the onset. This includes more rigorous user testing with customers and service delivery staff, a more incremental rollout and better communication to staff and stakeholders. The Ombudsman’s report stated that a key lesson for agencies and policymakers when proposing to roll out large-scale measures which require people to engage in a new way with new digital channels, is for agencies to engage with stakeholders and provide resources for manual support during transition periods.
This is a key lesson which we can take reference from as new or enhanced public initiatives are launched further to this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Public Sector (Governance) Bill aims to harmonise the rules governing the operation of all public bodies in Singapore in respect of dimensions, such as the relationship between a Minister and the public body, values, data protection rules and so on and so forth. On the whole, the Bill marks a step in the right direction and I cannot oppose the Bill. Before I continue, I declare that I serve as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of a research and consulting firm that has, on occasion, undertaken public sector projects in the past.
My speech will focus on clause 11 which seeks to limit the Minister's powers to issue directions to public sector agencies so as to reduce the risk of the politicisation of the Public Service. Clause 11(3) states that Ministers are not authorised to direct any public sector agency or any public body or public officer to perform or not to perform a particular act with respect to a particular person or persons. This is clearly a step in the right direction and I welcome this.
Having said that, I share the concerns and support the questions raised in relation to this clause by my colleague and party chairman Sylvia Lim. I shall not repeat them here but will focus on one additional consideration.
In Singapore, we have a history of public servants moving on to take up roles in politics immediately upon leaving the Public Service, primarily by joining the ruling Party and serving as MPs or Ministers in the PAP Government with little or no break in between. There would always presumably be some public servants who possess the necessary ambition, aspiration and willingness to seek to exit the Public Service and join politics and perhaps to become a Minister or even Prime Minister one day.
So as to increase their chances of successfully joining the ruling Party and becoming MPs or Ministers, such public servants may try to second-guess what their Ministers would like them to do. Even in the absence of any explicit instruction from a Minister to do the said act, they may then just go out and do it. The intended goal of such a strategy may be for that individual public servant to be looked upon favourably not just by his or her Minister but by the leadership of the ruling Party in respect of consideration for being fielded as a ruling Party candidate in the next election.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not arguing that this necessarily happens today, but it is something that may happen in the future. My focus is on the principle and managing future risks. To be sure, there would be nothing illegal about any public servant attempting to pursue such a strategy and this law does not change that. But is it healthy for Singapore for such a culture to become widespread? After all, becoming a Minister is an attractive career option for a high performing public servant as it means taking on the role of the boss under which he or she ultimately serves.
So, the incentive for such a culture to grow is there. And if such a culture takes root in the future, it would mean that the Public Service would become partisan and eventually and inevitably be seen by the public as partisan, which would be a terrible outcome not least in terms of attracting and retaining good public servants who have no wish to be partisan or to eventually enter politics.
To be sure, the risk of subordinates second-guessing their boss and doing what their boss wants in the absence of a formal explicit instruction is not new. In fact, it is a risk that has been noted for centuries in the context of all kinds of organisations.
I will cite one famous example from history. There is a sentence attributed to a former King of England from the 12th century, Henry II. He was supposed to have said in the council of his senior advisors and noblemen, \"Will no one rid me of this meddlesome Priest?\", referring to Thomas Becket, the then-Archbishop of Canterbury, with whom he had had repeated conflicts. This was not a direct order, but it is said that, upon hearing this comment, four senior knights attending the meeting then went on to kill Becket in one of the most famous political assassinations of medieval times. I cannot, of course, attest to the historical veracity of every part of the story but it is a story that has been told through the centuries to illustrate the perils of subordinates in any organisation second-guessing their boss and taking actions that they think may please their boss and even perhaps going to greater extremes than their boss would have thought necessary.
So, this problem is not a new one and not specific to any organisation or context. So, how do we prevent a culture of ambitious public servants second-guessing their bosses and take partisan but legally permissible actions which may, over time, tend to erode the reputation of the Public Service for non-partisanship?
I would like to make one suggestion here, which is to impose a mandatory time gap between when an individual leaves the Public Service and when that individual enters politics. In the debate on the Banking Act, I had asked then, coincidentally Minister Ong Ye Kung as well, if such a mandatory time gap, referred to in that context as \"garden leave\" or a cooling-off period, existed for Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) officers who wished to resign from MAS and join the financial institutions. He confirmed that such a mandatory time gap existed.
The analogy here with what I am proposing is not perfect. But it is useful to note that there is a precedent for such a mandatory time gap proposal. Imposing a mandatory time gap between when one can leave the Public Service and when one can join politics, say, three years, would give pause to any ambitious public servant who might seek to read their political masters' mind and do their partisan bidding unasked, so as to facilitate their chances of joining the ruling Party as an elected politician. He or she would know that they would need to find employment outside the Public Service in the private sector or not-for-profit sector for some years before joining politics.
Hence, there would be a period of time when they would need to find alternative employment and the fruit of their partisan action or actions could not be reaped immediately. And with the passage of time, the memory of their acts in the Public Service and their links to their former political masters may become more attenuated, thus further reducing the motive to commit such acts in the first place.
Imposing a mandatory time gap may send a signal to aspiring public servants that if they choose to second-guess their bosses and speed the path to a Ministerial post, the link between their actions and the hoped for results will be weaker than it is now. It may cool the ardour of such public servants to second-guess their boss and act for him or her.
Such a rule would also have other benefits than the one I have mentioned. It would ensure that future MPs and Ministers from the Civil Service would need to have private sector and/or not-for-profit sector experience prior to becoming MPs and Ministers.
The relative lack of such experience in the Cabinet has often been bemoaned by experts and commentators. In Singapore's first Cabinet, upon the attainment of self-government, the proportion of civil servants was far, far less than in the Cabinets that followed.
And the period of time during the mandatory time gap would also allow them an alternative form of employment to give them the time and space to reflect if they really do want to enter politics, so that those who eventually do take that step may prove to be more committed to that pathway. I hope that some form of mandatory time gap can be considered for ex-public servants seeking to join politics.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan.
Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Public Sector (Governance) Bill's explanatory statement says the Bill is designed to improve the consistency of our governance framework for Statutory Boards by standardising and formalising several key provisions that have whole-of-Government importance.
But the spirit of the Bill was more ambitious though, particularly the use or development of IT, such as big data analytics, block-chain technology and artificial intelligence (AI).
Speaking at a technology conference last September, Deputy CE of GovTech, Mr Chan Cheow Hoe, suggested that the Government has changed its approach to delivering services in the past few years, away from a prescriptive view where \"Ministries and the agencies know everything\", in his words, to providing what they think \"is good for the citizens, and somehow or rather people should accept it\" in the past but now \"the social contract has changed quite a fair bit\". He says, \"more and more citizens are very demanding”, and finally concluded that \"it is really about understanding what people need at various moments in their life and delivering this service\". I wholeheartedly agree with Mr Chan.
While I support the Bill’s intent to codify a uniform corporate governance framework for public bodies and the Public Service in the interests of consistency, transparency and efficiency, I have some concerns as to whether the Bill best furthers this aptly termed new \"social contract\" in public sector governance. My concerns are as follows, Mr Deputy Speaker, and allow me to take them in turn.
One, provisions, such as the Obligation of the Statutory Boards to keep proper accounts and present its audited financial statements to the Minister-in-charge in a timely manner, are straightforward. Apart from being contained in the Statutory Board's constituent Acts, there should be no question as to whether or not there is an obligation to do so. The same can be said perhaps of requirements of information sharing, disclosure of certain interests, and submitting budget estimates on time. What then, Mr Speaker, has prompted the Ministries to seek to further hard-coding Statutory Board obligations which implement Government policies and deliver public services?
Two, are Ministers concerned that there may be directions that have not been complied with by Statutory Boards? Have any Statutory Boards suggested thus far that they may choose not to comply with a request or direction made by the relevant Ministry in relation to “pertinent subject matter” as envisioned by clause 4(1) because it does not have or carry the force of law?
Three, are there specific instances of public sector governance lapses regarding certain Statutory Boards, such as perhaps the Land Transport Authority (LTA), that have moved the Government to highlight the importance of standardising, formalising and strengthening regulatory oversight? Have there been recent lapses in financial auditing or reporting to the AGO or other authority that are a cause for concern?
Four, is there any clarification on the mechanism for and the scope of data sharing under clause 6 of the Bill? Will further guidance be given to both the public sector agency that requests and the one that receives the data, and will any protective measures be available to guard against unwitting data privacy breaches?
Five, could the Minister give examples perhaps to illustrate the broad point that is made in relation to clause 7(2) on when, in certain circumstances, unauthorised data sharing may not be an offence? Looking at the explanatory note, it suggests that this may not be an offence if the “sharing may have been done on the basis of the common law exception of public interest”, and there could be a further elaboration on this point.
Six, is the position of CE within each public body a new point? How is this any different from the current position inferred to the top administrator who helms the very directorate of each Statutory Board?
Seven, clause 27 appears somewhat counter-intuitive. It says that even if a member of a public body does not disclose a conflict of interest or does not abstain from being involved in decision-making that might benefit him, the public body's decision remains valid. Will that rob the duty to disclose a conflict of interest of having any real consequence? Should any decision of the consequences of the failure to disclose not be made by a Public Service administrative tribunal, perhaps even a Court?
Eight, given the importance the Bill appears to place on data sharing for big data analytics, what are the benefits that the Government hopes to reap in sectors perhaps like healthcare, and how will it insulate against the risk of data privacy breaches?
Nine, the Bill seems to be silent on an important point, which is about whistleblowers. Will whistleblowers within the Public Service be encouraged to come forward? The Bill focuses on a policy change that the Bill represents but this would be an important component of that policy change. Individuals will not come forward to volunteer information if they fear that they would attract criticism or blame. So, it is essential, in the absence of obvious or serious wrongdoing, to encourage such individuals within the Public Service that there is an \"open culture\" of sharing and questioning, rather than the culture of blame.
Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, let us move to the situation where there is serious wrongdoing. We heard earlier this morning about Keppel Offshore and Marine's (KOM's) recent cooperation with investigative agencies both in Singapore and abroad. But I must say that this comes as small comfort to Singaporeans, who fear that Singapore's image regarding anti-corruption has been irreparably tarnished. KOM pays a large fine, Singapore pays an incalculably higher one.
In such instances, as far as public sector governance goes, could there be something that Parliament can do? So, I am not talking about the legal accountability, I am not talking about criminal procedure and justice, but is there a role for Parliament to play, perhaps within select committees or Parliamentary commissions, to look at situations that could guide Government-linked companies and Statutory Boards were there ever to be a situation where they would fear that someone should come forward to speak about a point or there is a danger of a serious wrongdoing?
A critical issue, Mr Deputy Speaker, and let me end on this point, is to identify why a hazard occurred, what factors – environmental, organisational, human, cultural – were potential causative factors, and how the risk of a similar event occurring again can be reduced. This requires patience to recognise that no system will be able to prevent every adverse event from occurring, that people should work together collaboratively to ensure this does not happen again.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Chen Show Mao.
Mr Chen Show Mao (Aljunied): This Bill gives Government Ministers powers to direct all Singapore public sector agencies relating to certain matters so as to “uphold the values of the Singapore public sector.” This includes powers to give directions relating to the management of official records.
Today, the management of public records falls under the purview of NLB, which controls and directs the National Archives of Singapore. NLB conducts a records management programme that includes the retention and preservation of public records. The Board has the authority to decide which records of the Government or another public office are of national or historical significance and should be transferred to the National Archives. No records of the Government or another public office may be destroyed or disposed of without the authorisation of the Board. Nor may any person excise, mark or otherwise deface or send out of the country any public records without the authorisation of the Board.
How would the proposed powers of the relevant Minister to direct public sector agencies or public bodies in the management of official records work in conjunction with the existing powers of the NLB relating to the retention and preservation of public records? Could the Minister clarify?
Sir, the proper retention and preservation of our public records are of great importance. Many of us tell ourselves that things may be the way they seem now. But time lends perspective and, with the proper keeping of public records and, in time, with greater accessibility to them, history can be the judge.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef.
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Mr Deputy Speaker, in reviewing this Bill, I cannot help but notice that some years ago when McKinsey came up with five main implications for the public sector moving into the future in a paper titled \"Global trends affecting the public sector,\" there were five important and critical points which I think are relevant and I am going to share them today.
Firstly, we must radically increase the productivity of our public sector and public services; secondly, the Public Service has to evolve and change their relationship with citizens in order to address changing and increasing needs; thirdly, the Public Service has to redraw their organisation landscape in order to deliver high-quality services; fourthly, the Public Service has to achieve major cultural change that puts data at the heart of policymaking; and finally, the Public Service must find new ways to attract and retain scarce talent and thus there will be competition with the private sector. I agree that these five points serve as broad guides for us.
This Bill, Sir, aims to create a uniform governance framework across the public sector in Singapore. Many agencies currently have their own internal policies and guidelines, but this Bill will provide an overarching legislation and benchmark the standards of governance that should be adhered to. Can I please make some points?
Firstly, currently, various provisions of this Bill are already found in the constituting Acts of some public sector agencies. Examples are, disclosure of interest, proper financial record keeping, budget estimates, annual reports submission and so on. Can the Minister clarify for us whether some of these will prevail or will they be considered defunct with the new Act in place? The clarity will be necessary to ensure better compliance and adoption of this Bill.
In section 6 of the Bill, pertaining to the “data sharing directives”, can we have some more details on this? Clarification as to how it will be aligned with PDPA, where relevant, the scope of the information that will be and can be shared, and the mechanisms of sharing, such as will it be electronic, for example, and what protective measures will this be guided by? Also, how about compliance with the Protection of Secrecy Acts which Statutory Boards and Government companies have to abide by currently? Will we be seeing some changes, or will the clauses from this Act need to be incorporated into this new Bill that we are debating today?
With many steps in our processes in the Public Service involving human factors, we know there is a likelihood of errors happening. Take, the example, the recent Ministry of Education (MOE) school data leak. How can we learn from these incidences and incorporate some of the lessons into policy?
As across the public sector, there will be more handling of this big data, can the Minister share with us how all this data will be stored? Will there need to be standalone personal computers or other approved devices? Who will have access to the data? How much and which parts of the data are permissible for research purposes?
Also, moving into all these, will there need to be some informed consent, a generic one perhaps, by the public and users of the public services at some point in time?
Finally, with the better coordination and oversight this Bill has to offer, it is a strategic move forward. But who will play the coordinating role? Will it be the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI)? Or what about the the Smart Nation and Digital Government Office? So, perhaps some clarification on that as well.
I look forward to these clarifications with this important Bill. The protection against all and potential abuses and misuse are preventive steps and we have to incorporate these now at the planning stages before the final implementation of the Bill. I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied) (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Sir, this Public Sector (Governance) Bill seeks to provide a consistent framework and practice amongst Public Service bodies. I support this Bill but, at the same time, I would like to seek two clarifications.
Firstly, I would like to request further information from the Minister on Part 5, titled Financial Administration, which contains clause 33 to clause 41. Based on my understanding, clause 33 states that the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS), categorised in Group 3A Public Bodies, is exempted from clauses 34 to 41. Is my understanding correct? If it is correct, can the Minister provide the reasons for this exemption?
(In English): My second clarification is regarding clause 11. My colleague, Ms Sylvia Lim, had earlier touched on that explanatory note stating that the introduction of clause 11 was \"to ensure that the public sector, like the Singapore Public Service, not be politicised\". It would be much appreciated if the Minister can define and elaborate more on the word \"politicised\" as stated in the explanatory note and also to cite an example or two so that Members will have a clearer and better understanding of the phrase \"not be politicised\".
Additionally, I will share two scenarios and would like to ask the Minister to provide his views whether, in these two scenarios, the Public Service entity mentioned has more or less been politicised.
The first scenario, an individual who is a member of the political party and who contested but was defeated in the General Election who is now holding two designations at the same time – one, a branch chairman of a political party and two, as an advisor to grassroots organisation which, in fact, is a position appointed and endorsed by PA's executive board.
Second scenario, a grassroots advisor appointed by PA, a Statutory Board, conducts house visits accompanied by staff of Statutory Boards, such as the HDB, inviting residents to his MPS if residents require him to appeal on their behalf. Nonetheless, the MPS session is held in a political party branch office by the grassroots advisor who writes referral or appeal letters using a political party letterhead and signs off as the branch chairman of a political party.
As such, I seek the Minister's reply as to whether PA, a Statutory Board, which is a public service entity, is being politicised in the above-mentioned scenarios.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Chia Yong Yong.
Ms Chia Yong Yong (Nominated Member): Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. Much good can come out of it, if we use it wisely, for example, the directions on data sharing. Although the PDPA does not apply to Government agencies, I understand that there have been constraints in the sharing of personal data between public bodies due to the Government’s own data policies.
From a social service perspective, data sharing has advantages. From the perspective of a client, data sharing enables multiple public bodies serving the same client to construct a holistic profile for more timely and relevant intervention and support. Data sharing equips public bodies to anticipate the onboarding of a client, prepare the relevant support, and monitor the progress of a client or a former client. This will enable public agencies to provide further intervention and further support. It also saves the client time and effort in having to produce the same information to different public bodies at different times. These are some of the advantages from an individual's perspective.
For public bodies, data sharing enables public bodies to develop more holistic profiles of the clients and their needs, thereby informing policymaking in the planning of services and their delivery, through analytics and research. It enables public bodies to better understand the trajectory of the clients, which would improve the planning of the respective downstream and upstream services and interventions.
From that perspective, I support it. There are, however, a number of concerns, one of which being how members of the public do not fear the sharing of personal data. We are very happy to give our identity card number for lucky draws. We do not realise that the giving of such important pieces of information for not so critical functions or purposes can do a lot of harm to us. I also wish to seek a few clarifications concerning privacy and confidentiality, security, non–discrimination, consent, transparency and accountability.
First, privacy and confidentiality. I would like to request the PMO to clarify (a) the scope of data that could be covered by data-sharing provisions. I understand it is not possible to enumerate but it would be helpful if we could have some indications; (b) when disclosure could be authorised; (c) when the use of information would be considered proper; (d) the consequences of failing to ensure end-to-end encryption or failing to ensure anonymisation of data that should have been anonymised; (e) the consequences of re-identification of anonymised information by a former \"relevant public official\". The current provisions, as drafted, cover only abuse by current relevant public officials; and (f) the consequences of unauthorised access to data. The current provisions, as drafted, cover only unauthorised disclosure or use.
Next, security. Members of the public, some of us would be concerned with security breaches, including hacking. Would PMO address this concern? Could the Minister also address obligations to report security breaches to the appropriate Minister as well as the requirement to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation as soon as practicable?
A third consideration would be non-discrimination. Would we consider a provision regulating the manner in which shared data would be used to address concerns of possible discrimination? Anonymised shared data should be used in a manner that is not discriminatory or stigmatising to persons to whom the data relate.
Consent. I have noted the impracticalities of obtaining consent. Would the Minister clarify if there could be circumstances under which informed consent or opting out may be provided for?
In terms of transparency and accountability, these would also be a big concern. How would the Government propose to inform members of the public about the sharing, analysis, use of and access to their personal data? For example, some may be afraid of unlawful surveillance. I hope the Minister would address these concerns.
In determining guidelines for data-sharing, perhaps we could also have reference to the Caldicott principles. These are principles in the Caldicott Committee’s Report on the Review of Patient-Identifiable Information. It is a United Kingdom committee and the report may serve as a reference for us. A few of the principles are as follows: the proposed access to, sharing of or use of the information should be justified and only allowed if it is necessary; the amount of identifiable information to be shared should be kept as minimal as possible. As noted in the earlier portion of my speech, greater clarity is requested and we hope to hear more from the Minister.
In relation to Part 4 of the Bill, given that non-disclosure of a conflict of interest is a serious matter, what is the position of the Government in this respect, and is there a particular reason why there is no specific provision to penalise non-disclosure?
In relation to section 40, I noted the Minister's comments earlier that he would be seeking an amendment at the Committee stage. I am not sure if the amendments would include section 40. If not, I would request for clarification as to the exemption of PA from the requirements of that provision.
Having sought the clarifications, Deputy Speaker, Sir, please allow me to now make some general comments.
The long title of the Bill reads, \"An Act to provide for a consistent governance framework across public bodies in Singapore and to support a whole-of-Government approach to the delivery of services in the Singapore public sector, and to make consequential and related amendments to certain other Acts.\"
I am curious why the reference to a consistent governance framework in the long title refers only to public bodies and not to Singapore public service agencies as a whole.
I also note that in section 3 of the Bill, the purposes of the Bill are stated as follows: (a) to establish a consistent system of governance and accountability across public bodies in Singapore that meets high standards of accountability; (b) to clarify the accountability relationship between public bodies, the members, the responsible Ministers and the Government; and (c) to require and support a whole-of-Government approach to the delivery of services in the Singapore public sector.
This is an important piece of legislation. I support it. It can potentially change the landscape of Public Service agencies in Singapore, creating Public Service agencies more effective and competent than many others in other countries. But if this piece of legislation is inadequately understood or executed, it will fall to be another set of compliance burden.
It is noted that the Bill does not require and support a whole-of-Government approach to the delivery of services by the public sector to the public. One would have thought that in times like these, given the complexity of the issues facing Singapore, given that it is no longer possible for a single Ministry or a single public agency to adequately address such issues, the Government might wish to enshrine the principle of a whole-of-Government approach to the delivery of services to the Singapore public within the same piece of legislation. This would have set a very clear context for the legislation and the implementation to follow.
Somewhat disappointingly, also, this piece of legislation appears to embody the form but not the spirit of public service. It sets out a framework that is forward-looking and relevant to the complexity of issues faced by our country. It shows a clear legislative will to hold the public sector to high standards of governance and accountability, and I applaud and commend the Government and the public service sector for initiating and putting the proposed legislation before Parliament. But this is not sufficient. Public service is not about a set of regulations. It is about the people within the public service sector, and the people for whom the public sector exists.
Developing and implementing a consistent system of governance and accountability, meeting high standards of accountability are worthy aspirations, soon to be legislated. They are fundamental and integral to an effective and impactful Public Service, and they are integral to public trust. But they are not our end goals. Our end goal is to serve the Singapore public.
Likewise, developing and implementing a whole-of-Government approach in the delivery of services in the Singapore public sector is integral to an effective and impactful Public Service. But it is not our end goal. Our end goal is to serve the Singapore public.
This is an important piece of legislation. It can potentially revolutionise the delivery of public sector services and shape the public sector to come. I would submit that it should at least enshrine two cardinal principles of public service.
Firstly, that the Singapore public sector exists to serve the Singapore public.
Secondly, the Singapore public sector must, beyond strengthening its systemic integrity, be comprised of individuals with uncompromising integrity, a dedication to his/her calling, an unshakeable commitment to the good of Singapore.
The first cardinal principle, that is, the public service exists to serve the public, that principle must set the tone and context for the subsidiary legislation, policies, instruction manuals and the implementation to follow. This cardinal principle will be a constant reminder to public servants of a higher duty of accountability to the Singapore public, not just to Ministers and the Government.
The second cardinal principle is what gives humanity to our public sector. It is that which gives us hope for the future. It is that which assures us that our public sector will do that which is right and good for Singapore, regardless of political masters, regardless of vociferous demands from the public.
The means and the end are different. Without the means, the end fails. Form and spirit are different. Without the spirit, the form kills. One cannot replace the other. Each is essential to the other. Without the spirit of public service, we will be an AI administration − clean, efficient, clinical. But we know that compliance with a set of rules does not make an honest or effective public service agency. Efficiency alone will not, in every case, serve our people well. It is a scrupulous adherence to the integrity of regulations and a conscientious adherence to the welfare of our people that will make our Public Service honest and effective – human.
Let our Public Service continue to serve our people with conviction, commitment, courage, professionalism and empathy. Always fearless to do that which is right and good, yet exercising humility, empathy and kindness. Then and only then are we a public sector, a Government, able to meet the highest accountability standards to our people. I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Intan Mokhtar.
Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this Bill. May I please, first, speak in Malay, followed by English?
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, to my understanding, MUIS is not really affected by this amendment. I support this amendment that guarantees the standards of administration and governance for each of our public agencies because it ensures that quality as well as accountability and transparency standards continue to be upheld.
At the same time, there are some suggestions within this amendment that are already familiar to MUIS, which already possesses and implemented accountability and transparency standards, which were determined by the Government under the Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA).
The appointment of MUIS' CE is still based on the MUIS Council's approval with the Minister's concurrence. This ensures that the amendment does not erode the responsibility or influence of MUIS Council members regarding the appointment of the CE that is based on the experience and expertise of each MUIS Council member.
I would also like to acknowledge the support and funding by the Government for the corporate and administrative functions of MUIS, which have allowed MUIS to channel money from donations and zakat from the Muslim community towards the community's other needs. Please allow me to continue in English.
(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, this is an important Bill to consolidate the different Acts governing the various public sector bodies. In principle, I support this Bill. However, I have a couple of concerns for clarification.
Like many others in this House, I support clause 6 that makes provisions and grants authority for public sector bodies to share information. This is necessary to allow greater expediency and efficiency for data and information to be shared among different public sector bodies to help Singaporeans, be it in healthcare, education, housing, retirement adequacy or social and financial support.
However, this sharing of data and information needs to be made expedient, efficient and transparent not just between public sector agencies but also within each agency, between their different departments and units. There have been instances where the different departments and units within one public sector agency do things in silo and are not cognisant of what the other departments and units within that same public sector agency are doing.
For instance, I have received feedback from residents about their experience when executing the purchase or sale of their flats, in securing housing loans from HDB, or in managing the funds related to housing through CPF Board. There have been occasions where residents lamented while they have been approved their housing loan through the housing finance department, but when executing the sale or purchase of the flat through the sales department, there seems to be a lack of information sharing between the departments. This has made the transaction experience faced by residents nothing short of frustrating and confusing.
For some residents I have met, their home loan eligibility approval or extension by the housing finance department has not been conveyed to the sales department, which then requires them to make additional CPF cash payment instead during the sale or purchase transaction for their flat. We can imagine their frustration and confusion.
Another example is the sharing of information by MOE with Institutes of Higher Learning or self-help organisations, such as the Council for the Development of the Singapore Malay/Muslim Community (MENDAKI), the Chinese Development Assistance Council (CDAC), the Singapore Indian Development Association (SINDA) or the Eurasian Association (EA). Having been involved in a self-help organisation and a couple of public sector institutions, it is a common refrain heard amongst strategic planners or managers that a more open sharing of student and cohort education-related information would be useful in designing and implementing programmes or interventions by the self-help groups that can better help our students.
The sharing and use of information and data within each and across public sector agencies will make it more efficient and effective in helping Singaporeans address their healthcare, housing, education or social and financial assistance needs. However, to what extent will the sharing of information or data make this possible? Will Singaporeans find it easier to purchase a flat and secure a housing loan at the same time? Or visit their choices of doctors across different restructured hospitals and have their medical information shared? Or have access to the necessary social or financial assistance without having to repeatedly provide their personal or family information to different Public Service officers?
Nonetheless, it is understandable that there is a concern with the confidentiality and privacy of such information sharing with self-help organisations or public sector institutions. Hence, I support clause 7 that sets out the conditions and extent of the proposed law that would protect the confidentiality, privacy and use of such information.
The other concern I have is in clauses 15 and 16. I support that the appointment of the CE of a public sector agency is to be approved by the Minister, with the concurrence of PSC. However, from what I understand, the removal of the CE can be solely decided by the Minister. There seems to be a lot of power vested in the Minister to decide on the removal of the CE from a public sector agency. I would like to propose for consideration that this decision for the removal of the CE be made in consultation with the board of directors, advisors or governors of the Public Service agency as well. Sufficient consideration to be made regarding the CE's prior experience, background or contributions to the agency should be considered collectively and consultatively, rather than largely by the Minister alone.
Similar practices are carried out in the private sector where the decisions to employ or dismiss senior executives of a company are made in consultation with the board of directors or advisors of the company. Notwithstanding the concerns I have raised, I support this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Thanaletchimi.
Ms K Thanaletchimi (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I welcome the changes to the Public Sector Governance Bill. It is notable that the amendments are mainly for the purpose of streamlining and standardising the corporate governance provision across the various Statutory Boards. The requirement for accountability and clear responsibility would support the greater whole-of-Government approach. Along with Smart Nation drive, citizens should have a single platform access to relevant information on Government policies. The changes to the Bill also signal a timely need to have better data control for more efficient and effective processes.
On corporate governance, generally, the public has high regard for the Singapore Public Service. It is well-known for its efficiency in terms of its rules, practices and processes. However, at times, Government agencies run into excessive bureaucracy when working with one another.
Therefore, it is important for our Public Service to keep up to date on their rules, practices and processes to continuously uphold public trust and confidence.
Secondly, as the nation drives productivity and innovation in the private sector, it is equally imperative for the public sector to take the lead in productivity and innovation. Some of the practices and processes could be irrelevant in the current context and, with a digital economy as the future, the public sector should embrace digitisation wherever possible and reflect them in their practices and processes.
On data governance, we often hear the word, \"Big Data\" as we move towards a digital economy. Data collected can be used to make more informed decisions and formulate policies more effectively. It is important to protect these data as they can be subjected to misuse. There should be clear guidelines on which data can be shared and which data cannot be shared among public sector institutions, for instance, in healthcare. There should also be a mechanism in place with adequate safeguards where the public sector and private sector are able to share relevant data to benefit Singaporeans and Singapore as a whole.
Financial governance is related to corporate governance and it is extremely pertinent to have proper management of financial resources. There should be clarity on who is responsible and accountable for what matters.
Statutory Boards should work closely with their respective Ministries to implement Government policies and deliver public services effectively so that public confidence is further strengthened.
In addition, there should be a strategic resource plan accompanying the Annual Budget to deter unreasonable and excessive spending. There should also be rigorous financial reporting, in compliance with the AG.
In conclusion, though I support these changes, we need to be mindful there should be a balance between standardising practices and allowing a supportive and nurturing environment for innovation and creativity to evolve. There must also be a fine balance between rigidity and flexibility, as well as simplicity, to minimise bureaucracy. Sir, notwithstanding this, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Miss Cheryl Chan.
Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (Fengshan): Mr Deputy Speaker, as a country, we have come a long way and achieved many accolades and a good reputation on the international stage since Singapore was founded. These would not have been possible without the vision and the good governance from our forefathers.
Like many other young Singaporeans, I want this going for Singapore to SG100 and beyond. As the global environment changes, so has our country. Some things can no longer remain status quo. \"Good\" is probably insufficient at times; more often, we need more than \"good\". But I believe it is this changing new world and its challenges that help define us and even bring new dimensions to nation-building.
If we continue to adapt, raise the bar and challenge what we are able to achieve and be guided by good governance, both the public sector and as citizens, Singapore can continue to shine brightly.
Internationally, Singapore is reputed for good governance. For this to be maintained, we need to do more and better each time. So, what exactly is better or best in governance? I do not think there is a single definition or milestone that fully embodies what governance is. In my view, I would consider better governance as one that is strategic, forward-looking, continues to adjust or set new benchmarks befitting the circumstances and has effective ground implementation with proper accountability. This Bill has set out some aspects of this nature but I would like to highlight three areas for consideration by the Public Service.
One, encourage a more positive culture and accountability. With the many years of public service in Singapore, it is undeniable that a positive working culture does exist. Through my interactions with the agencies, I have worked with good-minded Public Service individuals who go the extra mile for the community. But we need more such individuals. Given the complexity of projects moving ahead, we need even stronger cooperation and coordination among the inter-agencies, from planning to implementation. Less silo is absolutely necessary.
For better implementation, it will be best when one of the agencies can take the lead and be responsible in any joint project. It is critical for clear accountability, and necessary should there be no revolving doors. This is also equally applicable to Government-linked companies. Public service workers should be encouraged to give their best of ways and not worry that their actions are not the usual approach. In public service, it is the results and the positive impact on the community that matter and not the process.
Increasingly, there are more challenges that we will encounter which may never be prescribed or previously documented. We need the working level in the Public Service to be empowered and supported to take such initiatives. There is no absolute right or wrong approach in the Public Service. Each needs to be tried and adapted to the needs of the target group for their purpose. This is also the spirit that we are trying to promote in schools and inculcate in our young to try and know that it is okay to fail. Certainly, there is more than a single approach or solution to every challenge, and not trying but leaving things to the status quo will make us worse off in the long run.
Let me cite a typical example of common public works where accountability, open communication and effective communication between the agencies and the community are important. I am sure many have heard that to enable a better first- and last-mile connectivity, LTA has put up covered walkways within 400 metres of Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) stations. By default, the walkways will cover the different exits of each MRT station to the immediate surrounding pathways.
What happens if one of the pathways to be covered is not a frequently used route by pedestrians? Or what if it is known that there are future works currently in planning that may require this covered pathway to be taken down within a short time after it is installed? Should the works still proceed as the contract has been awarded or should it be partially deferred for the future?
On the same note, some of the works involve various agencies as it encompasses matters ranging from underground utilities to the trees. Without proper cross-coordination in its implementation, the disamenity created can be huge and constant. With better coordinated planning and implementation among these agencies, I believe we can look forward to reducing wastage of resources. With that, I mean finance, time and workers. Additionally, this can enable the lead agency to have the ability to stop or reprioritise projects if the objectives or needs have changed. To be accountable for public services, we need the courage to pull the plug or make changes as projects progress and not continue when the final impact on the public is less than desired.
Two, data governance. The digital world has changed our lives, the lives of every common man. Has the digital world made our lives better or worse? I think it is up to us to leverage the best and harness the power of digitalisation. Every individual has their rights to decide if information should be provided and be respectfully protected. When the PDPA was introduced, I felt it was a great move. PDPA gave individuals the choice to opt out of communications they found irrelevant and what not to be shared.
However, with the advent of technology, more data are generated from the sources we interact with on a daily basis. And as reflected in some of the initiatives in collaboration with the Ministries, data has shown to effectively assist the individuals, especially the vulnerable. Take, for example, under the South-East Community Development Council (CDC), the programme that is called \"Neighbours for Active Living\", volunteers have been successfully matched as befrienders with vulnerable elderly who are living on their own, those who are also frequent admitters to hospitals. The regular visits by the volunteers have reduced the admission rate of those vulnerable elderly and certainly given them friends who became their friend and their \"family\".
As our population ages, how can we encourage more of such initiatives to assist the elderly to age within our community? For more effective outreach, there will come a point when it is difficult for the Ministries to roll out more programmes on the ground solely with internal resources, especially if it requires intense, frequent follow-up with the individuals. How then can we harness external resources, for example, the ground-up voluntary groups, the voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs), beyond the Ministries to assist the needy and vulnerable in our society without infringing their privacy through sharing of data, knowledge or relevant information?
