1 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the number of passengers arriving at Changi Airport in 2024; (b) what are the maximum capacity utilisation rates of Changi Airport Terminals 1 to 4 respectively in 2024; and (c) whether an update can be provided on the construction of Terminal 5 in view of the capacity utilisation rates of the other terminals.
\tThe Minister for Transport (Mr Chee Hong Tat): Mr Speaker, between January and November 2024, Changi Airport handled about 61 million passengers. On an annualised basis, this is about 70% of Changi Airport’s annual handling capacity of 90 million passengers across Terminals 1 to 4.
Terminal 5 will enhance our passenger handling capacity and strengthen Singapore’s status as a leading air hub. The construction of Terminal 5 is on track to begin in the first half of 2025. When Terminal 5 is operational in the mid-2030s, it will be able to handle an additional 50 million passengers a year.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Ang.
\tMr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast): I thank the Minister for the reply. Can I ask the Minister, currently, based on the projection for the whole of 2024, will the passenger volume exceed pre-pandemic period? Secondly, does the Minister anticipate a higher volume in the coming year and if so, how is Changi Airport preparing for it? Lastly, I would like to ask the Minister, we know the Jeju Air incident is a very sad incident. Are there any lessons learnt and how are we preparing ourselves to prevent the occurrence of such an incident?
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, on Mr Ang's first question, we expect overall passenger traffic to almost reach pre-pandemic levels in 2024 and we expect it to also further increase. So, in 2025, we are very likely to exceed pre-COVID-19 levels.
Mr Ang is right that we do need to prepare for this increase in passenger volumes. If Changi does well, these passenger volumes will continue to grow. Before Terminal 5 is ready, it will have to rely on the existing handling capacity of Terminals 1 to 4.
Sir, processes are in place to prepare ourselves for this increase in demand. The Changi Airport Group will invest $3 billion over the next six years in Singapore Changi Airport Terminals 1 to 4 to improve services such as baggage handling, check in and immigration. These investments will help Changi Airport to stay competitive and to meet rising demand for air travel before Terminal 5 is operational in the mid-2030s.
The aviation workforce has also exceeded pre-COVID-19 levels. We look at aviation as a growth sector, which can provide many good jobs for Singaporeans. The Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) is also undertaking a sectorial manpower study together with our tripartite partners to see how we can attract, retain and prepare our workers to be ready for this future growth.
Sir, Mr Ang's second question is on the Jeju Air flight 2216 incident. It is an ongoing investigation. We are very sad to learn about this incident. We convey our deepest condolences to the victims and their families. The South Korean authorities are currently doing their investigations. CAAS is in touch with their counterpart, the Korean Civil Aviation Authority, as well as the United States Federal Aviation Administration and Boeing. We will review and take the necessary preventive actions as more information about the incident becomes available.
Sir, CAAS has also checked the maintenance of relevant systems on our Boeing 737-800 aircraft – which is the same model as the aircraft that was involved in the incident – and they have found no anomalies or reliability issues.
Based on the information that is currently available, the severity of the outcome was worsened because of the presence of a concrete structure at the end of the runway. I think there are some videos on social media showing the crash and how the plane ran into this concrete wall.
Sir, I am glad to share with the House that there are no such concrete structures near runways at our airports. All equipment that are required for air navigation purposes that are located near our runways are designed to break off in the event of a collision.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Addressing Survey Findings Which Showed Decline in English Literacy Skills amongst Older Workers and Average Scores for Adaptive Problem-solving","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Ms Usha Chandradas asked the Minister for Education in light of the recent results of the Survey of Adult Skills under the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's (OCED's) Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) which indicate a decline in English literacy skills amongst older workers in Singapore, whether the Ministry has any initiatives in place to help Singaporeans maintain literacy levels as they age.
3 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Education (a) whether there are new or additional plans to address the findings of the latest survey results released by the PIAAC, conducted by OECD, which indicate a decline and below-average performance in adult literacy after the age of 35; and (b) what do these findings mean for the competitiveness of our Singaporean workers and workforce, given that we depend on our human capital for our country’s survival and prosperity.
4 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Education (a) how has the SkillsFuture movement supported the skills development and upgrading of different cohorts of Singaporeans aged (i) 25-39 (ii) 40-54 (iii) 55 and above; and (b) how does the performance of these cohorts compare with their international peers in terms of skills development and skills currency.
5 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education in respect of the results of International Assessment of Adult Competencies which is a global test of adult skills conducted by OECD (a) what targeted initiatives are being implemented to address the decline in literacy skills among adults over 35 years old; and (b) how does the Ministry support individuals in multilingual work environments to maintain and enhance their English literacy skills.
6 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Education regarding the recent report on the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) (a) whether Singapore’s SkillsFuture programme have objectives that measure outcomes in a similar way to PIAAC in terms of (i) social and economic impact and (ii) performance of education and training system; and (b) whether specific areas of skills to be improved can be drawn from this report to enhance the SkillsFuture programme.
7 Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Minister for Education in view of the results of the PIAAC released by OECD which have indicated that Singapore scored at the average for adaptive problem-solving and flagged a significant decline in literacy after age of 35 (a) whether this affects the employability of workers within this age group as businesses adapt to rapid changes; and (b) whether there will be measures to work with employers and institutions to support and enhance the literacy skills of mid-career workers.
\tThe Minister for Education (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 2 to 7 on today's Order Paper, please?
\tMr Speaker: Please go ahead.
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: My response will also cover the matters raised in the oral Parliamentary Questions (PQs) scheduled for the Sitting on or after 9 January from Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim and the two written PQs scheduled for Sittings on 7 January and on or after 9 January 2025 from Members Ms See Jinli Jean and Dr Wan Rizal, please. And I invite Members to seek clarifications as needed.
The Survey of Adult Skills is developed by the Organisation for Economic and Co-operation Development (OECD) Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) to assess the proficiency of adults in literacy, numeracy and adaptive problem-solving skills. These are key information processing skills that are used and developed at work and in daily life, and also enable the acquisition of new knowledge and skills. Thus far, two PIAAC cycles have been conducted – the first from 2014 to 2015 and the second, more recently, from 2022 to 2023.
Overall, we have made progress since the first PIAAC cycle. Singapore was the most improved country for numeracy alongside Finland while our literacy proficiency scores remained stable. Our adaptive problem-solving score was comparable to OECD’s mean.
In this latest cycle, the OECD has found that in the majority of countries, including Singapore, older adults have lower skills proficiency. When comparing adults born in the same years across the two cycles, the OECD also found that nearly half of the countries had substantial age-related skill losses. In Singapore, this phenomenon was seen for literacy skills, but not in numeracy.
Further studies will be needed to understand these findings. But these observed trends are likely due to a combination of several factors.
First, the cohort effect. In Singapore, our education system has developed rapidly over the past decades and younger cohorts have benefited from significantly improved educational opportunities compared to earlier cohorts. This is reflected in the OECD PIAAC scores where our younger adults scored near the top in all three proficiency domains, while older adults scored below the average OECD scores. This is what we call the \"cohort effect\".
Second, the atrophy effect, where acquired skills decline after adults leave the formal education system and enter work. This could be because the skills are not as frequently used or as deliberately honed at work compared to during the formal schooling years.
Third, we also need to be mindful of the obsolescence effect, where skills become less relevant or even obsolete at the workplace, given rapidly changing market demands, technological advancement and enterprise transformation.
There is also growing research interest on how technology has changed the way we consume and process information, with many people moving away from complex writing to shorter social media posts and videos. As cognitive outsourcing becomes more prevalent with artificial intelligence (AI), there is also a risk of erosion of deep thinking and reflection.
Some Members have also asked what the results mean for the competitiveness of our workforce. We take part in PIAAC to help gauge our progress in adult continuous learning. In that regard, our improvements over the two cycles of testing are encouraging. However, the skills assessed by OECD are not the only skills that affect the employability of our local workforce. To put together a better picture of where we are, we need to consider other data points as well. For instance, whether our workers have job-specific skills is crucial to their competitiveness. There are also other metrics that measure the competitiveness of a country or workforce, such as our employment rate, the number of companies that continue to invest good jobs in Singapore and whether our workers command good wages.
Nevertheless, to mitigate the atrophy and obsolescence effects, it is necessary for us to continuously upskill and reskill throughout life, beyond the first 15 years of formal education. Which is why I always emphasise that while we have done well for the first 15 years of our student achievements in school, we must also focus on the next 50 years of our time beyond school.
To this end, the Government has been investing heavily in continuous education and training through SkillsFuture, and this is a key pillar of our refreshed social compact under Forward Singapore. However, the Government cannot do this alone. Individuals and employers also have key roles to play. Individuals must take ownership of their learning journeys throughout life and take steps to constantly upskill and reskill, to push against the natural skills atrophy that the PIACC results suggest.
Employers must also stay nimble and transform their business and jobs to compete internationally. They must also invest in their employees’ career health, such as by articulating their company’s skills needs and supporting their employees to undergo training so their employees have the capabilities to successfully achieve employers’ business goals.
Some have asked how we should interpret the PIAAC results in relation to our overall economic and workforce competitiveness. Our overall economic and workforce competitiveness also depends on other factors, including but not limited to, our ability to provide a business-friendly environment, consistent policies, stable government and measures to attract complementary talent and skills from the global networks to complement and supplement our own. These factors contribute to an ecosystem where businesses can make the best use of our workforce’s talent to innovate and thrive.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Usha Chandradas.
\tMs Usha Chandradas (Nominated Member): I thank the Minister for contextualising the PIAAC results. I have just one supplementary question for the Minister to consider. Would the Ministry consider collaborating more with Singapore publishers, booksellers and literary charities to enhance English literacy skills all round?
Just to provide some background, we have a number of them in Singapore, for example, Book Bar, Ethos Books, Epigram Books, the Singapore Book Council and SingLit Station, just to name a few. These entities have very successfully curated and created many interesting talks and lifestyle events that promote a reading culture around Singapore literature or SingLit, for short. SingLit stories are not only relatable, but very impactful for a local audience who can see their own life experiences and culture mirrored in the books and stories that they read.
So, to reiterate my question, will the Ministry be open to leveraging off of the initiatives of these entities in order to create a better reading culture and accordingly, improve adult literacy skills within the community?
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, we certainly would like to work with the various institutions that Member Ms Usha Chandradas mentioned. Indeed, it is a multi-prong effort. It is not just encouraging people to read more, but also to read widely and to be more reflective. And we are all conscious of today's media environment, whereby there are so many different channels competing for the attention of our people and we will have to keep up our efforts to continue our encouragement to our people to keep learning, to keep reading even as they are working and have gone beyond the school years.
Really, we all have to be aware of this famous dictum: we either use it, hone it, or we lose it. And that applies to all the skillsets that we picked up from young and we just have to keep working on it; otherwise, the atrophy effect will set in, regardless of our background.
Mr Speaker: Ms Foo Mee Har.
\tMs Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister for his response. I have two supplementary questions for the Minister. First, how does the Ministry plan to leverage the insights from the PIAAC findings, to refine the SkillsFuture programme, particularly in identifying critical skills gaps and developing targeted interventions that enhance the relevance, accessibility and effectiveness of training for both current and emerging workforce needs.
The second one, I would like to also continue on the point that the Minister spoke about skills atrophy. Related to that, I would like to ask the Minister whether he would consider lowering the age threshold for enhanced training subsidies under the SkillsFuture scheme, which is currently set at 40, whether he would bring it to 35, to enable workers to refresh their skills earlier and remain competitive in the fast evolving job market.
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Ms Foo Mee Har for her two questions. First, let me respond to the first on how we help our workers to be more focused and targeted in their selection of training courses and modules. We do it in different ways. One way that SkillsFuture Singapore does it is that we generally curate a set of courses that we think are industry relevant and we publicise this set of courses to encourage people to take up the courses. That is why there is a set of curated courses under the SkillsFuture programme.
The second thing that SkillsFuture Singapore has been doing is that every year, we will regularly identify the new skillsets in the emerging industries that will create new job opportunities for Singaporeans with better prospects. For example, in the care economy, in the green economy and the digital economy. Beyond this generic high-level cluster of skills required, we try to drill down to the specifics so that we can have curated programmes for our workers to subscribe to, so that they can improve their skillsets as necessary.
What we want to also do is have a broader culture where every one of us – individuals and employers – take ownership of this process to keep upgrading our skillsets. Our competition is not within Singapore. Our competition is how we, as a Singaporean workforce, compete with the rest of the world, the best of the world, so that we can continue to find our own niche areas to make a living for ourselves. So, this is evergreen work and we must keep doing this.
On the second issue about the age threshold of 40, let me just put in context the SkillsFuture framework of assisting our people to upgrade their skillsets. It is not a binary thing, where there is a before or after age 40, where we help or do not help people. Actually, we have a suite of schemes that help people from the time they leave school, all the way until they grow much older. It is just that we have intensified our efforts for the post-40, because our surveys, our dipsticks show that that is the most urgent part. So, even for people below the age of 40, we have other SkillsFuture programmes that allow them to access training programmes, as part of the larger SkillsFuture movement. But in the recent announcement, we have made more and we have intensified our efforts to help those above the age threshold of 40, because that is most critical and most urgent.
As to whether we will review that age threshold of 40 and bring some of the programmes even earlier, we keep that option open, depending on the market demand. But given the resources and the urgency of the problem that we have, that is why this year we have made the effort to focus on the post-40 age group. That does not mean that the pre-40s do not need to upskill. That does not mean that we have no programmes to help those in the pre-40s. Whether we need to step up the efforts, we will continue to review our programmes and make sure that we support Singaporeans accordingly.
Mr Speaker: Ms Jessica Tan.
\tMs Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Thank you, Mr Speaker. First of all, I would like to thank the Minister for the details and what he has shared, in terms of the approach. I just have two supplementary questions because my concern is not so much the exact scores, but the trend of what we are seeing and that the atrophy of skills is in the very basic area of adaptive skills, which is very important if we look at the environment of fast change. So, it is not so much specific skillsets and picking up specific skillsets.
From the insights in the report, is there going to be any curation, in terms of how we work with organisations? For the age group that is concerning, it is the 35-and-onwards group. Most of the people will be in the midst of their careers, not so much what age they are, but more in the midst of their careers. They are very busy, really just doing their work and so, many times, they neglect their development. While we can talk about all parties being responsible to take up development, they also have to do their work.
So, how do we look at the work itself and working with employers and all stakeholders to say, do we curate it in a way that allows people within the workforce to be able to do their continuous learning?
It is not easy, but it is something that I think we need to rethink, perhaps the approach of learning. It is not just about going to attend courses. As the Minister has rightly said, if you do not use it, even if you learn it, it is not going to be effective. And it is concerning because the trend is worrying – it is adaptive skills, it is the very basic core skills of literacy which affects ability to learn. So, I hope that the Minister can give assurance about the approach that we will take and if there is going to be any refinement in what we do.
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me put in context what the results measure and what the results have shown. In the first PIACC cycle, they measured two things: numeracy and literacy. In the more recent PIACC cycle, they measured three things: numeracy, literacy and problem-solving skills. Of the three, our adults' numeracy atrophy problem was not that much of a problem – it stayed stable for numeracy. For literacy, just like the worldwide trend, we have seen a dip. It is of concern to us because literacy is the basis upon which we acquire and process information. So, that is the second point.
For adaptive problem-solving, we have no basis for comparison because the first cycle did not measure this. This was the first time that they measured problem-solving. For that, we are at the OECD average. But within that, just as we have expected, we see a difference between the younger age group which performed very well, versus the older age group that did not perform so well. But our average for the whole workforce is at the OECD average.
Of course, one can take the argument that with more cohorts coming in, our flow of the cohorts will slowly overturn the stock effect. But to us, that is not satisfactory because that will take us too long for us to want to be competing at the top end of the global league.
So, what are we doing? Indeed, we need to step up our SkillsFuture programme, but the SkillsFuture programme does not address literacy per se. The SkillsFuture programme addresses the kind of skillsets necessary for that.
We need to couple the SkillsFuture effort, where we target our efforts to improve the skillsets of our people that are job-specific, with a more general culture that Ms Usha Chandradas mentioned; that we need to encourage our people to read, to maintain their literacy proficiency in order to process and manage information, especially in today's bewildering world, where the problem is not a deficit of information; the problem is a deluge of information which becomes bewildering.
How do we help our people to do the three \"Ds\", which I always emphasise in MOE? To \"distil\" the information; to \"discern\" with values; and to \"discover\", meaning to create new value propositions. These are the new competencies that we have to encourage our adults to have, starting from school, where we keep emphasising the abilities for our students to distil, discern and to discover.
Having said that, what else are we going to do? We need to spend much more effort and pay more attention to what we call the adult-learning andragogy. We have spent a lot of effort over the previous decades and years on how to build up the science of learning for our school children. More recently, we have also invested in the National Institute of Early Childhood Development (NIEC) to look at the pedagogies and the methods to help our younger cohorts, the preschool cohorts, to build the necessary foundations for their education. So, we have done this for the school and the preschool, in terms of pedagogical developments.
Now we need to have the third limb. And this is why I have tasked the Institute of Adult Learning to set up the equivalent of what we have, in the National Institute of Education and NIEC, to look at the adult pedagogies, how we can use technology to mass customise the learning for our adults. Because the same content delivered to a 25-year-old, a 35-year-old, a 45-year-old, will need to be different. And in fact, the most interesting institution that we have today is the Singapore University of Social Science, because many of their classes have what we call inter-generational students from different backgrounds and it requires different pedagogies or adult andragogy for us to effectively teach and allow and help our adult students to master the content. That is what we will do.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): I thank the Minister for his reply. Like others who read the news, and as an educator myself, I was, of course, alarmed to read about the study. However, I am a little less convinced than the Minister that the solution necessarily is about doubling down on adult reskilling and upskilling. And let me explain.
Literacy, I believe, is truly a foundational skill, as the Minister and also Ms Jessica Tan mentioned. And so, reskilling and upskilling necessarily builds on this foundation. I wonder, therefore, in the interest of retaining knowledge and learning, whether there should be programmes right at the earlier levels of the formal schooling level that will foster interest in knowledge and learning acquisition. So, that is the first part of my supplementary question.
My second is, I wonder whether some of this has to do with a mindset that is common in our educational culture to study for the test. Often, we hear about how after the test, we \"return\" things to the teacher. I wonder if the high stakes testing culture that we have fostered here may be responsible for this and I wonder if the Minister can share a bit about his thoughts on that.
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, I will just make the following points in response to Member Assoc Prof Jamus Lim's comments. First, we certainly agree, it is not an either/or thing. Of course, the foundation is important, just as the need for us to upskill and reskill continuously is important. This is why MOE in the recent years has been using this phrase and has been implementing programmes that we refer to as \"the joy of learning\" – that people want to learn because they enjoy learning, not just for tests.
And if Assoc Prof Jamus Lim had read my recent interview with The Straits Times, he would also understand that we are using this catchphrase now, which is: \"learn more, test less\". If you look at our education system, the recent changes that we have made, we have allowed students to, indeed, learn more, but we do not need to necessarily test everything that the student learns, so that there is an innate desire to want to learn, not just for the exams, but to learn for life. This is a habit that we want to inculcate in our children: the joy of learning that you can learn widely, but you do not always have to just focus on the test. The test is but a means for us to let the individual know where you are strong or weak at, so that on that basis, you can be put in a learning environment that best suits you, to help you to continue to grow.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Help from Public Healthcare Institutions on Bill Issuance for Patients Facing Insurance Claim Difficulties","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health what support is available for patients at public healthcare institutions where the issuance of billing invoices has been significantly delayed through no fault of the patient and where the delay has led to the patient facing difficulty with making insurance claims for medical bills due to the bill being past the insurer's billing deadline.
\tThe Minister of State for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, in general, insurers do not reject claims if the delayed submission was of no fault of the patient. However, the Ministry of Health (MOH) is aware of a few cases where billing delays at the National Cancer Centre Singapore (NCCS) have resulted in patients facing difficulty in making insurance claims. NCCS has provided affected policyholders with letters to their insurers to explain the delay in claim submission. More resources are being deployed to NCCS to clear the outstanding bills. Policyholders who still face issues with claim submissions after sharing NCCS' letter with their insurers may approach NCCS for more support.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for her response. Does the Minister of State agree that residents may feel anxious and unfairly treated if insurance claims are denied due to technicalities, especially in cases where hospital bills arrive late, causing delays in submission?
Furthermore, does the Minister of State acknowledge that policyholders are often at a disadvantage in negotiating with insurers as the illness becomes a pre-existing condition once diagnosed, limiting their ability to switch to a more accommodating provider?
And can institutions step in to assist residents in appealing to insurers? Additionally, can MOH, as the regulator and key player in the healthcare system, play a more active role in helping patients negotiate with insurance companies in such situations?
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam: Mr Speaker, there are a few questions that the Member has raised and I would ask that we be careful not to conflate the issues.
The first point on the issue of any difficulties arising from billing delays, I can acknowledge and appreciate that that would be of concern to residents or patients. As I have explained, in this particular situation with NCCS, they have provided assistance.
And in general, the Public Healthcare Institutions do offer support by providing interim bills for insurance reviews and letters to policyholders on reasons of delay in claim submission if this happens, so, there is already support.
The other matters raised by the Member relate to issues of portability and that is also something that we had addressed in another question that was raised previously. There are concerns. We have studied this and we have already indicated that there are some downsides of portability and unintended consequences, including increase of premiums. So, this is a separate issue.
On the issue of rejection of claims. This is something that does get surfaced every once in a while. The point is, it really depends on the facts. If there are some concerns and issues of unfairness, the matter can be surfaced to the Ministry, and we can take a look and see how we can assist.\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Deployment of Surveillance Cameras to Catch High-rise Littering and Trial of Other Technologies to Supplement Present Efforts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"9 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in the past two years (a) how many instances of high-rise littering have been considered by NEA for the deployment of surveillance cameras; (b) how many of such cases are deemed unsuitable due to technical constraints; and (c) what is NEA’s approach to investigating and stopping high-rise littering from dwellings deemed unsuitable for the deployment of surveillance cameras, where the resident is recalcitrant and his neighbours have reason to believe that he aware of the technical constraints faced by NEA.
10 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment how is the Ministry leveraging the latest technologies, including artificial intelligence and surveillance drones, to enhance the detection and investigation of high-rise littering.
11 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in the past three years (a) what is the number of high-rise littering complaints filed to the National Environment Agency; and (b) what is the percentage of successfully enforced cases.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): Mr Speaker, with your permission, may I take Question Nos 9 to 11 on today's Order Paper?
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Thank you. Mr Speaker, my response to Dr Tan Wu Meng, Ms Foo Mee Har and Ms Yeo Wan Ling's Parliamentary Questions (PQs) today will also address the related PQs on high-rise littering filed by Mr Edward Chia for 7 January as well as the written PQ by Miss Cheryl Chan in today's Order Paper.
In addressing high-rise littering, the National Environment Agency (NEA) undertakes various measures to educate the public, detect instances of high-rise littering and enforce against offenders. In 2022 and 2023, NEA received an average of about 27,100 high-rise littering feedback reports per year. This was significantly lower than the annual average of about 33,500 feedback received in 2020 and 2021.
When there is such feedback at a block of HDB flats, NEA will work with the Town Council to, first, issue advisories to residents in the block. Should the high-rise littering issue persist, NEA will investigate to determine the likely offending unit and deploy surveillance cameras with video analytics to capture acts of high-rise littering and support enforcement efforts.
Between 2021 and 2023, NEA deployed cameras in about 97.1% of 7,400 persistent high-rise littering cases. The remainder were assessed as unsuitable, due to the design and layout of the blocks and the lack of appropriate vantage points.
In instances where camera deployment is not feasible, NEA will step up educational outreach to households in the affected stack, conduct stakeouts and initiate further investigations if there are eyewitness accounts. Members of the public, who are aware of their neighbours' littering behaviour, may also submit video evidence of high-rise littering acts to NEA for investigation.
Depending on factors, such as the weather, duration of surveillance and visibility of the camera to would-be offenders, the detection rate of high-rise littering acts could vary and result in fluctuations in the yearly enforcement rate. From 2021 to 2023, such acts were detected in about 30% of surveillance cameras deployment resulting in over 3,300 enforcement actions.
In the coming year, NEA will be introducing new operational measures to improve the detection rate. These include the use of cameras with higher resolution and longer deployment durations. Cameras will also be deployed in more covert locations to better detect high-rise littering activities.
To increase public awareness and deterrence against high-rise littering, NEA also collaborates with the Town Councils to deploy standees indicating ongoing surveillance or localised statistics on offenders caught and display posters indicating the number of incidents of high-rise littering caught for the affected column.
My Ministry will continue to monitor and explore measures to enhance detection and enforcement capabilities for high-rise littering, including keeping pace with technological developments in video analytics and artificial intelligence, and monitoring the suitability and safety of technologies, such as drone flights for high-rise littering surveillance.
In addition, we will continue to strengthen partnerships with communities to develop localised solutions to address high-rise littering and urge residents to be considerate and not commit such acts, which is an anti-social behaviour that threatens public safety and hygiene.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): I thank the Senior Minister of State for her answer. I have a Clementi resident who, for over a year, had food waste thrown out from a unit some floors above and was told that his block, which is one of the Clementi central blocks, because of the design, despite good grounds for suspecting which unit was responsible, NEA's existing technology could not actually target the window where the high-rise litter was coming from. And worse still, it appeared that the suspect unit knew this and, therefore, felt a sense of impunity.
Can the Senior Minister of State tell us, how soon these better cameras, less obvious cameras, more flexibly-orientable cameras, how soon can these be deployed? And if hot spots can be prioritised, especially where there is considerable disamenity from high-rise litter? Likewise, there are one or two spots in the Clementi area where there have been incidents of faeces being thrown from a high-rise window or sanitary pads and some of these have been ongoing for a while. We hope for NEA's support in addressing these issues.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I thank the Member for highlighting the issues. It is not just faced by Clementi residents. Because Singapore is so dense, high-rise living, densely built. There are instances of these. Fortunately, it is not the majority of Singaporeans. It is the minority who are engaged in such anti-social behaviour, but enough to cause us grief. And we need to put in quite a substantial amount of resources to tackle high-rise littering.
As noted by the Member, there are some blocks where the design is such that it is very difficult to find a vantage point to deploy surveillance cameras. I had said earlier in my reply that for such instances, we will have to work on intensifying outreach and education efforts, getting the support of the community, for instance, to see how we can instil more socially responsible behaviour or to give us ground intelligence, as to the suspected unit and even evidence where it is available. We also do stake-outs to try and nab the litterbug. But as I have noted, it is not easy and we will need to depend on working with the community for such cases.
With regard to when better cameras and other technologies will be available, we continue to explore the availability of such technologies. As I have said, we are looking into getting higher resolution cameras with a wider field of view, for instance, that may address some of these issues as well as looking at where we can better put these cameras and so on.
But having said that, the important point to note is that the use of surveillance cameras and other technologies really just augment all the other efforts that we are putting in to tackle high-rise littering. It is a multi-pronged and holistic approach. I do not think we can just depend on technology to do this. We need to work together with the community and a more sustainable way is to change behaviour and cultivate more gracious behaviour and collective responsibility in tackling high-rise littering issues and in keeping Singapore clean and safe.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.
\tMs Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In Punggol, I have received feedback of two kinds with regard to high-rise littering. The first being the repetition of the same littering cases, even with the residents reporting this to authorities and enforcement actions being taken. And the second being the perception of higher incidences of high-rise littering even if, statistically, there was a decrease in the reports. It could be an issue, very much like what Dr Tan Wu Meng had mentioned, of extreme disamenities being thrown out, such as full packets of cooked food and fully-loaded adult diapers.
I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State if there has been new technologies developed over the years beyond cameras that NEA will deploy soon to be more effective in catching such acts? And if NEA will be relooking at the punitive measures taken against such recalcitrant high-rise litterers? And if there are plans for the NEA to work closer with the grassroots organisations on a national plan to eradicate high-rise littering behaviours and what these plans are going to be like?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Hot spots and hot topic. I also want to refer back to Dr Tan Wu Meng's earlier question as well as Member Ms Yeo Wan Ling's question about hot spots and egregious high-rise littering acts. Over the years we have improved or enhanced our processes in terms of surveillance camera deployment. Now we use data analytics to prioritise deployment of surveillance cameras. If there are hot spots with persistent littering and egregious high-rise littering acts, these will be prioritised for deployment of surveillance cameras.
With regard to technology, again, as I have said in my earlier reply, we continue to explore and monitor technologies available, including drone flights. But currently, our assessment is that, for drone flights, there are some challenges. For instance, the battery life is not long enough for continuous monitoring. There is also some safety risk because these are high-rise buildings, so, drone flights may cause issues with safety as well as privacy. But we are not shutting this off; we are looking at that. For cameras, we are looking, as I said, on higher resolution cameras as well as working with industry players on the development of better video analytics in order to better detect high-rise littering cases. So, this is ongoing.
With regard to the third question from the Member Ms Yeo on penalties, since 2014, we have doubled the maximum court fines. For high-rise littering, they are not offered composition fine. They have to attend Court. And the maximum penalty, as I have said, has been doubled: first offence, up to $2,000; second offence, up to $4,000; third and subsequent offence, up to $10,000.
When high-rise litterbugs are caught on surveillance cameras, they may be caught for more than one act, because the surveillance cameras can be there for five days, seven days and up to 14 days. We have seen cases where they are caught every day for high-rise littering and so, the fine, the penalty is very stiff and they can also be asked to go for Corrective Work Order. We have done this as part of a package to really deter high-rise litterbugs.
\tBeyond that, as I have said, and which the Member has also suggested, we need to work with the community. We need to work with the community, in fact, for localised ideas as to how we can better deter such behaviours. Some of the things we are doing on the ground – for instance, putting standees to show that the area is under surveillance or putting up posters on the number of litterbugs that have been caught there or littering acts that have been caught there – is to raise deterrence, as well as to encourage a change in behaviour. We will be more than happy to work with the community on what else we can do with regard to tackling this issue.
Mr Speaker: Ms Foo Mee Har.
\tMs Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Thank you, Speaker. I would not repeat the same points my colleagues have already made, but I just wanted to reinforce that the frustration for high-rise littering remains a very significant one amongst my residents.
I noted that the Senior Minister of State mentioned that for even very egregious cases where there are a lot of reports, the success rate for enforcement is only 30%. So, if I get the Senior Minister of State's statistics that she has just said correctly, you have a camera there, people report over and over again, because we have all walked the ground and we know where the cases are. In fact, for some cases, we even say, \"It is this unit\". But the enforcement success, so far has, not been there – if I understand the statistics correctly, it is 30%.
I wanted to ask the Senior Minister of State what are the challenges? Why is it so difficult when we are already telling you exactly where and these are egregious cases, and there are many others. So, if the Senior Minister of State can shed some light and we can work together. I can assure the Senior Minister of State the grassroots and the community will do anything to get rid of that and take the perpetrators to task. So, if you can just tell us what would be helpful, we will do it.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: The 30% catch rate is overall and it varies from year to year. The fluctuations really can be multi-factorial; we cannot really identify why it is 30%. But really, the success rate of a particular case depends on the information we have. If we are able to really pin down that particular stack or that particular few levels, and we are able to aim the camera there, then the likelihood of being caught for the high-rise littering is higher.
The other thing, of course, is I think we all know – it is not only Clementi, West Coast, Ayer Rajah or Gek Poh residents who are frustrated. Everybody who faces this problem is frustrated if we cannot catch them. We do our best. But for particular cases, if we have good information, the chance is very high that we will catch the litterbug.
So, I had a look through all the cases of the different Members of Parliament who have filed the high-rise littering PQs. And among those, there are cases where we have caught the litterbug. We put the surveillance camera and we have caught them. And there are cases where we have not – and it can be for various reasons. Either the intelligence is not good, or it is very hard to find a good vantage point. Sometimes, we have the vantage point and the camera is so visible to the offender that during that period, he does not offend. That can be the case. Although I hope that sometimes when you see the camera, you would not offend and then you do not do it anymore. But that is not always the issue.
So, I think it is a host of factors. But on average, it is 30%. Actually, that shows the difficulty that we have in tackling this problem. And we will be most happy to get all these intelligences. In fact, it is not just videos, even photos and so on, you can give us so that we can narrow down the suspect unit or that stack. We will then engage that stack of households or intensify our engagement there.
Mr Speaker: Last supplementary question on this. Ms Carrie Tan.
\tMs Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): Thank you, Speaker. I have a very different angle to this issue that I would like to raise for Senior Minister of State Khor's consideration and response. Which is that for many of these cases, especially in my constituency, we found that it is not a matter of whether we are catching and we can identify them, but it is a matter of the persons or perpetrators not being in their right mind. Whether they could have dementia or they could be suffering from other mental health conditions, and it is also very distressful for the caregivers and kin living in the same household as the perpetrator to continue to continuously face the negative perceptions and experiences of neighbours who are suffering from this high-rise littering behaviour.
So, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State, in view of the recent community dispute resolution moves that the Government has made through the Municipal Services Office, is NEA working in tandem with that to access the levers to compel mental health assessment or to work with the Agency for Integrated Care to expedite institutional support and intervention for the perpetrators who do have a medical condition that is causing them to engage in such behaviours, where regardless of how many summonses you give, they are unlikely to be able to respond to that in a positive manner.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: First, let me state that whilst I say that the penalties are stiff, I must say NEA is not heartless. When we come across cases where it is a mental issue and so on, which we have, we do work with the families, refer them for treatment or encourage or advise the family to do so. And we work with the family and the community to see how we can find a solution for this. For instance, Minister Grace Fu shared with us that in her constituency, she had a case like this. So, she worked with the residents and the community to put up grilles so that they cannot do the littering. I think we need to come up with creative solutions like this for unique cases or cases where it is because they are mentally not well, and so on.
That is why I say we need to see how we can customise solutions to tackle some of these problems. I do not think you have a one-size-fits-all solution, but generally, with enforcement, with education and outreach, we hope to minimise the number of such anti-social behaviours.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Roll-out of On-Board Units for ERP 2.0 System","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether an update can be provided on the roll-out of the installation of On-Board Units (OBU) for the Electronic Road Pricing 2.0 system; and (b) whether the Land Transport Authority is on track to complete OBU installations by end-2025.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Transport): As of 31 December 2024, more than 217,000 vehicles have been fitted with the Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) 2.0 On-Board Units (OBU). We are on track to complete the installation by 2026.
Mr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
\tMr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): I thank the Senior Minister of State for her very short answer and I note that the roll-out is on track.
My supplementary question is on the third-party applications. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) released this software development kit to encourage third parties to develop applications that can complement the roll-out of the ERP 2.0 system. As a driver, in fact, I am one of the early adopters of the ERP 2.0 OBU, I am appreciative of some of the third-party applications, such as the real-time information on parking availability. So, I would like to ask how many of these third-party apps have since been developed for ERP 2.0? What are some of the new features that drivers can look forward to and when will these be rolled out? Does LTA have any plans to further encourage the development of such apps to further improve the robustness of ERP 2.0?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. Firstly, with regard to third-party apps, we now have three third-party apps: one is by NCS, an app called Breeze; another app is by Galactico; the third one is by Motorist.sg. In addition, we have our own LTA in-house developed app. We are more than happy to work with third-party developers. In fact, we encourage and work with the industry app developers to develop apps that use our ERP 2.0 data with the Software Development Kit and develop apps that will be useful and will enhance the usefulness of the ERP 2.0 OBU through using the handphone.