With this said, I do recognise that individuals’ privacy and wishes must still be respected and honoured. Thus, any changes to enable the inter-agencies, voluntary groups and individuals and the community to collaborate must be built upon the fundamental principle of personal choice as set out in PDPA.
Three, partnership with citizens. With time, our society has become more plural and diverse. It is a fact that we have to embrace and adapt our policies to. Governance is no longer restricted to the public sector. It requires our citizens to be a part of the process. The more our citizens take an active role in it, the more effective our implementation will likely be and plausible for future changes to take place.
As mentioned earlier, Ministry-led community projects being one such example. The quantity of programmes is a poor indicator of quality and effectiveness of outreach. At times, it competes for the same pool of resources. It may also result in our inability to scale up on programmes and only having to scrap and replace with yet another programme. Thus, we should utilise the community knowledge and data-driven approach to strengthen our social safety net.
Moving forward, how can we enable our citizens to become communicators and partners of future policies on the ground? While setting major strategic directions of a country continues to be the Government’s role, our citizens can take an active role in discussion and feedback on community and societal topics. I would like to suggest a few areas to be considered and taken further from its current form.
First, increase the depth and exposure of our school-going children to our Constitution and policymaking process earlier in the education curriculum. Let them understand what the various committees represent and do, how and what the annual Budget actually means to their lives.
Second, allow more Bills with societal impact or related to family to a wider public consultation process. Provide more time for the public to provide objective, constructive views both online and offline and in in-person sessions to seek views extensively and have more thorough discussions before the Bills are passed.
Lastly, increase the current local training and communication of policies through dialogues by the public servants to the local community.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I trust that many Singaporeans, public servants or not, hold this country dear to our hearts and want the best for Singapore. While we are thankful for what the public servants have been doing, we need to look beyond the current. Encourage more to think out of the box, take initiatives, be comprehensive, thorough and thoughtful throughout the service delivery.
Should this mean the public sector has to change and adjust where required to meet the current times, we have to do it. If new yardsticks, new measures must be put in place to better protect and account for public funds, service interaction and so on, this must be continuously reviewed, redesigned and implemented. Likewise, we, too, hope that our citizens will play their part as we build our nation and be encouraged to volunteer, build a sense of ownership and belonging for Singapore, and fellow citizens demonstrate active citizenry and, therefore, they should have the options to embark on this journey with us sooner. This two-way process should be the mark of our continuous engagement and fundamentals of our nation-building as we progress.
With this, I support the Bill and hope the Public Service sector continues to uphold the standards and raise the bar to greater heights.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Ganesh Rajaram.
Mr Ganesh Rajaram (Nominated Member): Thank you, Deputy Speaker, Sir, for the opportunity to speak on the Public Sector (Governance) Bill. Given the recent unfortunate incidents of impropriety amongst Government-linked companies, such as Keppel, this Bill provides a most timely reinforcement and strengthening of corporate governance processes across all Statutory Boards.
I stand in support of all the provisions and amendments to the Bill but would like to urge the Government to pay special attention to two key aspects which I feel are at the heart of corporate governance, which are quality of leadership and transparency in the area of accountability.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, our Statutory Boards are very well-run and led by strong CEOs. I have witnessed this first-hand when I served as a board member on IMDA from 2010 to 2016.
Our Statutory Board CEOs have stellar pedigrees. Yet, some are not, in my view, given the opportunity to fully test their potential in their brief stints at the various Statutory Boards. In some sectors, these CEOs – and members of their leadership teams – are rotated perhaps a little too frequently. From a Civil Service career perspective, this may be intended to expose and stretch these leaders in a variety of sectors and experiences. However, there is concern that in some sectors, a two- or three-year stint might not provide enough time for a CEO to fully understand the industry and to build a strong corporate culture and governance ethos. In certain sectors, might we consider a longer stint for CEOs? Perhaps feedback from industry and small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in the various sectors could be used when deciding on leadership and succession.
Indeed, there will be some leaders who will be exceptional in whichever industry they may be placed, but such leaders are few and far between, even in the corporate world. By and large, leaders need time to understand the industry, its people and culture. Leaders could spend up to three years to fully comprehend the complexities of the sectors they operate in, before they can even begin to make an impact. As we were informed late last year, the CEO of Singapore Mass Rapid Transit is still grappling with internal culture issues, this, after five years on the job!
Each time a Statutory Board CEO is rotated, it is like hitting a reset button: industry leaders would have to rebuild relationships and reorientate each new CEO, and SMEs in the industry would have to start building the relationship from scratch again. And as good as the new CEO may be, there will be industry initiatives that are left in limbo while he or she comes up to speed. For a good six months to a year, things would not move, because it is not just the CEO who is learning the ropes. It is also his or her management team, because these appointments would also be rotated, though at different times.
What we need to avoid, Mr Deputy Speaker, is a mentality that these rotating appointments are treated as a rite of passage that would lead almost automatically to bigger and better things. Breeding a culture of ambition, apathy and fleeting commitment impacts the quality of leadership in our Statutory Boards and has serious implications for corporate governance and Singapore.
Strong corporate governance stems from quality leadership. We want leaders who will observe the spirit and principles of good governance outlined in this Bill. But beyond this, we must aim to groom leaders who will shape the future of good governance, leaders who will have the industry insights, experience, relationships, perhaps some \"battle scars\" to speak from positions of credibility, respect and trust. And they can only do this if they have spent enough time to fully understand the business and the community they operate in.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, beyond this, there is also room to consider making the accountability of leaders more transparent to the public. Leadership begins from the top. I feel that the boards of Statutory Boards should also be made more accountable for the performance of the entities they lead. For if we are to truly embrace private sector practices – and not just borrow chunks that we might deem useful – we must also hold our boards and CEOs accountable when Statutory Boards run afoul of corporate governance.
When we have seen leaders of Statutory Boards fail to deliver, or act improperly, the Government has always been very swift in acknowledging and rectifying mistakes. However, it is not always clear what becomes of the errant leaders and Boards that were in place when these mistakes were made. This leads to unwarranted speculation that leaders are just rotated to another Statutory Board or Government position. Perhaps a little more transparency over Board and leadership appointments, as well as leadership performance, is warranted.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill is a sign that the Government is moving in the right direction. However, it is also important that in aiming to improve corporate governance, it does not create more layers of guidelines, rules and regulations that will surely stifle creativity and growth.
Disruption and the digital revolution have shown that conventional approaches can quickly become obstacles to growth. So, while we must uphold corporate governance at all times, we should also be nimble enough to work fast and smart and be free of red tape. Billion-dollar businesses are now being hatched, as we speak, in dormitory rooms and teenage bedrooms. In staying true to the spirit of good governance, we must also be fast enough to ride these waves of innovation in areas that are unchartered.
I am hopeful that the provisions of this Bill, as well as greater attention to the quality of leadership and transparency in accountability in our Statutory Boards, will augur well for corporate governance in our public sector.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I stand in support of this Bill. Establishing a system of governance with greater accountability and transparency in our public sector is welcomed.
I support the Bill’s objective, which aspires to remove independent vertical units, commonly known as silos, and create a whole-of-Government connected approach to delivering public services.
I have comments and queries on one fundamental aspect of the Bill. The bulk of the clauses in the Bill apply to the \"Singapore Public Sector Agency\", the term excludes the \"Public Service\", defined to include SAF, SCDF, Singapore Civil Service, Singapore Legal Service and Singapore Police Force (SPF), effectively limiting much of the scope of the Bill to cover only \"Public Bodies\" and \"Singapore Public Sector Agencies\".
As illustration, clause 4(1) confers powers on the Minister to give directions to all Singapore Public Sector Agencies. This principle behind clause 4 is to enable a whole-of-Government approach in the implementation of policy. Hence, clause 4(2)(g) specifically qualifies that such directions can only be made for purposes of supporting a whole-of-Government approach. In this case, then it seems logical and consistent to ensure clause 4(1) applies to the Public Service as well.
The exclusion of the Public Service can be seen in clauses complementary to clause 4, namely, clauses 9, 10 and 11. This exclusion is also present in clause 6 on data-sharing, and clauses in Part 4 and Part 5 of the Bill on governance and financial administration of public bodies.
Can the Minister clarify why the Public Service is excluded from the bulk of these clauses, especially since I understand that the aforementioned entities defined as Public Service in the Bill also delivers services to the public?
In fact, these entities serve very important functions and impact everyday citizens. Given the objective of the Bill is to better establish a consistent system of governance and accountability, can the Minister clarify how these objectives will be fulfilled when important agencies, such as SAF, SCDF, the Singapore Civil Service, the Singapore Legal Service and SPF are excluded?
I understand that all organisations, public or private, have a hierarchical structure and contain layers of structures. At times, one layer may be more deeply embedded, resulting in a silo structure. At times, such a silo structure is necessary for administrative purposes or for the very functioning of an organisation, such as the military's chain of command.
Applying this line of logic, I foresee a possible rationale for the exclusion of the Public Service – on justification that these five agencies exercise very specialised powers and fulfil very specific, critical functions within our society such that their constituting Act already contains provisions allowing the Minister to directly make directions, or an informal tight governance framework may currently be in place, or that these five agencies need the flexibility and autonomy to have room to exercise discretionary powers.
However, this justification would similarly apply to other Public Bodies, which similarly have constituting Acts containing internal controls. In fact, Deputy Prime Minister Teo mentioned recently at the Public Service Leadership Dinner on 8 November last year, I quote, \"the challenges that confront Singapore and Singaporeans often cannot be compartmentalised.\"
Keeping in mind the objective of the Bill, which is to break down intra- and interagency silos to enable a consistent system of governance, can the Minister clarify specifically how different these five agencies are defined as Public Service as compared to Public Bodies such that standard governance rules as envisioned in the Bill should not apply equally across the board? Sir, notwithstanding the above clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the amendments to this Bill as these are significant steps towards better coordination and greater efficiency across our Government Ministries and agencies.
Even though most of our data have gone digital, our vision for whole-of-Government coordination to provide a unified platform of services has only been partially realised. There are still quite a number of \"walls\" among our Government departments. I think some of these exist for good reasons, such as to ensure that only necessary information is shared on a \"need to know\" basis, for confidentiality and to protect personal privacy.
Notwithstanding, since we view Government-related services and transactions as a whole, it is better to consolidate data and information to avoid duplication, reduce red tape, boost efficiency and enhance coordination of planning and services. For example, for a family in financial difficulties, they can expect appropriate and timely allocation of assistance due to better coordination of the sources of assistance.
I note that agencies, such as HDB, the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), LTA and the Traffic Police, could have maintained different records of traffic offences under their respective areas of responsibility, although there are similarities in some of the areas of responsibility. I would like to ask if the record of offences in each of the enforcement agencies and across all agencies and Ministries, such as URA and HDB parking offences, are actually consolidated and, if not, will it be consolidated with LTA and the Traffic Police's records of each individual? Similarly, will his or her records with other enforcement agencies or Ministries, such as the National Environment Agency (NEA) and the Ministry of Manpower, be consolidated?
Overcoming the challenges posed by the current walls among Government departments is one thing. How about between Government and non-Government entities? More often than not, there are many exchanges and overlaps between information and data held by Government agencies and non-Government-related bodies. These include information which have to be requested from or extracted from private entities. An example of such situations are medical records. I would like to know how the Government intends to ensure the cooperation of private entities in providing access to such information?
For example, what is the progress in getting private medical practitioners to share their consolidated patient records with the Ministry of Health (MOH), which is necessary for better health care management of patients? In addition, in situations where Government bodies have to provide information to private entities in order to enable certain transactions and the provision of certain goods and services, how would the Government ensure the safety and privacy of such information?
A recent study found that nearly half of IT professionals have sought information they were not permitted to access. The personnel guilty of this are the very ones charged with keeping the information safe – the IT staff. This can happen in both Government and non-Government entities. I would like to ask what strategies do we have in place to plug this gap in our cybersecurity measures. With that, I conclude with my support for the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Ong.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: I thank the Members for their support and questions. There were quite a few questions citing specific clauses and sub-clauses, and fairly technical. I will try my best to answer them all. Let me start by addressing questions from Ms Thanaletchimi and Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan, who asked broader and philosophical questions about governance in the Government.
Ms Thanaletchimi is right to say that there is a balance between central control as well as getting our Statutory Boards to have flexibility and autonomy, and creativity and innovation. And this is a balance that we have to strike between effective governance, policy consistency on one hand and operational autonomy on the other hand. It does encourage innovation and creativity.
It is the same when a manager runs a department of a few people. You want to give the staff the space to take initiative, run with it, work with different people, but they are still your staff. And you meet them once in a while to give them support and direction. Every year, it is good HR practice also to do appraisal and coach them on their development. And, when something goes wrong, you still have to answer for the staff as department head. So, the same principles apply to Statutory Boards. The responsible Minister is answerable to Parliament for the performance of the Statutory Board. The powers to give directions to the Statutory Board and to approve the appointment of the CE are in line with this accountability to Parliament.
But for operational matters, it is better for Statutory Boards to have autonomy, tapping on board members. And I agree with Mr Ganesh Rajaram that Board members can do more and be more active in helping the governance and running of the Statutory Board and ensuring that the Board members are from different backgrounds, experience and skills that they can bring to the table. These are the layers that we have to put in place to make sure a Statutory Board is run well.
In answer to Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan, this Bill is really not in response to any Government lapses, incidents or confusion on the part of public servants, or that there are instances where Statutory Boards refuse to comply with a Government direction. The purpose is two-fold. I have mentioned some of it in my Second Reading speech.
One, for the lack of a better word, it is really neatness, really just neatness. Today, we have over 60 Statutory Boards operating in an increasingly complex and disrupted environment, facing challenges that no single agency can tackle alone. The continued need for Statutory Boards to be governed well and work together to provide better public service is all the more pressing.
The central agencies, therefore, did a stocktake of all the Statutory Board Acts. And they found that, of the governance provisions that are important to uphold to sustain good governance, not all were uniformly present across all Acts. Specifically, on the clause for Ministers to give direction, they are present in all Acts but they are written slightly differently with different conventions. There are no good reasons why they are different, other than they were written and passed at different times in history. So, we centralise them into one central Act. It is now clear, transparent, neat and, should we find the need and justification to amend them in future, the amendment will also be transparent and more effective.
Where there are substantive changes from today, I have highlighted them in my Second Reading speech. One, is that we are making it explicit that part of the work of the CE of a Statutory Board is to collaborate with other public agencies. This is new. Not that they are not doing so now. They are already doing so. But we are now hardcoding this and, in so doing, make our direction clear. Two, is the setting up of a data-sharing regime that I spoke about.
Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan specifically asked if the term \"CE\" is a new one mentioned in the Bill. It is not new. It does refer to the CEO at the apex job within the Statutory Board.
Mr Ganesh Rajaram asked about the tenure of the CEO and whether postings are too frequent. It is a point that we constantly have to wrestle within the Public Service. It is really not part of this Bill but we do have to balance between someone staying long, having the experience and stability but, at the same time, they can get entrenched, versus bringing in somebody with new perspectives and innovative ideas. We constantly have to juggle both. And what the Member raised is a pertinent point and we will continue to consider this very carefully.
I agree with Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan that the broader point is that our system of governance must be one that allows us to constantly work together, recognise problems and improve. What we do not want is a culture of witch hunt and blame. It does not improve things. Our approach has always been to look honestly at our flaws and focus our attention on improvements. And I think this is the culture we want.
Ms Chia Yong Yong said the Public Service goes much beyond just running day to day. It is much beyond efficiency but also about service to people with kindness and humanity. So, likewise, if we want to bring about such a culture, it goes beyond legislation, but also ensuring that the ethos, the spirit, is in every single Public Service agency and that the culture and ethos are upheld. Most important of all, to uphold these are the leaders, leaders across the various levels of the Public Service, the type of people we bring in, how we make them work together, learn from one another and uphold the values. We will continue to place great emphasis on this.
Let me now move on to a topic which is better coordination across Government agencies and sometimes, even within a Government agency. This is raised by Mr Zaqy Mohamad, Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef, Dr Intan Mokhtar and Miss Cheryl Chan. Various examples were given.
I agree it is important to coordinate well amongst public sector agencies as challenges become more complex. This Bill actually sends a strong signal on the importance of cross-agency coordination. For example, the Bill clarifies how the Minister charged with the responsibility for the public sector can work with the relevant Ministers to give directions to Statutory Boards relating to central policies. And that, second, the CEs of Statutory Boards now, by law, have to cooperate and collaborate with other public sector agencies to deliver public value.
As to how to ensure strong coordination among agencies and reduce wastage, I think all agencies simply need to work harder, eyes open, ears up and be more creative, more innovative, more citizen-centric. That is a point that Miss Cheryl Chan and Dr Intan Mokhtar have both raised. And we have seen many such improvement projects. For example, Master Planning Committee coordinates infrastructure projects. There is a OneMap platform. I downloaded it. It is very useful. It allows 80 agencies to come together on a single platform to provide authoritative location information and services.
We will welcome more suggestions from Members. Some of the examples that Members mentioned are coordination within the departments and they simply need to sort them out. But they are really outside of this Bill and you do not need this Bill to have them sorted out. But in my capacity as the Minister helping out with driving public sector innovation, if you observe any of these, please let me know and I will be most happy to take them up.
Let me now move on to various technical clarifications. These are raised by Mr Louis Ng, Ms Sylvia Lim, Ms Chia Yong Yong and Dr Intan Mokhtar.
First, the Bill does not prescribe the form of directions. It should not, as Acts that are overly prescriptive rapidly get out of date. Given the purposes for which directions may be given and the subject matter they are to cover, the form of directions will likely be in formal instruments. Ms Sylvia Lim mentioned two types of directions. First, as she correctly said, are really central Ministry issues − governance issues concerning HR and finance. These typically come in the form of circulars and they are signed by the Permanent Secretaries.
Second are policy directions. I would say the Bill does not prescribe this, but the typical way the Ministries work − for many years and decades, that is how they work − is that there is brainstorming between political officeholders and staff, including Statutory Board staff, because we have to take into account implementation issues. When it is all discussed and we have certain consensus, staff papers are put up with all the views, considerations, options and recommendations incorporated and the many angles covered. Then, it goes to the right forum. It could be a Minister's staff meeting. For bigger issues, they might go to the Cabinet. Decisions are made, and then conveyed through notes of meeting, through to the Statutory Boards, and then it is followed up that way. It has been done this way for years. For those coming from the private sector, this is quite a big adjustment. In the private sector, documentation is not done so diligently. But trust me, nothing in the Civil Service is decided through WhatsApp and, worse, through emoticons.
Let me talk about clause 4. It is merely an extension of the principle in clause 5. I think a Member asked about it. Statutory Boards are already complying with the Government's central policies today, and clause 4 gives this legislative backing.
Mr Louis Ng asked about the scope of the Bill. Simply put, the Bill is written such that the provisions apply by and large to the Singapore public sector agencies, and the Singapore public sector agencies is broadly defined to include Ministries and departments, Statutory Boards and Organs of State. The Civil Service, SAF, SPF, SCDF, Legal Service are all part of Ministries and departments. So, the governance requirements of this Bill apply to them. There are many references and definitions in this Bill, so it is a bit confusing to read. I put on record the governance requirements of this Bill apply to them. Likewise, the protection under clause 11, which Ms Sylvia Lim asked about, extends to every Singapore public sector agency, too. So, the Member's reading is right.
However, for certain clauses, the Civil Service, SAF, SPF, SCDF and the Legal Service are excluded, because they are already formally subject to central policy governance requirements that are before this Bill. For example, these agencies have to comply with Government Instruction Manuals. For the appointment of the heads of Ministries, that is, Permanent Secretaries, the Constitution already provides a framework where appointments are made by the President, acting in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister, from a list of names submitted by PSC.
Dr Intan Mokhtar asked about removal of the CE. That, indeed, is not a small matter. Although the Bill does not spell out the exact processes but, for a CE, the apex post of a Statutory Board, to be removed, that is a serious matter and, certainly, a lot of consultation, even before that, if it is for performance-related reasons, coaching, counselling, that all has to take place. That is only good HR practice. So, rest assured. Even removing a Public Service officer is a serious matter, what more a CE.
Ms Chia Yong Yong asked a specific question whether PA is to be exempted from clause 40. The answer is that the effect of the Notice of Amendment will be that PA is not exempted from it. It will apply to PA.
Mr Faisal Manap asked about finance-related provisions that pertain to MUIS in clauses 34 to 41. While MUIS is, indeed, exempted from these provisions of the Bill, it is not exempted from similar financial administrative requirements because all these requirements are currently already spelt out and covered by MUIS' constituting Act, namely, AMLA. We decided there is no need to duplicate them in this Bill.
Now let me move to the topic of clause 11. Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Chen Show Mao and Mr Leon Perera asked about this. Let me explain how clause 11 came about first. Clause 5 standardises the power of the responsible Ministers to give directions to their Statutory Boards, and clause 4 formalises the requirements for Statutory Boards to comply with central policies. And clause 11 of the Bill presents safeguards to limit the effect of these Ministerial directions. So, why is clause 11 needed now?
The legal requirement to abide by Ministerial direction is not new at all. It is found in the constituting Acts of most of our Statutory Boards. But with this Bill, we have a separate and centralised legislation to provide for this. So, it becomes necessary to have clause 11 to make it clear that Ministerial directions do not trump other provisions in the Statutory Board legislation. It is a very logical thing to do for legal officers drafting this Bill. There are a few key points to this clause.
First, the Minister's direction cannot be inconsistent with written law. For example, the Minister charged with the responsibility for Government records and archives − a point that Mr Chen Show Mao asked about − can direct Statutory Boards to comply with central policies on the treatment of public records. But these policies must be consistent with the provisions in the National Library Board (NLB) Act on the role of the National Archives in the treatment of public records. For example, the Minister’s direction to the Singapore public sector agencies cannot authorise the destruction of public documents without the authorisation of NLB, much less destroy a particular archival document. To do so would be inconsistent with the NLB Act.
Second, the Minister's direction cannot impede or affect the performance of statutorily independent or quasi-judicial functions. Ms Sylvia Lim asked for further elaboration on this. A statutorily independent function is a function which is required by law to be performed independently. The obvious example is the exercise of judicial functions by the Judiciary. But we also have Statutory Boards like the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore, the Maritime and Port Authority or IMDA. They are vested with the discretion to issue or revoke a licence based on criteria set out in their own legislation.
As for a quasi-judicial function, that is a function expected by the law to be discharged, taking into account the facts of the case. Some of our Statutory Boards have those powers. For example, a disciplinary committee constituted under the Estate Agents Act has the power to decide if there is sufficient cause for disciplinary action against an estate agent \"according to the circumstances of the case\".
The third area of safeguard is that the Minister’s direction should not be specific to a case. So, clause 11(3)(b) prohibits any Ministerial direction to secure an employment, a promotion or a termination of any particular employee of a Singapore public sector agency. For example, a Minister cannot direct the award of a procurement contract to any particular tenderer, because that is specific to a case or a person; or to license a particular applicant; or to employ a particular person. And for that matter, he cannot ask the Police to arrest a certain person, and I hope Ms Sylvia Lim is not suggesting that this is happening. In fact, the Police Force Act makes that quite clear. It is SPF that has the powers to apprehend offenders. So, if you look at the Skills Development Fund (SDF) fraud case that happened which I answered earlier, I am flabbergasted. I want the culprits to face the full consequences of the law, but I cannot ask the Police or anybody to arrest them. We report through SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) to the Police, the Police investigate and, if they deem fit, the Police arrest them. That is the way things have been done and will be done.
Having said that, in my years of public service, I have not come across an impasse between Ministers and public servants on this point. If there is, a public servant who feels any pressure from Ministers can report to their Permanent Secretary, or to the Head of the Civil Service, even the PSC, or even the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau, if the case warrants it, and I am sure they know how to follow up.
Let me just elaborate this a bit. Ministers handle MPS cases. And I would say, in a typical month, Ministers would have handled hundreds, maybe even thousands, of individual cases coming to us. Each is appealing for a licence to be given, for an Employment Pass to be given, or whatever the case may be. And the discipline all these years has been we write them down as appeal cases, lay out the facts of the cases, send them back to the Ministries, the staff still process them based on the grounds and the circumstances of the case. But ultimately, they have to run the individual appeal cases through the system to be processed.
So, clause 11 merely puts a long-standing and existing practice into law. However, let me highlight this. If a Minister comes across a case that highlights the deficiencies in a system, or an act that should be illegal turns out to be legal, then there is a flaw in the system or in the law. Then, it is incumbent upon Ministers to review and improve the system, together with the agencies under his charge.
Let me touch on a point that Mr Faisal Manap specifically raised about what is the definition of being politicised. I think for civil servants to be politicised in the context of this Bill means to be specifically put under pressure to decide on a specific case. That is being \"politicised\" under this Bill.
Mr Faisal Manap then went on to talk about a certain Advisor. I assume it is a constituency that the Member knows, that a certain candidate lost and then continued to operate on the ground. But, really, based on the definition I gave, this has nothing to do with this Bill. If there is any specific complaint that the Member would like to raise, he could raise it with our Deputy Chairman of PA, Minister Chan Chun Sing. He has mentioned in this House before that the role of an Advisor has to be very clear. It is to serve the community, it is to foster cohesion in the community. If they overstep into politics and the Member has reasons to believe so, then please raise it with him. I am sure he will look into it.
Mr Leon Perera gave a narrative about civil servants who have aspirations to be Ministers, therefore, they second-guessed the Ministers to be in their good books and, in the process, become partisan and, therefore, should we not impose garden leave for civil servants that decide to enter politics? I think there are many problems with what he said.
First, second-guessing is now a bit of a dirty word. But if you think about it, in all our work, we do have to anticipate what are the needs of our customers, what are the needs of the people we work with. It is very reasonable for civil servants not to be sycophantic but to understand what is the Ministerial direction, what is the agenda of this Government, how is it shaping up, what are the key priorities, and able to work with the Ministers to develop policies in those directions. Do you call that second-guessing? I mean, if the Member wants to put it in a negative sense, it is up to him. But I think there is value for public servants to do that. And for that matter, for anyone working, to do that. And I think consultants, too, have to anticipate and maybe second-guess their customers. This is what real life is. And whether they then become partisan, I hope the Member is not suggesting that civil servants are partisan, because the conduct and ethos of civil servants are articulated clearly in the IM, that they cannot be politically pressurised.
They have to act neutral and in the interest of the public. Therefore, do we then have garden leave for civil servants who then go on and maybe join politics? And the Member draws the analogy with the financial sector.
The circumstances are totally different. In the case of MAS and the financial sector, MAS is a regulator, whereas the regulatee is a commercial profit-seeking entity. So, to prevent a conflict of interest, we do not want an MAS officer to be offered a job by a regulatee while he is still at the job at the regulator. Therefore, you have a garden leave so that you minimise the chances of that happening. Garden leave is widely practised across financial regimes in the world. When we come to the Civil Service and political officeholders, neither one regulates the other, and neither is a commercial profit-seeking entity.
The Member felt that garden leave will help the civil servant think more carefully before joining politics. I think anyone, not just civil servants, joining politics today thinks very, very deeply about it, and spends a long time deliberating that with their families and friends before they are prepared to come in. It is really a calling, as the Member would know.
Let me now move on to data-sharing. Mr Zaqy Mohamad, Mr Patrick Tay and Ms Chia Yong Yong asked about data-sharing, the scope and benefits. The data-sharing directive seeks to strengthen the rules that enable and govern cross-agency data-sharing within the public sector. There are two main areas of improvement. I have mentioned this in my Second Reading speech.
First, the Bill provides the bases for data to be shared and there are seven specific public purposes, as stated in the Bill. These will translate broadly into two kinds of initiatives.
One, better delivery of services to the individual. This will inevitably have to involve sharing of identifiable and personal data, and Mr Patrick Tay asked for some examples. Improving social assistance programmes or removing repeated filling of forms when applying for Government programmes. I spoke about this during the Second Reading speech.
Where feasible, as Mr Zaqy Mohamad has suggested, specific details need not be shared if they are not needed for the task. For example, when you apply for financial assistance, data can be shared between other agencies and the processing officer, and they can come in the form of whether do they meet or not meet the criteria and not necessarily tell you how much they earn. That can surely be done and it will be a good practice. It can also involve not personal data, but information that each agency holds, which, when put together, offers much better value, such as One-Map, which I mentioned earlier.
The second benefit for data-sharing is better policy analysis, planning and formulation. This will involve sharing of anonymised, non-identifiable data. For example, when deciding where to build certain facilities, we want to understand the concentration of different segments of Singaporeans. There is no need to know personal details in this instance. So, to decide whether to build a senior activity centre, for example, the relevant agency only needs to know the aggregate number of seniors living in the block or in various precincts.
It can also be about correlating data to derive deeper policy insights. There is an immense amount of work we can do here to better understand the relation, say, between family backgrounds, education experiences, careers, employment, health, social security, so that we can formulate better policies to address our challenges. However, to do so, raw data from various agencies need to come to a centre where they are matched and anonymised before release to relevant agencies for analysis. We intend to set up such centres where central oversight would mitigate the risks of failing to anonymise data.
Let me talk about a point that Mr Zaqy Mohamad raised about privacy and big brother watching. This Bill is also in alignment with PDPA. Public Service agencies belong to one Government. They need to share data and information with one another to best serve the public. This Bill will significantly improve the protection and safeguard of such shared data. Beyond the fact that there are now clear bases for data-sharing, there are four levels of protection.
First level, it allows existing data-sharing practices to be formalised, such as sharing identifiable information for service delivery and enforcement functions and using only anonymised information for policymaking and planning.
Second level, by articulating the responsibility of each party involved in the data-sharing, it ensures that the same high level of responsibility for data protection is borne by all agencies. So, it is now clear that the agency that uses the data is responsible for protecting and safeguarding it. We will be able to redress the current misalignment of incentives, where the owner of data is still responsible.
The third level is that information that is protected by specific legislation today, such as information under the Income Tax Act, the Banking Act and the Statistics Act, will continue to be protected.
Four, criminal offences for three data-related offences are also introduced in the Bill to ensure individual officers are responsible and accountable for safeguarding information. These include the unauthorised disclosure and improper use of information, and, specifically, the unauthorised re-identification of anonymised data.
The Bill did provide for the flexibility for re-identification of data. That is to deal with contingencies, such as when source agencies’ data is corrupted or destroyed. When that happens, re-identification of anonymised data may be performed in order to continue to deliver services to citizens.
The purpose of the Bill is not to pave the way for a future where Government knows everything about everyone, and every misdeed everyone committed is all consolidated. I think there was a question by Mr Gan Thiam Poh. If ever there was such an initiative, it would have to be explained as to why and for what purpose and for what value. And decision-making, be it for policy, licence or grant application, is all reduced to data processing and AI algorithm. That is not the future we want. In fact, it will be quite a sad state. If that happens, civil servants will all lose their jobs because we only need computers and software.
So, in response to what Mr Patrick Tay said, yes, there are algorithms in various software – which will be tested and audited − but when it comes to decision-making, there must be human intervention, supervision and judgement all the time.
Ms Chia Yong Yong asked for greater clarity on data-sharing initiatives. I hope Members will feel assured that, today, there is a high level of transparency and public discourse in policy implementation and public service delivery in Singapore. If there is a new service to be delivered, such as recently we hear that HDB has an initiative to halve the processing time for transaction of resale flats, it will be announced, and how it will be done will be explained. And I read the whole explanation in the papers. For more significant initiatives, such as MOH's current initiative to set up a National Electronic Health Record (NEHR) system, they have to do this properly. So, a separate consultation is being held, new legislation needs to be debated and enacted in this House to protect the users of this system.
There is one more question by Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan. He asked when unauthorised data-sharing may not be an offence. The common law already permits sharing of information among public sector agencies where there is public interest. The Bill does not allow the data-sharing direction to displace the application of common law, nor does the data-sharing direction seek to do this. It will instead be providing the much-needed practical guidance and certainty on what circumstances would be considered public interest without being exhaustive. So, while the Bill criminalises data-sharing other than in accordance with the data-sharing direction, clause 7(2) allows a defence where sharing is authorised or allowed by \"other law\". That \"other law\" is a reference to the common law. For example, it can be shared in order to respond to, say, a life-and-death situation of an individual or in times of a natural disaster or any kind of disaster where contact tracing is required.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Miss Cheryl Chan asked about data-sharing beyond the Public Service, to VWOs, for example. This Bill covers only sharing of data within the Public Service. It does not include the sharing of data with parties outside of the Public Service, such as VWOs, healthcare providers or private and commercial entities.
But that does not mean today we do not share data with parties outside of the Public Service at all. We do so when there are clear justifications to improve the public service or to improve service to the public. For example, to help a student from a dysfunctional family, MOE has to work hand-in-hand with VWOs, self-help groups or Family Service Centres, and, inevitably, personal data has to be shared with all these partners. Or we share aggregate datasets with research institutes to conduct research and analysis for the Government.
Further, data shared with entities outside of the Public Service and designated for service delivery are bound by confidentiality agreements, with contractual terms that prescribe data protection requirements, and these entities are also bound by PDPA and the Official Secrets Act. Volunteers are also bound by strict confidentiality agreements and educated on the appropriate use of the data.
Specifically, on the sharing of medical data within the healthcare sector, again, this is beyond the scope of this Bill because restructured hospitals are not defined as part of the Public Service. MOH is embarking, as I mentioned this earlier, on the NEHR initiative, consulting the public and tabling a Healthcare Services Bill to enable it to do so, to achieve better health outcomes and yet safeguard the interest of patients.
Having said that, it is true that when this Bill is passed, the framework that governs the sharing of data within the Public Service will be improved and better than that for sharing with entities outside of the Public Service, specifically in areas, such as the responsibility to safeguard and protect data. So, the framework will be available and set up for the Public Service, but it will not be extended to sharing outside of the Public Service. This is something that we should look at and we will review and consider if further legislation is required.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked a question about data accuracy and verification. Accuracy of a citizen's personal data is critical for seamless service delivery. We will assign designated agencies to proactively verify and update specified personal data fields and share that across the Government, so that all agencies’ databases are up to date and accurate.
The Government also relies on citizens to verify their own information. MyInfo, the platform mentioned earlier, allows citizens to amend certain personal information and this information will be shared for transactional services that the Government provides. This ensures that all agencies are using accurate information on the individual based on his latest update.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad, Ms Chia Yong Yong and Mr Gan Thiam Poh also asked about storage and security. Government data is stored in Government systems which are protected against breach. More sensitive information, such as identifiable data, will be held in designated databases with even more limited access and additional protection. There are various measures we have undertaken to protect data.