With regard to the OBU features, which are available on the OBU screen itself, as well as through the handphone or it can be pushed to the handphone, currently, we have features to indicate School Zones, Silver Zones, bus lanes and, of course, Traffic Police speed cameras. We have enhanced that so that it is not just indicating the fixed speed cameras, but also the mobile speed cameras and the red-light speed cameras.
Then, we also have travel time along expressways, car park availability. In fact, we have enhanced that. It is no more just in the city area, but you can also get car park availability in Buona Vista and Jurong. Also, information on road closures for major events, like the National Day Parade or Purple Parade, for instance. Also, height advisories for goods vehicles.
And then we are looking at developing other features and among them would be, for instance, reminder of missed ERP payments that you can pay via the OBU and dynamic road traffic messages, like if there is a traffic accident.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing Use of MediSave for Root Canal Treatment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Health whether he can provide an update on the review of the use of MediSave for root canal treatment to ensure patients, especially seniors, can afford the treatment needed to meet their dental healthcare needs.
\tThe Minister of State for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, currently, Singaporeans requiring root canal treatment are eligible for subsidies at Public Healthcare Institutions and, under the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS), at participating dental clinics. Notwithstanding, there have also been many requests to allow the use of MediSave for root canal treatment. Indeed, root canal has become a more common treatment to preserve teeth and maintain quality of life, especially for seniors. The Ministry of Health is still reviewing this.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Take-up Rates and Usage Patterns for $4,000 SkillsFuture Credit (Mid Career) Top-up","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant asked the Minister for Education (a) what has been the take-up rates and usage patterns for the recently announced $4,000 SkillsFuture Credit (SKC) top-up for Singaporeans aged 40 and above; and (b) beyond the existing measures, what new initiatives is SkillsFuture Singapore planning to implement to ensure that the course offerings remain relevant to emerging economic trends and industry needs, and to boost the usage of SKC.
15 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Education (a) how many individuals have benefited from the SkillsFuture Credit (Mid-Career) top-up under the new SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme since its commencement on 1 May 2024; and (b) what is the breakdown of the types of courses or disciplines pursued by beneficiaries under this programme since its inception.
16 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Education (a) how many individuals have tapped on the SkillsFuture Credit (Mid-Career) top-up under the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme since its commencement on 1 May 2024; and (b) what is the breakdown of the types of courses and training providers of the courses enrolled in by the applicants since the inception of the programme.
\tThe Minister of State for Education (Ms Gan Siow Huang) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 14, 15 and 16 together?
Mr Speaker: Please go ahead.
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: Since receiving the $4,000 SkillsFuture Credit (Mid-Career) top-up on 1 May 2024, more than 25,000 Singaporeans aged 40 and above have utilised the credit as of 30 November 2024. The top area of training in these first seven months was in information and communication technologies, covering skills such as digital marketing and data visualisation. Other popular areas of training include security and investigation, and wholesale and retail trade. The top training providers include both the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) and private training providers, such as NTUC LearningHub.
SkillsFuture Singapore, or SSG, will continue to work with partners to raise awareness of the scheme. For instance, SSG works with the Community Development Councils and our unions to expand outreach efforts so that more people will be aware of the scheme – how to use it and what are the courses available. These are done through workshops and roadshows.
Individuals can use the MySkillsFuture portal to find eligible courses and tap on SSG’s free Skills and Training Advisory services for personalised guidance to identify suitable courses. There is no expiry date for the $4,000 SkillsFuture Credit (Mid-Career). We encourage Singaporeans to be deliberate in considering their training options and their training needs, and to be committed to the training once enrolled.
Today, over 7,000 courses that support substantive training are eligible for the $4,000 SkillsFuture Credit (Mid-Career). SSG will work closely with sector agencies, industry partners and also training providers to refresh these courses and ensure they support our economic and manpower needs.
Mr Speaker: Ms Foo Mee Har.
\tMs Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for the details. I am encouraged to hear the usage but I would like to ask the Minister of State two follow-up questions.
\t
First, what mechanisms are in place to evaluate the effectiveness of courses eligible for SkillsFuture Level-Up Credit, the thousands that the Minister of State quoted just now, particularly in addressing the unique learning needs of the mid-career working adults and how does the Ministry review these programmes to ensure they deliver maximum impact and relevance over time?
And the second supplementary question relates to how does the Ministry ensure the credentials accredited or awarded under the programme are both industry recognised and valued by employers? So, it is good that they used it, but what is the tangible improvement in employability and job performance for participants? How do you evaluate that?
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: Indeed, Mr Speaker, the intention of the SkillsFuture Credit (Mid-Career) is to focus on enabling Singaporeans who are 40 years and above to be able to go for longer-form courses that are recognised by the industry. That is why there is very close consultation with the sector agencies, industry partners and also training providers to understand what are the needs – both the current, as well as the emerging ones.
How do we evaluate the effectiveness? The number of courses that have been curated is about 7,000 at the moment and we have been quite careful in curating them. These are the ones that have been known to provide better employment outcomes in getting jobs. And also through feedback from the employers as well as the people who went for the courses, that they have been helpful for them to be able to advance in their careers through better skills obtained.
As to the credentials, as I have mentioned earlier on, we have been very careful in curating the courses, precisely because we want to make sure the credentials that individuals obtain through attending these courses will be useful. In fact, there have been requests for us to expand the list. We will do so carefully and also in consultation with our industry partners and sector agencies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reports of Harassment of and Violence Towards Platform Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"17 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether there has been a rise in harassment cases and violence reported by platform workers to date, in light of the recent stabbing of a delivery rider while in the course of his duty; and (b) whether the Ministry will look into ensuring that delivery platforms better protect their driving and riding partners in addition to only banning these perpetrators from the platform.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for Manpower): Sir, cases such as the stabbing incident that the Member referred to, are serious crimes and best dealt with by the Police.
The Police do not track the number of harassment or violence-related crimes against platform workers per se. To date, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has not received any complaints from platform workers about harassment or violence.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Yeo.
\tMs Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Thank you, Speaker. I would like to declare that I am the advisor to the National Delivery Champions Association. Mr Speaker, over the past few years, our association has received ground grievances on harassment, sometimes verbal, sometimes physical, but always hurtful and traumatic. While the association and the National Trades Union Congress have provided counselling and at times, financial support to help our riders through this, what are some other redress avenues available to our platform workers, should they be harmed when they are carrying out their work duties?
Given that we recognise platform riders and drivers as employee-like now, would these redress avenues also include claiming vehicle insurance or having their platform partners provide redress avenues for them, or perhaps even for the Ministry to mandate the creation of crisis support centres at the platform companies?
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I thank the Member for her supplementary questions. I think we must first recognise that platform workers, as they move around and interact with a great number of members of the public, can be exposed to risk of harassment. Platform workers are already protected through the Protection from Harassment Act, or POHA, where individuals who harass or commit violence against platform workers may be liable for criminal offences. All individuals who commit violence are also liable for criminal offences under the Penal Code.
So, there are already existing laws that actually protect platform workers against any form of harassment when they are conducting their work. We note in this case, that the platform company has also banned the particular customer who has displayed violence against the platform worker from using their platform. So, these are measures that companies can also adopt to protect the workers from further harassment by a particular member of public.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.
\tMs Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): The victim raised in this relevant Parliamentary Question is actually my resident in Woodgrove, whom Senior Minister of State Zaqy Mohamad and I had visited during Christmas Day to better understand the situation that has arisen and also the conditions of his recovery. I share the same sentiment as his parents, that his job as a delivery rider can be a dangerous one and often prone to unnecessary abuse.
So, given that this job is public-facing and contains a service element, in relations to our platform workers' duties, while I understand from the Senior Minister of State that there are other laws out there, for example, in terms of POHA, that can protect them, but can we also look into whether enhancing this protection for them, such as expanding the coverage of protections under the Protection from Harassment (Public Service Worker) Order 2014, to include them as well, or to expand in other ways. For example, even if they were to pursue this route through the POHA, they may not have the financial means and time to do so.
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I thank the Member for her clarification. I am glad to see that she and her fellow Member of Parliament has visited this resident. I hope he has not sustained severe injuries and that he is recovering well. But this case is still before the Courts and still under investigation, so, I shall not comment further.
Suffice to say that under the existing law, POHA and the Penal Code, investigations will be carried out and if there is an establishment of an act of violence against another person, then the process of the law would take its course and the culprit will be taken to task.
Under the current law, POHA, there are already criminal sanctions against such offenders and there are quite stiff penalties as well, including, for example, if there are offenders who intentionally cause harassment, alarm or distress, they may be fined up to $5,000 or imprisonment, or up to six months or both. And if there are more serious cases, where the victim is led to believe that unlawful violence will be used, and in this case, violence has been used against him, then the offender could be liable for a fine of up to $5,000 or imprisonment, or up to 12 months or both. So, under our existing laws, there are punishments.
But the issue of a platform worker facing violence or harassment at work is not something that the law itself can 100% deter, because it deals with human-to-human interaction. This can happen to any person dealing with another person. It could happen to, say, nurses, it could happen to a bus driver, it could happen to just a sale staff, facing another person who decides to be violent against a person providing any form of service. Expanding the law itself may not prevent such things from happening, but what we can do is to make sure that if the person is working in a particular workplace where employers have control of the site, they can then deny or deter such people from entering the premises. The challenge, of course, with platform workers is that they move around. There is no fixed locality and they do encounter different people.
So, the law provides some of these protection. Perhaps, what the employers or the companies can do is to help educate or share some information with these workers to be able to spot trouble and develop some situational awareness so that they themselves are able to take appropriate measures to extricate themselves from a situation or an altercation, and prevent the situation from escalating and subjecting themselves to physical harm. I think these things can happen, which is why the law is there to protect them from some of these harassments.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Johor Bahru-Singapore Rapid Transit System Link on Singapore's Retail, Manufacturing and Commercial Rental Sectors and Job Market","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"18 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry what is the Ministry's assessment of the impact that the Johor Bahru-Singapore Rapid Transit System (RTS) Link will have on retail, services, manufacturing industries and the commercial rental market in Singapore; and (b) how will the job market be affected.
\tThe Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Sir, I refer the Member to the written response that Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong had issued yesterday to Mr Lim Biow Chuan's Parliamentary Question (PQ), Question No 72 listed in yesterday's Order Paper, which also addressed the matters raised in the PQ filed by Mr Desmond Choo. I would be happy to address any supplementary questions Members may have on the topic.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.
\tMs Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): I thank the Minister of State for the reply and I have also referred to Deputy Prime Minister's reply.
While we recognise the convenience that we can envisage with the rolling out of the Rapid Transit System (RTS), I think I also want to take this opportunity to highlight the concerns that we have often heard from merchants in the Woodlands area – particularly, in my ward, it will be from Woodgrove's Fuchun Neighbourhood Centre and also the 888 Plaza.
Long gone are the days where they welcome Malaysian travellers to come and the businesses actually prospered along with the transport networks that bring benefits for both sides. But at this point in time, their concern is that it would only benefit one side.
I recognise that there are agencies that are already working on the ground to support the merchants in a way to improve their business operations. My suggestion is for the Ministry to look at it in a more macro manner, where it is also about improving the public transport networks overall, making it more attractive and also, for example, in terms of the recreation facilities and even things in relations to hawker centres – the food that we sell, the overall shopping experience that may actually attract the Malaysian travellers that come to Singapore, to also consider shopping around the Marsiling area, the Woodgrove area and also the Woodlands area to begin with, before taking the other public transports to other parts of Singapore.
So, I hope that the Minister can look into this to engage the other Ministries in a more comprehensive manner.
\tMr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank Ms Hany Soh for her suggestions. Indeed, the Government will take those into account. There are already a few existing plans: Enterprise Singapore is working with the neighbourhood centres, for example, to upgrade; and there are plans to upgrade Fuchun Neighbourhood Centre, for example. In fact, five neighbourhood centres in Woodlands have been upgraded under the Housing and Development Board's Remaking Our Heartland's programme. I also encourage the grassroots advisor, and particularly, Ms Hany Soh, to work with us to encourage the heartland enterprises to make use of many of the different schemes – heartland merchandising improvement schemes, place-making grants, and in fact, also the Heartland's Enterprise Centre Singapore – to increase their marketing ability and to increase their competitiveness. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Minister of State for Trade and Industry\", Official Report, 8 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 149, Correction By Written Statement section.]
So, we thank Ms Hany Soh for her suggestions and we look forward to working with her on some of these in due time.
\tMr Speaker: Last supplementary question. Mr Lim Biow Chuan.
\tMr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Sir, I do not think it is just the heartland shops in the Woodlands area that are going to be affected. The RTS will allow many Singaporeans to cross over to JB to do their shopping. As it is, that is already happening almost practically every weekend.
So, my question to the Ministry of Trade and Industry is what other plans do we have to help not just the heartlanders, but also the entire retail industry in Singapore. Because this will have a big impact on all retail industries within Singapore, as the goods in Johor are really much cheaper.
\tMr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank Mr Lim Biow Chuan for his supplementary questions. Singapore is a geographically small country. Johor and Singapore have complementary strengths. Singapore has a strong financial centre, we have headquarters located here. Johor's complementary strengths are their workforce, as well as the larger hinterland, as well as the larger geographical area.
So, this is not just confined, as Mr Lim Biow Chuan had mentioned, to the northern parts, but many of the initiatives, including heartland place-making grants, are available to all heartland enterprises across the country. That is one.
Second, neighbourhood upgrading plans across the country, not just confined to the north, is also underway, and there will be more plans that Government will announce in due time. But, if you also look at the Community Development Council vouchers that we have launched and most recently last Friday, these are also meant to help supplement residents' spending needs, but also to help to augment businesses in the heartlands as well.
So, we are looking at this comprehensively and we look forward to working with Members to enhance competitiveness for businesses, not just in the north, but across Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on 2024 Secondary 1 Posting Exercise","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"19 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Education in respect of the 2024 Secondary 1 posting exercise (a) how many Primary 6 students are not posted to any of their six school choices, with a breakdown into (i) numbers (ii) percentages and (iii) posting group; (b) how does this posting outcome compare to the numbers in the previous three years; and (c) whether any guidance or preparation is given to parents for years where there are more competition for places in secondary schools such as years with higher birth rates.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong) (for the Minister for Education): The Ministry of Education (MOE) plans for sufficient Secondary 1 places to cater to all Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) students in that cohort. This means that every student who takes the PSLE and qualifies for secondary school will be guaranteed a place at one of our secondary schools.
\t
The 2024 PSLE cohort was larger than cohorts in the previous years and this was taken into account in our planning.
Under the 2024 Secondary 1 Posting Exercise, more than 90% of the cohort were placed in schools among their six choices. This was consistent across all posting groups. For the remaining students, they were posted to the school nearest to their residences that had vacancies in their eligible posting groups. Overall, the posting outcome was comparable to the previous three years.
Schools' cut-off points, or COPs, can fluctuate from year to year, depending on the cohort's PSLE score and their school choices. When more students with the same PSLE score pick the same schools, the COPs of these schools could become more stringent than what they were in previous years. The larger cohort taking the PSLE in 2024 could also have contributed to this effect for some of the popular schools.
Therefore, besides encouraging students and their parents to only use the previous year's COPs as a reference, we have strongly encouraged them in 2024 to select at least two or three schools where their PSLE score better than the school's previous year's COP. This would increase their chances of securing a place in one of the preferred school choices. We also encourage students and parents to look beyond COPs and to consider the school's culture and distinctive programmes alongside the students' strengths and interests.
\tMr Speaker: Ms He.
\tMs He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. I have three supplementary questions on this. The first relates to guidance given to parents over choices as the Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned earlier, because of the larger cohort this year, there were some fluctuations that were experienced in the COPs. Parents have given us feedback that there were some difficulties in choosing the schools that their children might have been eligible for.
My question would be, would there be any extra guidance given to parents, given that this is obviously quite a stressful period for them trying to figure out which schools, which choices to make for their children, especially given that this is still a relatively new system that everyone is not quite so familiar with. So, firstly, whether any further guidance is going to be given to parents in terms of choosing. On the point about COPs, can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary confirm how many schools actually had reduced COPs compared with the 2023 cohort?
My second supplementary question relates to appeals. As the Senior Parliamentary Secretary is aware, every time when the school posting results come out, there are parents who wish to appeal. For this year, I would like the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to confirm how many appeals were received in order to try and get their children into the schools of choice that they did not gain a posting for? How many appeals were made, how many were successful? And would the parents be given guidance in the future about, for example, if their children did not get any of the six choices, would they be given additional guidance or prompts whether an appeal is possible and also how to make an appeal? I understand that there was some confusion among some parents about how to go about appealing and when to expect results. So, I think there was some confusion on the ground from what I understand. So, whether the Ministry could actually provide some guidance and support for parents who find themselves and their children in this situation.
And finally, my third supplementary question relates to affiliation benefits. There is some sentiment on the ground that there might be some differences in affiliation benefits and the effect that it has under the current system. I was just wondering whether the MOE is monitoring that, whether there have been any differences found, whether affiliation benefits actually apply more to this new system compared with the last system, and whether there are any tweaks to the system required in order to find out what effect of the affiliation benefits are.
\t
\tMr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong: I thank Member He Ting Ru for her supplementary questions. I think for the first one with regard to the guidance given to parents and so on, most certainly, awareness and education and outreach is definitely very important. And that is why the school has done much of the work on the ground, especially before the release of PSLE results, engaging students, reaching out to the parents. And on the day of the results, to make sure that they choose a wider cluster of schools, probably the top three choices would be something that they would desire, but that for the bottom three choices, at least select two or three schools that has a much higher COP, so that they make sure that the clustering is a little more diverse. So, that is the first point.
The second point in terms of the COP, COP is actually historical data, based on the previous year. Although it is somewhat a good reference, these fluctuations always occur and are very common. A plus or minus one point is common for the majority of the schools. But then again, out of an entire range from four points up to 20-plus points, plus or minus one point in difference of the COPs is actually quite normal.