First, controlled access and dissemination. Every civil servant/public officer can only access data he is allowed access to. Access rights will continue to be prescribed based on security clearance and data is only accessed when there is a legitimate purpose or need. The Government continues to calibrate IT security policies accordingly, such as having proper access control and the role-based access of data based on its classification. Deliberate unauthorised access of information is criminalised under other legislation, such as the Computer Misuse and Cybersecurity Act (CMCA). It is also likely to lead to improper use or unauthorised disclosures of data which are new criminal offences under this Bill.
Existing measures to ensure that public servants do not use privileged access to information for their personal gain will continue to apply. For example, all public servants have to declare annually their interests in investments and properties.
For ex-public servants, the Official Secrets Act (OSA), already requires that they do not retain information once they leave service and they are culpable, too, under OSA, if they commit any data-related offence in this Bill. The provisions in the Protection of Secrecy Act remain valid and relevant for Statutory Boards and prescribed Government companies to abide by, and will be a complementary safeguard to this new Bill.
Second, is to institutionalise our cybersecurity capabilities and that is done through the Cyber Security Agency (CSA), established on 1 April 2015, to oversee a new national cybersecurity structure, with the mandate to devise and coordinate national cybersecurity strategy and policy development, carry out both peacetime capability development and crisis management across all sectors and, finally, adopt a holistic approach towards the management of information infrastructure.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Ong, your time limit is almost up. One more minute.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: I will wrap up. Third, Internet surfing separation. In May 2016, the Singapore Government decided that devices connected to Government networks would no longer be able to access the Internet, in order to strengthen the Government's information and communications technology systems and this was implemented in mid-2017.
Fourth, adopt best practices. This is obvious. And five, education, because the weakest link is always the human. We always need to educate every single officer on how to do the right thing so that cybersecurity breaches are minimised, and this must include the reporting of malpractices, as mentioned by Ms Chia Yong Yong.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I think I have answered most, if not all, the questions. 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. – [Mr Ong Ye Kung.] (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee. (proc text)]
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]
[(proc text) Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
Clause 5 –
The Chairman: Clause 5, Minister Ong.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Mr Chairman, I beg to move the amendment* standing in my name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.
This is the first of several amendments to six clauses of the Bill, to align the treatment of PA with similar Statutory Boards, as I have explained in my opening speech. This amendment will formalise the power of PA's responsible Minister to give directions to the Association.
[(proc text) *The amendment reads as follows: (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"In page 14, line 7: to leave out '1A or Group 1B', and insert '1'\". (proc text)]
[(proc text) Amendment agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Clauses 6 to 14 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
Clause 15 –
The Chairman: Clause 15, Minister Ong.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Mr Chairman, there are four amendments to clause 15, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. As the amendments are related, may I seek your permission to move them together?
The Chairman: Please proceed.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Mr Chairman, I beg to move the amendments* (1) to (4) standing in my name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.
This amendments will mean that the Governing Board of PA will have the power to appoint the Association’s CE, with the approval of the responsible Minister and the concurrence of PSC, as is the case for similar Statutory Boards.
[(proc text) *The amendments read as follows: (proc text)]
[(proc text) (1) \"In page 20, lines 27 and 30: to leave out '1A, Group 1B', and insert '1'; (proc text)]
[(proc text) (2) In page 21, line 2: to leave out '1A, Group 1B', and insert '1'; (proc text)]
[(proc text) (3) In page 21, line 5: to leave out '1A or Group 1B', and insert '1'; (proc text)]
[(proc text) (4) In page 21: to leave out lines 7 to 9\". (proc text)]
[(proc text) Amendments agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
Clause 16 –
The Chairman: Clause 16, Minister Ong.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Mr Chairman, there are two amendments to clause 16, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. As the amendments are related, may I seek your permission to move them together?
The Chairman: Please proceed.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Mr Chairman, I beg to move the amendments* (1) and (2) standing in my name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.
These amendments mean that the CE of PA must not be removed from that office without the approval of the Minister and the concurrence of PSC, as is the case for similar Statutory Boards.
[(proc text) *The amendments read as follows: (proc text)]
[(proc text) (1) \"In page 21, line 20: to leave out '1A, Group 1B', and insert '1'; (proc text)]
[(proc text) (2) In page 21, line 26: to leave out '15(4)', and insert '15(3)'.\" (proc text)]
[(proc text) Amendments agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Clause 16, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Clauses 17 to 20 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
Clause 21 –
The Chairman: Clause 21, Minister Ong.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Mr Chairman, I beg to move the amendment* standing in my name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.
I explained earlier that PA has volunteers serving on its committees and why we are not deeming them public servants for the purposes of the Penal Code. But such volunteers do handle public monies from time to time, and, as best as we try to prevent it, there are sometimes instances in which volunteers mismanage these monies. This amendment will allow the Government to recover funds from any volunteer who mismanages the public moneys they are given responsibility for.
[(proc text) *The amendment reads as follows: (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"In page 23, line 14: after '20', to insert ', and every member of a committee which is formed by a Group 1C public body to carry out any of its functions'.\" (proc text)]
[(proc text) Amendment agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Clause 21, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Clauses 22 to 39 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
Clause 40 –
The Chairman: Clause 40, Minister Ong.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Mr Chairman, there are two amendments to Clause 40, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. As the amendments are related, may I seek your permission to move them together?
The Chairman: Yes, please.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Mr Chairman, I beg to move the amendments* (1) and (2) standing in my name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.
This amendment will require the PA’s audited financial statements to be signed by the Chairperson and submitted to the responsible Minister, as is the case for similar Statutory Boards.
[(proc text) *The amendments read as follows: (proc text)]
[(proc text) (1) \"In page 36, lines 18 and 19: to leave out '(except a Group 1B or Group 1C public body)'. (proc text)]
[(proc text) (2) In page 36, line 33: to leave out 'Subsections (2) and (3) do', and insert 'This section does'.\" (proc text)]
[(proc text) Amendments agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Clause 40, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Clauses 41 to 87 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
Clause 88 –
The Chairman: Clause 88, Minister Ong.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Mr Chairman, there are four amendments to Clause 88, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. As the amendments are related, may I seek your permission to move them together?
The Chairman:\tYes, please.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Mr Chairman, I beg to move amendments* (1) to (4) standing in my name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.
These amendments are necessary to bring the PA Act into alignment with amendments that we have just made to the Public Sector (Governance) Bill.
[(proc text) *The amendments read as follows: (proc text)]
[(proc text) (1) \"In page 100: after line 8 to insert — (proc text)]
[(proc text) '(a) by inserting, immediately after section 5, the following section: (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"Directions by Minister (proc text)]
[(proc text) 5A. The Minister may give to the Association any direction under section 5 of the Public Sector (Governance) Act 2018.\"; (proc text)]
[(proc text) (2) In page 100: to leave out lines 19 to 21; (proc text)]
[(proc text) (3) In page 100, line 25: to leave out 'Association', and insert 'Board'; (proc text)]
[(proc text) (4) In page 101, line 5: to leave out '(11)', and insert '(13)'.\" (proc text)]
[(proc text) Amendments agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Clause 88, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Clauses 89 to 112 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The First to Third Schedules inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
The Chairman: Consequent amendments* to be made will be made.
[(proc text) *The amendments read as follows: (proc text)]
[(proc text) (i) \"In page 21, line 10: to renumber sub-clause (4) as sub-clause (3). (proc text)]
[(proc text) (ii) In page 21, line 11: to leave out 'or (3)'; (proc text)]
[(proc text) (iii) In page 100, line 9: to re-letter paragraph (a) as paragraph (b).\" (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.50 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.30 pm until 3.50 pm.
Sitting resumed at 3.50 pm
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Payment and Settlement Systems (Finality and Netting) (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) and Second Minister for Defence (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
One of the Monetary Authority of Singapore's (MAS’) key supervisory objectives is to ensure that critical payment and settlement systems function smoothly during times of disruption. Disruption can occur, for example, when a participant in a payment and settlement system becomes insolvent. A case in point was in 1995 when the insolvency of Barings transmitted its financial losses to counterparties in the European Monetary Union clearing system.
When a participant in a payment and settlement system becomes insolvent, the liquidator of the insolvent participant may try to reverse or “claw back” payments made by that participant, even if the transaction was put through before the participant declared insolvency. This may have a knock-on impact on systemic stability and create significant uncertainty and risk for other participants.
Fifteen years ago, MAS enacted the Payment and Settlement Systems (Finality and Netting) Act (FNA) to address this problem. FNA made provision for the protection of payment and settlement systems from disruptions that may generate systemic risks in the financial system. FNA was designed to be technology-neutral, allowing MAS to designate critical payment and settlement systems regardless of technology used. A designated system (DS) consists of (a) participants, which are financial institutions; (b) a settlement institution that maintains the participants’ accounts and settles funds, usually MAS; and (c) an operator to run the system, such as Banking Computer Services Ltd.
Five payment and settlement systems have been designated so far: (a) the Continuous Linked Settlement System (CLS) – the international foreign exchange settlement system; (b) the New MAS Electronic Payment System (MEPS+) – our nation’s sole large value Singapore Dollar real-time gross settlement system used by banks and financial institutions; (c) the Singapore Dollar (SGD) Cheque Clearing System; (d) the United States Dollar (USD) Cheque Clearing and Settlement System; and (e) the General Interbank Recurring Order (GIRO) System. All these systems are critical to the functioning of Singapore’s financial and payments landscape.
Since the enactment of FNA 15 years ago, there has been a proliferation of faster payments systems with different settlement models and longer business hours. Taking these developments into account, the Bill aims to achieve the following: (a) enhance the protection of payment transactions by extending the period during which transactions enjoy finality and, hence, protect a wider range of transactions from insolvency law in a liquidation event; (b) set out clear criteria for MAS to designate such systems; and (c) strengthen MAS’ administrative powers. The amendments take into account foreign and domestic developments since 2002 in the areas of insolvency protection and regulatory controls for DSs. We have incorporated feedback from a public consultation exercise conducted in August 2017.
To clarify, the scope of the FNA and the Bill does not directly cover the regulation of customer-facing retail payment or remittance service providers. Such activities are currently regulated under two separate Acts – the Payment Systems (Oversight) Act (PSOA) and the Money-Changing and Remittance Businesses Act respectively. In November 2017, MAS commenced a separate public consultation exercise proposing to streamline the regulation of payment and remittance service providers under a single and new Payment Services Bill. MAS aims to introduce this new Payment Services Bill in Parliament for First Reading in late 2018, after considering feedback from the public consultation.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now go through the main amendments proposed in the Bill.
First, enhanced insolvency protection. The key components of a transaction are: (a) the transfer order – a payment instruction from a participant, such as a bank; (b) netting – which is the process of calculating net debit or credit amount from the multitude of transfer orders sent and received by the participant; and (c) the settlement – the discharge of payment obligations.
Currently, FNA does not protect a DS if it continues to process, net or settle transactions beyond the calendar day on which a participant becomes insolvent. Such transactions may be affected by the application of insolvency law and this poses financial risks to the participants.
The Bill introduces an amendment to mitigate this risk by extending insolvency protection of the key elements in a payment cycle – transfer orders, netting and settlement – by one business day beyond the day on which a participant becomes insolvent. This will cater to systems which operate in multiple time zones or where an insolvency of a participant occurs close to the end of a day and spans into the next day.
For example, if on 2 January, a participant’s foreign parent bank goes into insolvency in a foreign jurisdiction at, say, 10.50 am New York time, that is same day 11.50 pm Singapore time. The operator of the DS may be unaware of the insolvency of its participant’s foreign parent bank since this occurred outside office hours on 2 January, almost during bedtime. In a 24/7 payment system, transactions from the now insolvent participant would continue into 3 January, whereupon transactions from this participant would be settled. Without the amendment, the settled transactions on 3 January could be unravelled by liquidators since it is after the date of insolvency. This amendment will provide finality and added protection to the participants’ transactions.
Credit risk arises when a participant pays out funds to customers in real-time but receives funds from its counterparty in interbank settlement on a deferred basis. An example is the Fast and Secure Transfer System (FAST) where customers receive funds immediately while the participants only settle with one another twice a day on weekdays. Such risks are mitigated by having participants provide collateral to the DS so that this collateral can be drawn upon for settlement in the event of any default by a participant. The Bill introduces amendments to extend insolvency protection to DSs which use collateral.
The Bill also introduces amendments to provide that an operator, settlement institution, collateral holder of a DS or an officer or employee of such an entity will not incur liability for any act or omission which was done with reasonable care and in good faith in the execution or purported execution of any relevant function, duty or power under FNA.
Second, clarity in designation. The Bill introduces criteria for designation, to provide greater clarity to the industry and stakeholders. Designation will focus on critical systems, where a disruption in the operations of such a system may transmit further disruption to its participants, or to the wider financial system or affect public confidence in other payment systems. MAS intends to designate FAST and Network for Electronic Transfers (NETS) Electronic Funds Transfer at Point-Of-Sale (EFTPOS) debit card system in 2018, as they meet the criteria for designation.
The amendments will also prohibit an operator or a settlement institution of a non-DS from claiming to be an operator or settlement institution of a DS. Holding out to be an operator or settlement institution of a DS could mislead participants to think that there is statutory protection from insolvency law. The penalty will be a maximum fine of $100,000, or imprisonment for a term of up to two years, or both.
Third, strengthened administrative powers. The Bill introduces amendments that will strengthen MAS’ administrative powers over a participant, operator, settlement institution and collateral holder. These include MAS’ powers to obtain information and issue directions to rectify outstanding issues. The participant, operator, settlement institution and collateral holder of a DS will have an obligation to notify MAS in the event of a potential insolvency. The Bill will also introduce a requirement for a DS to seek approval from MAS before rules which govern the essential roles, responsibilities and operations of a DS can be implemented or amended.
In conclusion, this Bill will enhance the insolvency protection of designated payments systems. Together with the improved administrative powers conferred on MAS, the Bill will help maintain confidence in DSs and preserve the stability of Singapore’s financial system. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am pleased to note that the amendments to the Bill reflect our endeavour to strengthen Singapore’s status as a regional financial centre as well as a financial technology (fintech) hub. They are also in line with the recent changes to the Securities and Futures (Amendment) Bill that I spoke on last year. These enhancements will ensure that our national systems and cross-border systems are further protected. They will enhance and promote systemic stability in the financial system as well as give MAS a more robust oversight. This will happen through improved stability of the key systems and a more secured cross-border system. For the banks and financial institutions, this means greater confidence and transparency, and greater readiness for collateral-based systems.
The amendments see several significant changes which will translate into desirable outcomes. One of these changes is the penalty clause. Should key officers, including senior executives, fail to take reasonable care or play a key part in the commission of offence, they will have to face the consequences. Holding key officers accountable is really important as, according to CEO Today magazine, leadership shortcomings will often emerge as a principal underlying cause for bank failures.
Next, with some more precise designation criteria, the industry and stakeholders will benefit from greater clarity. It will also prevent non-DSs from making illicit claims of being a DS, which some are doing to benefit their business, but with the consequence of misleading and disrupting systemic stability. This has become considerably more important, in light of another policy change concerning DSs.
Currently, DS does not have any protection under the 2002 FNA should they continue to process, net or settle transactions beyond the calendar day on which a participant becomes insolvent. This creates undue financial risks to the participants. Considering that more transactions are occurring globally on a daily basis for both commercial entities and individuals, and the nature of businesses that operate across multiple time zones, this risk is greatly multiplied.
The new amendments offer protection of transfer orders, netting and settlement and is extended by one business day beyond insolvency day, providing certainty and finality to DS transactions. This will certainly be a welcome move for financial institutions. For the DS which utilises collateral as part of their netting and settlement processes, the introduction of collateral security and collateral holder will help extend further insolvency protection and mitigate credit risks.
Having said that, I would like to raise some concerns regarding these enhancements. Can the Minister inform the House where would these changes take place for Singapore compared to other jurisdictions? By this, I mean to ask if any study or consultation has been done on the DS of other countries. The rise of fintech has brought about many new technologies and innovations that are vastly different from traditional financial methods in the delivery of financial services. How forward-looking are the enhancements in ensuring that transactions via these new technologies are adequately protected? These days, block chain technologies, cryptocurrencies and quick response (QR)-based solutions are growing in popularity. If these technologies are also covered under the amendments, then how does this reconcile with the prevention of illicit claims to be a DS?
Next, I also note that under the proposed amendments, MAS is to be exempted from certain sections of FNA. Can the Minister elaborate further on this self-exemption? In what aspects of the insolvency law are carved out by virtue of FNA?
The security of domestic operators of DS is another matter or aspect to consider. Banking Computer Services Pte Ltd (BCS) handles the SGD Cheque Clearing System, USD Cheque Clearing System and the Interbank GIRO. And the settlement institution for the USD Cheque Clearing System is Citibank NA (Citi), a foreign bank. What are the contingencies made in the case of insolvencies of a foreign bank in this instance or, for that matter, domestic operators, such as BCS, should they be affected by other operational risks?
Finally, moving towards a cashless society means we should anticipate more sophisticated payment systems, and it is important to constantly review the relevant policies. The Bill, when passed, will provide greater security and mitigate risks for the designated payment and settlement systems through systemic and prudential means, which would be a welcome move for financial institutions in Singapore. Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I stand in support of this Bill. Given the rapid development in fintech, we need to ensure our laws and regulations keep up. I have comments and queries on one specific aspect of the Bill and, more broadly, to request for an illustration.
I refer to the Consultation Paper MAS shared dated 3 August 2017 which listed the objectives of the amendments in this Bill. The objectives are to bring Singapore’s laws on this subject matter up to date with international developments to enhance Singapore’s position as a major financial centre and to incorporate global best practices from leading jurisdictions, like the United Kingdom (UK) and the European Union (EU).
As such, to try and understand the Bill, I have looked into the EU Settlement Finality Directive 98/26/EC, which has been since amended by two other directives in 2009 and 2010 and two regulations in 2012 and 2014.
The main rule in Article 3(1) is that transfer orders and netting shall be legally enforceable, even in the event of insolvency proceedings against a participant and shall be binding on third parties provided that transfer orders were entered into the system before the moment of opening of insolvency proceedings.
In this Bill, I note that clause 9, which amends section 8 of FNA does not prescribe the same degree of certainty as to whether a transfer order or any other transactions in the section 8(1) list will be legally enforceable and binding on third parties as long as a transfer order or any other list of matters is entered before an opening of an insolvency proceeding. Can the Minister clarify why this is so?
Prescription of this timing is important to my mind, as cross-border payment settlement and netting seem especially vulnerable to insolvency laws in different jurisdictions.
I understand that this insolvency carve-out is dealt with in clause 9 of the Bill, which amends section 8 of FNA. Section 8 of FNA states that transfer orders and the transactions in section 8(1) list \"shall not be regarded as to any extent invalid on the ground of inconsistency with the law for distribution of the assets of a person on bankruptcy or winding up, or on the appointment of a receiver, receiver and manager or equivalent officer\".
I appreciate that this has the implied effect of ensuring transactions made through DSs are final, irrevocable and cannot be reversed or challenged by insolvency laws or a liquidator.
MAS Consultation Paper also states in paragraph 2.2 that the proposed amendments are consistent with the laws of the EU.
However, neither does the Bill expressly address the timing issue stated in Article 3(1) of the EU directive on whether such transactions have to be entered into before the commencement of the insolvency event, nor address what happens if transactions are entered into the system after the commencement of an insolvency event, regardless of whether a DS has actual or constructive knowledge of the commencement of the insolvency event.
In fact, clause 12 of the Bill, which amends section 12 of FNA, makes it clear that the DS operator may effect netting of all obligations owed to or by the participant up to and including one business day after. Can the Minister clarify if it is the intention of the Ministry to not draw a distinction and provide a blanket prioritisation and finality of transfer orders and transactions in section 8(1) of FNA?
If so, can the Minister further clarify if this may be open to abuse in any way, such as by a company disposing of its assets even after commencement of winding up, contravening section 259 of the Companies Act by effecting transfer orders into a DS?
Additionally, can the Minister provide specific examples for Members and the public to understand the practical implications of these amendments, specifically the extension of insolvency protection for transfer orders, netting and settlement in a DS amendment? For example, what transactions would not have previously fallen under FNA which will now fall under the revised FNA once the Bill is passed?
I appreciate that this is a highly technical Bill, but it is precisely such Bills that require illustrations and explanations. Alternatively, will MAS be publishing guidelines to help the affected parties, such as the DS operators, settlement institutions, financial institutions and the public, better understand the revised FNA? Sir, notwithstanding the above queries, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Ong.
Mr Mr Ong Ye Kung: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members for their support of the Bill and their questions.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked if any study or consultation had been done on the DSs of other countries. MAS studied a variety of jurisdictions, such as Australia, Canada, Europe, Hong Kong, New Zealand and the UK, to distil the best practices. The proposed amendments are also in line with international standards, such as the Principles for Financial Market Infrastructures, set by the Committee on Payment and Market Infrastructures of the Bank for International Settlements and the International Organisation of Securities Commissions. In addition, MAS consulted financial institutions extensively and drew on our experience administrating the FNA over the last 15 years. With this Bill, MAS will be among other leading jurisdictions in the area of insolvency protection for DSs.
Mr Louis Ng enquired about the differences in the timing of insolvency protection between the EU Settlement Finality Directive and the proposed Bill. He also sought clarification on the potential abuse of the extended insolvency protection.
The EU's regime takes a different approach from this Bill. It protects transfer orders that are entered into the system after the moment of insolvency provided that a central counter-party or clearing house demonstrates that they were not aware, nor should have been aware of the commencement of insolvency proceedings.
We have chosen not to emulate the EU Directive, but instead provide for a window – one business day – for transactions to be protected even after insolvency is declared. There are three insolvency scenarios envisaged by MAS that will require this. I have briefly mentioned one of them in my Second Reading speech but will elaborate.
First, a system that spans multiple jurisdictions across numerous time zones, such as the CLS system which needs more than one day to settle transactions in a distress situation as the distressed participant may face difficulty paying its obligations, usually in multiple currencies.
Second, a system that originates transfer orders on the day of insolvency but settles the next business day. For example, FAST transactions which occur on late Friday evening which will be settled between the banks only the next Monday morning, these transactions would now be protected.
And, as I mentioned in my earlier speech, if a foreign bank branch in Singapore has its parent bank go insolvent close to midnight, Singapore time, the operator of the DS may be unaware of the insolvency of its parent since this occurred outside office hours, until the next business day, whereupon transactions from this participant was already settled. The Bill will ensure the DS participants’ transactions, including the foreign bank branch’s transactions, are honoured and protected.
In the EU’s case, the operator would have to prove that they were not aware, nor should have been aware of the insolvency proceedings. MAS has assessed that the challenges in proving this will create significant uncertainty which will defeat the very purpose of giving operators and participants certainty of finality of transactions and then protect the system as a whole. Hence, we decided not to subject the operator to such a burden of proof but, instead, provide for a short window where there is certainty.
Notwithstanding, there are safeguards to prevent abuse of this protection. We expect DSs to have rules in place to exclude an insolvent system participant from the DS as soon as it is aware of the insolvency and to stem any outflow of funds which abuse the protection.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked a pertinent question about the adaptability of the Bill to future technologies, especially given the robust developments in the payments space. FNA is technology-neutral and allows MAS to designate systems which meet the fundamental criteria for designation, where a disruption in the operations of such a system may transmit further disruption to its participants, or to the wider financial system or affect public confidence in other payment systems. Hence, as long as the designation criteria are met, whether a system is based on block chain, QR code or biometrics or something we have not seen, MAS will be able to designate the system. DSs will be gazetted and publicly listed on MAS’ website. This allows any consumer or business to cross-check the system’s legitimacy of being a DS.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about the exemptions for MAS from certain provisions of FNA. This is because MAS operates MEPS+, our nation’s large value SGD real-time gross settlement system and a DS under FNA.
The amendments provide for MAS to be exempted from the provisions which are administrative in nature, and MAS is exempted from these provisions as MAS cannot be invoking such powers upon itself. However, the proposed exemptions for MAS do not affect the insolvency protections provided by FNA for DSs operated by MAS.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about the contingency plans for commercial entities that operate DSs in Singapore, such as BCS and Citi. As a recap, BCS is the DS operator for SGD and USD cheques and Interbank GIRO, while Citi is the DS settlement institution for USD cheques.
MAS recognises the important role that these operators play in the stability of the financial system. The regulation and supervision of payment systems fall under a separate Act, the PSOA. BCS and Citi are regulated under PSOA and, thus, closely supervised by MAS. Both entities are required to have strong risk management controls in place to address key risks, such as credit, liquidity and operational risks. They also need to have business continuity plans and these are validated through industry-wide exercises. As part of ongoing supervision, MAS tracks the financial health of BCS and Citi as well and has resolution tools at our disposal. Mr Deputy Speaker, 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. – [Mr Ong Ye Kung.] (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":"Immigration (Amendment) Bill ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, “That the Bill be now read a Second time”.
The Immigration Act (IA) regulates residents and visitors’ entry into Singapore, their stay here, and exit from Singapore. The last major amendment to IA was in 2012.
Since then, the security threat has heightened significantly, including at our checkpoints, which are, unfortunately, attractive targets for terrorists. The checkpoints are also our first line of defence against terrorist threats, which emanate from outside Singapore. For example, overseas airports have been targeted. In March 2016, a suicide bombing at Brussels Airport killed 17 persons. Just three months later, gunmen armed also with explosive belts, attacked Ataturk Airport in Istanbul, killing 45 persons. In addition, traveller volumes at our various checkpoints have been increasing. We now expect over 200 million people to go through our air, land and sea checkpoints each year. Checkpoint operations have thus become increasingly complex and challenging.
To enhance border security and optimise Home Team resources deployed at the checkpoints, the Integrated Checkpoints Command (ICC) was introduced in 2015. ICC strengthens coordination among Home Team departments by putting them under a unified command at the respective checkpoints, that is, all Home Team officers working at the checkpoints report to the same Commander. This arrangement facilitates joint operations at the checkpoints, communications and information sharing and allows synergies to be reaped.
To enhance the Home Team's operational effectiveness at the checkpoints, Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) officers will play a bigger role to support Police Officers to provide protective security. This will enable the Home Team to more effectively prevent security incidents at the checkpoints and respond more swiftly when they do occur. To achieve this, we need to expand the range of powers available to ICA officers to discharge their duties effectively at the checkpoints.
Clause 4 of the Bill introduces a new section 51AA, which will provide ICA officers with enhanced powers relating to search and seizure, arrest and security screening, within or in the vicinity of Authorised Areas. Authorised Areas, as defined in the IA, generally refer to the air, land, and sea checkpoints in Singapore. These include Changi and Seletar Airports, Woodlands and Tuas Checkpoints, Singapore Cruise Centre and the Marina Bay Cruise Centre.
Currently, ICA officers mainly rely on existing powers under the IA and Customs Act to conduct searches of vehicles, trains, vessels or persons, examine individuals, seize evidence and arrest persons.
Police Officers, on the other hand, are empowered to conduct searches on an individual only if the person has been arrested, or if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the person has committed certain offences where the laws specifically allow for searches. These include possession of arms and explosives, possession of an instrument likely to cause hurt and possession of controlled substances or evidence of drug offences.
However, existing powers are not sufficient to protect the checkpoints in today’s security climate. For example, ICA officers are not able to search a person suspected of carrying an offensive weapon if he or she is not in the authorised area but is instead in public areas of Changi Airport, or at the bus stop outside Woodlands Checkpoint. To be more effective, the powers have to be expanded so that ICA officers can intervene in any suspected security incident within or in the vicinity of the checkpoints. On the ground, this will allow any ICA officer nearest to a security incident at the checkpoints to be the first responder.
Furthermore, ICA and Police Officers need to have wider powers of search to intervene more decisively to deal with criminal and security incidents. For example, Police Officers today are not empowered to search suspected vandals even if surveillance cameras or other security sensors at the checkpoints have been damaged; the suspect must first be arrested before he can be searched. That is the existing law. Clause 4 will, therefore, expand and allow ICA officers and Police Officers to search individuals if there is suspicion of the commission of any offence within or in the vicinity of the Authorised Areas. This is necessary for an ICA and Police Officer, whoever is nearest to an incident at the checkpoints, to pre-emptively and more effectively detect and address criminal and security threats at the checkpoints.
The other powers in clause 4 which will be extended to ICA officers operating within and in the vicinity of Authorised Areas are similar to existing powers accorded to Police Officers under the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC).
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair]
ICA officers will be empowered to arrest the individual if he is reasonably suspected to have committed an arrestable offence under Singapore laws. Similar to what I have explained earlier, this will enable ICA officers to respond to any security threat without having to wait for the arrival of Police Officers.
For non-arrestable offences, ICA officers will only be able to arrest an individual if the person refuses to give his or her name and residential address, or if the person gives a name or residential address believed to be false or gives an overseas residential address. This is similar to section 65 of the CPC.
Post-incident investigations, including the prosecution of the arrested persons in the Courts, will remain the Police’s responsibility. Under the new section 51AA (12), once ICA officers have made an arrest, they will have to hand over the accused to a Police Officer as quickly as possible for the Police to commence their investigations.
I will now move on to clause 5. Clause 5 of the Bill amends section 55(1)(ga) to allow ICA to collect personal identifiers, such as photographs, from travellers transiting through Singapore. This will allow ICA to screen transit passengers more effectively, to better detect travellers of interest. Clause 5 will also make clear that ICA has the powers to collect personal identifiers from Singapore visa applicants, including photographs and other biometric identifiers. In addition, clause 5 amends section 55(1)(k) to increase the quantum of penalties that the Minister may prescribe for the breach of regulations under the IA.
Both the National Registration Act (NRA) and IA govern the proper registration of persons in Singapore for identification and security purposes. However, the maximum penalties that the Minister may prescribe for the breach of regulations under the IA are significantly lower than those under NRA.
Clause 5 of the Bill will thus amend section 55(1)(k) of the IA to increase the maximum quantum of penalties that the Minister may prescribe for the breach of regulations, to an imprisonment term not exceeding two years, or a fine not exceeding $3,000, or both. This will align the maximum penalties for breaches of regulations under the IA with that under NRA.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, this Bill will strengthen the security of our checkpoints by enhancing the overall operational effectiveness of the Integrated Checkpoints Command. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef.
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the enhanced proposals for ICA officers to perform security screenings, searches, seizure duties and appropriate arrests, as stipulated in the Bill. I support the evolution and stepping up of the ICA officers’ job description as well.
With the increasing numbers of people passing through all the points of entry and checkpoints in Singapore daily, we have to certainly ensure we are ever ready any time of the day, night or under any conditions.
However, can I understand the following a bit further? What kind of enhanced training will these ICA frontline officers be provided with in order to empower them? Will there be some form of psychological preparedness training, briefing and counselling that they would be put through as well?
My concern is that Police Officers have been prepared for these types of work from the beginning of their career, but these ICA officers may not. Thus, the need to prepare them well with relevant skills, mindset and manage their psychological states as well in anticipating any possible acts or challenges in any form.
Since 2015, the ICC brings in the various Home Team agencies operating at our checkpoints under one command, and this is good. Can the Minister elaborate on this a bit more for our understanding? Also, I feel that this ties in very well with this Bill’s implementation. Can the Minister explain how they will be synergistic in terms of Singapore’s preparedness as well, and how will it enhance our plan to ringfence our safety and security?
I would also like to understand further how the coordination between ICA officers and staff at all our entry points will happen and how it will be coordinated. How fast can information be shared and, in terms of action, how rapid can the execution be when facing certain crises? In the case of a planned multi-site entry point incident, how fast and how well can our information sharing and coordination be? This is important because this is the current trend that we are seeing in terms of terrorist attacks.
Sir, we live in uncertain times and we must never let our guard down at any time. The enhanced security proposed in this Bill is taking us in the right direction. But besides policy, technology and infrastructure, there is also the human element and the human factors for us to consider. So, therefore, the buy-in, commitment and collaboration from the staff involved are highly important as well. I support the Bill, Sir.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill and agree that there is a need for security incidents to be dealt with promptly at our borders, given that we are living in a highly globalised world with more people moving in and out of Singapore’s borders and in the face of threats of terrorism.
Under the Bill, ICA officers will have the authority to perform security screenings, carry out search and seizure duties and arrest suspects within and in the vicinity of immigration checkpoints. They would also be able to respond to incidents, conduct preliminary investigations and take steps to contain the situation when Police Officers are not yet at the scene. The Bill will also allow ICA officers to collect personal identifiers, such as photographs, passport details and fingerprints.
While the intent is to enable the Home Team to deal with security incidents at the checkpoints more promptly by having ICA officers perform protective security functions in support of Police Officers, I have some questions on the expansion of the role of ICA officers and how they are being prepared to take on these additional duties. This is given that the ICA officers are empowered under this Bill to carry out search and seizure duties and arrest suspects for offences under any written law.
First, the ICC policy was launched in 2015 to achieve greater operational coordination and provide clearer lines of responsibility and command for the officers from ICA, the Singapore Police Force (SPF) and Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) working together at the checkpoints, for example, faster operational responses and more successful interceptions of persons and vehicles of interest. With ICA officers taking on duties of the Police, how would this impact the lines of responsibility across the various elements of the Home Team in carrying out their work at our checkpoints?
Second, ICA officers are already dealing with large numbers of travellers daily while under expectations from travellers for timely clearance at checkpoints. Would arrangements be made to ease ICA officers into their new duties so that the additional duties are not too onerous?
Third, a Direct-Entry Sergeant in ICA would have undergone a 16-week non-residential ICA Basic Course (Sergeant) at the Home Team Academy while a Direct-Entry Sergeant in the Police Force would have undergone six months of residential training, including lessons in criminal law, physical training, community policing, as well as leadership development. Males are required to be Physical Employment Standard (PES) A or PES B1L1 in order to qualify as a Direct-Entry Sergeant in the Police Force whereas only a PES A or B grade is required for ICA officers. What measures are being taken to better prepare our ICA officers so that they are able to carry out their new functions under the Bill?
Lastly, the starting salary range for a Direct-Entry Sergeant in ICA is lower than the starting salary range for a Direct-Entry Sergeant in the Police Force. The starting monthly salary for a Higher National Institute of Technical Education Certificate (NITEC)/NITEC/GCE \"O\" level qualified Direct-Entry Sergeant in ICA is between $1,670 to $1,880 per month, while the starting monthly salary for a Higher NITEC/NITEC/GCE \"O\" level qualified Direct-Entry Sergeant in the Police Force is between $1,820 and $2,170 per month. Would the salaries of ICA officers be adjusted to take into account the additional duties that they are expected to perform?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Thanaletchimi.
Ms K Thanaletchimi (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. The amendments provide greater empowerment to ICA officers critical in dealing with any cross-border threats. In order to perform their duties better in their expanded role, the ICA officers need to be well-trained in protective security, especially during emergency situations. With the enhanced responsibilities comes the need for upskilling. As such, would the career path for ICA officers be similarly enhanced? Will there be a review of their career progression?
Second, it is commendable that the ICC would be better equipped to deal with any checkpoint incidents with minimal delay. This is essential to manage threats against Singapore, and citizens, too, would realise the importance of being vigilant against security threats. It is, indeed, the joint responsibility of both authorities and our citizens to ensure and enforce stringent checks at the border.
On this note, how can civilians play their part in identifying and reporting potential threats? How can we better train them to be, by passing information that is relevant?
The collection of information of transit passengers is of significant importance for security and traceability. How will the information be shared readily, responsively and constructively with the other agencies to circumvent threats and adverse incidents? Are there cross-border collaborations to better optimise data use and information?
On the inclusion of the new section 51AA, subsection 10(b), the ICA officer may use all reasonable means necessary to make the arrest if the person to be arrested forcibly resists or tries to evade the arrest. I would like to seek clarification on what is considered as \"reasonable\" or what constitutes \"reasonableness\"? Are the officers given sufficient training to help them better handle the expanded and enriched responsibilities?
On protection for the officers, are the officers better protected against complaints and legal actions from a suspect who may be injured as the officers restrain the suspect? And so, how much and how well are the officers protected? Will there be a consideration to enhance workplace insurance or workplace injury compensation for the officers with this enhancement of job responsibilities? Sir, notwithstanding this, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is timely that we review the IA to empower our ICA officers as they work to strengthen our border security.
We are giving ICA officers more authority to perform security screenings, conduct search and seizure duties, as well as arrests, and I think it is a good move. With the relevant training that comes with these new duties, this will not only aid in improving security and efficiency, it can boost the officers' morale as they can carry out their tasks more efficiently. However, I note that when a suspect is arrested by ICA, the ICA officer is required to inform a Police Officer of the arrest. And he has to wait for the arrival of the Police to hand over the suspect under section 51AA, clause 12. I would like to ask why this cumbersome procedure is required. And why cannot ICA be given the authority to detain the suspect for investigation for more than 24 hours and carry out whatever investigations required if it is a simple offence.
With the terrorism threat becoming more prevalent, police and security forces around the world are shouldering heavier responsibilities to protect the community. Hence, I feel ICA officers could be counted on to handle more responsibilities as befit their training. This would, in turn, free up the Police for other responsibilities.
So, my second question is in relation to investigation work. Can the Minister enlighten the House on the training for an ICA officer compared to a Police Officer? In regard to the enhanced powers for ICA officers, can the Minister also share plans to ensure that the officers have the prerequisite training to handle the enhanced powers and search authority that they have now with these changes. This also includes the proper handling of individuals and suspects as part of the search but also taking into consideration the sensitivities and communication skills needed with the extra responsibilities.
Border security, Mr Deputy Speaker, is of paramount importance, and it is certainly not the sole responsibility of ICA. More must be done to educate the masses and obtain everyone's support and cooperation, so that we can close any gaps in our security network. Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, while I understand the overriding security necessity of responding swiftly to incidents at the checkpoints, allowing ICA officers to exercise certain Police powers are an expansion of executive powers, which should be done cautiously. We should thus closely scrutinise the powers this Bill gives to ICA officers to ensure that there are sound bases and sufficient checks for an extension of power.
As was noted in the Ministry of Home Affairs' (MHA's) press release on the Bill, the intention of giving ICA officers such powers is to enable them to respond to incidents and contain situations before Police Officers arrive. The powers that are granted to ICA officers should be constrained insofar as they are necessary for that purpose.
The amendments will give ICA officers the power to take statements from persons who appear to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the relevant offences. The language of section 51AA(6) and (7) is similar to section 22 of the CPC which allows the Police to take long statements.
Unlike section 23 of the CPC, the amendments do not expressly require persons being questioned to be given notice that choosing to remain silent may have a bad effect on their case in Court. Can I clarify whether adverse inferences can be drawn from a statement taken under section 51AA(5) should the person choose to remain silent?
If so, is there a duty to inform the person being examined of their privilege against self-incrimination under section 51AA(6) and does the failure to inform the person of their right to remain silent affect the admissibility of the statement or the ability to draw adverse inferences from the statement?
Laypersons may not know that they have such a right and it seems only fair that they should be informed of this right if the privilege against self-incrimination is to have any substance. The right to remain silent under section 51AA(5) would be very weak in practice if there is no need to inform an individual of their right to do so. It is those who are ignorant of the law and the most vulnerable who would suffer the most. Further, section 51AA(7) sets out requirements, which are intended to be procedural safeguards for the person's whose statement is taken. Will a failure to comply with the requirements under section 51AA(7) affect the admissibility of the statement?
Next, the exercise of Police powers is governed by CPC and the Police General Orders (PGO) issued by the Commissioner of Police. Will rules or guidelines similar to PGO be issued for ICA officers?
Lastly, is it necessary for ICA officers to be given the power to detain a person for up to 24 hours under section 51AA(12) before handing them over to a Police Officer?
As highlighted earlier, these powers are only transitory in that they are intended for ICA officers to be able to contain the situation until the Police arrive. In line with the spirit of unifying the command and control structure that underlies the ICC concept, surely closer coordination between the Police and ICA officers could be expected in responding to these incidences. Sir, notwithstanding the above clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of this Bill as it is an important piece of legislation that strengthens our border security.
There are three main facets of this Bill. The first is the expanded role of ICA officers. The second is the provision for the collecting of personal identifiers of transit passengers. And the third is the increased penalty for breach of regulations.
The expanded role of ICA officers promotes synergy and collaboration of the ICC. Started in 2015, the ICC organises Singapore's borders into three domains: air, land and sea. One domain head oversees operations of all Home Team officers in that domain, whether they be Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB), Police or ICA officers.
This was a further step to optimise the organisation of our Home Team resources. Back in 2003, the ICA was born with the merging of Singapore Immigration and Registration and the Checkpoints Operations of Customs and Excise Department. Today, this Bill seeks to confer certain Police's powers on ICA officers so that we are able to respond to situations promptly and effectively. This move in this Bill keeps our Home Team agencies nimble, flexible and able to address the changing needs in these changing times.
The new section 51AA (1) and (2) under clause 4 of the Bill seeks to allow ICA officers to stop and search any vehicle, train, vessel or person or any aircraft for evidence of criminal offences being committed in or around the protected area. This includes security screening under subsection (4) of the new proposed section 51AA under clause 4.
Coupled with pass to intervene to prevent a crime and to cordon off an area to preserve a crime scene under subsections (13) and (14), these powers allow for a prompt response and would aid with the investigation process of crimes committed near the border. Through prompter collection and preservation of evidence of an act at or near the crime scene, there may be more evidence and more cogent, reliable and accurate evidence collected. It is hoped that this will greatly enhance the administration of justice in Singapore.
Further, through the powers of arrest under clause 4 of section 51AA(8) to (10), ICA officers' presence at the borders will strengthen deterrence of the Home Team officers there. The procedural safeguards are in subsections (11) and (12), with subsection (12) playing an important signal that the Police are still primarily in charge of these policing duties. Subsection (12) requires the ICA officer to inform the Police immediately of the arrest and await the Police's arrival for handover, detaining the person in a suitable place for not more than 24 hours.
As the ICA officers' powers are restricted to offences committed in the authorised area and its vicinity, an arrested person has to be ultimately handed over to the Police, the relationship between the ICA officers is clearly delineated for effective collaboration. Rather than abrogating from the Police's primary duty, these expanded powers further promote prompt and effective responses to a situation at our borders. Even with a strong uniformed presence near the borders, there are some who still dare to commit offences in the area. ICA officers will be equipped, through training, and they will not be hamstrung if they witness or have reason to believe that an offence is being committed before their very eyes. This supportive role will enhance the ICA's powers to protect Singapore and strengthen security at our borders.
The second main feature of this Bill is the collection of personal identifiers from passengers transiting through our airport. What has happened in some countries previously is that illegal immigrants travel using forged documents, staying in the airport lounge to connect to their next destination. Alternatively, illegal immigrants cleared immigration using genuine documents but switch to forged documents or even took other persons' boarding passes inside the travel lounge. By collecting personal identifiers from those transiting through Singapore airport, it will be harder to commit identity fraud.
Furthermore, there has been a proliferation of fraudulent documents that facilitate travel. It is not just boarding passes that can be faked. Lost passports and faked IDs have increased in number. As of July 2013, Interpol had nearly 38 million lost or stolen travel documents. According to a Political article, EU passport fraud epidemic, which refers to EU passport fraud epidemic in January this year, the number of lost and stolen documents in the EU has doubled in five years. There are 250,000 stolen or lost Syrian and Iraqi passports, including blank documents, very easily utilised.
A report by the University of East London entitled \"Mining the dark web, drugs and fake IDs\" showed that whilst counterfeit documents make up a smaller percentage of the market compared to drugs, they are readily available. According to the January issue of S Rajaratnam's School of International Studies and titled \"Counter terrorist trends and analyses\", a small percentage of combat-hardened fighters use forged, adapted and fraudulently-obtained genuine documents to travel home to conduct attacks.
So, this is real. The collection of personal identifiers adds to the Advance Passenger Information and Passenger Name Record programmes which Singapore had committed in the 2016 Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) counter-terrorism action plan in October last year to secure and facilitate legitimate travel within the region.
The collection of personal identifiers of transit passengers is now more common in today's increasingly globalised world. Such countries include New Zealand and the United Arab Emirates. Currently, travellers who remain in the transit area do not need a visa. Clause 55B, which provides for collection of personal identifiers, covers both those who remain in transit and those who apply for or hold a Singapore visa. This is needed. Such a provision is necessary and timely to ensure security in our airports and it should be implemented with the utmost care to stringently secure the information collected. If such personalised data gets into the wrong hands, the cure may be worse than the ill.
As the number of travellers at our airports has been increasing, hitting the record 60 million mark last year, it is important that those who travel through Singapore for legitimate reasons not be afraid of the collection of important personal identifiers, such as fingerprints and even irises. Rather, through stringent and high-quality implementation, our position as a travel elite hub and Singapore airports' reputation will grow stronger by being more secure and lowering the possibility for identity fraud and a safer transit area.
We need to ensure that our security measures are tight and kept up to date or even ahead of the technologies used by criminals to manoeuvre their way around the proper safeguards.
Another feature of the Bill is the increased maximum penalty for breach of regulations. Originally set at imprisonment of six months or a fine of $1,000, clause 5(C) of this present Bill increases it to imprisonment of two years or a fine of $3,000. This update of the maximum penalty ensures that inflation does not rob the penalty of its punitive effect.
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, this immigration amendment Bill is a welcome addition to the tools in the weaponry that our ICA officers need to secure effectively in these changing times. By empowering Home Team officers to respond promptly and by enhancing security measures, this Bill is a further step forward towards a synergistic and comprehensive move against terror threats in Singapore. I, therefore, strongly support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Deputy Speaker, the ever-present threat of terrorism makes it imperative for us to find ways to boost the level of security in Singapore. Our Tuas and Woodlands checkpoints handle a high volume of people daily. During festive periods, the numbers can go up to half a million a day. Changi Airport handled more than 50 million passengers last year and looks set to increase its passenger load with Terminal 5 (T5) on the way. We clearly need to future-proof our security coverage and provisions.
With volume, potential perpetrators of harm seek vulnerabilities during busy periods. It is not merely a matter of volume. The nature and essence of threats evolve quickly. This makes timely and efficient intervention critical. With Singapore seeking to continue our position as a top transit hub, we must be at the top of the game with our security without losing our hallmark efficiency. This Bill widens the powers of ICA officers to search and arrest suspects for some offences, which currently come under the authority of the Police. Being at the frontline of security incidents, our ICA officers required powers to quickly intervene and resolve issues. Empowering them with greater authority will boost the level of safety and security and be efficient.
One important measure included in this Bill is to allow ICA to collect personal identifiers from travellers in transit at Changi Airport where necessary. This contrasts with the current situation where the information is obtained only from travellers at immigration counters. Transit passengers make up about a third of Changi Airport’s passengers. We cannot allow terrorists to use Changi as a transit stop. Yet, we cannot allow this extra layer of checks to cause transit passengers to encounter delays in the process of transferring from one flight to another. What measures will be taken to ensure that inconveniences are minimised, even as security steps are being increased? How is new biometric technology used to handle the increasing load?
With increased responsibilities coming their way, we must also ensure that our officers are equal to the task. The law is, after all, only as effective as the officers using them. They must be trained to enhance their knowledge, skills and capability. How can SPF officers be involved in helping their ICA colleagues to take on the new powers? Interagency capabilities and operabilities are even more critical. We need to ensure that our officers operate well together as one unit.
Other than training on their “hard” skills that are directly related to their profession, are ICA and SPF officers provided with \"softer skills”, such as cultural intelligence, as their job requires them to deal with people from different cultures and nationalities?
Another aspect of manpower and human capital, security work cannot be easily substituted with technology and enhanced legislation. Experience and street knowledge are essential elements built up over time. The Ministry must continue to leverage such strengths of our officers, especially when more powers are vested in them to meet our ever-evolving security threats. This might require buttressing our competencies with experienced officers from SPF and other enforcement agencies.
Notwithstanding the above, the Bill is important to harden our borders without sacrificing on our efficacy and efficiency. Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Josephine Teo.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members who have spoken in support of the Bill. They raised many useful points which I shall try to address.
Several Members asked about the ICC. Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked for a further elaboration of the ICC concept, and how the Bill will enhance Singapore’s preparedness for emergencies. Mr Patrick Tay asked how the Bill will impact the lines of responsibilities across the various Home Team agencies working at the checkpoints.
Under the ICC, the checkpoints are clustered into three domains, namely, the Land Domain, Sea Domain and Air Domain, which were progressively launched in 2015.
An ICA Domain Commander now helms all Home Team operations in each of the three domains. So, we have a unified command structure under a single commander. With this, the lines of responsibility as well as accountability are very clear and will help in ensuring that the security and operations in each domain are properly taken care of. By doing so, we have also strengthened the coordination amongst the officers from the various Home Team departments deployed at the checkpoints because there is a unified command structure.
Another potential benefit of the ICC is in joint operations as compared to operations mounted separately by each Home Team Department. In fact, it did not take long for the benefit to be realised. In 2016, a joint operation at Woodlands Checkpoint detected four male Indonesian travellers who had plans to enter Singapore to make their way to Syria to fight for the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The timely sharing of information and exchange of analyses made the critical difference. The subjects were eventually repatriated to Batam and handed over to the Indonesian counter-terrorism unit.
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef also asked about the coordination among ICA officers at the various checkpoints, and how prepared we are for a planned multi-site incident. Any terrorist incidents involving multiple checkpoints will be coordinated by the Police. This is again clear. The Home Team has developed joint operation plans for such scenarios and we have been exercising them. And some of these exercises were publicised earlier. For example, Exercise Northstar, held in October 2017 at Changi Airport, involved Home Team agencies as well as the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF), the Ministry of Health (MOH), Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) and Changi Airport Group (CAG). Exercise Quicksilver, which is a series of regular internal exercises, involves scenarios of multiple attacks at the land and sea domains where officers are not notified beforehand. In other words, it is a surprise exercise. One of these surprise exercises was held in October 2016 and it involved more than 3,000 officers across the Home Team and SAF. So, it is a very large-scale exercise.
The aim of these exercises is, of course, to prepare ourselves to respond to security incidents as soon as possible. But I should stress that it is not just speed. It is also the quality and the effectiveness of the response that matter. And that is why we are making these amendments to ensure that, when we respond, the response is an effective one.
All Members who have spoken felt it was important for the ICA officers to be properly trained to exercise the enhanced powers, and I fully agree. Before I outline our training approach, let me clarify what is expected of the ICA officers under this Bill, something that Mr Christopher de Souza had also talked about. The ICA officers are not expected to become Police Officers. What this Bill seeks to do is to empower ICA officers, who are usually the majority at the checkpoints, to respond to security incidents within and in the vicinity of the checkpoint. This will further enhance the ICC concept, where the nearest Home Team officers to a security incident at the checkpoint will be the first responders acting swiftly to mitigate the situation instead of waiting for the Police Officers to arrive.
Once the Police Officers arrive at the scene, there is a clear understanding that they will take over management and investigation of the incident, including the recording of statements from arrested persons and working with the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) to prosecute the person in Court. The training for ICA officers is, therefore, designed specifically for them to be the first responder rather than full-fledged Police Officers.
With this consideration in mind, ICA has been working with SPF to develop appropriate training courses for ICA officers. We need courses for newly appointed as well as current serving officers who are selected to perform protective security functions. There are modules on the legislative provisions, management of protective security incidents, interview skills and search techniques. Classroom training is also complemented by on-the-job training with Police Officers serving as coaches, a point which addresses Mr Desmond Choo’s observation that the Police Officers have much that they can share to help ICA colleagues get up to speed. In addition, ICA officers will join Police Officers for relevant protective security training courses, such as the Public Security First Responder Training, where officers are given tactical movement training to augment their existing competencies in firearms.
ICA officers will be assessed to a similar standard as Police Officers in these areas before they are deployed for protective security duties. Today, more than 900 ICA officers have undergone the training and ICA will progressively cover all those selected for protective security duties. All new ICA officers will also undergo the ICC training to equip them to operate effectively at the ICC. Besides training, ICA will issue guidelines and directives to ICA officers on the proper exercise of their enhanced powers, similar to directives and orders governing Police Officers today. This is something Mr Louis Ng asked about.
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef also asked if ICA officers will be prepared psychologically for their enhanced roles. During their basic training, ICA recruits already undergo psychological training to boost their resilience and prepare them for the challenges in their work. Frontline supervisors are trained on how to look out for distressed officers and to provide support. At the same time, selected ICA officers are trained as para-counsellors to look out for and support their fellow colleagues. The officers are further supported by the ICA Psychological Services Branch, which provides staff counselling services.
As part of the ICC training programmes, ICA officers will be exposed to challenging situations that they may face in the course of duty and trained on how they can respond to such circumstances. These range from managing security incidents, such as travellers attempting to dash through without immigration clearance, to dealing with possible bomb threats. Scenario-based trainings, along with on-the-job training with Police Officers, will help to prepare ICA officers for their new roles.
Mr Desmond Choo asked if ICA officers and Police Officers are provided with training on soft skills, in particular on cultural intelligence.
As part of their training, ICA and SPF officers learn how to manage members of the public in a professional and tactful manner. Officers are trained to be mindful and sensitive towards cultural differences when interacting with members of the public. This is reinforced through in-service training and reminders on the job.
The very nature of ICA's work at the checkpoints involves interactions with people from all nationalities. Our officers have generally done well, with our security-focused, service-conscious approach. ICA officers deployed at Changi Airport also undergo a programme to further equip them with skills to deliver to be part of the \"Changi Experience\" for travellers.
Let me now deal with Mr Louis Ng's question on why it is necessary to allow ICA officers to detain suspects for up to 24 hours. To be clear, the intent is to minimise the time ICA officers will detain an individual before handing him over to Police Officers. This is why the new section 51AA(12)(a) in clause 4 requires the ICA officer to immediately inform a Police Officer of the arrest. However, there may be instances where the Police need more time to take over custody of the person, such as during major emergencies. To cater to such circumstances, the provision allows an ICA officer to detain the person for up to 24 hours.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat has asked whether it was necessary for the ICA officer to hand over an accused to the Police immediately, and if ICA officers can perform the required investigations instead, to free up Police resources. As I have explained earlier, the intention is not for ICA officers to take over the Police's duties, and Police Officers are still best placed to carry out the post-incident investigations.
Mr Louis Ng spoke about the need for safeguards when ICA officers take statements under the new section 51AA. He pointed out that the provisions of section 51AA(6) and (7) were similar to section 22 of the CPC but unlike section 23 of the CPC. I would like to clarify that under section 22 of the CPC, a statement can be recorded from any persons acquainted with the facts of a case, and this could include witnesses as well as suspects. As for section 23 of the CPC, the statement is recorded from an individual after he or she has been charged with an offence and will be prosecuted in Court. So, there are material differences between the two types of statements provided for under the different sections of the CPC.
The intent behind providing ICA officers with the powers of examination under the new section 51AA of the Bill is to allow ICA officers to conduct preliminary fact-finding and checks during or immediately after an incident. On this basis, the new section 51AA(5) to (7) of the Bill is modelled after section 22 of the CPC, rather than section 23. As to the admissibility of such statements, existing case laws interpreting section 22 of the CPC will similarly apply and be followed by the Courts.
If I may reiterate, post-incident investigations, including the recording of statements under section 23 of the CPC and prosecution of individuals in Court, remain the responsibilities of the Police. After ICA officers hand over the accused person to the Police, the investigation processes, as well as the safeguards, will be no different from today’s processes.
Ms Thanaletchimi asked what it means for ICA officers to use reasonable force within the new section 51AA(10)(b) to make an arrest. The usage of the term \"reasonable\" can also be found in section 75 of the CPC, which is applicable to Police Officers and from which this new section is adapted. Generally speaking, reasonableness will entail using only as much force as is appropriate to effect arrest and one that is proportional to the level of the perceived threat. For example, officers should not use firearms to shoot an unarmed person who may be trying to evade arrest. It would not be proportional. As I have explained earlier, ICA officers will be trained to use their enhanced powers appropriately which, of course, include the proper use of force.
Mr Patrick Tay asked if the salaries of ICA officers will be adjusted to take into account the additional duties that they are expected to perform. Ms Thanaletchimi also asked if the career progression for ICA officers will be enhanced. MHA regularly reviews the salaries of Home Team officers, including ICA and SPF officers, to ensure that they remain competitive, taking into account the job demands, the risks, as well as specialised skills requirements. I assure Mr Patrick Tay that it is in our interest to assess these factors holistically and whether any expansion of duties or work conditions warrant adjustments, so that the officers are reasonably remunerated, whatever the roles they perform and we continue to be able to retain them.
Similarly, the career progression paths for ICA officers are regularly reviewed. As recently as July last year, a new scheme was introduced to provide officers with a more seamless progression into the senior ranks. We will continue to keep these schemes of service updated.
Ms Thanaletchimi asked if ICA officers will be better protected against complaints and legal actions from suspects who had been restrained by ICA officers. There are existing mechanisms within the Home Team departments to investigate complaints or allegations of misconduct, and officers are empowered to carry out their duties without fear as long as they act in good faith and in accordance with established protocols.
Where insurance is concerned, ICA officers enjoy the same coverage as all other Home Team officers, such as the Police. All officers who sustain injuries during the course of work will have their medical expenses fully covered when they receive treatment at Government or restructured hospitals.
Let me turn now to transit security screening.
Mr Christopher de Souza spoke about the importance of transit passenger screening and emphasised the need to handle data collected with care. Ms Thanaletchimi asked how data collected from the screening will be shared and if there are cross-border collaborations to optimise data use and information. Transit passengers are currently not required to present themselves for immigration clearance. The screening of transit passengers will thus allow ICA to detect travellers of interest or those who may be using stolen or lost passports. That is why we need the personal identifiers.
There are existing provisions in the IA that enable the sharing of such information with law enforcement agencies and other agencies for the purposes of investigation and for the prevention and detection of threats. But there are also strict protocols governing the sharing of information and safekeeping of data, and they will continue to apply.
On cross-border collaboration, passport information of selected transit passengers will be screened against the Stolen and Lost Travel Documents (SLTD) database, which is an international database administered by the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) and, as Mr Christopher de Souza informed us, that database is a long one. It has 38 million entries, and we will screen selectively against this database.
Mr Desmond Choo asked what measures will be taken to ensure that inconveniences to transit passengers can be minimised even as we step up security measures. In introducing transit security screening, MHA and ICA work closely with the Ministry of Transport (MOT), CAAS and CAG, as well as airlines, to minimise the impact on passengers. We conducted field trials to test the procedures and those resulted in several process refinements. They were very useful. So, we now assess that the minimum connecting times that can be maintained for most of the instances will remain unchanged. We are also working with CAG on protocols to clear passengers with very short connecting times.
Ms Thanaletchimi asked how members of the public can also play their part to identify and report potential or possible threats. I really want to thank her for raising this very important point about citizens' active participation because that can be the crucial difference in ensuring Singapore’s security.
We started the SGSecure movement in 2016 precisely to raise public awareness of the threats we face and to increase their level of preparedness in the event of a terror attack in Singapore.
Members of the public can certainly play their part in identifying potential threats in their neighbourhood or surroundings. At the checkpoints, they should not hesitate to inform the ICA officers and the Police if they come across anything suspicious. Members of the public can also report suspicious activities to the authorities via the SGSecure app, and I am glad to say that we regularly get such alerts.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope I have addressed our MPs' questions and concerns.
In conclusion, the Immigration (Amendment) Bill will strengthen the security of our checkpoints by enhancing the overall operational effectiveness of the ICC. With the support of this House, Mr Deputy Speaker, 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. – [Mrs Josephine Teo.] (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Moneylenders (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Law (Ms Indranee Rajah) (for the Minister for Law): Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Licensed moneylenders are tightly regulated under the Moneylenders Act as the industry caters to borrowers who tend to be more vulnerable. These borrowers often need short-term credit urgently, but cannot obtain it from financial institutions, possibly due to their level of income or credit history.
In regulating licensed moneylenders, the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) seeks to maintain a balance in allowing individual borrowers reasonable access to credit from licensed sources, while ensuring that borrowers, particularly lower-income borrowers, are adequately protected.
The Advisory Committee on Moneylending (ACML) was convened in June 2014 to comprehensively review the regulatory regime for moneylending with these objectives in mind. The Committee issued its Final Report in May 2015 with 15 recommendations to MinLaw. MinLaw accepted 12 of the Committee's 15 recommendations and has worked with the industry and voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) to implement them progressively.
In 2015, we introduced stricter caps on borrowing costs. In March 2016, we launched the Moneylenders Credit Bureau (MLCB), which facilitates better tracking and monitoring of unsecured loans. MLCB provides up-to-date details of a borrower's creditworthiness and indebtedness, to enable moneylenders to make a more informed and responsible lending decision.
The Moneylenders (Amendment) Bill is the latest step in these efforts. Its key objectives are to: (a) provide better protection for borrowers; (b) strengthen the regulation of moneylenders; and (c) professionalise the moneylending industry.
One key change introduced by clause 19 in this Bill is the aggregate loan cap. The Moneylenders Rules presently cap the amount of unsecured credit an individual may borrow from any single moneylender. However, there are borrowers who approach multiple moneylenders for loans and, consequently, may still become over-indebted despite the current restrictions. The proposed aggregate loan cap in the Bill addresses this issue. It sets an overall limit on the amount an individual can borrow from all licensed moneylenders, combined.
We intend to set an aggregate cap of $3,000 for individuals with an annual income below $20,000, and a cap of six times' the monthly income for all other individuals, as recommended by ACML. The aggregate loan cap is intended as a measure to prevent over-borrowing. The proportion which currently over-borrows is small. Between March 2016 and March 2017, less than 2% of Singaporean borrowers who took out loans have an outstanding balance exceeding the cap.
Even though only a small number of Singaporeans over-borrow today, they still need help with managing their debt. We also want to ensure that the numbers do not grow. MinLaw will work with VWOs and the moneylending industry to help such borrowers improve their situation. The Moneylenders Association of Singapore (MLAS) is also developing a more formalised framework, the Moneylenders Debt Restructuring Scheme, to complement existing debt assistance schemes run by VWOs. Details of this industry-led initiative will be announced by MLAS later this year.
Let me now take the House through the key amendments in the Bill.
First, better protection for borrowers. To facilitate the implementation of the aggregate loan cap, clause 18 of the Bill introduces a new Part IIIA, which sets out the regulatory framework for MLCB, and imposes new obligations on moneylenders. The Bill introduces a new section 30N, which requires moneylenders to obtain a borrower’s credit report from MLCB before granting any loan. Moneylenders will also be required to submit accurate borrower information to MLCB and provide timely updates to MLCB when borrowers repay their loans. Likewise, the Bill requires MLCB to facilitate moneylenders’ requests for credit reports.
The Bill also requires MLCB to protect the integrity, security and confidentiality of any borrower information and credit reports in its possession, in addition to existing protections under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) 2012.
The Bill introduces new provisions to allow the Registrar of Moneylenders (the Registrar) to exercise greater oversight on MLCB. For example, the proposed section 30F will enable the Registrar to replace the MLCB operator under specific conditions, such as if the operator fails to satisfy its obligations under the Moneylenders Act, and the proposed section 30I gives the Registrar various powers to ensure the smooth and continued operation of MLCB, especially in the event of a handover to another operator. Together, these amendments provide a stronger regulatory framework to provide individual borrowers with safer access to personal credit.
Next, the Bill also seeks to strengthen the regulation of the moneylending industry in three ways.
Firstly, the Bill will expand the powers of the Registrar of Moneylenders to exclude undesirable persons from the industry. Presently, Part II of the Moneylenders Act empowers the Registrar to revoke, suspend, refuse to issue, or refuse to renew a moneylenders’ licence on a number of grounds. Specifically, sections 7(d) to (g) permit the Registrar to do so where he is not satisfied as to the qualification, experience or character of an individual applicant. This is also applicable to a director, partner or substantial shareholder of a corporate applicant, or a person responsible for the management of the moneylending business. Clause 7 of the Bill expands the scope of this power to include persons who are presently employed or engaged, or whom a moneylender proposes to employ or engage, to assist in the business of moneylending.
Clause 10 also introduces a new section 11A, which provides that a moneylender must obtain the Registrar’s written approval before employing or engaging any assistant in its business of moneylending.
Presently, the Act requires that a moneylender obtain the Registrar’s approval as soon as practicable after someone has become a substantial shareholder or changes his substantial shareholding. Clause 11 of the Bill will require moneylenders to obtain this approval before the person becomes a substantial shareholder, or before any shareholder increases his substantial shareholding.
Existing approvals to engage in moneylending may be revoked if the Registrar discovers that any employee, director or substantial shareholder of the moneylender is not a fit and proper person or a person of good character. Failure to comply will also lead to enforcement and licensing action.
Secondly, to prevent moneylenders from circumventing present regulations by holding \"spare licences\" – which they can use if their original licences are revoked or suspended – clause 8 enables the Registrar to revoke or suspend a licence if the moneylender fails to commence its new business within six months of the issue of the licence. This will ensure that moneylenders holding licences today but who are not actively operating a moneylending business do not retain these licences.
Thirdly, the Bill will also strengthen the regulation of moneylenders by tightening the mandatory requirements on loan terms and contracts. Presently, it is an offence for a moneylender to make any loan contract that does not truly state the principal or interest rate of the loan. Clause 12 expands the scope of this offence to include loan contracts that do not truly state the late interest rate or any permitted fees payable as well.
Under the current regime, borrowers are protected from onerous loan terms by existing caps on fees, interest and late interest. If a loan transaction is found by the Court to have breached these caps, the Court can reopen the transaction and the borrower may be relieved from excessive payments. However, it is currently not an offence if a moneylender breaches these caps. This is changed by clauses 13 and 14 of the Bill.
Under the Bill, it will be an offence for a moneylender to enter into a loan contract that breaches the caps on interest or late interest, which will be punishable by a fine of up to $20,000 and/or imprisonment of up to six months. The Bill also makes such a loan contract unenforceable, and any guarantee or money paid out by the moneylender under the contract will not be recoverable in any Court of law.
The third area which the Bill touches on is the professionalisation of the moneylending industry. Clause 6 of the Bill introduces a new section 6A, which requires that all licensed moneylenders be companies with a minimum paid-up capital of not less than the prescribed amount. Following the recommendation of ACML, this amount will be prescribed at $100,000. Today, nearly 70% of licensed moneylenders have already registered as companies.
Clause 17 of the Bill will also impose a new requirement on every moneylender to submit annual audited accounts to the Registrar. Audit requirements are not unusual and are presently imposed on many regulated entities across various sectors. Given the nature of the moneylending business, there is greater imperative for independent audit supervision.
Sir, over the last few years, the Government’s regulatory reforms have helped raise minimum standards and weed out bad business practices. Complaints against licensed moneylenders have dropped from 271 in 2012 to 104 in 2017, a reduction of more than 60%.
Going forward, MinLaw will complement these regulatory reforms with business-led initiatives to further professionalise the moneylending industry. We seek to encourage good business practices and better business models that can benefit borrowers. These include more effective methods of credit assessment to reduce default rates, more compassionate and responsive debt assistance schemes and more affordable terms of credit.
To encourage new business models, promulgate better business practices and spur improvements, MinLaw will explore lifting the current moratorium in a limited and controlled fashion, to allow a few new players with established track records in related financial areas to pilot new business models in the moneylending industry. We will release more details when ready.
Sir, in summary, the amendments to the legislative framework introduced in the Bill are important steps in helping us to better protect individual borrowers while allowing them to have reasonable access to credit. Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Alex Yam.
Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to support the amendments to the Bill to better protect borrowers and also for closer regulation of the industry.
Many seek moneylenders over the banks because of their ease and convenience. Some do not qualify for bank loans and, therefore, resort to moneylending services for short-term credit. These people are often vulnerable and every effort must be taken to ensure that they know what they are getting themselves into. Education is timely, and counselling in the management of finances is perhaps important as the total outstanding amount in licensed moneylending and the number of borrowers is on the rise.
In 2016, it was tabulated that $367 million was borrowed by close to 40,000 borrowers. A year before that, the amount was $239 million for 35,000 borrowers. Although the proposed regulations will protect low-income families and prevent them from borrowing beyond their means, I wonder if our efforts to regulate the industry may also inadvertently push some of these borrowers into the outstretched arms of illegal moneylenders. This may lead to another set of issues.
As a Member of Parliament (MP), I am sure many of us in this House have met families who have borrowed from illegal moneylenders and have their lives turned upside down. In my own town and our effort to drive home the message against illegal moneylending, our own branch office became a target of intimidation. As for licensed moneylenders, many of us have also come across a growing number of residents who are facing problems with their repayments.
Paying the principal amount borrowed, together with the interest, is enough to break many. Therefore, the new loan cap to protect borrowers, especially from licensed moneylenders, is, of course, a welcome one. No more hopping around moneylenders. We will not have a situation where Moneylender A will not know that Moneylender B is loaning the same amount to the same family.
The move to obtain credit reports before issuing a loan is perhaps long overdue, and this, taken in tandem with the measures undertaken by banks and credit card companies, will be welcomed. MLCB will act perhaps like a goalkeeper and verify lenders’ loan statuses before a loan is granted. But will the imposition of a nominal fee for the checking of records put off moneylenders from exercising due diligence, no matter how small the amount may be? What if they do not check the records and continue to issue loans more than the cap that is stipulated within the Act? Will the Registrar have the necessary powers to enforce that moneylenders fall in line and that they will have the power to take punitive and deterrent action against such errant moneylenders?
The call for regulation in this Bill is timely. Seeking the Registrar’s approval before employing assistants will enhance professionalism in the industry. Likewise, getting approval before increasing shareholding or becoming a shareholder will put the brakes on unsavoury characters entering into this industry.