For the third part, the Member had questions about appeals. We do not have the direct numbers of appeals, but appeals percentages are very low and it is consistent over the last couple of years. The appeals do go direct to the schools and for each of those desired schools, the parents and the students as well are encouraged to go to the school and then find out the process. There is also an online link where the appeals process is well known.
If those aspects or avenues actually fail, then parents are encouraged to also approach MOE and we will see how we can better facilitate and see if within the vicinity or closer to the vicinity, what are the available schools.
On the last query on affiliation benefits, this is not exactly related to the posting, so I suggest the Member to post a more specific question on affiliation at the next Sitting.
\tMr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Thank you to the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the answer. I have two follow-up questions. The first has to do with what the decision in terms of allocation of schools when there is a tie-breaker. My understanding is that it is a combination of COPs as well as the rank order that the student indicates. But earlier on, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary indicated that distance was used as a decision metric in terms of allocation after this. Just to clarify, is distance used also for the purposes of a tie-breaker situation? That is the first supplementary question.
My second is, I wonder if the Ministry also considers distance not so much just in terms of geographical distance as the crow flies but rather commute time. This is because we have many residents who inform us that even though a specific school may be located relatively close in terms of geographical distance, it could take in terms of commuting time, close to an hour to get there. Understandably, they would rather have something that could be further but requires less commute time.
\t
\tMr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong: I thank the hon Member for the question. With regard to the specifics on the tie-breaker, the Member actually has filed a Parliamentary Question, which is Question No 47, which we will address in full. With regard to the distances, for example, MOE is committed to assigning a school that is closest, with vacancy, within the vicinity.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for More Severe Penalties for Scams Involving Impersonation of Government Agencies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"20 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Government will consider more severe penalties and longer jail sentences for criminals involved in scams using the impersonation of Ministries and Government agencies including those who allow the use of their bank accounts.
\tThe Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Our assessment is that the existing penalties are currently adequate. Depending on the facts of the case, scammers and money mules, including those involved in scams that impersonate government officials may face charges which carry imprisonment terms of up to 10 years.
However, many scammers are based overseas, making it difficult to identify and prosecute them. We have hence focused on punishing and deterring those in Singapore who facilitate scams. For example, in 2023, we amended the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act to allow the Police to take firmer enforcement action against money mules, whose bank accounts are used to perpetrate scams and other crimes.
We have also worked with the Inter-agency Sentencing Advisory Panel to publish sentencing guidelines for certain scams related offences last year. The guidelines recommend that significant imprisonment terms should be the norm for scam related offences. For example, the recommended starting sentence is six months' imprisonment for negligently handing over control of one's bank account to another person; and 18 months' imprisonment for handing over control of his bank account to another person, knowing or having reason to believe that this would assist the person in retaining criminal proceeds.
The Ministry of Home Affairs regularly reviews the adequacy of our criminal penalties and will likewise do so for scams-related offences.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Pereira.
\tMs Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Thank you, Speaker. I have one supplementary question. In view of the recent reports of scam victims themselves who become involved in carrying out the scams, what would be the sentencing considerations, and if it can be made clear that such victims would not face any leniency under the law?
\t
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for her question. In line with established case law, the fact that an offender has committed an offence, whether it is out of financial need or in the hope of recouping his losses due to being a scam victim, in and of itself does not have any mitigating value, save in the most exceptional or extreme circumstances.
But I would say that there might be other cases which may contain mitigating factors. For example, if it is a government official impersonation scam victim, and he went and he did money mule-related work, thinking that he was truly authorised by a government official, and he was deceived as to the nature of the money mule work that he was doing, then this would be taken into consideration by the courts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Efforts to Facilitate Low-income or Illiterate Persons' Access to Legal Aid Bureau Services Via Non-digital Means","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"21 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Law how has the Legal Aid Bureau made provisions to offer non-digital access to its services to applicants who may be illiterate, of low-income or not digitally able.
\tThe Minister of State for Law (Mr Murali Pillai) (for the Minister for Law): The Legal Aid Bureau (LAB) provides in person services at the Ministry of Law Services Centre (MSC). The staff there can assist those who are illiterate or not digitally savvy or speak languages other than English.
Applicants can take the means test at MSC and receive legal advice or legal aid if successful. Those receiving legal aid, which entails assistance with court proceedings, can be guided by MSC or LAB staff, either in person or by phone.
Legal advice is also available in person at MSC, or through video conferencing at any of the nine ServiceSG centres. Clients of Family Service Centres (FSCs) or Social Service Offices (SSOs) can also receive legal advice via video conferencing at 29 FSCs and 24 SSOs.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Phua.
\tMs Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): I thank the Minister of State and I am really happy with that response. I would like to suggest that perhaps the Ministry of Law, and especially LAB, communicate this a lot more to the ground. Because often us as Members of Parliament, even after we make an appeal for legal assistance or aid or advice, and specifying that our our residents are not digital savvy, they are not proficient in English, they are elderly, and so forth, we will still get a template reply to \"please refer to the portal\". So, I thought, if there are already services available such as these, that we can actually communicate a lot better.
And also to the ground, perhaps resource even more the SSOs or the Community Clubs because they are also manned or staffed by public servants and so, the security or privacy considerations are better managed.
So, I ask for therefore better communication and really looking to this challenge on the ground.
\t
\tMr Murali Pillai: Sir, I take the hon Member Ms Phua's point. As a matter of system, a digitally illiterate person should not be sent to digital portals. As I mentioned in my reply, we have a strategy and we, in fact, devote resources to help these digitally illiterate persons. And I will certainly bring the feedback back to my colleagues.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Ministerial Statements. Minister for Digital Development and Information.
[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":"Responsible Use of NRIC Numbers","subTitle":"Statement by Minister for Digital Development and Information","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Minister for Digital Development and Information (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Speaker, Members have filed a total of 51 Parliamentary Questions (PQs) on the National Registration Identity Card (NRIC) policy and the disclosure of NRIC numbers on the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority's (ACRA's) Bizfile portal. Second Minister for Finance Ms Indranee Rajah and I will be making Ministerial Statements to address the issues raised. Our Statements will address Question Nos 1 to 37 for oral answer in yesterday’s Order Paper; Question Nos 3 to 8 and 39 to 44 for written answer in yesterday’s Order Paper; Question No 52 for oral answer in today’s Order Paper, and related questions that have been filed for subsequent Sittings.
Mr Speaker: Please go ahead.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Sir, let me start by acknowledging the concerns raised by the public over NRIC policy. The Bizfile incident is unfortunate.
Without intending to, it may have led the public to believe that the Government is changing its policy to allow full NRIC numbers to be exposed on a wide scale. This is not the case. We take the public's concerns very seriously and are very sorry that the mistake has caused them much anxiety.
I want to reassure the public that NRIC numbers remain personal data. NRIC numbers can only be collected when there is a need to do so. Organisations that collect NRIC numbers also have a duty of care. Subject to applicable law, they must notify and seek consent on use, and ensure protection of the data. These are existing guidelines that will not change.
However, there are also some incorrect uses of the NRIC number today. Our plan was to stop these incorrect uses while the problem is relatively contained. Doing so will better protect everyone and allow us to use NRIC numbers with confidence.
In this regard, my Statement today will address two issues: the current incorrect uses of NRIC numbers and why we need to change; and what our next steps will be.
Sir, when we interact with others daily, we are identified by our names. However, our names may not be unique. For organisations that deal with many people, say, a hospital with several patients named John Tan, they need a better way to uniquely identify them. Their NRIC number is a useful unique identifier in such situations. When the hospital needs to perform an operation or dispense medication, the doctor or nurse must make absolutely sure that it is the right John Tan they are dealing with and they should ask you, \"What is your NRIC number?\"
Since the NRIC number's purpose is to be a unique identifier, it cannot be a secret, just as our names are not secret. I should emphasise, however, that while your NRIC number is not a secret, it is not meant to be widely disclosed. This is the concern echoed in Mr Lim Biow Chuan's question.
We would only disclose our NRIC number under certain circumstances, for example, when required by law. Some examples include disclosing our NRIC number to our employers, at the clinic or when we subscribe to a mobile telephone line. Because we do have to disclose our NRIC number to others for such purposes, we must assume that at least some people know our NRIC number.
Over time, however, NRIC numbers have become increasingly used as more than an identifier. Previously, organisations would require seeing my physical NRIC card to confirm that I am who I claimed to be. However, some organisations assume that if someone can cite my NRIC number, that person must be me! This is clearly wrong.
On the assumption that this person is indeed me, some organisations may go further to give the person access to privileged information or services. When used this way, my NRIC number is no longer just an ID, or identifier, but a key to unlock more information or services. In such situations, the NRIC number is being accepted as an authenticator, or proof of who a person claims to be. This is clearly inappropriate.
Instead of the full NRIC number, some organisations collect and use a partial NRIC number, usually the last four characters of the NRIC number. They think that this is safe and that revealing only the last four characters still keeps the full NRIC number secret. Among public agencies, even when the agencies had the full NRIC numbers, the use of masked NRIC numbers became more common.
Besides organisations, some individuals also started to use their NRIC numbers as their passwords. They did so under the impression that the full NRIC number is secret.
However, as shown by Dr Tan Wu Meng in his question, there are now algorithms that can be found online, that have made it easier to work out the full NRIC number from the partial or masked NRIC number. The easy availability of such algorithms means that the continued use of partial or masked NRIC numbers gives both organisations and individuals a false sense of security. This does not really keep the full NRIC number secret. This also makes the practice of using NRIC numbers as passwords even more inappropriate.
To the questions by Dr Tan, Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Ms Sylvia Lim, these developments led the Government to take steps to stop the incorrect uses of the NRIC number. This meant two things: one, not using the NRIC number as an authenticator; and two, moving away from the use of masked NRIC numbers, because it creates a false sense of security.
We knew this transition would take time. But it was better to start while the problem is relatively contained and for the Government to take the lead.
To the question by Ms Joan Pereira, we proceeded to ask agencies to stop using the NRIC number as an authenticator or as a password. We also asked agencies not to plan new uses, with a view to discontinuing existing uses of masked NRIC numbers eventually.
The lapse in coordination between agencies led to ACRA's misunderstanding and the disclosure of full NRIC numbers in the People Search function of its new Bizfile portal.
In hindsight, what we should have made clear was that moving away from the use of masked NRIC numbers did not mean automatically using the full NRIC number instead, in every case. At no point was our intention to disclose full NRIC numbers on a wide scale.
In place of masked NRIC numbers, in some instances, there would be no need for the NRIC number at all. In other instances, names alone or some other identifier would be sufficient. But there could also be instances where full NRIC numbers should be used, instead of masked NRIC numbers. Each case would have to be assessed and decided individually.
Members including Mr Leong Mun Wai, Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Xie Yao Quan, Ms Jessica Tan, Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Pritam Singh have asked about the internal processes leading to ACRA's actions. Minister Indranee will say more about it in her Statement later and address Members' questions related to ACRA.
Miss Cheryl Chan asked why the efforts to change did not include the private sector. The Government knew that it would take time for public agencies to make the change. We expected that it would take even longer for the private sector because of long-standing practices and habits. The plan was therefore to change the internal practices of Government before moving to change practices in the private sector and non-profit organisations, which Ms Usha Chandradas asked about. We believed that doing so would allow us to better understand the implementation challenges and, as a result, facilitate a smoother transition in the private sector.
We had also planned to mount a major effort to help Singaporeans be aware of the risks and to support efforts to stop incorrect practices. The Bizfile incident was an unfortunate misstep which now means these plans need to be brought forward.
While we had taken steps to stop the incorrect uses of NRIC numbers in the public sector, we had not started implementation for the private sector. Mr Edward Chia, Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Ms Hazel Poa and Mr Xie Yao Quan have asked specifically what should be done in the private sector.
At this stage, we would advise private sector organisations to do two things: first, private sector organisations that are using NRIC numbers as a factor of authentication or as default passwords should stop this practice as soon as possible; and second, private sector organisations that presently collect partial NRIC numbers to identify people can continue to do so. The guidelines for the private sector have not yet changed and we will only consider how they should be updated after consulting the public.
To questions by Mr Xie Yao Quan, Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Sharael Taha, we aim to start consultations soon and will provide details when ready. Our initial soundings with the private sector suggest there can be different approaches. Some organisations currently using partial NRIC numbers can stop the practice and replace them with alternative means of identification such as mobile numbers or email addresses or drop them entirely. But there are also organisations that need to accurately identify persons and can justify the collection of full NRIC numbers even if they are not required by law. For example, preschool centres will prefer to collect the full NRIC numbers of visitors rather than just the mobile numbers; the parents will certainly feel more secure. In applications for and disbursements of substantial financial aid, persons would also need to be accurately identified.
We will take these considerations on board when updating the guidelines. In any case, I would like to assure Members like Ms Jean See and Mr Ong Hua Han that the Personal Data Protection Commission will support businesses in changing their authentication methods. This will include raising their awareness on why the use of NRIC numbers as a factor of authentication is unsafe and working through the Infocomm Media Development Authority and the Cyber Security Agency's programmes to help businesses review and adjust their practices.
To questions by Ms Tin Pei Ling, Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, I should emphasise that NRIC numbers are personal data. This means that organisations collecting and using NRIC numbers must continue to exercise a duty of care. Subject to applicable law, they must notify and seek consent on use, and also ensure the data is sufficiently protected. Certainly, they should not disclose the NRIC numbers unless there is good reason to do so.
Members may also ask, if the NRIC number is not suitable as an authenticator, what about the physical NRIC card, our pink identity card? If we look at our physical NRIC card, we will see that it contains other identifying information, such as our photo and fingerprint. It allows others to check that the information on the card matches me, the person holding the card. In addition, the physical NRIC card is not easily faked. The physical NRIC card is, therefore, suitable as an authenticator, or proof of who I claim to be. But someone providing my NRIC number and claiming to be me, does not have these additional factors of proof.
Organisations must know that the physical NRIC card and NRIC number are different. The physical NRIC card can be an authenticator, but the NRIC number should not be used as an authenticator. Organisations should, therefore, not accept my NRIC number alone as proof that the person citing it is indeed me.
Besides organisations, individuals, too, have questions about what they should do. There are also two things. The first is to clarify their understanding of the NRIC number. Members like Ms Sylvia Lim asked about this.
We have said that our NRIC number is like our name. Even if it is not widely disclosed, it is not secret. In our daily lives, if someone we do not recognise calls out our name and starts to behave as though they know us well, we would be slightly suspicious. We might be polite but not too friendly. Certainly, we should not fully trust this person, just because they know our name.
This should also be how we treat anyone who tells us our NRIC number. We should not automatically assume that they know us well or are figures of authority or can be trusted. We should be cautious about revealing more about ourselves, or saying yes to their requests or following their instructions without checking further.
The second thing we can do as individuals is to review our passwords. If we have used our NRIC number as a password to access any information or service, we have mistakenly used it as an authenticator and should change the password immediately. Doing so will give us better protection against people who use our NRIC number to get access to information or services. It will also complement efforts by organisations to stop using the NRIC number as a factor of authentication.
To Ms Hany Soh's question, NRIC-related scams are not new. Most NRIC-related scams involve victims who think they are speaking to figures of authority and end up taking actions that harmed themselves, such as transferring money without further checks. Very few cases have involved scammers directly using NRIC numbers to unlock access to valuables.
Several Members have also asked how to mitigate the risks when NRIC numbers are disclosed. They include Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim, Mr Edward Chia, Mr Christopher de Souza, Mr Ong Hua Han, Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Ms Jessica Tan, Mr Louis Chua, Miss Cheryl Chan, Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Yip Hon Weng.
As I have explained, the risks arise from the incorrect use of the NRIC numbers. If individuals stop using NRIC numbers as passwords and organisations stop using NRIC numbers as authenticators, this will go a long way to preventing harms from scams and identity theft. They will give us all better peace of mind to use the NRIC number whenever it is necessary, such as to get medical treatment or apply for jobs.
Sir, the Government appreciates that the incorrect uses of the NRIC number may not be well understood. Our public education efforts will raise awareness among organisations and individuals, and to guide them on what they should do. In doing so, we will focus on the points I highlighted above.
Mr Gerald Giam asked about alternatives to the current NRIC number system. In fact, the risks do not arise directly from the structure of the NRIC number. Rather, the risks arise when the NRIC number, which is meant to be a unique identifier, is incorrectly used as an authenticator or a password. Even if we were to create an alternative identifier, we would still have a problem if organisations used it as an authenticator and individuals used it as a password.
Sir, let me turn now to questions about ACRA's exemption from Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) requirements and the Government's data protection measures. These were raised by Ms Tin Pei Ling, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Patrick Tay.
The Government has always taken seriously its responsibility to protect the data entrusted to the public sector. The Government's personal data protection standards are set collectively by the Public Sector (Governance) Act, or PSGA, and our own internal rules.
The PSGA is aligned with the PDPA and adapted to the Public Service context. Our internal rules are comprehensive and take reference from international and industry standards. We also continually strengthen our data governance practices.
ACRA is expected to comply with these rules and the PSGA, which are no less stringent than PDPA requirements. Regular, mandatory audits are conducted to ensure that public agencies, including ACRA, comply with the standards for data protection and the security of information and communications technology systems. The number of data incidents and their severity is published annually.
In the most recent whole-of-Government audit exercise on information technology-related data security controls, there were very few significant findings and all of them had been remediated by the agencies concerned. There has also been a reduction in data incidents of medium severity and above. Where necessary, we have also taken public servants to task, for example, in serious cases involving unauthorised disclosure or improper use of information.
Members can be reassured that we take these rules and controls very seriously. We will continue to regularly review the safeguards to ensure that they remain relevant.
Sir, let me conclude. We understand the public's concerns about NRIC numbers. It was not our intention to make the full NRIC number widely disclosed and we are not heading in that direction.