We have about 160 licensed moneylenders in Singapore and more than 100 of them have registered themselves as companies, whereby they are required to submit annual audited accounts to the Registrar. I would, however, like to ask the Senior Minister of State what are the measures being taken to get the remaining one-third of moneylenders to comply and register? What if they do not comply? Will the Registrar also have the powers to get them to fall in line?
Accountability and transparency are the keywords of the amendments tabled in this Bill. But are those who are borrowing aware of the costs involved and consequences of getting a loan from the moneylenders? Will the moneylenders be required to advise them accordingly and will the Registrar ensure that they do?
As stated earlier, educating vulnerable groups, especially low-income families, of the pitfalls of failure to repay loans to moneylenders, is important. The \"O$P$\" signs that were, perhaps, more common in the past, are fast becoming a thing of the past. But we still read of isolated cases of paint being splashed on doors and debtors being intimidated and even other debtors being forced to become runners for illegal moneylenders.
We must not be complacent in our Home Team efforts to crack down on illegal moneylending but it is also important that we regulate the legal and licensed moneylender industry to prevent any abuse.
It would perhaps be educational for Members present in this House if the Senior Minister of State could share with us if any studies have been conducted to ascertain the reasons as to why people borrow from moneylenders. What are the causes and what are the costs? What is the average amount borrowed and the interest rates levied? Are those interest rates explained to the borrower and are those rates acceptable to the borrower? Because many of them take loans perhaps in desperate situations and agree to almost everything under the sun.
Mr Deputy Speaker, there was a recent letter to the Straits Times Forum page on 10 November 2017 asking if “a loan facility administered by a Government body could be implemented, which borrowers are likely to trust more and approach for assistance rather than private moneylenders?” The writer stated that “proposed restrictions will only drive more of those desperate for cash into the clutches of unlicensed moneylenders.” She goes on to suggest that Government-administered lending, combined with counselling, rather than mere legislative changes to borrowing amounts, will be more helpful.
I tend to agree with the counselling part. But Government-administered lending is something I am not comfortable with. The onus is on the borrower to exercise due diligence and to ascertain if the loan required is necessary. And if it is, will it be possible for them to repay the sum within the stipulated period? This is where the Government can perhaps lend a hand by making available counsellors who would advise people in need of their options. Perhaps a dedicated unit within the Registry would go a long way in advising people who would like to seek the services of a moneylender.
My last clarification has to do with debt recovery. I wish to ask the Ministry if there are acceptable standards of debt recovery that are set and how they are being policed. I have come across feedback that there are sometimes methods that border on criminal intimidation. How many moneylenders employ their own debt recovery agents and how many make use of third-party debt recovery companies? How many cases of intimidation have been prosecuted or reported? While we also need to protect the interests of honest moneylenders dealing with difficult clients, we must also similarly ensure that less than scrupulous moneylenders do not intimidate vulnerable clients. Despite that, I support the Bill fully.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): Deputy Speaker, Sir, the amendments proposed in the Bill aim to protect borrowers from over-borrowing and predatory moneylending practices. This aim is worthy of support. However, I am concerned the Government might be over-tightening the rules, making credit so inaccessible to individual borrowers that they are driven by desperation to unlicensed moneylenders. The main thrust of my speech is to ask that the Senior Minister of State allay this concern through the explanation of specific reasons and facts.
Deputy Speaker, Sir, since the Moneylenders Act was enacted, unlicensed moneylending has been brought under control from its heyday in 2009 of over 18,000 cases. The Minister updated this House in August 2016 that unlicensed moneylending cases fell to a 10-year low in 2015, at 4,862 cases. The number of people arrested for unlicensed moneylending activities also fell to around 1,500 in 2015 from close to 2,000 in 2011. This appears to be an achievement of tough enforcement combined with the licensing and regulation of legalised moneylending.
But just as loan sharking and illegal moneylending cases are declining to new lows, the Ministry set up an Advisory Committee on Moneylending to review the regulations and make recommendations. The Ministry accepted 12 of the 15 recommendations advised by the Committee and implemented them in late 2015. The most significant changes were borrowing caps based on income, caps on interest rates and fees and standardised loan contracts.
In principle, it is good for the Government to review regulations after a period of their operation to see what can be done better. But there is also a worry that the Ministry could be fixing something that is not broken. In fact, this something is not just not broken, it is working very well in tandem with strict enforcement against unlicensed moneylending. I would, therefore, like to ask the Senior Minister of State three questions to allay this worry.
First, while the logic of the tightening, such as pegging borrowing caps to income and caps on interest rates and fees, is hard to disagree with, it is also important that we look at hard data for evidence-based policymaking. Would the Minister please share with the House the number of unlicensed moneylending cases reported and the number of offenders arrested in 2016 and 2017? These numbers could tell us whether the 2015 tightening had the effect of pushing more borrowers to unlicensed moneylending.
Second, the proposed Bill will empower MinLaw to go further than the 2015 tightening, allowing the Ministry to set up an aggregate loan cap. In the 2015 tightening, borrowers could borrow up to the loan cap from each moneylender. With the further tightening allowed by the new regulatory framework, borrowers could borrow up to the loan cap from all moneylenders combined. This is quite a drastic tightening of credit. Would the Senior Minister of State please inform the House what are the new developments on borrowing, new data on moneylending trends that have led to this escalated tightening?
My third question follows from the first and the second questions, and is concerned with the balance of things, between protecting borrowers from over-borrowing and driving them to turn to unlicensed moneylenders. Would the Senior Minister of State please advise whether the Ministry has studied the probability that this further tightening would drive borrowers to turn to unlicensed moneylenders, and whether the Ministry has the monitoring tools to measure this possible effect?
Deputy Speaker, Sir, other than the main points above, I have four other minor points to raise for the Senior Minister of State to address.
First, in the 2015 adoption of the Advisory Committee report, two of the recommendations were put on hold to be reviewed later. These are (a) the lifting of the moratorium on granting of new licences so as to encourage competition and bring down interest rates; and (b) the creation of guidelines for debt-collecting practices so as to further professionalise the industry and distinguish it from unlicensed moneylenders. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether these recommendations have been reviewed. If they have not been reviewed, whether she thinks it is timely to review them now, given the extensive makeover to prevent over-borrowing and to professionalise the industry.
Second, one of the recommendations in the Advisory Committee report was that, while no recommendations were made in respect to the location of moneylenders in the heartland, the Committee advised that the Registry should monitor the situation and ensure that it is not aggravated. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether and how the Registry has been monitoring the situation and whether the Registry decided that it is not currently aggravated.
A research policy report published by the Centre of Banking and Finance Law at the Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore, in July 2015, shows that more than half of the licensed moneylenders were located in primarily residential areas rather than the commercial areas of town centres. There may be a case for the Ministry to commission a study using current geographical methods to determine whether location matters in encouraging unnecessary and excessive borrowing and thus whether or not the location of moneylenders should be regulated.
Third, would the Ministry look into working with the moneylending industry towards standardising loan products, with guidelines to advertise these products at their premises in a transparent manner? This will further professionalise the industry as well as better fulfil the 2015 recommendation to standardise loan contracts and practices. If I am not mistaken, standardisation is currently limited to the standard form used for contracts, which still allows for very flexible contracting terms within the interest rate and borrowing caps. Also, moneylenders have been innovating contracts to sustain predatory practices, and the Registry has been issuing directions and advisories with the burden placed on consumers to monitor and report. Standardisation will minimise such predatory practices.
Fourth and lastly, peer-to-peer lending platforms are on the rise around the world and is one exciting bright spot for innovation in financial technology (fintech). There are some interesting peer-to-peer (P2P) lending startups in Singapore, such as Funding Societies from Indonesia and the local outfit MoolahSense, linking up individual investors with small and medium enterprises (SMEs).
As far as I know, there are no platforms, legal or otherwise, that are connecting individual borrowers with lenders. But there are risks associated with these potentially disruptive fintech innovations. After all, many individual borrowers could be borrowing from licensed moneylenders because they are shut out from mainstream credit facilities and need loans to manage their cash flow problems in their micro-enterprise business. Is the law currently adequate to tackle the potential issue of P2P lending platforms becoming de facto moneylenders in practice?
Deputy Speaker, Sir, as I mentioned at the start of my speech, I support the aim of this Bill to protect borrowers from over-borrowing and from predatory moneylending practices. My concern is that in the pursuit of good intentions, the Government might be over-tightening, over-regulating, thus shutting out individual borrowers from access to credit lines and driving them to unlicensed moneylenders. This would greatly upset the balance between giving borrowers credit access and clamping down on loan sharks that has been hard won. I hope the Senior Minister of State would allay this concern. And with this caution, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef.
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Mr Deputy Speaker, moneylending in Singapore is a complex, diverse and challenging industry. Due to its unique nature, moneylending is relatively costly for credit provision, if you think about it, especially when lending to individual small borrowers with low incomes. We need to also understand many small-time borrowers are often caught in a desperate situation for funds and thus are vulnerable to exploitation by some moneylenders.
But beyond this, does the Ministry also know that moneylending is actually a very small part of the consumer credit market? It is often not even considered a mainstream financial service. It makes up less than 1% of overall consumer lending in Singapore. So, let us put that into perspective
In planning our handling of the issues related to moneylending, I feel it is important to maintain a well-balanced approach. Whatever penalty regimen we are administering, we must bear in mind the spectrum of persons on the moneylending “food chain”.
In 2014, 2015 and 2016, the numbers of borrowers increased from 31,000 to 35,000 and 40,000 respectively. In the same three year span, the amount borrowed moved up from $239 million to $282 million and $367 million. It is, indeed, increasing significantly.
In planning and strategising for this industry the important necessary objectives we want should be to: (a) prevent individuals from borrowing beyond their means; (b) stabilise the industry; (c) improve the rates of debt repayment from licensed lenders; (d) reduce and deter borrowing from unlicensed lenders; and (e) professionalise and increase the transparency and accountability throughout the industry.
In this sense, it is a welcome move to have the limits set as prescribed in this Bill and I support that. It is also stated that MLCB will check if borrowers have exceeded the limits. How will this be practically carried out? Who will help with monitoring and compliance?
Recently, a licensed moneylender saw me and shared this anecdote. I have informed the person of my sharing this in my speech today. Two Permanent Residents (PRs) borrowed money from this moneylender. They had their identity cards and passed the usual checks that needed to be carried out. Now, when it came to repayment, they did not comply. Thus, as is usually done, the moneylenders will send debt collectors to their homes. Now, guess what happened? The person who opened the door told the debt collector that the two guys who were PRs have never lived there and they were just using the address. And they are moving around. In fact, he went on to say that he, as a Singapore Citizen, had allowed the two men to use his name in support of their PR applications. He further elaborated to the debt collector that the two men had a track record of borrowing and then not being traceable and many had come to the house before. Thus, he felt that this moneylending company will never get the money back.
The moneylender made a Police report giving all details present and available. However, the response from the Police came back that they had treated the case as closed. Being a bit disappointed, the moneylender came to see me and, of course, made some representation, confided that it was not really about just getting back the money but more that it was the duty to highlight to the authorities that these two men were going around and cheating and still circulating.
Thus, there are gaps. We also need to know to prevent or reduce incidents like this in the market. We also do not want a situation whereby the tightening of rules is seen to force genuine moneylenders to exit the market and loan sharks to take over dominance. In fact, moneylenders can also tend to be at the mercy of some borrowers, who declare bankrupt readily when unable to repay.
In this Bill, it is also stated after dispensing the loans, moneylenders must update MLCB. Who is to have oversight of this? What if some people borrow from multiple lenders? It becomes even more complex. Therefore, it is a combination of borrowing from both licensed and unlicensed lenders to date.
Sir, not all moneylenders are bad guys and not all who borrow are bad people. As long as parties comply and play by the rules, the moneylending industry can enhance its image and professionalism.
Many people are looking to help regulate this area already. Work has been done by MinLaw and by ACML. One other group we need to nurture and train includes mediators as well who can help in this industry, as mediation cases may tend to increase between the borrower and the lenders.
The challenge is how to create and have a moneylending system that recognises the need to adequately protect the vulnerable borrowers from the exploitative actions of some, whilst ensuring ongoing access to credit by people who really and truly have no access to alternatives and may then be tempted to enter the unsavoury world of illegal lending. In all, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, moneylending is an issue as it is close to many MPs' hearts, as it is an issue that affects our constituents. We all know that going to borrow money is the only solution for some, albeit this is often a flawed one, because servicing the loan would sink the borrower deeper into the red. The slope is a slippery one: easy to fall into and hard to get out.
First of all, I support the introduction of a cap on loans from licensed moneylenders. It will hopefully prevent some people from borrowing way beyond their means.
Moneylending is a problem that has lingered for some time. A few years ago, I spoke about the loanshark problem and illegal moneylending in Singapore. Thanks to the Government's intervention and the great effort of the Police, loansharking activities appear to have abated somewhat. But there will also be the issue of people needing to borrow money and then over-borrowing. My only concern is whether this new cap will lead to even more underground moneylending activities and at even more cut-throat rates for desperate borrowers. Will the Government enhance the penalties for anyone caught operating an illegal moneylending joint? Will those reaching the cap be asked to attend credit counselling?
We have to nip the problem in the bud. Why are people getting into debt in the first place? These days, it is also very common to come across advertisements for \"$0\" upfront products. Yet, when you calculate the cost of the product as advertised upfront and the total sum of the instalments, there is a significant disparity.
One could purchase several expensive items without forking out a cent, only to realise months down the road that he or she is being saddled with bills that they cannot pay off. Should there be some restrictions on the way advertisements for hire purchases are presented?
Credit card debt is a serious problem in Singapore. In 2015, the Straits Times reported that 85,352 Singapore consumers have overdue unsecured debt totalling $288.4 million. The Credit Card Bureau also revealed that, in the same year, the total number of delinquent debtors hit 101,493, a significant increase from just over 73,000 in 2011. The convenience of online shopping probably contributes to this trend.
Gambling addicts are another group of vulnerable people who often get caught in the never-ending spiral of borrowing and owing money. In 2015, the National Addiction Management Service (NAMS) reported a doubling in the number of gambling addicts seeking help since 2010. It is good news that more people are seeking avenues to quit their gambling addiction. I would call for closer cooperation between the National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG) and registered moneylending firms, to help NCPG better identify and reach out to gambling addicts.
In light of the trends above, will the Ministry consider a widespread campaign about financial management and prudence, perhaps more education? And it has to start early. I would suggest that it start as early as upper primary school. We should ingrain in our young minds to spend within their means as well as the ill of gambling because gambling is just like drugs. The moment they start to gamble, it can be addictive and difficult to get it off. I also have seen young graduates use credit card overdraft facilities in order to support their lifestyle which they cannot afford.
More awareness also needs to be drawn to the Credit Counselling Singapore programme, which aims to help individuals in debt through education, counselling and debt management. Sir, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Limiting the loan amount that the moneylenders can lend is a good thing. However, I am concerned that those who are desperate for money may turn to \"ah longs\", or loan sharks. The Government should pay attention to this trend and increase the penalty for \"ah longs\". We should also reflect why some people are mired in debts.
Nowadays, zero downpayment instalment plans and the convenience of online shopping have tempted many consumers to overspend. Statistics have also shown that there are more and more Singaporeans owing credit card debts and more people are seeking help for gambling addiction. Hence, I hope the Government can step up education on financial prudence and management.
To address this issue, I think we should start from schools, even beginning from primary schools. We should let students know the ills of gambling and that they should never start on it. Because once you start gambling, you will be addicted and it is very difficult to get out of, just like drugs. In addition, we should also let every Singaporean know the importance of spending within his/her means.
(In English): I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Yee Chia Hsing.
Mr Yee Chia Hsing (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. Amongst other things, this Bill aims to restrict the amount people are able to borrow from licensed moneylenders, by introducing an aggregate loan cap depending on income levels. I believe this is a step in the right direction. Very often, the interest rates charged by moneylenders are already so high that borrowers struggle to repay one loan and then goes to more moneylenders to borrow to repay the initial loan, thus setting in motion a vicious circle ending in more financial trouble and possible bankruptcy.
However, I am also afraid that the proposed rules may cause borrowers to turn to unlicensed moneylenders. Moreover, it is very difficult to prevent collaboration between licensed and unlicensed moneylenders. For example, a licensed moneylender possessing the contact details of a borrower could pass the contact information to unlicensed moneylenders, who may subsequently send messages promoting their easy loans. Most of the time, the recipients do not even know that these messages come from illegal moneylenders.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my concern is, how will the Government agencies monitor and ensure that the licensed moneylenders do not pass on customer information to unlicensed moneylenders? Some residents have given me feedback that they receive a lot of unsolicited short message service (SMS) messages about such unsecured loans after they have approached legal moneylenders. Moreover, an alarming aspect is that some of the borrowers think that these messages come from licensed moneylenders and are well regulated when, in fact, they are not.
I would also like to know if the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) is working with the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) for mobile operators to disable any subscriber identity module (SIM) cards which are used by illegal moneylenders.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, while we focus on regulating licensed moneylenders, we should also tackle the issue of unlicensed moneylending and step up efforts to curb such activities. I hope the authorities can take into account the suggestions I have made.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Intan Mokhtar.
Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this amendment Bill.
I am heartened that the Government has strengthened our laws to ensure stricter controls and measures towards those who lend money and seek to reclaim their monies, as well as to ensure safety for those who borrow money. As MPs in this House, many of us would have heard from residents their laments about harassment from loansharks and even licensed moneylenders. I support the Government's move to strengthen our Moneylenders Act through this amendment Bill.
To elaborate, I strongly support the insertion of section 11(A)(10). It is important to keep track of and monitor every employee or person who works for a company that lends money or an entity whose core business is moneylending. There have been instances where moneylending companies have painted themselves to be run by thugs no different from loanshark syndicates.
I have met residents who have shared their nasty experience where the moneylender assistants or debt collectors from moneylending companies had acted aggressively when dealing with clients in debt collection, with threats and vulgarities hurled at the debtors when the debt could not be paid up immediately or in full as demanded. As moneylending companies are registered companies and the assistants or debt collectors are employees of these registered companies, there must be some form of decorum and sense of responsibility and respect in carrying out their duties, even that of debt collection, in addition to having good moral character with no prior criminal records. These assistants or debt collectors who are employees of the moneylending companies must be trained, monitored and disciplined in the ethics of debt collection, not through aggression but by being firm yet respectful in retrieving the debts owed to the company. I am sure there could even be SkillsFuture courses on how such skills and ethics can be trained and nurtured for debt collectors.
I also support clauses 13 and 14 which make amendments to sections 22 and 22A respectively, where a cap is placed on the amount of interest imposed on the amount borrowed.
However, how do the moneylending companies, the Government or even employers monitor borrowers' record of borrowing, especially those of the employees? For the banks, there is the Credit Bureau Report that monitors borrowers' credit and record of borrowing, which can be accessed and shared by the banks and with employers. How can we ensure the borrowers themselves do not over-extend through borrowing excessively from different licensed moneylenders?
While section 30E makes provisions for a record of borrowing, similar to the Credit Bureau Report, to be made available for each borrower who borrows from moneylending companies, I do question why an approved moneylending company, which is still a private entity, is the one appointed to maintain such records of borrowers. Why is a regulatory body overseen by the Ministry of Finance (MOF) or the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) not tasked to do so instead?
How much borrower information is collected and shared? The fact that this is a private company designated as a credit bureau, the issue of confidentiality and privacy is a concern for borrowers. Will there be a sharing of such credit information of these borrowers among the different moneylending companies? On what platforms would such information be shared? And will such information be available under the Credit Bureau Report or made available to the banks or employers?
I look forward to the Ministry's clarifications on these questions I raised. Notwithstanding my concerns and questions, I support the amendment Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I welcome the move by this Bill to professionalise the moneylending industry. I have a few points to clarify on the wide-ranging powers and sensitive personal data that the Registrar and the Moneylenders Credit Bureau will possess, and the other methods for promoting responsible and safe lending.
One basis upon which an individual would be deemed unsuitable to take part in the moneylending business is where they had carried out moneylending business in a foreign country for which the licence has been withdrawn, cancelled or revoked by an authority in the foreign country. While this is sound in principle, can I find out how enforcement of these provisions will look like in practice? How will the Ministry verify whether the individual has carried out any such moneylending businesses overseas? Does the Ministry have any plans to work with foreign authorities?
Next, the Registrar will have wide discretion to refuse or cancel approval granted for various applications under the amendments. Will the Registrar be providing reasons for refusing applications? What are the channels and grounds for appeal for someone whose application has been refused or cancelled?
Given that licensees and MLCB will possess sensitive borrowers' information, I am concerned about the security and confidentiality of the data. While the provisions impose duties on the use and disclosure of borrowers' information and duties to maintain confidentiality and security on licensees and MLCB, I notice that licensees are not under the same obligation as MLCB to notify the Registrar of events that compromise the confidentiality or security of its data.
Would there not be similar, if not greater, need for oversight over individual licensees who may not have the same technical ability as MLCB in maintaining security arrangements? On the same note, will the Ministry be providing technical guidance to support licensees in protecting these sensitive data?
Next, can the Minister also clarify what duties a public agency that obtains borrowers' information and data under section 30ZC are under to protect that information? Would the information be available to anyone within the public agency, or only the individuals or departments requiring the information for policy formulation? This is of concern, especially because public agencies which are specified in the Personal Data Protection (Statutory Bodies) Notification 2013 are excluded from data protection obligations in PDPA 2012. Instead, public agencies are subject to relevant internal Government rules and sector-specific legislation as stated in the PDPC’s website frequently asked questions (FAQ). What are these specific rules and duties public agencies are bound by when they obtain borrowers' information and data under section 30ZC, to protect that information?
Given that the disclosure of information is only permissible for policy formulation or review, would it be necessary for the personal data to be in an individually identifiable form? Would it not be sufficient for the purposes of formulating broad policy for the data to be anonymised?
Next, in response to a call for feedback over Facebook, Mr Kane Tan highlighted the concern of moneylender advertising. Currently, moneylender advertising is regulated under directions issued by the Registrar of Moneylenders, in addition to general requirements for all advertisements.
However, loan-shark advertisements through SMS messages remain common. Does the Ministry have plans to step up efforts to clamp down on such illegal advertising and to help the layperson distinguish between licensed and unlicensed moneylenders?
Such efforts must be appropriately targeted, recognising that those who turn to loan sharks may have lower literacy skills. Awareness-raising must also dispel the false belief that only those who are involved in illegal activities like gambling or drugs turn to loan sharks when, in fact, \"ordinary\" people from all walks of life can be entangled with illegal moneylending.
Further, can the Minister clarify whether platforms that are not themselves moneylenders but connect people to other moneylenders are covered under the Registrar’s direction on advertising? For instance, can a search aggregator that compares moneylenders advertise through sponsored links or online advertisements which are not permitted for licensees themselves? Allowing such advertising would seem to circumvent the objectives of regulating moneylender advertisements.
On the recommendations of the ACML which formed the bases for these amendments, the Ministry had indicated that it will review the recommendations to create guidelines for acceptable debt collection practices at a later stage. Does the Ministry have a timeline for the review of these recommendations?
Lastly, to complement its efforts in regulating the supply-side of borrowing, it is also important for the Government to address the demand for credit by providing support for vulnerable borrowers. There are two dimensions to this problem – preventing individuals from getting into problem debt in the first place and helping those who are in debt to regain control of their finances. Credit Counselling Singapore is a debt charity that has done commendable work through counselling, facilitating debt restructuring and education on credit management. I urge the Government to increase its support for and promote the work of such organisations to provide individuals with alternatives to illegal moneylending. Sir, notwithstanding the above clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Deputy Speaker, Sir, the annual increases in the total outstanding loans taken with licensed moneylenders have been substantial. In 2016, outstanding loans totalled $367 million, an increase of 30% from $282 million in 2015, which was also up from $239 million in 2014. Correspondingly, the number of borrowers went up to 40,000 in 2016, from 35,000 in 2015 and 31,000 in 2014. I would like to check with the Ministry if the 2017 figures are available and, if so, whether there have been any changes in the trends. In addition, does the Ministry have statistics on what purposes such loans were for, such as setting up new businesses, family emergencies or to feed gambling habits?
Sir, I support the introduction of an aggregate cap which will prevent Singaporeans and residents from borrowing beyond their ability to repay, from multiple moneylenders. Hopefully, with this cap and public education, people will learn to manage their finances better and their need to borrow can be curbed. We need more measures to boost financial management education. Such public education programmes should start young and, for older persons, they should be customised, even in dialects, in order to be more effective and reach a wider range of Singaporeans.
Going forward, moneylenders will have to obtain online credit reports from MLCB before issuing a loan. I would like to check whether the reports which lenders need to rely on are the information based on other lenders' updates on loan applications, loan approvals or disbursements of loans. The timing of the input of data affects the total borrowing that lenders will rely on for their approval of loans. Any lead time will create opportunities for system arbitrage and leakages.
Next, I am concerned − as was also expressed by other Members in the House − that with the tightening of regulations, desperate borrowers will be compelled to resort to illegal moneylenders. How effectively we can curtail illegal moneylenders remains challenging, especially with harassment cases, including physical and verbal threats. Will the Ministry review whether current penalties prove to be sufficient deterrents and whether punishments, especially physical ones, such as caning, need to be increased?
Finally, under the aggregate cap, those with an annual income of less than $20,000 may borrow up to $3,000, while others may borrow up to six times their monthly income. My concern is that a borrower may try to circumvent the regulations by falsifying income documents or resort to reporting a higher income to meet the loan criteria. What measures does the Ministry have to prevent such cases? With that, I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Deputy Speaker, increasing levels of debt in Singapore have been an area of concern over the past few years. While the level of household debt remains high, the level of unsecured debt with loans taken from banks, while it had caused some concern two years ago, the Credit Limit Management Measures by MAS have reversed this trend. The number of borrowers with outstanding unsecured debt exceeding 18 times their monthly income has declined by 47% to 27,000 borrowers, compared to 2015 where there were 51,000 people in that situation. The amendments proposed under this Bill will enhance these measures as moneylending is further tightened. Easy accessibility to finances can feed unnecessary expenditures and habits, such as gambling. The proposed measures will prevent such borrowing from spiralling out of control.
It is good that the number of high debtors with banks is decreasing. Yet, we must be cautious that the borrowing has not been channelled elsewhere. Debtors facing caps imposed on loans from banks − and soon from licensed moneylenders − might turn to unlicensed lenders, such as loan sharks. This means that the authorities must keep an even closer watch on unlicensed moneylenders who resort to creative tactics, such as sending WhatsApp messages using overseas numbers to lure borrowers. I would like to ask how the Ministry will work with MHA and other agencies to establish other ways to enforce against and further limit the access to unlicensed moneylenders.
Tightly linked to the accessibility of easy loans is their perceived attractiveness. I would like to ask if any curbs on advertisements by licensed moneylenders will be imposed. Even though these moneylenders are restricted in terms of the channels they can use to advertise, they often have glitzy websites that do not provide upfront information on the interest rates for loans or the total amount of interest that needs to be paid for the full term of the loan. Could the Ministry consider imposing a condition requiring all registered moneylenders to provide a full disclosure on the total amount of loan plus interest to be paid, for example, on their websites and advertisements?
Deputy Speaker, Sir, while most moneylenders follow the rules, there are some that have resorted to unscrupulous means to take advantage of borrowers. I would like to ask the Minister how many complaints against licensed moneylenders the Registry of Moneylenders has received on licensed moneylenders over the past two years. What are the top two types of complaints, and will the Registry consider publishing a list of blacklisted companies and a brief description of the complaint, so that borrowers are kept informed on the issues that they need to be aware of?
Currently there is a list of suspended companies at the end of the list of registered moneylenders, but it is easy to miss the names as one would have to scroll to the end of 159 companies to see them. Could the Registry consider making the list of suspended moneylenders more accessible, informative and prominent?
In terms of educating the public, will the Ministry conduct roadshows and other outreach programmes to educate the public on the law on moneylending and how to differentiate between a legal and illegal moneylender, and on the ills of borrowing in general? Every day in the heartlands, one would encounter many banks promoting various credit facilities and walk past the premises of many moneylending companies that have mushroomed in our town centres and malls. However, it is difficult to find educational posters or information sources on the ills of irresponsible money borrowing. Could the Ministry consider finding ways to balance this exposure to moneylending sources with educational information on the downsides of being burdened with debt?
Finally, with reference to my earlier point on the abundance of moneylenders setting up shop in the heartlands, could the Ministry work together with the Ministry of National Development (MND) and other agencies to curb the number of such facilities in our heartlands? While it is true that a borrower will overcome any physical distance to seek loans and that such access can be attained online, limiting the immediacy of access and physical presence of these companies can reduce the temptation and convenience of borrowing in general. Notwithstanding the above, this Bill will further help prevent reckless borrowing and reduce default rates. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members for their speeches and for their support of the Bill. I will now respond to the queries raised by the Members, which fall under several broad themes: (a) borrower protection and public education; (b) unlicensed moneylending; (c) advertising by moneylenders; (d) usage and protection of borrowers’ confidential data; (e) operationalising and enforcing the provisions of the Bill; and (f) the recommendations of ACML. I will address each of these in turn.
Some Members have raised concerns about whether the aggregate loan cap will drive borrowers to borrow from unlicensed moneylenders. Assoc Prof Daniel Goh asked about the moneylending trends which have led to the introduction of this aggregate loan cap. As explained in my speech, the cap was a recommendation of ACML in 2015 and has been calibrated to achieve a balance between protecting borrowers and preserving reasonable access to credit. Since the recommendation was made, we have observed an upward trend in the amount of outstanding debt owed by moneylending borrowers. Among Singaporean borrowers who took out loans between March 2016 and March 2017, nearly 2% will have an outstanding balance exceeding the income cap. This is not a big number, around 610 borrowers, but the aggregate cap will help us to nip the over-borrowing in the bud before it gets worse.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh had also asked for 2017 statistics on the number of borrowers and the amount of outstanding loans, and why people borrow. As at the third quarter of 2017, around 41,000 individuals borrowed from moneylenders, and around 80% of these were Singaporean Citizens and Permanent Residents subject to regulatory loan caps. Their total outstanding loan amount was $339 million. Based on a 2013 study commissioned by MinLaw, borrowers who were interviewed said that the top three reasons for borrowing were to pay household bills, settle an outstanding loan from another moneylender, and to pay debts owed to friends or relatives. That said, such self-reported information cannot be independently verified and, thus, may not accurately represent why borrowers take out loans from moneylenders.
What can we do to help over-indebted borrowers? Er Dr Lee Bee Wah had asked whether borrowers who have reached the cap will be required to attend credit counselling. People borrow for different reasons and we have no plans to make credit counselling mandatory. However, to complement the aggregate cap, MLCB will send letters to over-indebted borrowers who are likely to exceed the cap when it comes into effect, to advise them to reduce their debt early. The letter will also contain details of VWOs which are able to assist borrowers with financial counselling and debt management, including restructuring or consolidating their moneylending debt. Borrowers who need help can approach these VWOs. Additionally, as I mentioned in my speech, MinLaw will continue to work with VWOs and the moneylending industry to help these borrowers to improve their situation.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Desmond Choo have suggested educational campaigns on financial management and debt issues. There are ongoing public education efforts. MoneySENSE, a national financial education programme spearheaded by the Financial Education Steering Committee chaired by MAS, has conducted campaigns on the prudent use of unsecured credit and to encourage prudent borrowing habits by consumers. The campaigns educate individuals on how to avoid the pitfalls of excessive debt, how to effectively manage debt, and the importance of sound financial planning. In the current campaign running from November 2017 to January 2018, MoneySENSE’s key message is on the prudent use of unsecured credit.
In addition to these efforts to enhance borrower protection and inculcate responsible borrowing, unlicensed moneylending has been and will continue to be tackled head-on. We already have in place stringent laws to penalise unlicensed moneylending. In the 2010 amendments to the Moneylenders Act, penalties for unlicensed moneylending were increased, and a person convicted for the first time for an offence of unlicensed moneylending will be liable to caning of six strokes.
In response to Assoc Prof Daniel Goh’s query on the number of unlicensed moneylending cases reported and the number of offenders arrested, there were 550 reports of unlicensed moneylending to the Police in 2016, while 1,100 persons were arrested in that same year. This is a continued decline from the 1,255 arrests made in 2015. Hence, there is no evidence that the 2015 tightening pushed more borrowers to unlicensed moneylending. We will, however, continue to monitor this closely.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Gan Thiam Poh have asked whether the Government will be enhancing penalties for unlicensed moneylending activities. The Government takes the view that the current penalties are sufficient. Besides the severity of penalties, strong enforcement is important. The Police adopt a multi-pronged approach: tough enforcement action, leveraging technology through the use of Police cameras, community partnership and public education. I am glad to inform the House that unlicensed moneylending-related cases registered a 10-year low in 2016. We will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the current measures to ensure that the situation remains under control.
I now turn to moneylending advertisements and the transparency of borrowing costs. Mr Louis Ng had asked about MinLaw's plans to regulate advertisements by licensed moneylenders. Mr Alex Yam has asked if moneylenders will advise borrowers on the costs of borrowing, and how the Registry of Moneylenders will ensure that they do so, while Mr Desmond Choo has asked whether MinLaw will consider imposing a condition requiring all moneylenders to provide a full disclosure on the total amount payable for their loans on their websites and advertisements.
The advertisement of moneylending services is tightly restricted under existing laws and regulations. Under the Registrar’s Directions on Advertising issued on 31 July 2013, licensed moneylenders are only allowed to advertise on the facades of their approved places of business, their own Internet websites and business or consumer directories in print or online media.
Licensed moneylenders are strictly prohibited from advertising on online social platforms, by mobile SMS or other messaging applications, such as WhatsApp or WeChat. Platforms which do not fall within the Registrar’s Directions on Advertising are also prohibited.
Section 16 of the Moneylenders Act provides that such advertisements must not contain false or misleading material. Subsection 2 of that section and the Registrar's Directions also set out the types of information which must be stated clearly in the advertisement, including the licensee's business name and licence number, and the contractual interest rate being offered strictly as a percentage per annum.
Section 19 of the Moneylenders Act already requires moneylenders to clearly explain the loan terms to borrowers, and Rule 8 of the Moneylenders Rules specifies the details that moneylenders must convey to borrowers. These include the nominal interest rate, the method of computing interest, and the permitted fees payable, among other things.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah has also asked about advertisements for hire purchases. These are regulated by the Hire Purchase Act, not the Moneylenders Act. To enable consumers to make informed decisions about hire purchase schemes, the Hire Purchase Act specifies the minimum information that owners must provide to prospective hirers in writing before they enter into a hire purchase agreement, such as charges for early settlement, effective interest rates, interest rates for overdue instalments, and administrative charges. An agreement that does not provide such information will not be enforceable.
The Government strongly encourages consumers to review the terms carefully and assess their ability to meet the financial commitments before signing any such agreement. More broadly, MAS is working with MoneySENSE to raise consumer awareness on the potential costs and pitfalls of instalment plans.
Mr Desmond Choo, Mr Yee Chia Hsing and Mr Louis Ng have asked whether we are working with MHA and other agencies on the problem of illegal advertising using spam text messages. Anyone who receives an SMS or WhatsApp advertisement should not respond and should instead make a report to the Police. The Police will also conduct an investigation to establish the identity of the person sending the spam message and take action which may include the termination of the SIM cards with the telecommunications companies. If the moneylender has a licence, the Police will refer the case to the Registry which will investigate and take appropriate action. The Police are also working with MLAS, IMDA and PDPC to educate the general public on how to deal with such spams sent by unlicensed moneylenders offering loans.
I now turn to another important issue which some Members have highlighted – the usage and protection of borrowers' data. Mr Yee Chia Hsing has cited instances where his constituents received unsolicited SMSes from unlicensed moneylenders offering loans, after they had approached licensed moneylenders. MinLaw takes a strict view of borrower data protection, and the Bill reflects this. For example, section 30R of the amended Act imposes duties on every moneylender to maintain the security of any information in any credit report received from the designated credit bureau. Failure to comply is punishable by a fine of $20,000 and/or imprisonment of up to six months.
Any licensed moneylender found to have colluded with an unlicensed moneylender by passing on customer information will have his licence revoked and will be prosecuted under the Moneylenders Act. Such behaviour is punishable under the Act by a fine of between $30,000 and $300,000 for individuals and between $50,000 and $500,000 for bodies corporate, as well as up to six strokes of the cane for a first-time offence and up to 12 strokes of the cane for subsequent offences. The harsh penalties reflect our serious stance towards such abuses of borrower data. All of these provisions seek to deter illegitimate usage and disclosure of borrower information.
At this point, I would like to clarify how MLCB operates. The MLCB is a centralised data bureau. It is not a moneylender. The private company that operates MLCB will be designated under the amended Act and subject to the full suite of legal obligations we are introducing in the new Part IIIA of the Bill. These include strict requirements on maintaining borrower privacy and data confidentiality. MinLaw regulates the MLCB. Moneylenders may only submit borrower information to MLCB through the MLCB’s secure information technology (IT) portal.
As to Dr Intan Mokhtar's query on the sharing of borrower information, section 30Q of the amended Act prohibits moneylenders from sharing borrower information with anyone else besides MLCB, the Registrar and its own employees in the course of their work. This means that an individual's banks and employers, or any moneylender that he has not approached for a loan, will not be able to access his credit report unless he chooses to provide it. Likewise, under section 30W of the amended Act, MLCB is not permitted to disclose any borrower information, except to a moneylender processing a loan application from the concerned individual, to the individual himself, to the Registrar, or to a public agency as directed by the Registrar.
Mr Louis Ng asked whether licensees should be subject to greater oversight in relation to data protection, and Dr Intan Mokhtar asked how much individual information will be shared. Sir, moneylenders' access to data is limited to the circumstances spelt out in the Bill, that is, to determine an individual's creditworthiness, and the data provided to a moneylender is limited to the individual's details and the borrowings of that individual. The usage and disclosure of such information by moneylenders are also subject to the regulations I mentioned earlier. Individual licensed moneylenders, just like clinics or financial institutions that also possess sensitive personal information, will need to comply with the PDPC’s guidelines on the management of data breaches.
In comparison, MLCB is the custodian of all borrower data across the industry. There is, therefore, an imperative to impose a higher duty of care for MLCB to maintain the confidentiality and security of borrower data, as we have done under section 30ZA of the amended Act.
As for Mr Louis Ng's question about public agencies’ use of data, only the specific officers and departments that require the data will have access to it. The Public Service is governed by Instruction Manuals, which oblige public agencies to protect personal data, and access information only on a need-to-know basis.
Some Members have also raised a number of questions relating to how various provisions of the Bill will be operationalised and enforced. Mr Gan Thiam Poh has asked whether the reports relied upon by moneylenders are based on other moneylenders updating the system, and whether any lead time might lead to system arbitrages and leakages. MLCB is a real-time credit bureau, and any loans taken by a borrower will be automatically updated against his record. If a borrower approaches a moneylender and is offered a loan and does not immediately decide if he wishes to take it, the system will reserve that amount against his name. This way, the borrower cannot borrow over the permitted cap, even if he approaches a second moneylender before confirming his loan with the first moneylender.
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef and Dr Intan Mokhtar have asked how a borrower’s limit will be checked. We have designed a rigorous process to enforce compliance with the aggregate cap. Before granting a loan to the borrower, section 30N of the amended Moneylenders Act requires moneylenders to obtain a real-time credit report from MLCB. The credit report will contain aggregated information about all the loans the borrower has taken from licensed moneylenders. After obtaining the report, the moneylender must ensure that a further loan will not result in the borrower exceeding the aggregate cap before granting that loan. Failure to abide by this verification process is punishable by a fine of $20,000 and/or imprisonment of up to six months.
Given the penalties, to answer Mr Alex Yam’s query, the nominal fee of 50 cents per credit report is unlikely to deter moneylenders from conducting due diligence before lending. In fact, the majority of moneylenders already purchase these credit reports as a matter of course. There are also in-built checks within the MLCB’s IT system to prevent a moneylender from unknowingly lending beyond the aggregate cap, and the Registry will conduct periodic audits to monitor compliance.
With the MLCB in operation, such borrowers who fail to repay their loans will leave a record. In the event of default, the usual form of recourse is for the moneylenders to pursue a civil claim against the borrowers for an unpaid debt. Under the law, there is a distinction between the non-payment of debt, which is a civil claim, and cheating, which is a criminal offence. Not all cases of defaulting debts will result in criminal investigations or prosecutions.
Moneylenders are encouraged to review and strengthen their due diligence processes before issuing loans. Rule 9(2) of the Moneylenders Rules states that a licensee \"shall require the borrower to provide reliable and independent documentary evidence in support of all information provided in the loan application form and verify the information against such evidence\". This would include a borrower’s actual address. Besides asking for a borrower's identity card to verify his actual address, other documents like Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) and Central Provident Fund (CPF) statements and utility bills can be requested from a borrower.
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef and Mr Alex Yam have also asked about oversight over whether moneylenders fulfil their obligation to update MLCB after dispensing a loan under section 30N of the amended Act. In addition to the Registrar’s regular audits, section 24A of the amended Act requires all licensees to conduct independent audits of the licensees' accounts and to submit those audited financial statements to the Registrar every year. These will help ensure that moneylenders are reporting all their transactions accurately. If these audits reveal that there are loans which have not been reported accurately, appropriate action will be taken against the licensees.
Next, in relation to the Bill’s prescribed conditions on the suitability of individuals to participate in moneylending activity, Mr Louis Ng has asked how the Singapore authorities are able to assess whether an individual had previously carried out moneylending activity in a foreign country but had his licence revoked. The Registry has a number of tools which allow them to conduct checks on relevant personnel and their involvement in foreign moneylending businesses, and where there is evidence to suggest that a further investigation should be carried out, we will work with the relevant authorities to do so.
Mr Louis Ng has also asked whether the Registrar will be providing reasons when rejecting an application and what channels and grounds of appeal are available to a rejected applicant. Even though there is no statutory right of appeal available for a rejected applicant, the Registrar will provide the rejected applicant with reasons for the rejection. It is worth highlighting that the grounds for denial of approval are largely based on indisputable matters of fact, as spelt out in subsections (4) to (5) of sections 11A and 11B of the amended Act. That said, subsection (7) of the same two sections does provide that the licensee seeking to employ or hire an applicant has a right to be heard by the Registrar, and that the Registrar may not refuse to grant such approval unless the licensee has been heard first.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh also asked about peer-to-peer lending platforms, and whether the present law is effective to tackle the potential of such platforms being de facto moneylenders. Sir, section 3 of the Moneylenders Bill states that \"any person, other than an excluded moneylender, who lends a sum of money in consideration of a larger sum being repaid shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, to be a moneylender\". This presumption is sufficiently expansive to cover peer-to-peer platforms and their participants. The Government has been monitoring such platforms and has so far not found them to have run afoul of our laws. We will continue to keep a close watch to ensure a proper balance between providing the space for these fintech innovations and protecting vulnerable Singaporeans.
Mr Desmond Choo has also asked about the number of complaints against licensed moneylenders received by the Registry. In 2016, 124 reports were received by the Registry, and this number dropped to 104 in 2017. There are two main types of reports received. The first type are requests for assistance to renegotiate their contracts with the moneylenders. Such requests would be referred to an appropriate VWO for assistance. The second type is complaints about debt collection and harassment. The Registry will speak to the moneylender concerned and also advise the complainant to lodge a Police report if the debt collection activities in question may be criminal in nature. The Registry will continue to take licensing action when infractions are committed. MinLaw issues press releases when moneylenders are convicted of offences under the Moneylenders Act. Nonetheless, we will take Mr Desmond Choo’s suggestion on board and consider how to make the list of suspended moneylenders more visible on the Registry’s website.
Mr Alex Yam has asked about the measures being taken to get the remaining licensees who have not corporatised to comply. The Bill introduces a new section 6A, which provides that only a company with the prescribed paid-up capital may hold a licence after the appointed day. A licence held by any other body or individual person will be deemed to have been revoked, and he will be considered to have been engaging in moneylending without a licence, which is punishable under the current section 14.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh has also asked a number of questions on the recommendations of ACML. For the recommendation on the lifting of the moratorium on the granting of new licences, as mentioned in my speech earlier, MinLaw is exploring lifting the moratorium in a limited and controlled fashion to allow a few new players with established track records in related financial areas to pilot new business models. More details will be released when ready.
For the recommendation on the creation of guidelines for debt-collecting practices, a point which Mr Alex Yam has also raised, MinLaw is working with MLAS to develop a handbook for licensed moneylenders to encourage professional and fair business practices, which include debt recovery approaches. MinLaw currently does not track statistics on how many moneylenders employ their own debt collectors and how many of them outsource this. That said, there are existing laws that adequately address unlawful debt collection practices, such as the Protection from Harassment Act and the Penal Code.
I turn now to the recommendation relating to the monitoring of the location of moneylenders, and note that Mr Desmond Choo has also asked if MinLaw will work with MND to curb the number of facilities in the heartlands. The Registry conducted a geospatial study with the Singapore Land Authority in 2017 and found that borrowers are increasingly borrowing from moneylenders situated outside their neighbourhoods. On the whole, there is no evidence that the location of moneylenders induces borrowing. Nonetheless, we will continue to monitor the situation.
As for the recommendation on standardising loan products, MinLaw took in the recommendation and amended the Moneylenders Rules in 2015 to mandate that all loan contracts provide for payment of equal instalments at equal intervals of time, to facilitate comparison of loan packages. But beyond this, MinLaw is mindful that over-standardisation could prevent moneylenders from properly catering to the diverse risk profiles and needs of individuals who borrow from them. We believe the best approach is to provide specific directions, such as Registrar's Direction No 1 of 2017 which, amongst other things, prohibit short-term loans which are repeatedly refinanced or renewed.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to conclude by thanking the Members once again for their support of the Bill and for their invaluable feedback. The proposed amendments to the Act are important to support safer access to credit from licensed sources by those who most need it. MinLaw will continue to work with other agencies and stakeholders to protect individual borrowers while maintaining their access to credit. Sir, I beg to move.
Mr Deputy Speaker:\tMr Yee Chia Hsing, did you want to make a clarification?
Mr Yee Chia Hsing: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. On this issue of sharing of information from a licenced to an unlicensed moneylender, because they can just pass a sheet of paper at the coffee shop, it is very difficult to prove. So, may I suggest to the regulator, they consider having what we call \"mystery shopper\"? That means we get somebody to approach a licensed moneylender and, if soon after that, that person receives an SMS, and if it is proven through multiple mystery shoppers who approached this person, then we have circumstantial grounds to charge that the moneylender is, indeed, passing on information.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for his suggestion. We will look into it.
[(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 Indranee Rajah.] (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":"Helping Children with Rare Diseases","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)]
Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Mr Deputy Speaker, I declare that I am a medical doctor in private practice.
In a fair and just society, we recognise that people do not get to choose where or when they will be born; that people do not get to choose their parents; that children do not get to choose their genetic background. And today, I am speaking about the challenges faced by children with rare diseases.
Each of us inherits half our genes from our father, one half from our mother. Sometimes, a gene is inherited which does not work the way it is expected to. If there is a copy from the other parent which is working all right, the child may still be fine. But in some cases, a child is doubly unlucky and inherits two copies of a flawed gene. These diseases are rare. Very rare. Not much published literature is available on the Singapore experience, but a 2006 paper in the Annals of the Academy of Medicine (Singapore) reported a 13-year experience at the Singapore General Hospital reference laboratory. From 1992 to 2005, a total of 127 patients were diagnosed, although the tests offered did not encompass all known rare diseases. So, even with better technology, better testing and better awareness, the number would still be small.
One estimate by patient advocacy group Rainbow Across Borders reported in The Straits Times suggests there could be 2,000 to 3,000 rare disease patients in Singapore. However, even if rare, they can be devastating for a child and worrying for the parents. And even if the disease is so rare that the odds of getting it are 0.001%, for the child who gets the disease, the impact is 100%. Let me illustrate with a few examples.
Pompe disease is caused by the lack of an enzyme called acid alpha-glucosidase. It is a rare disease; some estimate it affects between one in 40,000 or as few as one in 138,000. It affects the muscles, including the muscles of the heart. So, children with Pompe disease have weak hearts, get heart failure and can have difficulty moving or breathing.
Without treatment, the classic severe early-onset type of Pompe disease is devastating. The median age at death for children with the severe form of the disease is nine months. Yet, if patients are given enzyme replacement therapy with alglucosidase alpha, a treatment approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States (US) since 2006, there is a significant reduction in the risk of death of such children of between 79% and 95% reduction in the risk of death. But this treatment is expensive. It has been reported that it can cost as much as $10,000 a week to treat a young child.
Deputy Speaker, Gaucher disease is another rare disease, caused by the lack of an enzyme in the body. In children with Gaucher disease, the liver and spleen will swell and swell. The brain and other organs can be affected, too. In the more serious cases, the children can die before the age of two years. There are treatments for Gaucher disease, which work by replacing the missing enzyme in the body. But again, the treatment can be very expensive, with some estimate at over $20,000 a month.
Another rare disease is bile acid synthesis disorder and it is very rare, even among rare diseases. Fewer than 50 reported cases around the world, in the international medical literature. But we also have a little boy in Singapore who, unfortunately, has this rare disease. There is a drug available, called cholic acid. But the cost was estimated at over $25,000 per month. Even with parallel imports from other markets, the drug cost was reported as about $5,000 per month.
Deputy Speaker, what these rare genetic diseases, and similar diseases, have in common are: (a) the condition is rare; (b) the impact is catastrophic; and (c) the need for treatment is not elective. Indeed, treatment is necessary for the child to continue living a normal life. Or in some cases, to carry on continue living.
Another recurring theme is that the drugs are very expensive and can be very hard to get hold of. The market is small. So, there are no economies of scale for the producer. The costs of research and development can be very high. There are administrative overheads with registering such “orphan drugs” in Singapore, as they call it, and there is little commercial interest in developing such drugs or making them widely available at a good price even if development is successful by the drug company.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the affected children may be few. The affected families may be small in number. But we must not leave behind any Singaporean child. And over the past decade, since the mid-2000s, it is clear that our Government thinking has shifted towards a more inclusive society. Our social policies today include the Workfare Income Supplement, ComCare, Edusave Bursaries and many, many more. Part of a progressive fiscal system where the fruits of progress are shared, especially with the less well-off and the less fortunate.
And we can see that the Ministry of Health (MOH) has shifted, too, over the years, as part of what some have called an evolving New Way Forward. MediFund was set up in 1993 as an endowment fund to help needy Singaporeans with medical bills. MediShield Life was implemented in 2015. It is not just an insurance policy. It is a social policy to help Singaporeans from all walks of life, in case of serious illness with catastrophic medical bills, serious illness. Importantly, MediShield Life helps, regardless of whether one is very old or whether one has a pre-existing condition from birth. There is also the Medication Assistance Fund (MAF) and MAF Plus to help patients access new medications which may be beyond their means but which could still benefit the patients.
Deputy Speaker, at the same time, no policy is perfect. And when a condition is very unusual, like a rare disease, it sometimes does not fit easily into existing policies.
So, what I propose, Mr Deputy Speaker, is for MOH to look at how the Government can extend more support to children with rare diseases. It is a commonsense move and it is not a radical policy shift either. In fact, it is very much aligned with the deeper philosophy that already underpins our current social and healthcare policies.
For example, let us look at risk pooling. MediShield Life and other policies recognised the role of pooling risk, of sharing risk within the cohort or the population. It is part of a broader social policy message that when we share risk, when we pool risk, it means no Singaporean has to walk alone.
And just as MOH has, over the years, improved coverage for rare, catastrophic illnesses, we can and should find ways to better support children with rare diseases – diseases which are also rare and catastrophic. Because the condition is genetic, because it is inborn, there is no direct moral hazard from providing that extra coverage and support.
Furthermore, Deputy Speaker, the private sector insurance market cannot adequately address this issue. Rare childhood genetic diseases are inborn. And insurance companies, being profit maximisers, will act in accordance with their business interests and this means that insurers will cherry pick who they want to cover. In practice, this means private insurance companies limiting or even denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, especially rare diseases which are present from birth.
Again, Mr Deputy Speaker, we see a role for the Government stepping in where the free market is inadequate, or where no private sector player can find a compelling, commercial case to support such patients.
Mr Deputy Speaker, as a people, we decide what kind of society we want. In particular, would we want a child with rare diseases to be supported, if that child were our son or our daughter? Would we want the parents to have peace of mind, if the parents were our friends or family? And especially when doing so is a natural progression and harmonisation of existing policies and existing policy philosophy.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I was thinking back to my maiden speech in this House in January 2016. I said back then, “We do not choose our parents or when we will be born. So, we must always be a fair and just society.”
Indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker, we do not choose our parents. We do not choose the genes we inherit from our parents. And so, we must continue to be a fair and just society – for healthy children, as well as children born with rare diseases.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Chee Hong Tat.
The Senior Minister of State for Health (Mr Chee Hong Tat): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Dr Tan Wu Meng for highlighting the challenges faced by families with children suffering from rare genetic diseases. As a parent, I empathise with the challenges all parents encounter and the daily struggles we have to go through to care for our children. Parents of children with rare diseases will undoubtedly face even greater challenges. I agree with Dr Tan that as a caring and inclusive society, we should pool our resources together and do what we can to support these families. It is the right thing to do.
Singaporeans have access to good quality subsidised healthcare at public hospitals, specialist outpatient clinics and polyclinics. Many of our subsidies are means-tested to provide more support for Singaporeans with lower incomes. And this is part of our progressive social policy and safety net.
On top of Government subsidies, we have MediShield Life, which provides universal protection for all Singaporeans against large hospital bills and costly outpatient treatments through risk-pooling. The Government provides means-tested subsidies to help Singaporeans pay for their MediShield Life premiums. We also offer financial assistance for low-income Singaporeans through Additional Premium Support to ensure that no Singaporean will lose coverage because he is unable to afford his premiums. So, MediShield Life, as Dr Tan pointed out, is not just an insurance scheme, it is a social policy which reflects our values as a community to build a fair and just society.
For needy families who still require financial assistance after Government subsidies and MediShield Life payouts, and using their MediSave and other personal savings, we have MediFund as a further safety net to ensure that no Singaporeans will be denied access to appropriate care due to their financial situation.
These social policies and assistance schemes are possible because we have grown our economy over the years, we have generated the required resources and we have managed our system efficiently. Now, as we face an ageing population in Singapore, we must continue to pay careful attention to these important areas.
With these policies in place, the vast majority of Singaporeans are able to pay for their medical treatments and drugs. Yet, as Dr Tan has pointed out, even the best policies cannot address all circumstances. There will be rare diseases where treatments and drugs are very expensive, and our insurance schemes, our subsidies will not provide adequate coverage for the patients and their families.
When we encounter such cases, our public healthcare institutions will do their best to help. There was a recent example in one of our public hospitals – a patient by the name of Emily who was diagnosed with Pompe disease since she was a teenager. Emily needs to visit Changi General Hospital (CGH) every fortnight to receive an infusion of her missing enzymes, which is a costly drug. Combined with other aspects of her treatment, such as consultations and tests, the monthly cost adds up to more than $50,000. Emily's father is a technician and her mother a homemaker and she has a sister who is still schooling. Financially, it is very challenging for the family.
CGH reached out to the family and brought in other parties to help. Emily received subsidies for consultations and investigations, and the hospital helped her apply for funding under the Medication Assistance Fund. These covered a significant proportion of the infusion cost. The hospital also engaged a pharmaceutical company, which kindly agreed to extend financial assistance to further defray the cost of the medication she needs. More recently, after discussing her situation with the hospital, her employer helped her to claim part of her treatment cost from their group insurance policy. So, through the combined efforts by CGH, the pharmaceutical company and her employer, Emily’s monthly healthcare expenses were reduced from more than $50,000 to less than $500. I am heartened to know that Emily is coping well with her treatment.
Another example is Chloe, a little girl with the same condition as Emily. Like Emily, she needs to visit the hospital regularly to receive the infusion of enzymes. Her monthly treatment cost is about $40,000. This is another example of how multiple parties have come together to support the family. Government subsidies were provided for her treatment, the family’s insurance policy covered the post-subsidy costs of Chloe’s inpatient treatment, and additional Government and hospital assistance supported the other aspects of her treatment, such as mobility devices and consumables. Together, these helped to reduce Chloe’s healthcare expenses from $40,000 per month to less than $500 a month.
Dr Tan also mentioned in his speech a young boy, the name of this boy is Christopher, who was diagnosed with a rare disease called bile acid synthesis disorder. We want to help the family. The public hospital which is looking after Christopher is KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital (KKH) and they are working with the manufacturer to try and bring down the cost of the drugs for the family. I have also asked my colleagues in MOH and KKH to assist Christopher’s family and find a way to help them to reduce their out-of-pocket expenses.
Mr Deputy Speaker, while we have many positive examples of how dedicated healthcare workers and caring individuals in our society are helping patients who are facing difficulties, we recognise that there are still families with children suffering from rare diseases who are struggling and are worried how they can cope with their healthcare expenses. This is not an easy challenge to solve because many of the cases have unique circumstances. The needs are diverse. What is clear is that, as a caring and inclusive society, we must do our best to find practical ways to help our fellow Singaporeans who are in these difficult situations. This requires a collective effort from the public, private and people sectors.
MOH will review how we can better support children with rare diseases and their families. We are studying different options, including the use of insurance and discretionary funds, like MediFund and Medication Assistance Fund, to reduce their out-of-pocket expenses. Another possibility is to set up a separate fund which our public healthcare institutions can use on a discretionary basis to help children with rare diseases whose treatment costs remain unaffordable in spite of subsidies, insurance and financial assistance. Contributions to the fund can be made by the Government but also by companies, charities, community groups and individual donors, to encourage different stakeholders in society to chip in and help these families and help these patients.
The Ministry will study the different options carefully and we will come up with a proposal later this year. By harnessing the collective giving from all parts of our community, we can help these families and create opportunities to encourage philanthropy and build a more caring society.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 7.07 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":"Capacity of Existing Crisis Shelters","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"16 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how many crisis shelters are there currently; (b) what are their capacities for men and women respectively; and (c) whether the Ministry has plans to expand the number of shelters to accommodate homeless singles.
Mr Desmond Lee: Individuals who have exhausted all means of accommodation options are referred to Transitional Shelters which are funded by the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) and run by voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs). There are three transitional shelters with a total capacity of 156 families and 60 individuals catering to both genders. The allocation between men and women will fluctuate from time to time, depending on need. These shelters are intended to provide temporary accommodation, as social workers from the VWOs work with the families and individuals to address their social issues and work towards securing long-term housing arrangements.
Individuals who are unable to work, have no financial means and do not have accommodation and family support, are admitted to our welfare homes. There are 12 welfare homes, with a total capacity of about 2,300. There are 1,250 places for male destitute persons, 250 places for female destitute persons, and the remaining places are in welfare homes that cater to both genders. These homes are funded by MSF and managed by VWOs. They help to meet residents’ basic needs, as well as help them improve their emotional and physical well-being through rehabilitation programmes.
For victims of family violence, MSF funds crisis shelters to provide them with temporary accommodation, while safety plans are mapped out for these women and their families. There are four crisis shelters with a total capacity of 220 beds.
The current capacity of our shelters and welfare homes is sufficient to meet the current needs of individuals and families facing housing issues or crises. However, MSF is constantly reviewing this as we keep a close watch on intake trends and capacity utilisation of the shelters and welfare homes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Freelancers and Self-employed Face Higher Barriers when Applying for HDB Housing Loan","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"21 Mr Ong Teng Koon asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether freelancers and the self-employed face higher barriers when applying for a HDB housing loan compared to salaried workers due to the volatility of their income; and (b) if so, what can the Ministry do to promote the Government's objectives of entrepreneurship and promoting flexibility in the labour market by mitigating the impact of this income volatility.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Housing and Development Board's (HDB's) credit assessment process is designed to assess the financial ability of prospective flat buyers for prudent and long-term sustainable home ownership. Regardless of the nature of the loan applicants' employment, the maximum loan amount is determined based on the applicants' average monthly income.
To ensure a fair assessment of the applicants' income, HDB may require applicants with more variable income to submit documentary proof, or to be credit assessed over a longer period.
For those who have difficulty meeting these requirements, HDB will look into their individual circumstances and exercise flexibility where possible, to help them attain home ownership.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Impending US Tax Cuts on Singapore's Economy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"22 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Finance what is the likely impact on Singapore should the US government reduce their corporate tax rate to 20% and reduce personal income tax.
23 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Finance how will the impending massive corporate tax cuts in the US impact the Singapore economy and its competitiveness as a foreign direct investment destination and whether the corporate tax changes will result in significant US MNCs relocating their operations to onshore US.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: As highlighted in the Committee on the Future Economy (CFE) report in 2017, there is increasing competition in the global arena. The current United States (US) tax reform includes cut to the headline federal corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, which is part of the current global downward trend in corporate tax rates. The top US marginal personal income tax rate is also reduced from 39.6% to 37%.
Companies with US linkages are likely to be analysing the details of the US tax reform package and reviewing their options. While the reform may enhance the tax competitiveness of US vis-à-vis other countries, companies would take into account non-tax considerations in their investment decisions. Considerations would include a location's business environment, its proximity to markets, availability of skilled manpower and corporate capabilities.
Singapore's corporate tax rate at 17% and top marginal personal income tax rate of 22% are competitive internationally. But we must continue to develop and strengthen our other competitive advantages by maintaining our pro-business environment and building on our connectivity to the global markets and our strong links to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and Asian economies which are expected to continue to grow strongly. We must also continue to deepen the capability of our industries and our people, so that we can continue to stay relevant and attractive to all investors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Ensure Singapore's Water Supply is Free from Terrorist Attacks and Contamination","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources what measures are in place to ensure that the water supply from our reservoirs to the water tanks in each building is free from terrorist attacks and contamination.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Public Utilities Board (PUB) takes the safety and security of our water supply very seriously.
PUB has stringent security measures to ensure that the water supply from our water treatment plants to the water tanks in each building is safe. All of PUB's water supply installations, such as the water treatment plants and service reservoirs, are designated as protected installations which are physically secured, with tight access control and surveillance.
Treated water from the water treatment plants and service reservoirs is conveyed through a network of buried and pressurised pipelines to customers' premises which prevents attempts to contaminate it. At the customers' end, PUB works with Town Councils, Management Corporation Strata Titles and building owners to implement measures that ensure the security of their water service installations, including water tanks. These include tight measures to secure water tank covers, as well as restricting water tank access to authorised personnel. PUB conducts regular spot checks on all buildings with water tanks to ensure compliance. Our checks showed that the vast majority of our tanks are properly secured. When we detect non-compliance, we take swift enforcement actions against the building management. To signal the seriousness, penalties amount to a fine not exceeding $10,000, or imprisonment of not more than 12 months, or both. From 2014 to 2017, there were 22 such cases and errant parties have since rectified the lapses.
To complement our security measures, PUB has a comprehensive water sampling and monitoring programme from source to tap. This will ensure that the water supply to customers is safe. Daily water samples are collected from reservoirs, waterworks, distribution systems and customers' taps. The samples are tested at laboratories to ensure no abnormality. Online sensors have been installed at our reservoirs, at each stage of the treatment process and also at strategic locations in the network to keep a close watch on water quality. Over 400,000 tests are conducted annually on physical, organic, inorganic, radiological, bacteriological and microbiological parameters. As an additional layer of checks, PUB submits their water safety and sampling plans to the National Environment Agency's (NEA's) Drinking Water Unit and is required, under the Environmental Public Health (Quality of Piped Drinking Water) Regulations to report any deviations in water quality to NEA's Director-General of Public Health.
PUB takes the issue of drinking water quality and safety very seriously and will continue to do their part to keep safe and secure our water supply. I call upon the public to help by being vigilant and to call the Police or provide feedback via the SGSecure app, if they suspect or observe anything suspicious with regard to our water.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Sports Hub as Default Location for National Day Parades","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"28 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth why the Sports Hub has not been designated to be the default location for National Day Parades in future.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The National Day Parade (NDP) has been held in several locations over the years, such as the Padang, the Float@Marina Bay and the National Stadium. While the Float@Marina Bay (Float) had been intended as a temporary NDP venue when the National Stadium was being redeveloped, it has become popular among Singaporeans over the years for its backdrop of the city skyline and unobstructed views of show segments, such as the Red Lions, aerial display and fireworks finale.
It was announced last October that the Float will be redeveloped into National Service (NS) Square, to commemorate NS and serve as the primary venue for the NDP going forward. That does not preclude the use of the Sports Hub and the Padang as sites for NDP.
This arrangement allows the Singapore Sports Hub to focus on developing a year-round calendar of events, such as the International Champions Cup (ICC), while providing flexibility to host the NDP in selected years. This is in line with the vision of our Sports Hub as an integrated sports, entertainment and lifestyle hub for the community and our athletes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Basic Computer Coding in Primary School Curriculum","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Education (Schools) whether the Ministry will consider introducing basic coding as a part of the curriculum in our primary schools to create a strong childhood grounding in technology in light of the UK, Belgium, Finland, Netherlands, Estonia and Australia's Queensland state having done so.
Mr Ng Chee Meng: All our students in primary schools build strong foundation in the fundamental skills that will prepare them for future learning, such as literacy, numeracy and 21st Century Competencies. Some of the skills needed for computational thinking, such as problem solving, logical reasoning and data-handling, are developed through the learning of subjects like Mathematics and Science.
We expose a broad group of students to basic coding and technology through enrichment programmes and co-curricular activities. We work with the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) to offer programmes, such as Code for Fun, Lab on Wheels and the Digital Maker programmes. Since 2014, 73,000 students have embarked on the Code for Fun programme.
Most of our primary schools also have robotics clubs or info-comm clubs that engage students who are passionate about this area in coding and other computing-related skills, such as developing mobile applications, creating animations, designing computer games and programming robots.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Increasing Income Threshold Qualification for Parent Relief Claims","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"31 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Finance whether the dependant's annual income threshold of $4,000 can be increased for taxpayers to qualify for Parent Relief claims in order to encourage senior citizens to seek part-time employment.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: To encourage and support the employment of seniors, we have put in place measures, including the Special Employment Credit, which is paid to employers of older workers, WorkPro which helps employers redesign jobs and workplaces for older workers, and the Workfare Income Supplement which tops up the cash wages and Central Provident Fund (CPF) of older low-wage workers.
Tax reliefs, such as Parent Relief, Spouse Relief and Qualifying Child Relief, are given to taxpayers to recognise their efforts in supporting their family members.
These reliefs are intended for circumstances where the dependant is handicapped or is not earning any income.
As some dependants may derive a small amount of incidental income, our approach seeks a balance by setting the dependant’s income threshold at $4,000 a year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review Qualification Criteria for Grandparent Caregiver Relief Claims","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Finance whether the eligibility criteria for Grandparent Caregiver Relief claims can be revised to allow for such claims when the caregiver (i) draws income below a certain threshold, (ii) spends a majority of the time in the caregiver role and (iii) looks after children up to 16 years old.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: The Grandparent Caregiver Relief is given to working mothers who enlist the help of their parents, grandparents, parents-in-law or grandparents-in-law to take care of their young Singaporean children aged 12 or less.
The relief is intended for caregiving for young Singaporean children. We have thus set the age threshold at 12 and require the grandparent caregiver not to be working, as the children are young and require adult supervision.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cybersecurity Measures for National Electronic Health Record System","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"33 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health with regard to the mandatory National Electronic Health Record (NEHR) system, whether there are standardised nationwide cybersecurity measures which all healthcare providers have to adopt in order to protect data from being hacked.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Healthcare providers are required to protect their patient records, including electronic records, and to comply with nationwide cybersecurity standards for the purpose of contributing to and accessing the National Electronic Health Record (NEHR).
These include installing a secure information technology (IT) system, using two-factor authentication and regularly updating the anti-virus security software to enhance the protection against cyberattacks.
The Ministry of Health will continue to work closely with the Cyber Security Agency and healthcare providers to monitor the cybersecurity threat landscape and put in place additional safeguards when new risks emerge. We will also conduct regular exercises to test the resilience of our systems and maintain a high level of cyber-readiness.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Central Procurement for Common Essentials across Public Hospitals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"34 Ms Sun Xueling asked the Minister for Health (a) whether a study has been done to analyse the benefits of central procurement for common essentials across public hospitals, including software for medical documentation; and (b) whether central procurement can be done selectively to lower the cost of setting up and operating hospitals.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: There are benefits and cost savings from the economies of scale achieved through central procurement of common essentials across public healthcare institutions. Since 2001, the public healthcare clusters have been supported by a centralised Group Procurement Office (GPO). Today, GPO procures about 90% of standard drugs and 60% of non-standard drugs across our public healthcare clusters. It also covers certain common items, such as surgical supplies and contract services. More recently, GPO procurement services have been extended to community hospitals and nursing homes.
On information technology (IT) procurement, the Integrated Health Information Systems (IHiS) has centrally coordinated IT system purchases to allow public healthcare institutions to benefit from volume discounts. It has also consolidated the data centres of individual institutions for better efficiencies. These have brought about cost savings for our public healthcare system.