NRIC numbers are personal data and can be collected and used only when there is a need to. Organisations that hold your NRIC number also have a duty of care. Subject to law, they must notify and seek consent on use, and ensure protections. These are existing guidelines that will not change.
What needs to change are the incorrect uses of the NRIC number. These include using NRIC numbers for authentication or as passwords. It is better to make these changes while the problem is relatively contained. Organisations and individuals can both help by taking steps to stop using NRIC numbers as authenticators or passwords.
By taking action as soon as possible, we can increase protection for all of us. This will allow us to more confidently use the full NRIC number as a unique identifier whenever we need to do so. Mr Speaker, please allow me to summarise a few key points in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, the Government understands the public's concerns about the correct use of NRIC numbers. I would like to reiterate here that it is not our intention for the full NRIC numbers to become widely disclosed information.
NRIC numbers are personal data, and they can only be used and disclosed when there is a need to do so.
Unless indicated by law, organisations that wish to collect and hold your NRIC number must first notify and seek consent on its use, and ensure that it receives adequate protection. These existing guidelines will not change.
However, what needs to change are some incorrect uses of the NRIC number. For example, we should not use NRIC numbers for authentication or as passwords.
It is better to make these changes and rectify the problem while it is still relatively contained. Both organisations and individuals can do their part to stop using NRIC numbers as authenticators or passwords.
By taking action as soon as possible, we can increase protection for all of us. This will allow us to more confidently use the NRIC number as a unique identifier, whenever we need to do so.
(In English): Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will respond to any clarifications which Members may have, after Minister Indranee Rajah has also made her Statement.
Mr Speaker: The Second Minister for Finance will indeed also be making a related Ministerial Statement. I will allow Members to raise points of clarifications on both Statements after Minister Indranee's Statement. Second Minister for Finance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"NRIC Numbers in ACRA's Bizfile Service","subTitle":"Statement by Second Minister for Finance","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, Minister Josephine Teo has spoken about the Government's position on the use of NRIC numbers. In my Statement, I will cover the events leading to the disclosure of full NRIC numbers on the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority's (ACRA's) Bizfile People Search function and address related questions from Members.
I want to start by acknowledging the public anxiety and confusion caused by this incident and, once again, extend our apologies for it. Many Singaporeans regard NRIC numbers as sensitive information and are understandably concerned to learn that NRIC numbers were available in full in the free People Search function of ACRA's new Bizfile portal from 9 to 13 December 2024. We take these concerns very seriously.
In the wake of the public concern about the disclosure, ACRA suspended the service and since the resumption of service on 28 December 2024, the search results under the revised People Search function no longer show any NRIC numbers, masked or unmasked. We believe this approach addresses both the concerns that the public currently has and the needs of Bizfile users.
My Statement will cover the following three areas.
First, ACRA's mandate to provide public access to basic information on businesses and their associated individuals.
Second, the series of events that led to ACRA changing the People Search function to unmask NRIC numbers. Here, I will also address questions relating to the scale of the disclosure.
Third, whether a review of the incident will be conducted and if any action will be taken against those involved.
There have been questions on why ACRA needs to provide public access to basic information on individuals associated with businesses, and the types of information that are being made public. Some questions are based on an underlying assumption that NRIC numbers cannot be made public at all, which is not correct.
It is, therefore, important to first have a clear understanding of ACRA's mandate, to collect and disclose information, before we address the other issues.
ACRA is the national regulator of business registration and financial reporting. Its mission is to foster a trusted business environment, so that businesses and individuals, within and outside of Singapore, can transact with Singapore business entities with confidence and know whom they are dealing with. In furtherance of that mission, one of ACRA's roles is to maintain our national business register.
To this end, ACRA is empowered to collect and maintain information on business entities and their associated individuals. Associated individuals include individuals who are owners or directors of companies or shareholders of private companies.
First, on information on business entities. The information on business entities that ACRA collects and maintains includes the business' name; the Unique Entity Number (UEN); incorporation date; status, for example, whether it is live, dormant or wound up; the registered address; business activity; paid up capital; and the list of shareholders. The information on associated individuals that ACRA collects and maintains includes: the individual's name; nationality; identification number, such as the NRIC number; and contact address. It also includes the past and present positions that they hold or have held in business entities that they are or have been associated with as well as when they held these positions.
To maintain corporate transparency, facilitate business transactions and guard against illicit activities, ACRA is allowed by law to give public access to such information, including NRIC numbers. This is provided for under the ACRA Act and other ACRA-administered legislation. Public access to such information is not unique to Singapore. Many business registries around the world similarly provide public access to such information.
Let me provide some examples to illustrate why public access to such information is necessary. For example, when a bank onboards a new corporate client, it will need to conduct background checks on the company's directors. This allows the bank to ascertain if the directors have any history of financial misconduct or if they have been involved in companies with financial or regulatory issues, before deciding whether to grant credit facilities, such as loans. Information on the company's directors, such as their NRIC numbers, will be useful to the bank when confirming the directors' identities.
When companies and investors do business with each other, or when they are considering mergers and acquisitions, they would normally need NRIC numbers to facilitate due diligence checks on the identities and shareholdings of their counterpart's company directors.
NRIC numbers also help to deter illicit activities. When the identities of business owners, directors and other key position holders of businesses are publicly known and are publicly linked to their businesses, it deters these individuals from engaging in illegal activities, such as money laundering and fraud, because their clients, regulators and stakeholders can easily trace them and hold them accountable for their actions. Public access to information on individuals associated with business entities thus maintains corporate transparency, deters illicit activities and upholds trust in our business environment.
In summary, therefore, it is important to understand that the public disclosure of NRIC numbers is not prohibited per se. The real issue is the degree and the ease of access to NRIC numbers. Let me just repeat that, because it is important that people understand this. The public disclosure of NRIC numbers is not prohibited per se. The real issue is the degree and the ease of access to NRIC numbers.
To appreciate the distinction, it is necessary to understand how ACRA's Bizfile portal works.
Bizfile is ACRA's one-stop e-services portal for users to register new businesses, file annual returns, update business and personal information and access information on business entities and their associated individuals. There are two key steps to access information on business entities and their associated individuals on Bizfile: first is, the People Search or what I will, for convenience, call \"Step 1\"; and second, the People Profile search, or what I will call \"Step 2\". [Please refer to \"Clarification by Second Minister for Finance\", Official Report, 8 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 149, Correction By Written Statement section.]
The People Search function is the first step in a user's search for information on individuals associated with business entities. It allows users to specify and identify the individual on whom they wish to obtain information. This function is free, and I will explain how it works.
On the old Bizfile portal, which was in place before 9 December 2024, users could do a name search, which would return a list of individuals with the same searched name and their masked NRIC number. For example, if you did a name search for \"John Tan\", and there were four \"John Tan\"s in the database, all four names would turn up in the People Search results, along with the masked NRIC numbers of those four individuals. If you had the NRIC number of the specific John Tan you were searching for, you would be able to identify the correct John Tan from among the People Search results.
If you wanted more information on the relevant John Tan, you would then have to purchase the People Profile on that John Tan. This is \"Step 2\", for which a fee is charged. The People Profile contains additional information, such as the individual's full name, full NRIC number, contact address, associated businesses, and past and present positions that they held or hold.
Therefore, even on the old Bizfile portal, a member of the public could obtain the full NRIC number of an individual associated with a business entity by purchasing that individual's People Profile at \"Step 2\". There was no change to this \"Step 2\" in the new Bizfile portal.
In other words, the full NRIC number has always been publicly accessible upon the purchase of a People Profile, and this has not been an issue. The NRIC number, in the context of a Bizfile search, has never been confidential or secret. The real issue is one of degree, and ease of access and searchability.
So, what changed? What changed between the old Bizfile portal and the new one launched on 9 December 2024 was the People Search function, or \"Step 1\". As I explained earlier, if you keyed in a name or part of a name on the old Bizfile portal, previously, the search results would show the names and the masked NRIC numbers. The new Bizfile portal, however, showed the names and the full NRIC numbers, until the service was suspended.
This change to the People Search function on the new Bizfile portal, namely, to display full NRIC numbers at \"Step 1\", meant that if a user typed in \"John Tan\", all the four \"John Tan\"s in the system and their full NRIC numbers would be displayed. However, this change also meant that the public had free access to the full NRIC numbers of any individual in ACRA's database.
This understandably caused public concern since many Singaporeans view their NRIC numbers as sensitive and confidential information. ACRA has since revised the People Search function such that it only returns names and no longer displays any NRIC numbers, whether masked or unmasked.
Mr Ang Wei Neng, Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked about the events that led to ACRA unmasking NRIC numbers in the People Search function. As mentioned at the press conference on 19 December 2024, we are thoroughly reviewing the incident to ascertain what exactly happened. The review is underway and I do not want to prejudge the outcome, but I will share the key facts that have been pieced together so far.
The Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) had concerns about how NRIC numbers were being used, as Minister Josephine Teo has explained in her Ministerial Statement. Consequently, in July 2024, MDDI issued a circular minute directing all Government agencies to: one, stop using NRIC numbers as authenticators or passwords; and two, cease any planned use of masked NRIC numbers in, for example, new business processes and digital services.
ACRA understood the directive to mean that it had to unmask and display in full the NRIC numbers in the People Search function on the Bizfile portal. ACRA had internal deliberations about the risks of unmasking NRIC numbers in its People Search function, including the possible impact on personal data protection. ACRA then sought MDDI's clarification on whether it was required to unmask NRIC numbers in the People Search function on the new Bizfile portal.
However, due to a lapse in coordination between MDDI and ACRA, ACRA continued to understand, mistakenly, that the directive to cease the use of masked NRIC numbers in new digital services required ACRA to unmask and disclose in full the NRIC numbers. Hence, ACRA disclosed full NRIC numbers in the People Search function when the new Bizfile portal was launched on 9 December 2024, as they thought MDDI required them to.
Let me stress this: it was not the Government's intent for agencies to make datasets of NRIC numbers in their possession widely and easily accessible.
Minister Josephine Teo has since explained, both at the press conference on 19 December 2024 and in her Ministerial Statement earlier, that when MDDI told agencies to cease the use of masked NRIC numbers, that did not automatically mean using full NRIC numbers in every case.
Instead, MDDI's policy intent was for agencies to: one, not use NRIC numbers at all unless necessary; two, use other identifiers in lieu of NRIC numbers, where this was adequate; and three, in certain cases, such as in medical settings, where the use of NRIC numbers is required by law or necessary for accurate identification, use full NRIC numbers. MDDI has acknowledged that they should have made this clear.
With the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that there were gaps in the communication and understanding of MDDI's policy intent. The Government is reviewing this lapse in coordination and communication between MDDI and ACRA, and I will elaborate on the scope of the review later.
Mr Xie Yao Quan asked about the length of time taken by ACRA to decide to disable the People Search function. When public concerns first surfaced on 12 December 2024, MDDI and ACRA needed time to assess whether the disclosure of full NRIC numbers in the People Search function was consistent with MDDI's policy intent, as well as the feasibility and lead time needed to effect alternatives. Disabling the search function was a last resort, given the impact on businesses and individuals who might need to use the People Search function to conduct their due diligence checks.
It was eventually agreed that, out of the possible options, temporarily disabling the People Search function would best address public concerns while ACRA reviewed the People Search function. The function was disabled on the night of 13 December 2024. Therefore, while the agencies could have been more prompt in their response, one must also have regard to the various considerations they were balancing at that time. As part of the review, we will study how the Government could have responded more quickly.
Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked if ACRA intends to extend its fee-based tiered access policy to more personal data. ACRA has no plans to do so. The issue here, as I have explained, is not about collecting or disclosing more personal data, but the ease of access to and the searchability of existing personal data that is currently publicly accessible.
Let me now move on to the queries about the scale of the disclosure. First, I should emphasise that ACRA's database does not contain information on all Singapore Citizens. It contains information only on individuals who are reflected in filings or lodgements made with ACRA. These are individuals who are or have been involved in ACRA-registered entities, such as companies, partnerships, as well as non-profit organisations that are companies limited by guarantee.
If you or your authorised representative have not made any filing with ACRA before, your NRIC number would not have been collected or shared by ACRA. However, if you have incorporated a business or assumed a board directorship, your information would have been collected and made publicly available through the People Profile, or \"Step 2\". The fee imposed at \"Step 2\" acts as a filter and makes it more likely that those accessing the People Profile information have a good reason for doing so.
In respect of the period from 9 to 13 December 2024 when full NRIC numbers were disclosed on the People Search function, Mr Dennis Tan, Ms He Ting Ru, Mr Louis Chua and Dr Tan Wu Meng have asked about the number of People Searches conducted, the number of distinct users who conducted searches, the number of NRIC numbers that were disclosed before the People Search function on the new Bizfile portal was disabled and the risk that NRIC numbers were accessed by malicious actors.
Based on the investigations so far, more than 500,000 queries were made on People Search during that five-day period from 9 to 13 December 2024. This was much higher than the usual daily traffic of 2,000 to 3,000 queries. The bulk of these queries was made on 13 December 2024, the day after news of the NRIC numbers on the new Bizfile portal broke. These searches came from an estimated 28,000 Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, most of which were from Singapore. We are unable to identify the exact number of NRIC numbers that were disclosed through these queries, as the Bizfile portal is not configured to track individual queries for the People Search function.
ACRA and GovTech have since conducted a security review and identified that the security feature in the People Search function designed to distinguish between human users and computer bots was not working as intended. This has since been fixed. Thus far, we have not uncovered any known threat actors, based on the IP addresses that were used to make the People Search queries between 9 and 13 December 2024.
That said, those who are concerned that their NRIC numbers may have been accessed can still take steps to protect themselves. First, ensure that your NRIC number is not used as a password for any of your digital accounts. If you are using your NRIC number as a password, you should change your password as soon as possible. Second, do not use your NRIC number for authentication. If you are currently using your NRIC number for that purpose, change your authenticator as soon as possible. Third, do not assume someone to be a legitimate authority even if they know your NRIC number. Even if someone can recite your full NRIC number, it would be prudent to ascertain their identity and intent by conducting other checks.
Following this incident, ACRA is reviewing how the People Search function can be improved. For example, ACRA is considering the roll-out of additional search parameters, such as the UEN of the entity with which the individual is associated.
I now come to the last part of my Statement, which is on the review of the incident and whether action will be taken against those involved.
As mentioned earlier, a review panel has been set up to study the root cause of the incident, and work is already underway. The panel is led by Head of Civil Service Mr Leo Yip, and it includes Permanent Secretaries whose Ministries are not involved in the NRIC policy or this incident. It also includes the Permanent Secretaries of the Ministry of Finance, which oversees ACRA, and MDDI. The panel will report to Senior Minister Teo.
The panel will review two matters: first, the Government’s policy on the responsible use of NRIC numbers; and second, the disclosure of full NRIC numbers on the People Search function of ACRA’s new Bizfile portal.
For both matters, the panel will study what happened, how the decisions were made, the implementation and communication processes, the coordination across public sector agencies, and where the Government should have done and can do better. It will also recommend areas for improvement. Specific to the People Search function on Bizfile, the panel will look into the design and implementation of the search function. The panel expects to complete its review in February. We will share the review findings thereafter.
Mr Don Wee asked how the disclosure of full NRIC numbers on the new Bizfile portal aligns with data protection policies under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA). First, in the interest of corporate transparency, ACRA is legally allowed to disclose certain information, as I explained earlier.
Second, beyond such permitted disclosures, ACRA, as a public agency, is required to meet personal data protection standards set out in the Public Sector (Governance) Act, or PSGA, and Government Instruction Manuals (IMs), which are standards similar to those under PDPA. The PDPA applies to the private sector, whereas public agencies like ACRA are governed by the PSGA and the Government IMs. As the panel is still ascertaining the full facts of this incident, it would be premature to conclude definitively whether there has been any breach of the PSGA or the Government IMs.
As for whether action will be taken against those involved, that depends on the outcome of the review. Based on the panel’s preliminary findings, the incident seems to be a genuine case of miscommunication borne out of insufficient understanding of the policy intent and each party's needs and requirements. Nevertheless, if the panel uncovers facts that suggest actionable wrongdoing or serious lapses, it will refer the matter to the relevant bodies or authorities for further disciplinary or legal action.
Mr Speaker, in conclusion, there are three key points I wish to reiterate.
First, providing public access to information on business entities and their associated individuals, including NRIC numbers, is part of how ACRA upholds corporate transparency and deters wrongdoing. But this information only pertains to ACRA-registered entities and individuals who are reflected in filings or lodgements made with ACRA. ACRA does not have the NRIC numbers of all Singapore Citizens.
Second, while MDDI intended for Government agencies to cease using masked NRIC numbers, it did not intend for Government agencies to unmask all the NRIC numbers that they were masking. The unmasking of NRIC numbers in the People Search function arose from ACRA's misunderstanding of MDDI's policy intent, and gaps in communication and coordination between agencies. That said, even if ACRA had been labouring under the wrong impression, it should have been more mindful of the need to balance corporate transparency and the likely public concerns over the ease of access to and searchability of personal information in the People Search function on the new Bizfile portal.
Third, the Government will learn from this episode and do better in the future. We are reviewing this incident thoroughly and will, in due course, share with the public the lessons learnt.
Let me conclude by saying something on behalf of ACRA. ACRA has acknowledged its mistake and is very sorry that this has happened. Since then, it has been doing its utmost to put things right and do better. They worked throughout the festive period to get the revised People Search function in place and to test and check the system. At the same time, they have been assisting Bizfile users in navigating the revised search function.
ACRA will work on improving its services and step up its data management measures. It will also support the review panel in identifying what went wrong and what could and should have been done better.
This brings me to the end of my Statement. Mr Speaker, may I suggest that Members seek clarifications in three segments: first, on the Government's position on the use of NRIC numbers; second, on the events that led to the unmasking of NRIC numbers; and third, any other clarifications.