We will continue to look for ways to bring about greater efficiencies and cost reductions in the healthcare system through bulk purchase and central procurement, and to pass on the savings to our patients.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Offender's Mental Condition Considered for Sentence of Reformative Training","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Law whether the Ministry will consider expanding the requirement under section 305(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code that the Court must call for and consider the Commissioner of Prisons' report on an offender's mental condition for imposition of a sentence of reformative training to include an independent report from a Court-appointed psychiatrist.
Mr K Shanmugam: At present, the Reformative Training (RT) pre-sentencing report mandated under section 305(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code already includes an assessment of an offender’s mental condition by a Singapore Prison Service (SPS) psychiatrist. The SPS psychiatrist is a professional who is familiar with the design of the RT regime and how it works to achieve the intended outcomes and benefits for the individuals placed under the regime. He or she would make an independent assessment based on professional judgement.
If the Court deems it necessary, it can exercise its discretion to direct that the SPS psychiatrist be cross-examined, or that further expert evidence or a second opinion be obtained, including from a Court-appointed psychiatrist.
It would not be desirable or necessary to impose a general requirement that an independent report from a Court-appointed psychiatrist be obtained in all cases, which will apply even to cases where there is no disagreement with the RT pre-sentencing report. Doing so is likely to prolong the offender's remand period for the further opinion to be prepared.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of Workfare Training Support Scheme in Encouraging Workers to Upskill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"39 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how has the Workfare Training Support (WTS) been effective in encouraging workers to upskill; and (b) how does WTS operate in tandem with SkillsFuture Initiatives to improve our workforce's overall skills level.
Mr Lim Swee Say: Workfare Training Support (WTS) encourages low-wage Singapore Citizens (SCs) to attend training to upgrade their skills by providing them with substantial course fee subsidies, monetary awards and training allowances. It also supports employers who send their workers for training. Since its inception in July 2010 till December 2017, more than 270,000 unique workers have tapped on WTS to undergo training.
WTS is in line with SkillsFuture, a national movement that provides opportunities for Singaporeans to develop their fullest potential through lifelong learning. For instance, Singaporeans receive up to 90% of enhanced subsidy from SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) when they access a curated set of training programmes under the SkillsFuture Series. But with WTS, eligible low-wage SCs are supported with an even higher tier of subsidy, at 95% of course fees. Additionally, absentee payroll for employers, as well as training allowances for trainees without employer support are provided. WTS trainees can also receive the WTS Training Commitment Award, which is a cash award of up to $400 per year, for undergoing sustained training.
Apart from generous training subsidies, the Government has worked with the tripartite partners to put in place other measures to uplift low-wage workers. For example, the Progressive Wage Models in the cleaning, security and landscaping sectors provide clear progression pathways for workers to acquire new skills, take on higher responsibilities and earn higher wages. In addition, the Inclusive Growth Programme provides funding support to companies that undertake productivity improvement projects and share their productivity gains with low-wage workers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Further Develop Social Service Offices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"43 Mr Teo Ser Luck asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether there are any plans to further develop the infrastructure and programmes of the Social Service Offices.
Mr Desmond Lee: Our current network of 24 Social Service Offices (SSOs) was set up between 2013 and 2015 to provide more accessible and coordinated assistance to Singaporeans in need. The locations of these SSOs were chosen such that they are situated close to major transport nodes as well as to residents. Today, 95% of ComCare beneficiaries live or work within two kilometres of an SSO.
Infrastructural improvements or relocations are considered and carried out where opportune or needed. For instance, the SSO at Tampines was relocated to Our Tampines Hub, so that its service counters can be co-located with those of other public sector agencies in the Public Service Centre.
Apart from providing ComCare assistance, officers in the SSOs also do ground sensing and local services planning, collaborating with community partners to facilitate a coordinated approach to the planning and delivery of social services in the community. These twin purposes remain unchanged, although we are continually looking into ways to enhance service delivery and make it more client-centric.
For instance, there are ongoing efforts to tighten interagency referral processes and facilitate data-sharing between SSOs and other agencies. We are also exploring the potential for more integrated service delivery by piloting at five of our SSOs1 the delivery of social assistance and employment assistance by the same SSO officer, instead of referring the ComCare beneficiary to a Workforce Singapore or Employment and Employability Institute officer for employment assistance. For clients who are unemployed but able to work, this provides easier and quicker access to employment assistance. We are also exploring co-locating other complementary services so that our clients can access the services and assistance they require more conveniently and meaningfully. Two of our SSOs2 have voluntary welfare organisation-run Family Services Teams co-located with them as part of another ongoing pilot.
These efforts aim to bring about better coordination across both Government agencies and community partners so as to provide necessary and holistic support for those who have fallen on hard times and enable them to \"bounce back\" and become self-reliant again.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : These are the SSOs at Kreta Ayer, Taman Jurong, Chua Chu Kang, Jalan Besar and Yishun.","2 : These are the SSOs at Kreta Ayer and Taman Jurong."],"footNoteQuestions":["43"],"questionNo":"43"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ban on Petrol and Diesel-fuelled Vehicles","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"44 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether the Ministry will consider specifying the future date for banning all petrol and diesel-fuelled vehicles.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Vehicle emissions are a source of air pollution locally. Pollutants in vehicle emissions affect our living environment and can harm our health. Combating vehicular pollution is a high priority for my Ministry and our partners across the Government and industry.
We currently have no plans to specify a date to ban petrol and diesel fuelled vehicles. Countries like the United Kingdom and France have adopted this approach, and we are closely monitoring developments. Singapore's vehicular emission policies are technology-neutral and we seek to ensure that our air quality targets can be met in cost-effective ways.
Our air quality targets are benchmarked against standards set by the World Health Organisation. We have policy measures to achieve these targets, and these include incentives to encourage the purchase of newer and cleaner vehicles, investment in public transport, support for trials of electric and hybrid vehicles, as well as mandatory requirements, such as tightened vehicular emission standards. We will continue to strengthen our policies while ensuring the availability of feasible vehicle models to meet our transport needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Returns from Government Investment in Biotechnology Industry","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"46 Mr Chen Show Mao asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) (a) how much has the Government invested in the biotechnology industry over the past 10 years; and (b) what is the return on the Government's investment in the biotechnology industry in terms of benefits to the Singapore economy.
Mr S Iswaran: Between 2006 and 2015, the Government invested around $7.3 billion in the Biomedical Sciences (BMS) sector in Singapore. This includes funding for BMS-related research and development (R&D), developing infrastructure and human capital, and building up translational and clinical research capabilities. The private sector investment commitment to the biomedical manufacturing industry as well as the business expenditure on R&D in the BMS-related fields during this period, totalled around $13.7 billion.
Today, the BMS sector is an important pillar of our economy, contributing about $26 billion in manufacturing output or 4% of our gross domestic product. Singapore is home to more than 50 BMS manufacturing plants, and the sector employs more than 25,000 people.
Singapore's sustained investments in BMS have helped to strengthen our BMS ecosystem and build up our capabilities in healthcare, drug development and medical devices innovation. This has also enabled our local enterprises to capture opportunities in the rapidly growing global healthcare market, which is projected to reach United States (US) $2.7 trillion by 2025. From 2010 to 2016, at least 48 local drug-development and related biotech firms were incorporated, double the number in the preceding decade. One local biotech firm, Tessa Therapeutics, recently came into global prominence when it announced a partnership with the renowned Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy. Tessa is currently conducting the world's first US Food and Drug Administration Phase III cancer T-cell therapy trial.
Notwithstanding these economic outcomes, it should be noted that investments in the BMS sector typically have long gestation periods and require sustained commitment. We will continue to invest in the BMS sector to grow our pool of talent, deepen our capabilities and strengthen our BMS ecosystem.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Investigation into Joo Koon MRT Train Accident","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"48 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether he can give an update on the Ministry's investigation into the Joo Koon MRT train accident; (b) what are the lessons learnt and the steps taken to prevent such incidents; and (c) how serious are the injuries of those injured and whether any person is suffering from a long-term effect of the injuries.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) completed detailed investigations and released a summary of its findings on 18 December 2017. These are consistent with initial findings reported a few days after the collision on 15 November 2017.
The root cause of the collision was a software logic issue with the new Communications-Based Train Control (CBTC) signalling system. It failed to anticipate and, hence, could not handle a specific confluence of failure conditions. These conditions, in turn, occurred as a result of complications from operating two signalling systems concurrently on a single line – the new CBTC system on the Tuas West Extension and the old legacy signalling system on the rest of the East-West Line.
The signalling system supplier, Thales, has rectified the system to address the failure conditions which led to the collision. In addition, Thales will set up a CBTC simulation facility in Singapore to strengthen the CBTC testing process. The facility will enable LTA and Singapore Mass Rapid Transit (SMRT) to perform additional simulation tests in a controlled setting which is tailored to our local environment and the infrastructural conditions of our rail network, before deploying it on our train services.
As a precautionary measure, we further decided to separate the CBTC operations on the Tuas West Extension from the rest of the East-West Line. The separation will continue until the rest of the East-West Line has fully transitioned to the new CBTC signalling system. Meanwhile, we are speeding up the re-signalling project and the extended engineering hours from the Mass Rapid Transit early closures and late openings will enable us to complete this transition by the middle of this year.
A total of 37 passengers, including four SMRT staff, sustained injuries from the 15 November collision. All were discharged from hospital within a week of the incident, with most discharged on the same day. Nine require outpatient follow-up treatment and SMRT is in touch with them to provide all necessary support. We expect a full recovery.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Welfare of Contract Workers Hired by Public Agencies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"49 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Prime Minister (a) what are the deviation or waiver guidelines that allow for rehiring under the Government's contract for Provision of Temporary Contract for Services; (b) how does the Government ensure that these term contract employees' welfare is not compromised when they are hired by the public agencies for 11 months and 29 days and rehired after a break of one month; and (c) whether the Government will consider having a separate contract that allows agencies to engage term contract employees for a duration of two or three years.
Mr Teo Chee Hean (for the Prime Minister): Individual public agencies may directly hire workers for short-term work or procure temporary manpower services from employment agencies under a demand aggregation contract.
For direct hires, the public agency has an employer-employee relationship with the temporary public officer who is provided with the associated benefits.
For temporary manpower services contracted from employment agencies through the demand aggregation contract, the public agency has a client-contractor relationship with the employment agency. The workers are hired by the employment agencies, which are required to provide for the workers' welfare according to prevailing laws, including the Employment Act, Central Provident Fund Act and other relevant laws.
Similar to public agencies, the employment agencies are also guided by the Tripartite Advisory on the Employment of Term Contract Employees, which provides workers with continuous benefits if the break in work period is less than a month3. The Public Service Division has been reminding public agencies and contractors to adhere to the Tripartite Advisory and its intent.
Given that the demand aggregation contract is designed to fulfil temporary needs, the service periods are generally of less than one year duration. However, the Permanent Secretary or Chief Executive Officer of an agency has flexibility to extend with the employment agency the services of the temporary worker beyond one year, for good reasons, such as when the short-term work needs to slightly exceed one year. The workers will continue to enjoy benefits from their employers throughout their engagement period as agreed in their employment contracts.
For work that is more permanent in nature, the Public Service Division advises public agencies to directly recruit individuals as public officers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["3 : The Tripartite Advisory is to prevent employers from breaking up work periods indiscriminately such that the worker has to reset his benefit eligibility in the subsequent work period."],"footNoteQuestions":["49"],"questionNo":"49"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enforcement of Anti-money Laundering and Counter-terrorism Financing Laws on Bitcoin Currency","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"50 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Prime Minister what levers are available to MAS and law enforcement agencies to enforce anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing laws that use bitcoin currency where conventional oversight mechanisms of the real money market do not apply.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): Ms Foo asked how the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and law enforcement agencies can enforce anti-money laundering and counter-financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) laws on bitcoin currency transactions. When it comes to money laundering or terrorism financing (ML/TF), Singapore's laws do not make any distinction between transactions effected using fiat currency, virtual currency or other novel ways of transmitting value.
Hence, MAS' AML/CFT requirements apply to all activities of financial institutions, whether conducted in fiat or virtual currencies. The Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) is empowered to investigate and prosecute all manner of ML/TF cases. Everyone is required under the law to report suspicious transactions which they come across in the course of their trade, profession, business or employment, to the Suspicious Transaction Reporting Office in CAD.
MAS recognises that virtual currency transactions, given their anonymous nature, may be used to conceal illicit movement of funds. Further, the absence of a central clearing house for such transactions makes enforcement challenging, as it is difficult to identify the parties upon which enforcement orders can be applied.
However, at some stage, fiat currency will have to be exchanged for virtual currency, or vice versa, at intermediaries that buy, sell or exchange virtual currency. MAS, therefore, intends to impose AML/CFT requirements on such intermediaries. MAS is currently conducting public consultation on a proposed Payment Services Bill that will empower us to do this.
The virtual currency space is still evolving. Like most innovations, it presents new opportunities as well as risks. MAS is closely watching these developments and studying the approaches taken in other jurisdictions. The basic idea is for our policies and rules to foster innovation while mitigating risks, including from ML/TF.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Raising Students' Awareness on Improper Sexual Conduct towards Them","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Education (Schools) (a) how are schools educating students to report any attempts at improper sexual conduct by any staff member towards them; and (b) whether schools will put up posters to ask students to immediately report to someone in authority if approached to carry out such misconduct.
Mr Ng Chee Meng: Students learn about personal safety and protection from sexual exploitation and abuse in the Ministry of Education's Sexuality Education lessons starting from Primary 1 and reinforced throughout their 10 to 12 years of school. They are taught how to recognise sexual abuse and harassment, acquire skills to protect themselves both in real life and online, and understand the laws that protect them in Singapore.
They also learn to seek help from trusted adults, such as their parents, teachers and school counsellors when there is risk of their personal safety being compromised.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Strong Governance for Government Funds and Grants","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Minister for Finance (a) whether the Government's current policies and governance of funding and grants are robust; and (b) what other measures is the Ministry considering to strengthen governance across schemes that are administered across the whole of Government.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Singapore has a sound system of governance that delivers good outcomes at relatively lower spending levels compared to many other countries. We achieve this by ensuring that public monies are used appropriately and properly accounted for.
Government agencies commit to key performance indicators (KPIs) for all programmes and schemes. These are reviewed regularly to ensure they remain relevant, useful and fulfil their intended outcomes. Value-for-money reviews are also centrally conducted to assess the cost-effectiveness of key programmes and often lead to recommendations for further improvements.
The rules in the Government Instruction Manuals and Finance Circulars require agencies to have an effective system of internal audit and financial controls. All agencies are required to report their internal control measures and key internal audit findings to their management and the Ministry of Finance.
For major expenditures, approval is subject to rigorous evaluation. The Gateway process for development projects, for example, involves reviews by a panel of private and public sector technical experts and approval by the Development Planning Committee at the Ministerial level.
Government agencies are subject to independent audits, and the audit scope covers the use of the grants that are disbursed. Agencies also put in place safeguards against abuse, for example, through a system of fraud detection, checks and audits before claims are approved and paid out.
In addition to these controls, there are learning platforms to promote best practices and share emerging trends on governance and internal controls. For example, the Accountant-General's Department recently issued a guide to help agencies in their grant administration. The guide lays out best practices in grant design, evaluation and approval, project monitoring and grant disbursement.
On the whole, we have a sound system in place, managed by committed and competent staff. But improving financial governance is an ongoing and continuous journey. We will continue to be vigilant and take steps to strengthen our risk management practices and safeguards.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of New US Guideline of Defining High Blood Pressure","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"55 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Health in light of the new US guideline defining high blood pressure as 130/80 mmHg (a) what percentage of our population falls within this category; (b) why is the Ministry not adopting this more stringent guideline; and (c) what is being done to raise awareness of hypertension as the 2010 National Health Survey indicates that one in four persons is not aware that they are hypertensive.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The 2017 American Heart Association (AHA) and American College of Cardiology (ACC) guidelines have defined high blood pressure as 130/80 millimeters of mercury (mmHg) or higher.
However, the Ministry of Health (MOH) has decided to maintain its definition of hypertension as blood pressure 140/90 mmHg or higher in its Clinical Guidelines for Hypertension, after consulting local experts. This value remains the general consensus globally, supported by guidelines from societies, such as the International Society of Hypertension, the European Society of Cardiology and the National Heart Foundation of Australia. If Singapore adopted the new AHA guidelines, our hypertension prevalence would double from 21.5% to 43.2%4.
Despite the differences in definition, the management approach under the MOH's current and US' newly introduced definition is broadly similar. Under both sets of guidelines, all individuals with hypertension should change their lifestyles, whereas medication is recommended for hypertensive individuals with blood pressure higher than 140/90 mmHg. However, specifically for those with cardiovascular risk factors, the US guideline differs from the current general global consensus in recommending initiation of medication at a lower target of 130/80 mmHg, after an individual risk assessment. We will continue to monitor developments in this aspect and finetune our guidelines where necessary.
Hypertension can be effectively prevented through healthy lifestyle habits, such as maintaining a balanced diet and avoiding excess salt intake, regular physical activity and not smoking. For those with hypertension, screening and early detection will facilitate prompt treatment to achieve good health outcomes. The Health Promotion Board (HPB) has introduced many initiatives to encourage individuals to live healthily, as well as go for regular health screening under Screen For Life (SFL). The screening subsidies under HPB's SFL were recently enhanced.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["4 : Preliminary figures from National Population Health Survey (NPHS) 2017."],"footNoteQuestions":["55"],"questionNo":"55"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Developing Affordable Home-based Care for Ageing Population","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"56 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Health (a) how many residents are currently seeking home-based nursing care; (b) what are the current support for lower-income families seeking home-based nursing care; and (c) what are the long-term plans to develop affordable home care for our ageing population.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Over 4,200 residents are currently receiving Government subsidies for home-based nursing care provided by the Ministry of Health (MOH)-subvented providers. This is an increase of 15% from a year ago. Up to two-thirds of Singaporean households can meet the income criteria for receiving these subsidies. Lower-income households will receive higher levels of subsidies, which can be up to 80%.
In addition, the Government also supports caregivers of seniors in other ways. For example, the Seniors' Mobility and Enabling Fund (SMF) provides funding to offset the cost of assistive devices and home healthcare items. Families which need to hire a foreign domestic worker (FDW) to care for frail seniors may be eligible for a concessionary levy, as well as the FDW Grant, to help offset the cost of hiring an FDW.
We aim to expand home-based care service capacity to 10,000 places by 2020. We will also continue to work on the quality and affordability of home and community-based care services. For example, we recently introduced Integrated Home and Day Care services where home-based care is paired with care at day care centres. This flexible model enables seniors to interact with others on days when they are well, and cared for at home on other days. We are currently reviewing the ElderShield scheme to help Singaporeans better prepare for the costs of long-term care.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Better Planning for Road Closures to Prevent Disruption to Essential and Safety Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"57 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Police, Traffic Police or other Government agencies were consulted when Ironman Asia planned the road closures for the Standard Chartered Singapore Marathon 2017; (b) if so, whether these agencies provided adequate advice on how the road closures will affect emergency services; and (c) whether future road closures for similar events can be better managed to prevent disruption to essential and safety services.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Traffic Police (TP) and Land Transport Authority (LTA) evaluate applications for road closures very carefully. Apart from the safety and security of the participants of the event, another key consideration is that emergency services, such as hospitals, must remain accessible. Also, road users and members of the local community, such as residents and business owners, should not be overly inconvenienced. If the potential inconvenience and disruption to emergency services cannot be adequately addressed, the application will be rejected.
For the Standard Chartered Singapore Marathon 2017 (SCSM 2017), Ironman Asia, the event organiser, submitted an application for road closures. TP and LTA evaluated it in consultation with Sport Singapore (SportSG) and the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF).
As part of the evaluation, the initial proposed road closures were significantly reduced in scale, to minimise the impact to the public and ensure that establishments, such as hospitals, remained accessible. LTA also conducted a walk-through with Ironman Asia before the event.
Raffles Hospital was consulted by Ironman Asia and agreed to the road closure plans. In particular, it was agreed that the portion of North Bridge Road between Rochor Road and Ophir Road would be converted into a two-way road, to allow vehicles to access the hospital via Rochor Road. In the event that emergency vehicles were required to travel within the road closure areas, access would be facilitated by Auxiliary Police outriders, who would escort the emergency vehicles.
The road closure permit required Ironman Asia to comply with and execute these approved road closure plans. Arising from public feedback on the traffic management at SCSM 2017, TP, together with LTA and SportSG, are looking into whether Ironman Asia had fulfilled all permit conditions and complied with the road closure plans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Manpower Challenges facing Auxiliary Police Forces","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"58 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what are the manpower challenges facing the Auxilliary Police Forces; and (b) what are the Ministry's considerations when allowing the deployment of foreign Auxilliary Police Officers at security-sensitive locations.
Mr K Shanmugam: Auxiliary Police Forces (APFs) are important partners to the Home Team. Auxiliary Police Officers (APOs) are deployed for a range of security functions, including protecting sensitive installations and providing security at major events. The APFs are regulated by the Singapore Police Force.
The demand for APOs will grow due to the rising threat from terrorism, and major infrastructure projects that require security manpower like Changi Airport Terminal 4 and the new Tuas Port.
Our clear preference is to recruit Singaporean APOs to meet this rising demand. The APFs have made significant efforts to do so, for example, providing signing and retention bonuses and enhancing career progression. This has allowed the APFs to add over 300 Singaporean APOs over the past year. But this is still not enough to meet the projected demand over the next few years. There is a manpower shortage everywhere.
Local workforce growth is slowing, and it is difficult for the APFs to find enough Singaporean candidates who meet the requirements. To meet the shortage, we have allowed the APFs to hire Malaysian APOs. But even that pool has been shrinking, and our APFs have been finding it difficult to recruit enough Malaysian officers who meet the requirements. They needed to look for officers from other countries. Thus, the Minister for Home Affairs said in this House in 2017 that we will allow APFs to recruit Taiwanese APOs.
In deciding where non-Singaporean APOs can be deployed, the Ministry of Home Affairs considers the operational needs and risks specific to each security-sensitive location. Our requirement was that land checkpoints, for example, be manned only by Singaporean APOs, and that has been said in this House.
But operational needs are growing significantly everywhere, including our checkpoints. Visitor numbers are growing and, at the same time, the threats of terrorism have risen substantially. The security situation has become more complex, requiring more officers. Therefore, we have decided to allow Taiwanese APOs to be deployed at the land checkpoints alongside Singaporean APOs, because there are not enough Singaporean APOs available.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Successful Applications for Lease Buyback Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"59 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development (a) to date, what has been the number of successful applications for the Lease Buyback Scheme since its launch; (b) whether the payouts have been affected by the falling HDB resale prices and rental income; and (c) what has been the average payout for each applicant.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Lease Buyback Scheme (LBS) was implemented on 1 March 2009. As at 30 November 2017, about 2,500 households have taken up the scheme.
The LBS proceeds for each household is dependent on the market value of the flat at the time of application. Specifically, the LBS proceeds are the market value of the flat with its full remaining lease, minus the value of the lease retained by the household and any outstanding monies due to the Housing and Development Board.
The average LBS proceeds among the households which have benefited from the scheme to date is about $146,000.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reducing Occurrences of Falling Windows","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"60 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for National Development what plans, beyond public education, does the Ministry have to reduce the occurrences of falling windows.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Public education is only part of a multi-pronged approach the Government takes to reduce the occurrence of falling windows. First, there are upstream design and performance requirements for window systems to ensure that structural frames, hinges and other components can safely support the weight of the whole window system.
Second, windows can only be installed by approved contractors that are registered with the Building and Construction Authority (BCA). These contractors must have trained installers who have taken a course on window safety and who have at least 12 months of practical experience.
Third, home owners also play an important role in ensuring that their windows are properly and regularly maintained. Under the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act, BCA can issue notices to owners to repair and maintain their windows if they are found to be poorly maintained. If a window falls due to lack of maintenance, the person responsible could be subject to a fine not exceeding $10,000, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or both.
BCA will take enforcement action against home owners or contractors who contravene the requirements. We will continue to work with home owners to reduce the risk of falling windows.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"International Benchmarks to Track Reliability and Safety of MRT System","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"61 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the assumptions for the 2020 target of 1,000,000 mean kilometres between failures (MKBF) that have been made for our MRT system; (b) what other international benchmarks are available to track the reliability and safety of our MRT system; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider designing new yardsticks to better reflect the actual experiences of commuters
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Two years ago, I challenged the rail operators to significantly improve the reliability of our Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) services and make them among the most reliable in the world. We launched a multi-year effort to bring this about and actively track our performance against the best in class. The Taipei Metro and Hong Kong Mass Transit Railway (MTR) were picked as our benchmarks, using Mean Kilometres Between Failure (MKBF) for delays exceeding five minutes as the objective measure of train reliability.
As Taipei and Hong Kong were able to achieve an MKBF of 800,000 train-kilometre (km), I set that as our target. Last year, after Taipei achieved an MKBF of one million train-km, I updated our 2020 target to one million train-km, as I am determined to close the reliability gap with the best in class. It is a stretch target but, with determination and focus, it is within our grasp. We will also speed up our asset renewal programmes and continue to add new lines to enhance the resilience of our rail network.
MKBF is an internationally recognised indicator for rail reliability. There are industry groups of large, medium and small metros, such as Community of METros (CoMET) and Nova which publish MKBF data for benchmarking by peers. Based on their data, there are only a handful of metros globally that have achieved an MKBF of one million train-km or better.
We have focused on train reliability as the key area for improvement. However, commuter experience is shaped by a host of other factors, like safety, punctuality, cleanliness and comfort. The Land Transport Authority tracks all these indicators, too. In addition, the Public Transport Council monitors commuter experience through its annual Public Transport Customer Satisfaction Survey.
We have some way to go before we reach our MKBF target of one million train-km. Recent setbacks have affected commuters’ perception of the progress we have made. We are redoubling our efforts and we seek commuters’ patience and understanding.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Higher Incidence of Fires due to Charging of Batteries for Personal Mobility Devices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"62 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Transport in view of the increasing number of fires due to personal mobility devices being charged, whether the Ministry will consider (i) implementing measures to ensure that only approved devices can be imported and (ii) introducing penalties for the import, possession and usage of uncertified devices.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: We are concerned about the recent spate of fires involving personal mobility devices (PMDs). Currently, the power adaptors used to charge PMDs must comply with the Consumer Protection (Safety Requirements) Regulations (CPSR) administered by the Standards, Productivity and Innovation Board (SPRING) Singapore. The adaptors must be type-tested and certified compliant with the relevant safety standards, registered with SPRING Singapore, and carry the SAFETY Mark before they can be sold in Singapore. The Land Transport Authority and SPRING Singapore are assessing if similar product safety requirements can be imposed on PMDs or their batteries.
In the meantime, I urge consumers to exercise caution, such as buying PMDs from reputable sources and avoiding the overcharging of batteries. Consumers should avoid modifying their PMDs or tampering with the electrical components of the PMDs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Extended Engineering Hours on MRT Rail Maintenance Works","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"68 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the extended engineering hours provided to SMRT as a result of the early closure and late opening of train services in December 2017 have benefited rail maintenance works; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider such early closure and late opening of train services on a more regular basis in 2018.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Last month, extended engineering hours through early closure and late opening of 19 Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) stations in the western sector of the North-South and East-West Lines were provided to the Singapore Mass Rapid Transit (SMRT). The adjustments in operating hours over four weekends, including two full Sunday closures, more than doubled the total number of engineering hours available between Friday nights and Monday mornings in December 2017, from 45 hours to 110 hours.
The extended engineering hours have been extremely useful for our engineering and maintenance teams. First, they have enabled the Land Transport Authority (LTA), SMRT and signalling system supplier Thales to accelerate the re-signalling of the East-West Line. Each weekend of extended engineering hours has allowed Thales to conduct the equivalent of five regular nights of site acceptance testing. Second, they have allowed SMRT to bring forward and intensify maintenance works and repairs of the running rails, station equipment and track circuits. They have also enabled LTA to conduct more maintenance inspections to ensure the quality of SMRT's maintenance works, especially those by outsourced contractors. Third, they have allowed LTA and SMRT to speed up the installation of noise barriers for the stretch between the Dover and Boon Lay MRT stations. On each weekend, the project team was able to make progress equivalent to four nights of normal engineering hours.
For these reasons, LTA and SMRT have announced similar plans for this month, involving the early closure and late opening of 10 East-West Line stations in the eastern sector over four weekends, including two full Sunday closures. Reduced train operating frequencies will also be in effect for seven North-South Line stations in the central area over the same period, as one track will be closed for maintenance.
Beyond January, we will extend engineering hours where possible so that we can complete the re-signalling of the East-West Line by the middle of the year. We are bringing forward the renewal of other critical systems on the North-South and East-West Lines, such as the power system and track circuits. We are also making plans to speed up the installation of noise barriers.
LTA will work closely with the Public Transport Operators to provide commuters affected by extended engineering hours with timely information and alternative transport arrangements. We are also working closely with the union to ensure that these plans are sustainable for our rail and bus workers. I would like to thank our public transport workers for their dedication, and seek commuters' continued understanding as we redouble efforts to improve train reliability.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rights of Individuals Assisting in Police Investigations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"69 Mr Chen Show Mao asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) under what laws, regulations or other authority are individuals' right to travel restricted when they are assisting in Police investigations but not under arrest themselves; and (b) what limits apply to the exercise of any Police powers to restrict travel and what recourse is available to appeal against any such exercise.
Mr K Shanmugam: Section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers Police Officers of or above the rank of Sergeant to require a person to surrender his travel document. There are two requirements. Firstly, the Police Officer must have reasonable grounds to believe that the person has committed an offence. Secondly, the Police Officer must obtain the written consent of an authorised officer. This is a Police Officer of or above the rank of Deputy Superintendent, who is specifically authorised by the Commissioner of Police. Section 112 can be used, regardless of whether the person has been arrested.
Section 113 allows a person who has surrendered his travel document to apply to the Police for the return of his travel document. The Police will review such applications. If the application is refused, the person may then apply to a District Judge for the return of his travel document.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact on Business Operations caused by Suspension of MRT Services on Tuas West Extension","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"70 Assoc Prof Randolph Tan asked the Minister for Transport whether the suspension of MRT services on the Tuas West Extension in mid-November 2017 has had a significant negative impact on the operations of firms served by the affected segment of the MRT system.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Following the train collision at Joo Koon Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) station on 15 November 2017, train services on the Tuas West Extension from Tuas Link to Gul Circle stations were suspended from Thursday, 16 November, to Sunday, 19 November 2017 to allow the Land Transport Authority (LTA), Singapore Mass Rapid Transit (SMRT) and Thales to perform safety checks on the signalling system.
The suspension of services had disrupted commuters' routine and their employers, but the impact was manageable. During the suspension period, bridging buses were deployed between Joo Koon and Tuas Link stations at headways of three to five minutes. We also enhanced the bus services in the area. Some companies also engaged private buses to ferry their staff to and from Joo Koon or Pioneer MRT stations during the peak periods.
I am grateful to commuters and employers for their patience and understanding during the service suspension, and I seek their continued support as the Tuas West Extension remains segregated from the rest of the East-West Line to allow Thales to complete the re-signalling work safely and speedily.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"National Smartphone Navigation App for Public Transport","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"72 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Transport whether LTA has assessed the feasibility of developing a national smartphone navigation app for public transport that acquires, aggregates and analyses (i) real-time bus and train data from public transport operators, (ii) end-user location and velocity data volunteered by app users' smartphones and (iii) user reports of transport delays or breakdowns.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: There are currently a number of such smartphone apps serving commuters’ different needs. The Land Transport Authority's (LTA's) myTransport app provides commuters with essential public transport information based on real-time data, including traffic updates, bus arrival times and crowdedness. Transport operators create their own apps to serve their customers and may also pull in data from public sources to enrich their app content. For example, the Singapore Mass Rapid Transit (SMRT)-Connect travel app helps users plan their journeys by providing real-time information, such as arrival timings for buses and trains. There are also third-party apps, such as Google Maps and Citymapper, which help users plan their journeys, drawing on many data sources, including information volunteered by end-users.
We welcome such efforts, as they can individually or collectively serve specific commuter needs. Our job is to facilitate such development by making data open through Data.gov.sg and LTA's DataMall so that private developers can co-create smarter transport solutions with us.
In particular, there is potential to collect end-user locations and provide train service disruption notifications as suggested by the Member. As commuter needs evolve, LTA will add more data to DataMall and introduce new features to its mobile app. Transport operators like SMRT have also shared plans to enhance their own app content by providing information on platform and train loading based on analysis of data collected from wi-fi access points and camera feeds.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures Adopted by Bus Drivers to Avoid Being Penalised for Returning Earlier-than-scheduled to Bus Interchanges","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"73 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Transport whether there are any measures in place to prevent bus drivers from reducing their driving speed and deliberately stopping at bus-stops longer than necessary so as to avoid being penalised for arriving back at the interchange too early.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Bus bunching was a common complaint among commuters. In response, we have introduced the Bus Service Reliability Framework to get bus operators to improve the punctuality and reliability of their bus services. It requires bus captains to adjust their speeds to maintain a consistent headway between buses, thus minimising bus bunching. They do not deliberately stop at bus stops longer than necessary. More regular bus intervals will benefit bus commuters as it reduces waiting time and spreads passenger loads more evenly.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Civil Service Appraisal System Performance Review Framework","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Prime Minister (a) whether the Civil Service appraisal system is still based on the Current Estimated Potential (CEP) framework and annual performance reviews; (b) since August 2016, what further measures have been developed to make giving timely feedback to one another a cultural norm within the Civil Service; and (c) in what ways does the Civil Service appraisal system encourage innovative thinking and flexible implementation of policies by civil servants.
Mr Teo Chee Hean (for the Prime Minister): The Civil Service continues to find it relevant to assess officers’ performance annually, as well as their readiness to take on larger responsibilities using the concept of \"Currently Estimated Potential\" (CEP) which is an estimation of the highest job level an officer can handle in the future.
The Public Service Division (PSD) periodically reviews the appraisal system to ensure it remains relevant and effective. During last year's review, PSD took into account feedback from managers and officers across the Civil Service to update many aspects of the system. For example, we are giving greater autonomy to Ministries on the appraisal of junior officers5. We are training supervisors to better understand and implement the system. These help to foster greater ownership of the system.
Our officers have also told us that they want more timely feedback on their performance and career development opportunities. Arising from this, we introduced the Individual Development Plan in 2014 to institutionalise regular career development conversations between officers and their supervisors. To complement formal appraisal, the Civil Service is experimenting with digital technology to enable officers to seek \"on-the-go\" informal feedback periodically or when a piece of work is completed. We have recently completed trialling a real-time feedback app for officers to more easily seek feedback from people whom they work with, be they subordinates, peers or supervisors.