Mr Speaker: Before I call on hon Members for your clarifications, I just wish to point out Standing Order 23. Members may seek clarifications on the Ministerial Statements, but no debate shall be allowed thereon.
As you heard earlier, there are 32 Members who have filed 51 questions on this issue. I will be giving priority to these Members to seek their clarifications. And in view of the number of Members who have filed questions on this matter, I seek all Members' understanding to: first, keep your clarification short, clear, concise and at a quick pace; second, avoid preambles where possible. If a preamble is necessary, keep it brief; and third, state all your clarifications upfront. Do not break them up. And likewise, I ask Ministers – the two Ministers – to also keep your answers clear and concise.
By adopting this approach, I hope to allow everyone to raise and address as many clarifications as possible.
First clarification question, Ms Tin Pei Ling.
Ms Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson): Thank you. I have a few clarifications. First of all, one of the key issues that we have seen here is the question of, \"Has the policy stance changed?\"
Prior to the introduction of PDPA, Singaporeans were quite comfortable with sharing their NRIC numbers. There were even instances whereby NRIC numbers were published in the papers after a lucky draw result was out. So, that was at the beginning. Then, later, we were cultivated to be sensitised to NRIC numbers, especially in the period of introducing PDPA. So, now, with the latest incident, naturally, Singaporeans will wonder, \"Is there a change and why is there a change?\"
And compounding this was that there was a guideline on the collection and retention of NRIC numbers, as part of the guidelines under PDPA. Shortly after the incident, the guideline was withdrawn from the Internet. So, then the question is: why was this withdrawn? What significance is this action? And, therefore, what kind of message are we sending? That is my first clarification.
Secondly, it is now clearly clarified that the NRIC number is personal information and that it has to be dealt with with care. So, beyond a matter of respecting individual preference, Singaporeans are concerned about how this NRIC number can or cannot be used for identity theft or scams, which I know the Minister had addressed it in her Statement.
What would be helpful is to share what kind of actions will be put in place to safeguard such information and prevent such misuses. How can Singaporeans be assured further? And from now till then, as the Ministry goes out to engage organisations that are currently using NRIC numbers for authentication, not just for passwords or default passwords but also as default identification, or ID, what is the period of time that the Ministry is looking at to quickly get these organisations to rectify it, so that it would help to alleviate the concerns and anxiety that Singaporeans may have during this period?
Thirdly, if NRIC numbers are not meant to be used as an authenticator, then in the past few years, why did the Government not actively go after organisations that have been implementing such practices? Would it be seen as implicitly endorsing this understanding?
And lastly, I am glad that there will be a review panel to establish the facts of the matter, but at the same time, I also would like to urge the Government to be fair to the civil servants, especially ACRA in this instance, especially if they had no ill intent. But as a whole-of-Government effort, there is shared responsibility. So, I urge the Government, in the review, to also be fair to the civil servants involved.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member Ms Tin Pei Ling for her questions. There are quite a few. One of them will need to be addressed by Minister Indranee, but I will attempt to address the rest.
Let me first say that I appreciate Ms Tin's comments that we should be fair in how we conduct the review proceedings, and I think that is the intent. But the intent is to be rigorous and to be thorough, which also necessarily means that we do not further speculate on what took place. And that is part of the discipline that we will have to observe in order to ensure that, not only do we get to the bottom of matters but also that we are fair to all parties.
Ms Tin had a specific question on the Guidelines on NRIC that are issued by PDPC and why were they withdrawn? It was withdrawn for a very short period of time to apply a new label to it, to draw people's attention to the statements that were made subsequently. So, it was intended to basically tell people that the Guidelines remain valid and the new label says so, but to please note these other discussions that have surfaced. So, I hope that addresses the question.
Ms Tin also asked what should be done if the NRIC number has still been disclosed, what do you do about preventing scams, what do you do about pushing back against identity theft? I explained in my Ministerial Statement that NRIC-related scams have been around with us for some time. Most of the NRIC-related scams pertain to the scammers giving the impression that they are figures of authority because they are able to cite your NRIC number. Very few of the scams, in fact, it is not quite so easy to pinpoint even one specific instance, where the scammer was able to get hold of the NRIC number and then key that in to unlock valuables.
So, it goes back to the best protection that we can have for each other, and that is: for organisations, not to use NRIC numbers as authenticators or default passwords; and for individuals, not to use these NRIC numbers as passwords.
How do we help organisations to do this as quickly as possible? Firstly, we recognise that it may take them time. Not everyone understands this. Even for Members of Parliament, it has taken two Statements and more than an hour to get to this point. So, we do not under-estimate the effort that is going to be required, the public education exercise that will have to be mounted and the many outreach sessions that we are likely to have to conduct, in order to help people understand the risks of continuing to use the NRIC number as an authenticator and as a password.
So, we must give it adequate time. But the resources to help these organisations are available. We will do so through PDPC. Between the Infocomm Media Development Authority and the Cyber Security Agency, there are also programmes that will put the organisations in touch with the relevant knowledge experts, service providers that can help them bring about the change.
To go back to Ms Tin's first question: has the policy changed? I explained at the outset that the Bizfile incident, without intending to, may have led people to think that the Government now has a new policy of allowing full NRIC numbers to be disclosed on a wide scale. And this is not the case. This is not the direction that we are moving towards.
The change is only in respect of stopping the incorrect uses of NRIC numbers as authenticators and as passwords. That is the change. The policy, the guidelines, the duty of care that organisations must exercise when they collect and use NRIC numbers, those have not changed.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Just a very quick response to Ms Tin. Her comment was that she hoped that the review would be fair to ACRA. As far as the review panel is concerned, the intention is to be thorough and also to be fair to all. Both to ACRA as well as MDDI, to all involved. But it must undertake the review seriously and carefully.
As I mentioned earlier, based on the preliminary findings, the incident seems to be a genuine case of miscommunication, but at the same time we do not want to prejudge the issue. So, as I also mentioned, if the panel uncovers facts that suggest actionable wrongdoing or serious lapses, then it will refer the matter to relevant bodies or authorities for further action. So, they will be objective, they will be fair, but they will also be thorough and rigorous.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Sir, in July last year, this House passed the ACRA (Registry and Regulatory Enhancements) Bill. Amongst other things, the Bill introduced a framework that sought to protect the confidentiality of personal information by limiting public access and allowing only specific parties access for the purposes of fulfilling regulatory obligations. Minister Indranee, in moving the Bill, confirmed that the Bill laid the groundwork for the enhanced Bizfile system that was targeted for launch at the end of 2024.
No mention was made in the Minister's Second Reading speeches about the Government's new approach vis-a-vis NRIC numbers. A public consultation was also undertaken for the Bill, which was published in March 2024. In this consultation, ACRA had proposed, \"to partially mask the identification numbers of all individuals in ACRA's registers which are made available to the public and introduce a contact address that will be shown to the public.\"
There was some feedback to this proposal, principally related to corporate transparency and know-your-client requirements. ACRA responded to this and said, \"On the proposal to mask identification numbers, the concerns on requiring access to full identification numbers have been duly noted. We will review this further and provide an update in due course.\"
Sir, my first question: as the issue of the masking of NRIC numbers was clearly in ACRA's contemplation for the purposes of the amendment Bill in July 2024, when did ACRA intend to provide an update to its public consultation? And in view of the reply, if I heard correctly from the Minister, the circular came into being in July 2024, when was ACRA intending to provide an update to its public consultation and why did it go ahead, especially in view of these public representations?
Secondly, ACRA and the Government would have been acutely aware that the public treats NRIC numbers as personal data and for personal data privacy reasons, and that these should not be disclosed to the public. Minister Josephine Teo acknowledged that. But in 2022, on the back of amendments to various corporate statutes, the point was acknowledged in Annex A of a public consultation exercise for another Bill that NRIC numbers are confidential information.
My second question, therefore, is: in view of the serious and significant public concern about how the of unmasking NRIC numbers that took place could have occurred so easily, despite enough feedback about not just how the public but ACRA itself views the sanctity of NRIC numbers, by virtue of its consultation exercises in 2022 and 2024, surely the matter would have had to be brought to Parliament instead of simply interpreting a circular from her Ministry? That is the second query to the Minister.
And finally, I note my Parliamentary Question (PQ), Question No 25 in yesterday's Order Paper, subsections (b) to (d) of that question really have not been answered. So, I would appreciate a reply from the Minister.
Ms Indranee Rajah: If the Leader of the Opposition could just give me a moment to check the notes on this.
Okay, just a few things. I do not have all the details of what the Leader of the Opposition has asked, but what I can give him are some of the details. First, the summary of the public consultation was issued in April 2024. In the summary of the consultation, what was said was this: the proposal to \"partially mask the identification number of all individuals in ACRA's registers which are made available to the public, and introduce a contact address as the default address of individuals that will be shown to the public instead of the individual's residential address\".
The feedback was: \"Some respondents expressed concerns on the need to have access to full identification numbers and other personal data for corporate transparency and compliance with know-your-clients requirements. Some respondents sought clarification on whether there would still be sufficient information to identify an officeholder that is tied to a particular business entity on ACRA's registers.\"
So, you can see there were two types of feedback: some expressed concern about having full identification numbers made available; others needed to know how to identify the right person. ACRA's response was to proceed with the proposal to introduce a contact address as the default address of individuals that will be shown to the public. On the proposal to mask identification numbers, the concerns on requiring access to full identification numbers have been duly noted. We will review this further and provide an update in due course.
I think that was what the Leader of the Opposition was referring to.
This is going to have to be dealt with more deeply in the review because the review panel will be looking into the matter. But my understanding was, when ACRA was looking at this, they were deciding whether or not to even give full NRIC numbers. But on the MDDI side of the house, they had been indicating that they were reviewing this. So, that was put on hold. Then, after that, the July circular came along and the misunderstanding occurred, and then that is what happened. So, that is the short sequence of what I know, but the review panel will look into this in more detail.
Mr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa. Okay, Mr Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, thank you. It is not a new supplementary question, but I had other questions, specifically pertaining to Question No 25 on yesterday's Order Paper.
Mr Speaker: Sorry, could you say that again?
Mr Pritam Singh: I had also asked other questions in my Question No 25, parts (b) to (d). It was on yesterday's Order Paper. I think those have not been answered.
Mr Speaker: Sure, okay.
Mr Pritam Singh: And there was another query with regard to why the data issues did not come back to Parliament, but I think the Minister has said it is part of the review, so I think that is answered. But in the original PQ, there are still components which have not been answered.
Mr Speaker: Which is the first part of your question, right? You are referring to your queries in yesterday's PQ.
Mr Pritam Singh: Perhaps for the convenience of the Ministers, I can just repeat the question, the specific components.
To ask the Minister of Digital Development and Information, when was the Ministry circular that sought to change the practice of masking NRIC numbers dated and communicated to Government agencies? I think Minister answered by saying July 2024.
Part (b) was, when did the Ministry determine that such a change was necessary and began planning for it? Part (c) was, whether any whole-of-Government discussions took place before and after the issuance of the circular? And part (d), how many other agencies, apart from ACRA, misread or misunderstood the circular?
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, in response to the Member's question, I do not have the exact date when the discussion started. It would have to be months before that.
To his question on whether there were whole-of-Government discussions, as would be typical of a change of this nature, besides issuing circulars, there would also have been briefings which would have allowed for clarifications. Then, upon those clarifications, it would also be quite a common practice amongst Government agencies to compile \"frequently asked questions\" in order to provide useful references to colleagues. So, I can share with the Member that these things did take place.
As to how exactly the incident unfolded, I seek Members' understanding and kind support. At this juncture, even if we were to start pointing to this particular event or that particular occasion, they would still not allow us to piece together the whole picture. And if such episodic events were discussed, you could invite further questions. I think what could be even more difficult is if we gave the impression that there was an effort to conceal certain parts of the process, because we were only talking about other parts.
So, I think I would refrain from further citing specific events leading to the launch of the new Bizfile portal on 9 December and the other associated events around it. So, I seek the Members' understanding that it would not be a very good idea for us to keep going into the specific details at this juncture.
Mr Speaker: Whilst we await the full review, is that right, Minister? That is why you are saying there is a full review that is being under undertaken. Okay.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Thank you, Sir. My clarification pertains to the masked NRIC numbers. I note from the Minister's Statement that the Government will be moving away from the practice of using masked NRIC numbers. Can I ask the Minister, besides the concerns of giving the public a false sense of security with the masked NRIC numbers, are there any downsides to continuing with this practice of having masked NRIC numbers? Secondly, if the masked NRIC number, which I see as a middle-ground solution, is something that the public is comfortable with and they do know that it is not foolproof, that it is not absolutely secret, why then is there a need to take away this caution?
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, the Member asked whether there are any downsides to using masked NRIC numbers. The same could apply to partial NRIC numbers. I explained earlier in my Ministerial Statement that what has happened is that nowadays, there are quite easily available online, algorithms that can allow you to guess, or work out, or derive, the full NRIC number, particularly if you know the birth year of a person.
And actually, to work out the birth year of a person is not at all difficult. Public figures would certainly have Wikipedia pages where your birth year is well known. Even individuals who are not necessarily public figures may have talked about celebrating birthdays on their social media accounts. In which case, a person who is determined to work out the full NRIC number of these individuals from the masked NRIC number or the partial NRIC number, could quite easily use these algorithms to do so.
So, the ease of availability of such algorithms will mean that the continued use of masked NRIC number gives this false sense of security that will not go away. And if this false sense of security were to persist and people think that their full NRIC number is still a secret, and they continue to use it as a password or if organisations set it as a default password or use it as an authenticator, that is where the risk of scams is, that is where the risk of harms associated with identity theft will become more commonplace.
We thought that the right thing to do whilst the problem is still relatively contained, is to try and bring a stop to these kinds of practices. And the Government should take the lead for our own purposes. As to the private sector, we had always known that it was going to be difficult and therefore, it was important to both engage in public education as well as consult the public on what would be the appropriate approach.
I take the Member's point of view that from an individual standpoint and from an organisation's standpoint, psychologically, there is comfort that not the full NRIC number is known. If it was truly safe, then I think we can certainly consider continued practices of this nature to be not particularly harmful and not particularly something that has to be acted upon. But knowing what we know now, and knowing that there is now the ease of availability of these algorithms, and not doing something about it, that is also not responsible.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Thank you, Speaker. Just two clarifications. The first is that I understand that there were about 500,000 queries, but given that we do not know actually whose NRIC number was being accessed, would the Government consider issuing individual notifications to all the different households in the four major languages, just to inform them of this incident and the necessary precautions that need to be taken just to ensure that people are prepared?
And I say this also because in the case of private organisations, should there be a data breach, they are actually obligated to inform both the PDPC and the individuals affected.
Secondly, it is part of my original PQ: what is the Government's assessment of the risk of NRIC numbers being potentially used to unlock large amounts of personal information. I think there was a Straits Times article that talked about how it can be used to access bank information and healthcare records. And so, has the Government given a timeline for both the Public Healthcare Institutions or private financial institutions to stop the use of the NRIC as an authenticator?
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his question. I think following the media conference as well as statements that were made in relation to the Bizfile incident, I recall that the Association of Banks had issued a statement on how banks do not have the practice of using the NRIC number as a sole factor of authentication. I think the awareness in certain sectors is certainly reasonably high. I believe the telecommunications companies may also have issued a statement. It was in the festive period, so I apologise if cannot remember specifically who issued what statement.
Within the sectors where there are regulators, I think we can say with a good degree of confidence that the awareness about the inappropriateness of using NRIC numbers as a factor of authentication is quite high. But again, we do not want to assume. We still want to go through the rigour of ensuring that such practices stop.
I would say that outside of these regulated sectors, there is a very large number of companies; and it would be best for us not to assume that the incorrect uses of NRIC numbers is well understood. So, our working assumption is that outside of the regulated sectors, we have an even bigger challenge.
Having said that, I want to go back to the answer that I provided in response to Ms Hany Soh's questions. If you look at the NRIC-related scams that we have observed thus far, most of them relate to the victims thinking that they were dealing with a figure of authority, because that person, the scammer, was able to cite the NRIC number. Police have actually not been able to specifically identify cases of NRIC-related scams where the NRIC number was inputted to steal valuables. That has not so far been the commonplace observation among NRIC-related scams.
Mr Speaker: Mr Xie Yao Quan. Sorry, Minister Indranee Rajah, I forgot to call on you. You have an answer to give in response to Mr Louis Chua.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Louis Chua sought a clarification on whether it would then be a good idea to give notices to all individual households informing them about the incident and letting them know what to do. The first thing to clarify is that the NRIC numbers in Bizfile are not the NRIC numbers of all Singaporeans. So, actually, sending notices to all households would necessarily go beyond the NRIC numbers that are with ACRA.
The other thing to bear in mind is that those who have incorporated a business or have taken on board directorships and so on, and have their information with ACRA, would know that the information can be made publicly available.
I think the better approach is really this – for everybody who has provided information in lodgements or filings with ACRA to take heed of what we have indicated, which is: one, do not use your NRIC as a password or authenticator; two, be careful if somebody comes citing your NRIC number asking you to do something, and this will be part and parcel of the public education that we will put out. But it is not necessary to notify all households.
Mr Speaker: Mr Xie Yao Quan.
Mr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong): Thank you, Speaker. Currently, there are many transactions between Government agencies and citizens that use masked NRIC numbers, and this has been a long-standing practice by the public sector and citizens are very used to this practice.
In view of Minister Teo's clarification that the Government is not moving to a widespread disclosure of full NRIC numbers in its transactions with citizens going forward, but only to use full NRIC numbers as an additional identifier in specific cases where this is actually necessary, it will be very helpful to help the public understand just what these specific cases might be. In what specific cases would the Government actually be using full NRIC numbers going forward, because it is necessary to do so? In what specific cases would the Government use other identifiers in lieu of NRIC numbers and in what cases would the Government be dropping the use of other identifiers altogether, because a citizen's name alone would be sufficient for identification purposes?