We look out for officers who exhibit innovative thinking. Officers who exercise imagination and creativity to generate innovative solutions will be appraised more favourably. However, a culture of innovation comes from our broader practices, beyond the appraisal system. The Civil Service encourages innovation in a number of different ways. For example, many \"makeathon\" sessions have been held across the Public Service. These bring together public officers from within and across agencies, as well as members of the public to brainstorm new ideas to transform the Public Service to improve policies and better serve citizens. Officers who display excellence in innovation are publicly recognised through Public Service awards, such as the Excellence through Continuous Enterprise and Learning (ExCEL) Awards.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["5 : Ministry Permanent Secretaries are empowered to approve decisions on their relatively more junior officers for (1) CEP up to grade 10; (2) performance grade up to grade 11A; and (3) merit increment and crossing of salary bar up to grade 11A. Decisions on more senior officers remain with the personnel boards. It is a balance between giving greater autonomy to Ministries and maintaining greater consistency across Ministries."],"footNoteQuestions":["1"],"questionNo":"1"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Permanent Residents Taking up Singapore Citizenship","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Prime Minister (a) how does the Ministry persuade Permanent Residents (PRs) to take up Singapore citizenship; (b) how many PRs have held on to their PR status for more than 10, 15, 20 and 25 years respectively and by nationality; and (c) what are the common reasons cited by these individuals for not taking up Singapore citizenship.
Mr Teo Chee Hean (for the Prime Minister): About 15% of Permanent Residents (PRs) have been PRs for 20 or more years. The majority of such PRs originate from Southeast Asian countries.
Taking up citizenship is a serious commitment which is ultimately a personal decision. The vast majority of adult new citizens who have made this commitment to become citizens have lived here for some time, or have family ties to Singaporeans, such as spouses.
PRs contribute to Singapore in many different ways and add to our strengths as a society and economy.
The best way to encourage qualified PRs who have decided to make their future here to consider applying for citizenship is to continue to ensure that our Singapore Citizens are well looked after in a Singapore that continues to do well. To reflect the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship and to acknowledge Singapore Citizens' commitment to Singapore, citizens receive more support and benefits than PRs in several areas, such as parenthood, housing, healthcare and education.
In recent years, we have widened the differentiation in benefits accorded to Singapore Citizens and PRs.
It is also important that we continue to be an inclusive society that is open and gracious. How welcoming and accepting we are of newcomers will also impact on their decision to sink roots here permanently.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Alleged Roles of Singapore Banks in \"The Russian Laundromat\" Money-laundering Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Prime Minister whether there is any ongoing investigation by Singapore authorities into the alleged roles of several Singapore banks in a money-laundering scheme dubbed by the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project in 2014 as \"The Russian Laundromat\".
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): Ms Sylvia Lim asked about an article published by the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), an international non-governmental organisation (NGO) consortium, on what it dubbed \"the Russian Laundromat\". The article charged that US$20.8 billion from 19 Russian banks was laundered between 2011 and 2014, using banks in 96 countries.
The article stated that US$77 million, or 0.4%, of the allegedly laundered monies had flowed into the accounts held in banks in Singapore. It also stated that US$927 million had flowed into banks in Hong Kong, US$916 million into mainland China, and US$608 million into Switzerland.
Singapore is a global business and financial centre that sees substantial financial flows daily into and out of the country. To put the total US$77 million that was allegedly laundered through Singapore into perspective, the banking system saw US$357 billion of financial flows in total over the same period. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) nevertheless takes a serious view of any alleged money laundering through Singapore, small or large.
MAS’ probe into the specific OCCRP allegations has not been completed. It has thus far not surfaced evidence of major lapses in anti-money laundering (AML) controls at banks in Singapore. Where the banks detected suspicious activities relating to the flows in question, they had taken appropriate risk-mitigating measures.
To reiterate, we are constantly vigilant against the threat of money laundering. That is why we have put in place a robust Anti-Money Laundering/Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) regime. Financial institutions are required to conduct, amongst other things, adequate customer due diligence. This includes rejecting suspicious customers, closely monitoring fund flows, and reporting any suspicious transactions.
As money laundering schemes are increasingly complex and cross-border in nature, international cooperation is critical in identifying, disrupting and deterring illicit activities. MAS and Singapore’s law enforcement agencies have been exchanging information and working with their foreign counterparts to investigate suspicious schemes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Civil Service's Criteria in Evaluating Older Applicants with GCE \"O\" and \"A\" Level Results for Vocational and Skills-based Jobs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Prime Minister how and to what extent are GCE \"O\" and \"A\" level results considered in evaluating applications from older applicants for vocational and skills-based jobs in the Civil Service.
Mr Teo Chee Hean (for the Prime Minister): The Civil Service recruits based on whether the applicant has the skills required for the job. Educational qualifications are useful as a proxy for skills when assessing applicants with no prior work experience. For mid-career and older applicants, relevant work experience and demonstrated skills are used to determine their suitability for the job, more so than their academic qualifications.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Restrictions for Users of E-bikes and Personal Mobility Devices within Designated Silver Zones","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for Transport whether LTA can consider applying restrictions, such as \"dismount and walk\" for users of e-bikes and personal mobility devices, when they travel within designated Silver Zones.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The Active Mobility Code of Conduct issued by the Active Mobility Advisory Panel (AMAP) in March 2016 stipulates that cyclists and users of e-bikes and personal mobility devices should dismount and push their devices at areas with high pedestrian traffic. This applies to all public paths, regardless of whether they are within or outside Silver Zones. The AMAP will be considering further refinements to the active mobility rules in 2018.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Investigation into TPE-PIE Viaduct Collapse in July 2017","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the investigation into the collapse of the partially constructed viaduct structure linking PIE and TPE at Upper Changi Road East in July 2017 has been completed; and (b) if so, when will the report be released publicly.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Investigations are still ongoing. After investigations are completed, the matter will be referred to the Attorney-General's Chambers for their assessment. More information will be provided at the appropriate juncture.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Construction Cost of Covered Linkways","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Ms Sun Xueling asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the average cost of constructing a covered linkway per 100 metres; (b) what is the total amount spent on constructing covered linkways in the past five years; and (c) how many kilometres of covered linkways have been built in the past five years.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Over the past five years, the Government has spent about $330 million to construct close to 160 kilometres of covered linkways. These were funded under various programmes and schemes: the Land Transport Authority's (LTA's) Walk2Ride programme, the Housing and Development Board's (HDB's) development of public housing estates, and the Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) scheme. The cost of the covered linkways averaged about $210,000 per 100 metres.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Offences and Accidents Involving E-scooters","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the number of offences involving e-scooters and the offender profile over the past three years; (b) what is the number of accidents involving e-scooter users over the past three years; (c) what plans does the Ministry have to reduce the risks posed by e-scooters, particularly on the roads; and (d) whether the Ministry will consider making it mandatory for e-scooter users to wear a helmet.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: From January to September 2017, there were about 110 accidents involving personal mobility devices (PMDs), such as e-scooters. These accidents occurred on public paths or at road junctions when PMD riders were crossing the road, or on roads when PMD riders were riding parallel to vehicle traffic illegally. Over the same period, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and the Traffic Police issued warnings or summonses to about 330 riders for the offence of riding PMDs on roads. We do not have comprehensive figures for accidents involving PMDs prior to 2017.
LTA has increased its outreach efforts to raise awareness of the danger of riding PMDs on roads. These include installing more than 500 signages at hotspots to warn PMD riders to stay off the roads.
LTA will also be strengthening its penalty regime to deter riding of PMDs on roads. With effect from 15 January 2018, the current composition sum of $100 will be increased to $300 and $500 for offenders who ride on local and major roads respectively. Offenders who ride on the expressways will be charged in Court. Repeat offenders will face stiffer penalties, including Court action. If convicted, offenders face a fine of up to $2,000, or imprisonment of up to three months, or both.
As PMD riders are not allowed on roads and have to abide by speed limits of 15 kilometres per hour (km/h) on footpaths and 25 km/h on shared and cycling paths, we do not require them to wear helmets. However, we encourage PMD riders to take personal responsibility and use the necessary protective gear while riding. LTA will be launching the Safe Riding Programme (SRP) soon in schools, foreign worker dormitories and community centres. It will be compulsory for all cyclists and PMD users who are caught riding recklessly to attend SRP.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Registration of E-bikes and Personal Mobility Devices and Stringent Guidelines on Their Quality, Safety and Usage","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the number of e-bikes that has been registered thus far; (b) what can motorists do when they see e-bikes flouting the rules on the streets; and (c) whether more stringent guidelines on the quality and safety of e-bikes and PMDs will be imposed in light of PMDs having caused home fires due to overcharging.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: As of end-December 2017, more than 12,600 power-assisted bicycles (PABs) have been registered. Owners of PABs have until 31 January 2018 to register their PABs and affix it with a number plate.
Motorists or members of the public can report errant PAB riders to the Traffic Police or the Land Transport Authority (LTA). Details, such as the date, time, location, PAB registration number, description of the rider, and video or photo evidence of the offence, will aid the investigation.
Since February 2016, only PABs that meet the European (EN)15194 standard will be approved by LTA. This is a rigorous standard that has also been adopted by Australia and many European countries, requiring stringent tests on the mechanical strength of batteries as well as the risks of short circuits and overcharging.
The power adaptors used to charge personal mobility devices (PMDs) must also comply with the Consumer Protection (Safety Requirements) Regulations administered by the Standards, Productivity and Innovation Board (SPRING) Singapore. The adaptors must be type-tested and certified compliant with the relevant safety standards, registered with SPRING Singapore, and carry the SAFETY Mark before they can be sold in Singapore. In view of the recent spates of fire involving PMDs, LTA and SPRING Singapore are assessing if additional product safety requirements are needed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Spontaneous Vehicle Fire Incidents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the number of incidents of spontaneous vehicle fires per year since 2010; (b) whether there are any patterns in such incidents by vehicle category or brand; (c) what is the breakdown of the causes of such fires; and (d) what are the steps being taken by LTA to reduce such incidents.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: There were about 200 cases of spontaneous vehicle fires every year since 2014. Figures prior to 2014 are not readily available.
Among these vehicles which caught fire, about 60% were motorcars and 20% were light goods vehicles. Based on the Singapore Civil Defence Forces' (SCDF’s) findings, there were two main causes – faults in the electrical components and overheating of the engines. Regular maintenance could reduce the risk of such fires occurring.
Hence, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) requires older vehicles and vehicles that are heavily used to be inspected more frequently. LTA is also working with SCDF to remind vehicle owners on regular maintenance and against illegal modification of their vehicles as this could compromise the safety features of their vehicles and trigger vehicle fires.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Marsiling Town Public Bus Transport Connectivity Review and Revamp","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will be reviewing and revamping public bus transport connectivity within the Marsiling town area following the closure of Woodlands Centre.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Residents in Marsiling are currently served by eight bus trunk services and four bus feeder services that connect them to Woodlands Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) station and bus interchange for onward journeys. Following the closure of Woodlands Centre, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) will monitor travel patterns and make the necessary adjustments to bus services.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Savings Rate per Income Group in Last 10 Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Trade) what has been the average savings rate for each income group in Singapore in the last 10 years.
Mr Lim Hng Kiang: Data on household and individual savings rates by income groups are not available.
However, data on the aggregate level of household financial assets can be obtained from the Household Sector balance sheet compiled by the Department of Statistics. These financial assets comprise (a) currency and deposits, (b) shares and securities, (c) life insurance attributable to households as policyholders, (d) Central Provident Fund (CPF) balances, and (e) pension funds.
Over the last 10 years, households' financial assets have increased steadily from $584.3 billion as at the end of December 2007 to $1,126.1 billion as at the end of September 2017.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Annual Financial Savings or Assets Owned by Singaporean Households and Individuals from 2013 to 2017","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Trade) what is the level of financial savings or financial assets owned by Singaporean households and individuals in each of the past five years, broken down according to the (i) mean, (ii) median, (iii) 10th percentile and (iv) 90th percentile.
Mr Lim Hng Kiang: The aggregate level of financial assets owned by Singapore’s household sector6 in each of the past five years is provided in Table 1 below. Data on the amount of financial assets owned by households and individuals in the different income percentiles is not available.
14 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how many applications for job matching have been received by Workforce Singapore (WSG) since its inception; (b) how many applicants have been successfully matched with jobs; and (c) what is WSG doing to improve its job-matching success rate.
Mr Lim Swee Say: In the 12 months since the inception of Workforce Singapore (WSG), that is, the fourth quarter (4Q) 2016 – 3Q2017, more than 23,000 jobseekers registered at WSG’s and the National Trades Union Congress' (NTUC's)-Employment and Employability Institute's (e2i's) career centres for career matching services, and about 14,000 jobseekers were placed through these services. In addition, about a further 10,000 were placed through other Adapt and Grow programmes to address wage and skills mismatches. Of all the jobseekers placed, more than half were professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs), more than half were aged 40 and above, and about a third were long-term unemployed (LTU).
Since July 2017, WSG's career centres have been remodelled and rebranded as Careers Connect with an expanded suite of customised career matching services. Jobseekers who require more in-depth support can undergo tailored career management and counselling programmes and receive dedicated one-to-one career coaching suited to their needs.
We had also enhanced our programmes under the Adapt and Grow initiative in 2017, such as the Professional Conversion Programmes (PCP) and the Career Support Programme (CSP), to provide more training and wage support to jobseekers, especially the mature and LTU, and employers to help overcome mismatches arising from skills or wage expectation gaps.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Incentives for Extension of Employment Contracts to Elderly Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry is aware that some companies are unwilling to extend the contracts of healthy elderly workers to 67 years old; (b) what is the Ministry doing to incentivise hiring of elderly workers; and (c) how many workers aged 60 and above are actively looking for jobs.
Mr Lim Swee Say: Under the Retirement and Re-employment Act (RRA), employers are required to offer eligible employees re-employment till age 67. Since re-employment was introduced in 2012, over 98% of private-sector local employees who wished to continue working at age 62 were offered re-employment. The number of disputes related to re-employment has remained low for the past five years, at about 40 each year. Most cases were resolved through mediation, with less than four cases, on average each year, which proceeded to adjudication. These cases contain a mix of situations where the dispute arose due to a misunderstanding of the law by the employer or employee.
The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has in place a number of measures to increase the employability of older workers and encourage employers to hire older workers. The Special Employment Credit (SEC) scheme provides a wage offset of up to 8% of monthly wages to employers when they hire older workers. An additional wage offset of up to 3% of monthly wages is also provided to encourage continued employment of older workers aged 65 and above. Reduced employer Central Provident Fund (CPF) contribution rates for employees aged 55 and above further help to moderate the costs of hiring older workers for employers. Under the WorkPro scheme, employers can receive Government funding support of up to $320,000 per company to implement age management practices and redesign workplaces and processes to create easier, safer and smarter jobs for older workers.
As mindset change is also needed to improve the employability of older workers, the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) runs campaigns to raise awareness of the value that older workers bring to the workforce and encourage employers to tap on their skills and experience.
In June 2017, the unemployment rate of older residents aged 60 and above in the labour force remained low at 3.3%. MOM actively supports them through the Adapt and Grow Initiative. This includes Career Matching services, as well as programmes to help workers overcome wage and skill mismatches. In particular, the Career Support Programme encourages employers to hire experienced, mature professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs), especially the long-term unemployed, by providing them with salary support. Mature PMETs can tap on the higher wage and training support under the Professional Conversion Programmes to reskill, so that they can move into new occupations and sectors with good prospects and progression. Mature rank-and-file workers can also tap on wage and training support under Work Trial and other Place-and-Train/Train-and-Place programmes offered by Workforce Singapore and the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC)-Employment and Employability Institute.
Our various programmes to improve the employability of older workers have been showing encouraging results. The employment rate of residents aged 55-64 has increased from 61.2% in 2011 to 67.3% in 2016. This compares favourably with developed economies, with Singapore ranked ninth against 35 the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries in 2016. We will continue to work with the tripartite partners to improve opportunities for older Singaporeans who are fit and ready to find employment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Appointment of Foreign Job Placement Agencies by Workforce Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the rationale for Workforce Singapore to appoint foreign job placement agencies instead of local agencies with an established presence in Singapore to help local PMETs find jobs; (b) what is the projected number of job placements to be found through the two agencies at the end of the two-year pilot scheme; and (c) what is the projected cost of outsourcing job placements to the two foreign agencies over the pilot phase.
Mr Lim Swee Say: To keep strengthening employment support for our local jobseekers, Workforce Singapore (WSG) adopts a multi-provider approach to help them. It runs three career centres, complemented by two more centres operated by the National Trades Union Congress-Employment and Employability Institute. In addition, WSG and its predecessor, Workforce Development Agency (WDA), had tapped on private sector employment agencies to provide wider employment outreach for our jobseekers.
As unemployment has generally been low, placements done by most employment agencies here have involved mainly passive jobseekers, that is, persons already in employment who may not be actively searching for jobs. To step up our support for active jobseekers who are unemployed and actively looking for jobs, we did a global search of employment agencies with the business model, experience and expertise suited to help such active jobseekers. We found that partnerships between the government and the private sector have been successful in countries, such as the United Kingdom and Australia, where private placement providers are contracted to place active jobseekers, including those who may face greater employment barriers. Hence, WSG appointed two of them as our partners so that we can adapt some of their best practices in Singapore for the benefit of our active jobseekers.
The two placement providers in the current pilot commenced operations six and eight months ago. Currently, they are still ramping up their operations and have yet to reach steady state. The payment they will receive from WSG will mainly depend on how many jobseekers they are able to place, taking into account the profile of the jobseekers, including age and length of unemployment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Traffic Police's Strategies to Raise Awareness of Road Safety and Reduce Accidents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Mr Ang Hin Kee asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what are the Traffic Police's strategies to raise greater awareness of road safety and reduce traffic accidents among both road users and the public; and (b) whether there are plans to review and update the Highway Code and curriculum in driving centres, given the change in road traffic landscape, such as the increase in personal mobility devices on the roads.
Mr K Shanmugam: Raising awareness is one of the Traffic Police's (TP's) key strategies to enhance road safety.
TP introduced the \"Use Your Road Sense\" movement in 2015 to actively reach out to road users. The objective is to influence and shape the right behaviour for better road safety. The outreach targeted not only general road users, but also vulnerable groups, such as motorcyclists and elderly pedestrians, and vocational drivers, such as taxi and heavy vehicle drivers.
TP is also working with the Land Transport Authority to raise awareness concerning the dangers of riding personal mobility devices (PMDs) on the roads. Among others, signs have been installed at hotspots to warn PMD riders to stay off the roads. PMD riders are also reminded of the rules and code of conduct for cycling and the use of PMDs through campaigns and programmes, for example, Safe Riders Campaign and Safe Cycling Programme, including the safe use of pedestrian crossings, such as stopping and looking out for traffic before crossing.
The basic driving and riding curricula at the driving schools have been and will continue to be regularly updated to remain relevant as the traffic landscape changes. TP is also leveraging new technology, for example, it will mandate driving and riding simulation training for all learner motorists in 2019. This will enable them to acquire the necessary skills and know-how to react properly in common traffic situations within a safe, controlled environment.
To promote continual learning for motorists, TP launched the one-stop Online Learning Portal in July 2017, which allows free public access to the latest driving theory handbooks. The portal will be further enhanced later this year to include animated videos of the top causes of accidents, mock theory tests, and updates on road traffic regulations.
In addition, the Safe Driving Course was introduced in November 2015 to impart safe driving techniques to motorists who have accumulated a high number of demerit points.
TP is also updating the Highway Code to ensure its continued relevance in today’s landscape. The online basic and final theory handbooks will also be periodically reviewed and updated so that the latest information on traffic signs, rules and regulations is made available to the public.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Applications for Citizenship, Permanent Residence and Long-term Visit Passes by Foreign Spouses of Singaporeans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) in each of the last five years, how many foreign spouses of Singaporeans have applied for citizenship, permanent residence and Long-Term Visit Passes respectively; (b) what is the success rate; and (c) what proportion of these applicants for permanent residence and citizenship who have Singaporean spouses or children were not successful.
Mr K Shanmugam: From 2012 to 2016, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) received an annual average of about 6,600 Singapore Citizenship (SC), 8,700 Permanent Residence (PR) and 16,600 Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) applications from foreign spouses of Singaporeans. Over the same period, an annual average of 4,500, 4,300 and 13,900 foreign spouses of Singaporeans were granted SC, PR and LTVP respectively. The corresponding success rates were around 68%, 49% and 84%.
ICA is unable to break down the data by whether these individuals had any SC children.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Persons Pledging to Donate Whole Bodies to Medical Research after Death","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Health how many persons have pledged to donate their whole bodies to medical research after death in the last three years.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Under the Medical (Therapy, Education and Research) Act, anyone from 18 years of age and who is not mentally disordered can pledge to donate their whole body upon death to be used for research, transplant or education purposes.
In the last three years, the numbers of new pledges for whole body donation after death to be used for medical research are as shown in the table below.
20 Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for Health (a) what have been the issues and challenges faced in the implementation of MediShield Life; (b) what has been the compliance rate; and (c) whether there has been any case where action had to be taken.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: MediShield Life was introduced in November 2015 as a universal healthcare insurance scheme that provides all Singapore Citizens (SCs) and Permanent Residents (PRs) with lifelong coverage against large healthcare bills.
MediShield Life has been successfully implemented. Since its launch, around 300,000 SCs and PRs have made successful claims, including around 40,000 who were previously uninsured. Overall claims increased from $758 million in 2016 to $845 million in 2017.
To promote better understanding of MediShield Life and its features, roadshows were conducted in partnership with the media and community organisations. These include media advertisements and targeted outreach to seniors through the Pioneer Generation Office and Grassroots Organisations. These efforts have helped to raise public awareness and appreciation for MediShield Life.
With Government subsidies and financial assistance from Additional Premium Support, we have achieved a very high compliance rate for payment of MediShield Life premiums. As at end October 2017, about 1% of Singapore Residents have not fully paid their premiums. The Ministry of Health will continue to work with the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) and Central Provident Fund Board to follow up with these individuals and provide assistance to low-income Singaporeans. No one will lose their MediShield Life coverage due to genuine financial difficulties in paying for the premiums.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Timeline and Plan for Launching of GPFirst Scheme Nationally","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Health what is the timeline and plan for the launching of the GPFirst Scheme nationally and what is the projected annual cost of the scheme to the Government and the average benefit to be gained by beneficiaries after the cost of consulting a GP is factored in.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The GPFirst programme is a pilot scheme first introduced at Changi General Hospital (CGH) in January 2014. GPFirst aims to encourage patients with non-emergency conditions to seek treatment at General Practitioners (GPs) rather than at the Emergency Department (ED). Patients assessed by the participating GPs as requiring ED care are referred to the ED with minimal delay. In recognition that the patient has incurred initial charges at the GP, a $50 subsidy is provided to offset the patient’s ED bill.
In 2016, about $1 million was invested in the GPFirst programme at CGH which would include the ED subsidy, expenses on GP engagement initiatives and publicity to raise the awareness of the programme. The programme not only helps to reduce non-emergency cases seen in CGH’s ED, thereby saving unnecessary ED expenses by the hospital and the patients. More importantly, it also enables the ED to focus on attending to patients with critical conditions in a timelier manner. Patients with non-emergency conditions will also benefit from more timely access to care at the GPs and cost savings as the GP charge would typically be less than $50, as compared to $120 if he visits the CGH ED.
From CGH's pilot, the Ministry of Health has concluded that the benefits justify the cost of running the GPFirst scheme. The scheme will be extended to more public hospitals in 2018. This will entail establishing close partnerships with GPs, promoting awareness among residents and learning from CGH's pilot.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Neighbourly Disputes Referred to IMH by Police and Other Agencies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Health how many cases have been referred to the Institute of Mental Health by the Police or other agencies arising from neighbourly disputes each year in the last three years and what help can residents turn to when encountering neighbours with suspected mental health conditions.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Institute of Mental Health (IMH) does not maintain data on the number of cases suspected of mental health conditions who were referred by the Police or other agencies arising from neighbourly disputes. However, the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) has been receiving referrals for mental health assessments arising from neighbourly disputes. Between 2015 and 2017, 31 referrals were received by AIC, of whom eight had active mental health symptoms and were referred to IMH for treatment.
In the community, residents who observe persons who display disturbing behaviours can contact AIC at careinmind@aic.sg for assistance and referral. If they encounter persons in crisis, residents can contact the IMH Mental Health 24-hour Helpline at 6389 2222, which is manned by counsellors who are trained to assess and triage cases, and activate home visit teams quickly if necessary.
In cases where a person is behaving in a manner that is dangerous to self or others, members of the public should call 999 for urgent Police assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Total Amount of MediSave Contributions Belonging to Pensioners under Their Respective Pension Schemes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the total amount of MediSave contributions residing under each group of pensioners under the Fixed Amount on Ward (FAW), Co-payment on Ward (CPW), Comprehensive Co-payment Scheme (CCS) and MediSave-cum-Subsidised Outpatient (MSO) schemes respectively; and (b) what is the number of MediSave transactions registered in the past 12 months for each of the above pension schemes.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Government pensioners receive one of the four Post-Retirement Medical Benefits: Fixed Amount on Ward (FAW), Co-payment on Ward (CPW), Comprehensive Co-payment Scheme (CCS) and MediSave-cum-Subsidised Outpatient (MSO) scheme.
FAW pensioners are entitled to comprehensive medical benefits at Government healthcare institutions, and hence not required to set aside any MediSave. CPW pensioners only need to set aside 30% of their cohort’s applicable Basic Healthcare Sum (BHS). The average MediSave balance of CPW pensioners is $15,700. CCS and MSO pensioners are subject to their cohort's applicable BHS. The average MediSave balances are $47,400 and $43,300 for each pensioner under the CCS and MSO schemes respectively.
On average, CPW, CCS and MSO pensioners made one, two and three transactions per person respectively in 2016.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Total Value of Online Sales Transactions in Singapore and GST Revenue Lost","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Finance what is the total value of online sales transactions for each of the past five years in Singapore and what is the amount of payable GST revenue that is lost in such transactions.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Currently, there is no ready mechanism to differentiate and track Goods and Services Tax (GST) that is currently collected versus GST not applicable for online transactions.
As shared in Budget 2017, with increasing digital transactions and cross-border trade, some countries have taken steps to adjust their GST system to ensure a level-playing field between their local businesses which are GST-registered, and foreign-based ones which are not. We are studying how we can do likewise.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Further Measures to Reduce Noise and Nuisance from Birds Roosting in Trees along Upper Serangoon Road near Sennett Residences","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for National Development what are the further measures besides the regular pruning of the trees that AVA can take to reduce the noise and nuisance caused by a large population of birds roosting in the trees along Upper Serangoon Road near Sennett Residences.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) adopts a multi-pronged approach to address noise and nuisance caused by birds roosting in trees. For the case along Upper Serangoon Road, AVA has taken several steps.
First, as mentioned by Mr Sitoh, AVA has worked with the National Parks Board to prune the trees to discourage birds from roosting in them.
Second, AVA conducted a trial in September, using lasers to disperse the birds. AVA is currently assessing the effectiveness of this measure. Third, AVA will continue to work with the National Environment Agency (NEA) and the Potong Pasir Town Council to ensure that food waste is properly disposed of. This will reduce food sources for birds and discourage them from roosting nearby.
Fourth, AVA will also work with NEA and the Town Council to educate residents not to feed the birds.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"First-timer Buyers of BTO Flats in Mature Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the average percentage of buyers of BTO flats in mature estates who are first-timers; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider extending the Special Housing Grant (SHG) to first-timer buyers with parents who live within two kilometres of BTO flats in mature estates.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) sets aside a large proportion of the new public flat supply for first-timer families. On average, about eight in 10 buyers of Build-To-Order flats in the mature estates are first-timers.
The Special Central Provident Fund (CPF) Housing Grant (SHG) is intended to help lower- to middle-income households own their first home. To encourage financial prudence, SHG is limited to the purchase of new 4-room and smaller HDB flats in the non-mature estates. There are currently no plans to extend the SHG to the purchase of flats in the mature estates. Eligible first-timer households can continue to enjoy up to $40,000 in the Additional CPF Housing Grant when they purchase a flat in the mature estates.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enforcement Action Taken by Volunteers Exercising New Enforcement Powers Conferred by NEA (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Mr Chen Show Mao asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources what is the total number of cases of enforcement action taken by NEA that involved volunteers exercising their new enforcement powers conferred by the NEA (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act of 2016.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The primary role of a Community Volunteer (CV) is to educate environmental offenders to stop the offending acts and encourage greater ownership of the environment.
To enable the CVs to perform their role more effectively, they are empowered to request the particulars of offenders who fail to heed their advice. The particulars are sent to the National Environment Agency (NEA) for follow-up action.
Since 2016, our CVs have engaged more than 3,500 individuals for environmental offences, such as littering in public spaces and smoking in prohibited areas. The vast majority responded positively, such as by picking up their litter and hence no further action was taken. A small number of around 60 individuals were non-compliant and, therefore, subjected to enforcement action by NEA, such as summonses and advisory letters.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Teaching of Curriculum Open-access Resources in Economics at Post-Secondary Level","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Education (Schools) whether the Ministry has introduced elements of the Curriculum Open-access Resources in Economics (CORE), which aims to teach economics in a way that is more applicable to real-world situations at the post-secondary level and, if not, whether it will consider doing so.
Mr Ng Chee Meng: It is, indeed, important for all subjects, including Economics, to be taught in a way that is applicable to real-world situations. Our curriculum is designed to do so.
The GCE \"A\" level Economics curriculum is designed to provide students opportunities to apply Economics concepts, principles and theories to real-world contexts. Through the use of real-world examples and authentic case studies, students are engaged in class discussions that enable them to analyse how economic decisions are made, consider multiple perspectives in decision-making and recognise consequences arising from decisions made. For example, students discuss the thinking behind the Singapore Budget, and the possible impact of the Budget on individuals, firms and the economy.
The Singapore Student Learning Space, which is the Ministry of Education online learning platform that is being developed, includes case studies and resources that reflect real-world contexts. For example, Economics lesson packages on how pricing of goods and services, such as sugary beverages and private-hire rides, influence consumer behaviour and expenditure are available on this learning platform.
Where appropriate, Curriculum Open-access Resources in Economics can serve as a supplementary resource for incorporation in the Singapore Student Learning Space.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Graduates of Biotechnology-related Courses from Institutes of Higher Learning and Other Institutions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Mr Chen Show Mao asked the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) (a) in each year over the past five years, what is the number of graduates of biotechnology-related courses from our universities, polytechnics, ITEs and other institutions; (b) what is the employment rate of these graduates within six and 12 months of graduation respectively; (c) of these graduates, how many found work in the public and private sectors respectively; and (d) what is the Ministry's forecast of future job growth in the biotechnology industry in Singapore.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Over the past five years, around 3,000 students graduate annually from biotechnology-related courses from our autonomous universities, polytechnics and Institutes of Technical Education. Many will choose to further their studies. As for those who entered the labour force, around 85% found employment within six months after completing their final examinations, with the majority of them in the private sector.
Our Institutes of Higher Learning will continue to work with the industry to ensure that the courses are relevant to its needs, and that intake into these programmes is sized appropriately.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons for Increase in Households Receiving Short- and Medium-term Assistance and Long-term Assistance from FY2012 to FY2016","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what are the most common reasons for the increase in households receiving SMTA (short- and medium-term assistance) and LTA (long-term assistance) from FY2012 to FY2016; (b) what conclusions can be derived from these; and (c) how will the Ministry strategise moving into the future.
Mr Desmond Lee: The number of households assisted each year on either ComCare Short-to-Medium-Term Assistance (SMTA) or Long-Term Assistance (LTA) has generally increased over the past five years, with a slight decrease for those assisted on SMTA in financial year (FY) 2016 compared to FY2015.
This could be due to several factors, such as the widening of the ComCare eligibility criteria in 2012 and 2014, greater awareness and accessibility to social assistance through the network of 24 Social Service Offices which was rolled out between 2013 and 2015, and demographic changes.
The proportion of older SMTA main applicants aged 55 to 64 increased from 18% in FY2012 to 23% in FY2016. The proportion of those who were not working also increased from 48% in FY2012 to 53% in FY2016. Most of those who were not working were either medically unfit to work or retired. The increase in proportion of SMTA main applicants who are older, medically unfit to work or retired corresponds with demographic trends, such as shrinking family sizes and an ageing population.
The Government will continue to provide multiple layers of assistance for the lower-income and vulnerable through a network of Government agencies and community groups. There are many schemes in place addressing specific needs across various domains, such as financial needs, healthcare, housing, education, employment and retirement adequacy. Together, these schemes provide substantial support to those in need.
We will continue to refine and enhance our policies and approach to social service delivery, so that the low-income and vulnerable will get the support they require to cover their basic needs. But even as the Government does more, we must be careful not to erode the strong work ethic and sense of individual responsibility and self-reliance which have been key factors underpinning Singapore's growth as a society and nation. We must also be careful not to diminish the role of the family and the community, where they are able to provide or contribute to the care and support for individuals who are disadvantaged or vulnerable.
Today, there are many ground-up initiatives in the community, and many citizens are already giving and contributing. For example, there are community groups who reach out, befriend and support various vulnerable groups, such as low-income families with children and the elderly who live alone. The Government will continue to engage and partner the community to support such vulnerable groups. Through the SG Cares movement, we hope to mobilise volunteers and bring partners with different skills and resources to work with us in caring for those in need.
The Government also looks continually at how we can enhance client-centricity in service delivery. There are ongoing efforts to tighten interagency referral processes and facilitate data-sharing with other agencies. We are also exploring the potential for more integrated service delivery and co-location of complementary services so that our clients can access more holistic assistance and become self-reliant again.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Juveniles Admitted into Places of Safety under Children and Young Persons Act","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) in each of the past three years, how many juveniles have been referred by the Ministry or ordered by the Courts to be admitted into places of safety as defined in the Children and Young Persons Act respectively; and (b) how many of such juveniles admitted into these places of safety have at least one parent who is incarcerated or has been incarcerated before.
Mr Desmond Lee: Children and young persons (CYPs) who are in need of care and protection, such as those who have been abused or neglected, may be referred by the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) or ordered by the Youth Court to reside in a place of safety, such as a licensed CYP Home.
The number of such CYPs admitted to all licensed CYP Homes in the past three years is in Table 1 below.
About one-quarter of CYPs known to MSF due to child abuse and neglect have a caregiver who had previously been arrested or incarcerated.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":1880,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20180108/vernacular-Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap(1).pdf","fileName":"Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":1881,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20180108/vernacular-Intan Azura Mokhtar(1).pdf","fileName":"Intan Azura Mokhtar(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":1882,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20180108/vernacular-Lee Bee Wah(1).pdf","fileName":"Lee Bee Wah(1).pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}