It will be very helpful if Minister Teo could provide more clarity on this going forward and, indeed, if Minister could also provide some reassurance, even at this stage, if possible, that the Government expects that in the majority of cases going forward, the use of full NRIC numbers will not be needed. That will be helpful.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Xie Yao Quan for his question. He is right to note that in place of masked NRIC numbers, the Government believes that in some instances, there would be no need for the NRIC number at all. He is also right to say that in other instances, we believe that names alone or some other identifier would be sufficient.
But I think this is important to state: when interacting with the Government, for example, if you are applying for subsidies, if you are hoping to access some benefits that the Government is able to provide to you, if you are laying claim to something important and something valuable to you, these would be instances where the full NRIC numbers should be used. The whole purpose of making sure that we stop the incorrect uses of NRIC numbers is to enable the confident use of full NRIC numbers when we need to do so.
I appreciate where Mr Xie is coming from. There are many, many use cases for the Government. It would not be possible at this point in time to list all of them. There must be hundreds, if not thousands of cases where internally, in correspondence with citizens, there may be a reason to use some form of identification.
The decision that we thought that we should take is that each case has to be carefully assessed and each case will merit its own considerations. So, I would ask for Mr Xie's patience. Prior to the Bizfile incident, this process had not been completed. I can share with him that this process had started, but it was not yet complete.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Speaker, my first supplementary question is: which Government department and Statutory Boards have been using NRIC as a factor of authentication and when will they stop? Specifically, when will Singpass stop using NRIC as a login ID? My second supplementary question is: when the review on ACRA's incident is completed, will the report be made public?
Mrs Josephine Teo: I should not answer on behalf of Minister Indranee, but I believe the answer to the Member’s last question is yes, there will be a public release of the findings of the after-action review. Minister Indranee can clarify.
Ms Hazel Poa had asked about the use of authentication amongst public sector agencies. What I can share with her is that following the circular that was sent out, to the best of our knowledge, all Government, all public sector agencies have ceased the use of NRIC number as authenticators. I do not have, off-hand, who might have been using it before and I do not want to misrepresent. I hope she understands that.
There was a middle question that I missed. Singpass, yes. The question of Singpass is a very interesting one. Singpass is available to anyone aged 15 and above, so it is a very wide group of people. In making Singpass available, designers have to find a way to have a unique identifier and so the NRIC number is used as the default identifier. So, it is used only as an ID. It is not used as a password; you set your own password.
Although it is the default identifier, Singpass allows anyone to change out their user ID to something that is not their NRIC number. Prior to this incident, maybe not everybody was very aware of it, but it is actually not difficult to change your user ID. It is not difficult to go onto your Singpass app to change your user ID. If you do not wish to have your NRIC number as your user ID, you may change it to something else.
Ms Indranee Rajah: I just wanted to say in response to Ms Poa's question, because I wanted to be very specific. She asked whether the report will be made public. I do not know what form the review findings will take. What I said just now and what will be accurate for me to say is that the findings will be made public. I do not know in what shape or form the review panel is intending to put together the findings.
Mr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Mr Speaker, I thank the Ministers for their replies. I filed three PQs on this. First of all, can I ask the Ministers: at the whole-of-Government level, would they not agree that implementation is policy – and that is actually a quote from a former Head of Civil Service, Mr Lim Siong Guan. To build on that, would they, furthermore, also consider that implementation must recognise contemporary reality as well as emerging reality that the policy has to operate in?
Secondly, can I also ask the Ministers, moving forward from what has happened here, the bell cannot be unrung, information that has been released cannot be unreleased. But moving forward, will our agencies very actively look at how the world has changed and is continuing to change? For example, how today online bots can scrape thousands or even millions of data points if a search engine delivers the information quickly; that there are scammers and hostile actors hoping to harvest every database they can get their hands on, anything with an application programming interface, or API, that can be accessed.
And lastly, given all of this, whether there can be continued deep attention in the review to how in Government e-services, we approach aggregates of data, especially when that data can be searched by the public or persons even from outside Singapore.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, we acknowledge the mistake made in trying to implement the move to stop the incorrect uses of NRIC number. The Government has said so and the Government has also explained that the implementation had not started for the private sector. So, the implementation was supposed to have taken place within the public sector first. In this process of implementation, there were gaps in coordination and these resulted in ACRA misunderstanding what was required of them and disclosing the NRIC numbers in full when they launched their new Bizfile portal.
Clearly, there are lessons to be learnt from this incident. This was a mistake. This was a misstep. We would like to have avoided it, but it has happened and we will do our best to learn from it.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Speaker, I have a clarification for Minister Josephine Teo and one for Minister Indranee.
Minister Teo earlier talked about the use of NRIC numbers or information as authentication, and she drew the distinction between the use of the number itself versus, say, the production of the NRIC card, which she said could be used for authentication because it contains more information.
I would like her view on how this would apply to the digital NRIC that is in our Singpass, because most people do not carry the physical card around anymore. I found from personal experience that going to the bank, they still want me to produce the physical card. So, I would like her opinion on whether she thinks this distinction between the physical card and the digital IC in Singpass is a logical and well-founded distinction. So, should actually the digital IC be taken as acceptable for authentication purposes? I would like her view on that.
For Minister Indranee, earlier she touched on the MDDI circular minute that we all hear has been misunderstood by ACRA. She mentioned that ACRA actually sought a clarification from MDDI. What was the nature of the clarification and was there any reply from MDDI to ACRA's clarification?
Related to that, there is intense interest in the public on the circular. I am just wondering whether she would agree that for the review panel, at least, when they put up their report, that this minute could be made public so that people can form their own judgement on how this misunderstanding could have occurred?
Mrs Josephine Teo: Firstly, congratulations to Ms Sylvia Lim on her recent nuptials. You must have used your full NRIC number at the registry, right? Singpass too!
Ms Lim asked a very relevant question. Does the digital NRIC card suffice as an authenticator? If you open up your Singpass app and you tap on your digital NRIC card, you will see your photograph. And therefore, containing this information allows the digital ID card to be matched against the person holding the device that shows this digital NRIC. In fact, we have said quite clearly that the production of this digital NRIC card is the same as producing the physical NRIC card. So, that part is quite clear. So, it would be acceptable as an authenticator. I could just put it across that way.
Ms Indranee Rajah: I thank Ms Lim for her question and I can understand the curiosity. First, let me deal with the issue of whether there was a response when ACRA sought clarification. There was a response, and I understand that the communications continued for a while.
The reason why I am not saying more about this is so that the review panel can look at it in detail.
As Ms Lim and indeed, almost anybody who has done investigation would appreciate, almost anybody who has done investigation, when people communicate with one another, whether it be verbally or in writing, they do not do it in nice, complete sentences that flow on nicely. There will be short phrases. You will assume what somebody else is saying, or you use a short phrase. So, all of that has to be pieced together in a review, the full picture put together and then you get an understanding of what happened.
Suffice to say, as I have summarised in my Ministerial Statement, ACRA and MDDI did talk. It is not like they did not talk, because ACRA did have some concerns. But what is very clear is that there was not a clear understanding of the policy intent and in some cases, it really was a lapse of coordination. That is as much as I can say at this point.
On the second point of whether the document, the circular minute, should be released or not, that I will let the panel decide. But the general principle is that you normally do not release Government documents. What does happen sometimes is that the relevant extract or the relevant portion gets cited. At least for these purposes, the most material part of the circular minute is what I have said in my Statement, which were the words \"to cease the use of partial, masked NRIC numbers\". That is really the most relevant part of that document, and that is what led to the incident in question.
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would just want to clarify with Minister Indranee and this relates to my Question No 36. In respect of persons whose NRIC numbers have been accessed and if subsequently proven that they have been accessed and downloaded by malicious actors for scams or onward sale during the period of 9 to 13 December, is the Government to prepare suitable compensation or remedy to such individuals?
Ms Indranee Rajah: In response to Mr Tan's question, I think the first difficulty, which I indicated earlier, is that we do not know what or whose information might have been accessed. In the first place, to talk about compensation assumes that you know whose information and so, somebody could come and say, \"Oh, my information has been accessed; therefore, I should be compensated.\"
That leads to the second and the more important point. Anybody who has provided personal information in a document or lodgement with ACRA would know that actually that information is available publicly. For example, if you are a director and you file a document saying that you are a director, you would know that that information would be made public. As a lawyer, Mr Tan would have done public searches, ACRA searches. When you are going to commence a suit and you are looking to see which director to sue, you would do an ACRA search, you would look for his NRIC number and you would actually put his NRIC number on your Writ of Summons when you issue it against him.
So, if the claim is that the NRIC number was made public, then the suggestion is that it is wrong to make it public. But information held by ACRA is actually permitted to be made public. That is the nature of a registry. The nature of a registry is to maintain a register, and the nature of a register is to have information. The information in the register is put there for a purpose, and that purpose is for the public to access it. So, there would be some issue with that suggestion, I think.
The short answer to the question is, at the moment, you do not even know whose information has been accessed. But second, insofar as the suggestion is that the information cannot be made public, the answer is that such information can be publicly accessible. So, I am not sure about the context in which a question of compensation arises.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the Ministers for confirming that the full NRIC numbers are not about to be unmasked in a very big way. I think that is the single most important worry of many Singaporeans. We have no problem about the Government using our full NRIC numbers or the banks using our full NRIC numbers in their internal processes. But to reveal those numbers, like what ACRA has done, although ACRA is exempted from the PDPA, we have a problem.
And we thank the Ministers for confirming that that is not the case. Because during the whole process leading up to today's clarification, even including the Ministers' press conference, it was not exactly clear as to what the Government intends to do. So, today's clarification is very useful.
And why was it not very clear? Because even after today's two hours of clarification, we still have doubts that ACRA disclosed the full NRIC numbers when it is not supposed to do so. So, why not ACRA comes out, do a proper apology and then the Ministers come out to say that, \"Yes. We also caution that —
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, do you want to make your clarification? Do not make a speech here. Thank you.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes, yes. The clarification has to be preceded by this preamble.
Mr Speaker: Please heed my advice. I spent a lot of time earlier asking everyone to do the same thing.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes. What I am saying is that why can ACRA not just come out and say, \"Yes, we made a mistake.\" Then, case closed. And then, at a later stage, the Government can say that, \"Yes. Please be aware of using your NRIC number as authenticator.\" So, step up the education and that is case closed. I do not know why the Ministers —
Mr Speaker: What is your clarification, may I ask?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: So, we are not sure why the whole process has taken on such a shape. As a result, I have a few questions, although first of all, I am very disappointed that the circular is not —
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, please, all the other Members have just asked their clarification. I allow a short preamble. Your preamble is not short. So, can you go straight to your clarification? Thank you.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: My clarification is this. Whether the circular was cleared by any political officeholders and whether any political officeholders were giving direction when the civil servants in ACRA and MDDI were clarifying with each other on the instructions of that circular. Depending on the answers, I would like to know whether our civil servants have been thrown under the bus.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank Mr Leong Mun Wai for his very clear and definitive statement that actually, all that is necessary is for ACRA to do a proper apology and for the Ministers to say what needs to be done, and it would be case closed. Because ACRA did give an apology. That was back in December at the press conference. And at that press conference, Minister Josephine and I also did say what would be the proper thing to do – which is, do not use your NRIC number for authentication; and make sure that if anybody comes with your NRIC number, do not take that at face value, and do your checks.
So, by the definition that Mr Leong has put forward, actually it should be case closed, and I thank him for that.
It is just that because there were PQs filed, this comes back to Parliament and it is necessary for us to explain. That is the reason why we are here today. It is really to respond to the PQs.
On the question of the circular minute, certainly not myself. Second, you will have to look at the review in due course.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): My clarification is directed to MDDI and it pertains to scams and targeted communications. How does the Ministry plan to communicate the approach for the use of NRIC numbers to hard-to-reach segments of our society, like less tech-savvy individuals, such as seniors? And besides leveraging on examples of incorrect uses of NRIC, what other methods will be used for education, given that this is not really a very easy policy to explain? Would the Ministry also consider using Silver Generation Office or the SG Digital Office to do house visits and sort of explain this to seniors?
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Yip for his question and for always having a heart for those that are less privileged. He is right to say that there will be certain hard-to-reach segments: seniors, perhaps persons with less privileged backgrounds. We do intend to use all channels available to the Government. They can certainly include people who are volunteers on the Seniors Go Digital programme. We would welcome the opportunity to partner with the Silver Generation Office or more broadly, the Agency for Integrated Care, which also supervises the active ageing centres.
I should say that in terms of reaching out to, for example, small and medium enterprises, fortunately, we do have the trade associations and chambers who are forward leaning. In fact, they have approached us and initiated the process to better inform their members on what to do.
So, we will use all channels available to the Government in order to strengthen the outreach. If Members have suggestions on any groups that we may have missed out, please feel free to let us know too.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Sir, I have questions for Minister Josephine Teo and Minister Indranee.
First, for Minister Josephine Teo, how long has the Government known that organisations, including those in the public sector, have been using NRIC numbers as an authentication factor and why did it not prohibit its use long before December 2024?
Up to December, large regulated organisations like insurers were reportedly still using NRIC numbers as default passwords. I note the Minister said earlier that the organisations should stop doing so as soon as possible. Will the Government legally prohibit Government agencies and organisations from using NRIC numbers as authenticators and do so by a certain deadline?
Secondly, I note that Minister Josephine Teo replied to me earlier that the risks do not arise directly from the structure of the NRIC number. However, my question about this alternative NRIC structure arises because a masked NRIC number can still be reverse engineered due to the algorithm and checksum that it follows. While this algorithm is not officially published, it is widely known. My question is: what prevents the NRIC number from being randomly generated, moving forward, instead of relying on an algorithm? If the concern is that businesses need to check the validity of an NRIC number provided, I would highlight that many NRIC generators online can already produce numbers that pass this checksum.
And to Minister Indranee: business owners and corporate secretaries have reported that many share transfers and annual returns could not be submitted on the new Bizfile portal after it was launched. These are basic functions that every business owner uses. Was sufficient user acceptance testing conducted and signed off by ACRA before the launch of the new portal?
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Giam for his questions. As I said in my Ministerial Statement, the problem is relatively contained. So, we have observed instances of, for example, bank statements being sent to individuals and being accessed with most of the time, a partial NRIC number. Usually, in what people receive, you need a password to access a file that is attached to an email. Although the email is already encrypted, for whatever reasons, these organisations still believe that it is necessary to attach another layer of access security for the document that is carried as part of the email. So, this process then involves, very often, using a combination of some other identifier, some other information, could be date of birth, combined with part of the NRIC number to access. The question has to be, is there really a need for authentication to begin with?
If you use the example that I have just raised, previously, before statements of this nature were sent by encrypted mail, it would have been mailed to our homes in a little envelope. That envelope does not need a special password for us to open up. So, the fact that some organisations have decided that they need a further layer of authentication in order to access that bank statement, firstly, we would invite the organisation to think through: do you really, really need it? So, that is one question.
If they still choose, for whatever services that they make available digitally to their clients or to their stakeholders, to require authentication, then, our advice to them is that the NRIC number is not a very good authenticator, they should not use it at all. So, that remains our advice.
As to the question of whether we will legally prohibit the use of NRIC numbers as authenticators, as I said, the practices for the private sector will have to be decided upon consultation. So, I do not want to say now, what the landing point is going to be. But even without a legal prohibition, I think if organisations care about their data security and they care about protecting the data that they have in their possession or the services being accessed by people who are not intended to enjoy the service, then they should really re-think the authentication methods.
Their customers ought to be sensitised to this too – that when the NRIC number is being used by an organisation as an authenticator, it is actually not safe at all. It goes to the Member's point that there are algorithms online that will allow you to work backwards, using the masked numbers to uncover the full number. Which is why we are advising our own public agencies to move away from the use of the masked numbers and not to give themselves that false sense of security.
The Member's question on, how about if you invented a new identifier that cannot be worked backwards from the partial identifier? I think my answer still stands. Whether you can work out or you cannot work out, the identifier is not meant to be a secret. It is not shared widely, but some people will know. For example, the persons whom you revealed it to at the clinic, the person that you revealed it to when making a mobile line application. If this person was determined to get hold of your identifier, the NRIC number in this case, or any other identifier that you use to access information and services that are not meant for them, they will do so. It comes back to the fundamental point, even if you cannot work out the full identifier from a partial identifier, as long as that identifier is used for the purposes of authentication or as password, you still have a problem.
I hope that explains our position and our thinking.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Gerald Giam had a clarification on the difficulties encountered by users with respect to share transfer forms and annual returns on the new Bizfile portal. Can I just confirm with Mr Giam that that has nothing to do with the NRIC numbers issue? That is a separate topic, right?
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Yes.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Okay, on that, I understand that there have been some initial issues with the new Bizfile portal. However, what ACRA has done is that they have given an extension of time to users who need to file the documents and they have also indicated that no late penalties will be imposed on people who have difficulties with filing. So, firstly, extension given; second, no penalty; and third, if anyone is having difficulty with their filing still, please do contact ACRA and their service personnel will assist. Their contact information is on the website.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: How about the user acceptance testing? Was it done for the new Bizfile portal?
Ms Indranee Rajah: I do not have details on what kind of testing exactly was done, but what I think I can say with relative confidence is that some testing was done. The question on this specific testing, I do not have the answer to that. But anyway, anybody who is experiencing difficulty, please contact ACRA and they will assist you; and in the meantime, they are working to resolve any technical difficulties.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Sir, very brief preamble for context. It is useful to reiterate the distinction, as acknowledged by Minister Teo, between an individual acknowledging that the NRIC number is neither a foolproof nor secure method for personal identification and, hence, may be desensitised; and the same individual consenting and being comfortable with their NRIC being released or broadly disseminated. Most Singaporeans will agree the former, but strongly disagree with the latter. My questions have to do with the implications of this distinction.
For Minister Teo, going forward, would the Government's policy of desensitising the NRIC number also lead to difficulties in the practical implementation of low-grade access restrictions, such as passwords for PDF documents, like she mentioned early on, that contain confidential, but not secret information. And relatedly, whether there have been any feasibility studies on what a widespread desensitised NRIC policy could mean for the day-to-day operation of businesses in our economy?
For Minister Indranee, if indeed it was within the Government's rights to release personal information on company directors, according to the ACRA Act, could this, then, deter individuals from being willing to take up directorships, especially for small and micro businesses where friends and family are often roped in as directors? And, if so, whether some kind of opt-out clause for deep, personal information, including address and NRIC number, beyond just the name, for directors for such small firms, would be possible? Because at least for smaller firms, these kind of deep due diligence may not be necessary.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, two quick responses to Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
First, I believe that his opening sentence in his preamble is erroneous. We did not say that the NRIC number is not suitable for identification. It is an identifier. It is a unique identifier. So, it has to be used for identification. It is authentication that it should not be used for. You can use it to identify a person. You cannot use the NRIC number to prove that the person is who he claims to be. I do appreciate that there is a lot to take on board, so, I would refer Assoc Prof Jamus Lim to the specific statements on this topic of drawing a distinction between the NRIC number as an identifier and as an authenticator, so that we could have a proper understanding of what it is.
The second response to his comments is that, I am not sure that it is useful to characterise what we are doing as desensitising. As I explained, we are not making a change to allow the full NRIC number to be widely disclosed. The only change that we are making is to stop the incorrect uses of NRIC numbers as authenticators and as passwords. Nowhere in this description is there a need to refer to desensitisation. I am not sure that that characterisation applies to what we are seeking to do and I would encourage Members not to use this characterisation.
To reiterate, we are not making a change to allow full NRIC numbers to become widely disclosed. The only change we are making is to stop incorrect uses of NRIC numbers as authenticators and as passwords.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked whether the ability to make known NRIC numbers might deter individuals from taking up directorships and whether there can be some kind of opt-out clause. It is necessary to go back to first principles and the very basics of corporate governance.
The reason why you have information available is for corporate transparency. Why do you have corporate transparency? It is to protect the public. You must protect the public because anybody who sets up a business and transacts with the public, interfaces with a member of the public; and that member of the public transacting with you, may run into difficulties or issues and must then know whom they are dealing with.
Let us take an example that people can relate to – say, your home renovation. Most times, it could be a company or, say, a sole proprietorship. It is Mr Wong trading as General Renovations and the name card will say \"General Renovations\". You have no idea who the company \"General Renovations\" is. You will go to Bizfile, you will search \"General Renovations\" and you will find that it is Mr Wong trading as General Renovations. But there could be many other Mr Wongs as well. So, you need to know which Mr Wong it is, because if your renovations were not done properly and you need to claim a refund or sue him, for example, you need to know whom you are dealing with.
So, it is the essence of a business register or corporate register that you must know and be able to identify the specific individual or entity that you are dealing with. Hence, it is about looking at it through a different lens.
If anybody has a concern that they do not wish to have their NRIC number known and, for that reason, do not become a corporate director, that perhaps may be a step too far. But the bottom line is, in our regime, as well as in many other countries, if you are going to do business and transact with the public, the public has to know who you are and be able to contact you.
To the extent that we can make some concessions, we have done so. For example, under the last round of amendments, you can now put a separate contact address instead of your residential address. So, if somebody needed to sue you, they could leave the Writ of Summons at your office. They do not necessarily have to go to your residence. So, we have made some shifts, but on identification, there is no running away from the fact that you still need to be able to identify the individual you are dealing with.
Mr Speaker: Okay, we are approaching the end of time for the Ministerial Statements. Mr Leong, are you asking a clarification to the Minister's response, not a new clarification? Alright, I will allow that.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, Minister Indranee took credit for what I said in my preamble, but did not answer my questions. So, can I ask the question again: whether the circular was cleared by any political office holders and whether political office holders were giving directions when civil servants in ACRA and MDDI were clarifying with one another on the instruction in the circular?
Mr Speaker: That was not in your preamble, that was your question. Minister Indranee.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I first should clarify that I was not taking credit at all for Mr Leong's preamble. Mr Leong had actually made a couple of statements. I clarified that that was what he was saying and, far from taking credit, I thanked him for his position.
On the second question, I actually partially answered it, but I have checked. As far as I am aware, no political officeholders were involved in the circular minute or gave directions on it. But I also said just now that the Member should wait for the findings of the after-action review. This is as much as I know and I am not purporting to be the complete encyclopedia of everything that has happened because there is currently an ongoing review.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Ministerial Statements. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the day.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Workplace Fairness Bill ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Resumption of Debate on Question [7 January 2025], \"That the Bill be now read a Second Time.\" – [Minister for Manpower]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to declare that I am a member of the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) Committee.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in support of this Workplace Fairness Bill today. It is a significant milestone for a cause that is close to my heart. Not only did I address this issue of fair employment practices in my maiden speech in Parliament nine years ago, I have raised two related Adjournment Motions on the topic.
This Bill should be celebrated because, like the United Kingdom (UK), the Equality Act 2010, which I referenced in my 2021 Adjournment Motion speech on the \"Strengthening the Singapore Core\", this Bill centralises anti-discrimination laws in a single Act and will make the law easier to understand while strengthening protection in some situations.
While this Bill will generally prohibit workplace discrimination on the basis of protected characteristics, such as sex, caregiving responsibilities, disability and mental health conditions, we must be clear that it prescribes minimum standards and not exhaustive benchmarks. We should and must go beyond these minimum standards in order to promote a diverse workforce that is fairly treated.
For one, I noted that the current prescribed list of protected characteristics account for more than 95% of the discrimination complaints received by TAFEP and the Ministry of Manpower (MOM). For the other roughly 5% of the complaint cases, may I ask: what is the employee characteristic that is allegedly discriminated against, which has not been covered by the proposed Bill?
In our unique system emphasising tripartism and harmonious labour relations, I am sure many would agree that employers should, nevertheless, pay careful attention to these potential fault lines even if they are not covered by the anti-discrimination laws in this Bill.
Second, the Bill sets a relatively low bar of merely preventing discrimination, which is defined as making an employment decision which adversely affects an individual. This is in contrast to equality legislation in the UK and Australia, which mandates an employer's duty to make reasonable adjustments for persons with disabilities (PwDs). If a business chooses to move its office premises from a wheelchair-accessible building to the upper floors of a shophouse without lift access, would it have discriminated against its wheelchair-bound employee under the proposed Bill? Under the UK regime, the employer would quite certainly be obliged to consider if that employee's job function can be performed remotely from outside the office, under its legal duty to make reasonable adjustments.
Mr Speaker, the proposed Bill certainly answers the calls from myself and other Members of Parliament over the years to give more teeth to TAFEP. Employers who are found to discriminate on the basis of one or more protected characteristics can be subject to administrative penalties at the first instance. May I ask, also, would the administrative penalty for each type of contravention described in clause 31 be a standard $5,000 and $10,000 for a second or subsequent occasion, or would it be differentiated? If the latter, how would they be differentiated and structured?
However, the practical bite of the anti-discrimination laws will depend largely how they are enforced and investigated. From the numerous provisions to protect complainants from retaliation, breach of professional conduct rules or ethics as well as civil and criminal liability, am I correct to understand that the authorities will generally rely on aggrieved employees to file a claim and pursue it through the prescribed process?
Would the authorities also be conducting active investigation and enforcement if it catches wind of potential infringements of anti-discrimination laws? Especially for errant employers where the aggrieved employees find it futile to come forward? If so, I hope the Commissioner for Workplace Fairness can be granted meaningful powers to conduct investigations and obtain documents on its own initiative, even outside the formal workplace discrimination claim, in the second piece of legislation that is expected to cover the procedural rights and processes.
As I mentioned in my maiden speech in Parliament back in 2016, what is also key is to debunk any perception that the available opportunities are unequal and there is discrimination. Yet there is bound to be some black sheep, even as many employers are committed to fair employment practices even without the need for legislation. Would the Ministry be open to systematically publishing enforcement decisions, like what is done by the Personal Data Protection Commission? This enables the public to see that employers have been taken to task, what actions they have been penalised for. It can also serve to guide the behaviour of other employers going forward. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Proof of discrimination. If we want these anti-discrimination laws to have practical application for aggrieved employees, we ought to pay particular attention to the burden and standard of proof required to establish discrimination. I noted, in my 2018 speech, that proving discrimination is \"challenging\". It is often difficult for employees to show that an adverse decision made against them, is due protected characteristics that they have, because any documentary records are usually kept by the employer organisation and such organisations will likely be advised by in-house counsel or external lawyers.
Is this a justifiable case for us to reverse the burden of proof, through a presumption that the adverse decision is linked to the employee's protected characteristic, unless the employer can establish otherwise? Frivolous claims can be deterred by granting authorities the power to summarily strike out manifestly unmeritorious claims and requiring frivolous claimants to pay the costs of their dismissed action, in line with a tripartite committee's recommendation accepted by the Government.
Undoubtedly, the employer bears the burden of proving that a protected characteristic is a genuine job requirement, if it wishes to rely on the \"genuine business need\" exception. The provision states that a protected characteristic is a genuine job requirement if, among other things, the job \"cannot be reasonably performed\" by an individual, unless they possess or lack the protected characteristic.
Consider the example of a hearing impaired individual and an audio production manager role - would the threshold be regarded as an impossibility?
What about an individual applying for a sales representative role focused on the Indonesian market, for instance, who does not read or speak Bahasa Indonesia but is willing to learn it?
May I enquire about the proportion of racial, ethnic or religious discrimination as a percentage of total discrimination cases over the past 20 years, and whether there is an increasing trend? As a Member of Parliament in Toa Payoh East, I have encountered residents providing feedback about experiencing or perceiving discrimination at work or during job applications due to their race, wearing a tudung or needing to attend Friday prayers. In such cases, I typically refer them to TAFEP or advise them to contact TAFEP directly. These are highly sensitive and important issues for the Malay/Muslim community. Our handling of such issues is critical in maintaining multiracial and multi-religious harmony in Singapore.
In my capacity as a TAFEP committee member, I have observed how TAFEP manages such cases. It often comes down to open and sensitive communication between employers and employees, applicable not only to Malay/Muslim issues but also to other situations where employees and employers have differing needs and expectations.
If both parties cannot reach a resolution, the employee can approach TAFEP. TAFEP will hear them out and help both parties better understand each other's perspectives, working towards a solution that meets both the employee's needs and the employer's business requirements. For instance, I understand there was a case where an interviewer asked a jobseeker if she was willing to remove her tudung for work. TAFEP intervened in this case, and the employer clarified that it had no such requirement. It was prepared to offer the role to the jobseeker and allow her to wear the tudung at work. However, the jobseeker had already found another job opportunity by then. So TAFEP separately identified gaps in the employer's hiring processes and worked with the employer to improve them. This includes training interviewers to ask only job-related questions.
These issues need to be managed even beyond the bill itself. Regarding the Bill, I would like to understand the process if I am an affected employee. Is the burden of proof on the employee? Would we need to wear a body camera, for example, to provide evidence? I hope this legislation will simplify the process for legitimately affected employees to easily raise cases and will have adequate recourse and won't be deterred from coming forward.
So, it is important to clarify when a job \"cannot be reasonably performed\", because job descriptions can sometimes be cleverly drafted to achieve a particular objective. During my Meet-the-People sessions over the years, I have encountered many individuals who felt that the jobs they were applying for, contained such bespoke or complicated prerequisites which suggested that the employer had already considered reserving the job for a particular foreign worker. What is the trend of such complaints over the past five years since COVID-19 struck? Could the Ministry of Manpower share some examples of how it “saw through” such patronising attempts to first advertise the job to locals?
(In English): Mr Speaker, since I am on the topic of exceptions, I am glad to see that express exceptions have been created for the two areas which I had focused on in my 2019 Adjournment Motion on tackling workplace and job discrimination.
First, on the problem of age discrimination, clause 21 of the Bill provides that it will not be discrimination for an employer to prefer workers older than a prescribed age. Based on the final set of recommendations by the Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness, the prescribed age would appear to be 55 years old. What is the unemployment rate for persons that are 55 years old and above, compared to the unemployment rate for adults under that age? Why is this age not pegged to our minimum retirement and re-employment ages, which have been adjusted upwards over the years?
More fundamentally, is it not too blunt to prescribe a single age threshold to encourage the employment of older workers? In particular industries, a 55-year-old might be deemed old and ordinarily less preferable than a younger worker. In other industries however, a 55-year-old might still be in his or her prime and the exception should really apply to encourage the employment of even older workers.
Second, on efforts to localise jobs, clause 22 of the Bill provides that it is not discrimination for an employer to favour a Singapore Citizen or Permanent Resident (PR). But what incentives are there for employers to do so and how do we measure the success of such each incentive in promoting a Singaporean Core?
In the more than 10 years that the Fair Consideration Framework (FCF) has been in force, how have we measured the success of the FCF in achieving its objectives? What are the gaps that have been detected in the operation of FCF and how does the present workplace fairness reforms seek to fix that?
As a small population, we will require foreign manpower to augment and complement the local workforce, but not to substitute it. One area that we can focus on more strongly is how we encourage and track the transfer of capabilities from foreign talent to local workers. Having run programmes like the Capability Transfer Programme, can the Ministry shed some light on how have we gone about assessing the success of onshoring capabilities?
One final area that will be key in determining the success of this Workplace Fairness Legislation (WFL) is whether there is adequate avenue for recourse and relief for aggrieved employees. Under the proposed Bill, an employer who breaches the anti-discrimination provisions may be liable to pay an administrative penalty to the Consolidated Fund and be issued directions to end, remedy or mitigate the contravention. Can an employer be directed to pay compensation to victimised employees?
Compensation for victimised employees is already available for successful wrongful dismissal cases raised with the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM). There is no reason, in principle, why it should not be extended to other forms of discriminatory employment decisions whether at the pre-employment or employment stages. In fact, compensation may sometimes be the only effective relief if the relationship between the employer and the employee has broken down to such an extent that the employee cannot reasonably be expected to work for that employer again.
I am conscious that the detailed procedure for employees to make private claims will be addressed in a separate Bill to be tabled later in 2025. But I would flag that the procedure should be as simplified as possible so that an aggrieved employee can navigate it without having to engage a lawyer. As I had mentioned in this House back in 2018, I have heard from employees who have given up on legal action against employers because it is too expensive and troublesome.
Before I end, Mr Speaker, being on the TAFEP Committee, I would like to find out from MOM, given the extensive coverage on workplace fairness that will be ongoing if this Bill is passed, may I ask the Minister the extent of support for related agencies, especially TAFEP, in terms of manpower and other resources going forward, if this Bill is passed.
Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the clarifications sought, I fully support the Bill as a significant milestone to build a diverse and dynamic workforce that is treated fairly and equitably. But this Bill must be seen as a building block, rather than an end in itself. We must continue to bear the principles underlying the Bill and go above and beyond the minimum legal obligations imposed, as our unique tripartite system is used to doing.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP), has been speaking up on workplace discrimination issues faced by Singaporeans since our founding in 2019. My maiden speech in this 14th Parliament on 1 September 2020 focused on workplace discrimination of Singaporeans vis-a-vis foreign talent.
Job security has been a hot issue since the General Election (GE) in 2011. Prior to that election, the Government gave out very large numbers of PRs, peaking at almost 80,000 new PRs in 2008 before reducing to the 30,000 a year today. There was widespread anger when the Government released the population White Paper in 2013, partly because many Singaporeans felt that the influx of new migrants had been a threat to their jobs and more migrants would worsen this trend. Until today, many still feel the same way.
Workplace discrimination and anxieties over foreign workers, again, became a top concern during GE 2020, amid job losses during the COVID-19 pandemic. The situation at that time was not good, with some 1,200 companies put on the watchlist of the FCF for potentially discriminatory hiring practices. A study by the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) also showed that workplace discrimination is widespread, with about one in two Singaporeans facing such discrimination between 2017 and 2022. A survey by MOM in 2020 found that race, age and nationality were the top three grounds of discrimination.
In his National Day Message in 2021, then-Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong admitted that the Government has to adjust its policies to manage the quality, numbers and concentration of Work Pass holders. He later announced, at the National Day Rally, that the Fair Employment Guidelines would be enshrined into law. It has been more than three years since then. The Workplace Fairness Bill we are debating today is long awaited. It begs the question as to why the Government has taken so long to table this Bill when it should be the Government's top concern to ensure that Singaporeans have fair access to employment opportunities.
PSP welcomes this Workplace Fairness Bill, which protects workers from discrimination on ground of 11 clearly designated, protected characteristics. However, we have some concerns and reservations.
Firstly, whether this new law will be sufficient to protect Singaporeans from discriminatory practices at the workplace. This should be the paramount goal of this Bill. Secondly, will the exemptions granted in the new law reduce its effectiveness? And lastly, what are the plans to extend the coverage of the Bill to platform workers and expand the list of protected characteristics in future?
Firstly, on the protection of Singaporean workers. Over the years, we have heard many complaints on the ground from Singaporeans who feel aggrieved that foreigners have been preferred for jobs. PSP notes that nationality is one of the characteristics protected under clause 9 of the proposed Bill; and clause 22 says that it is not discrimination for an employer to make an employment decision that adversely affects an individual if that individual is neither a Singapore Citizen nor a PR of Singapore. This is a clear indication that the Bill provides for preference to Singaporeans and PRs.
However, how did we reach a point where we need to explicitly state that preference for Singaporean workers are not considered discrimination? When and how did Singaporeans lose their first right to jobs in their own country? Why can the Bill not stipulate directly that all else being equal, Singaporeans should have the first right over a foreigner to any job in Singapore? The Government owes an answer to Singaporeans, especially those who have been displaced and underemployed in the last two decades.
And like the Minister has said, this Bill is not a panacea. It has to be backed up by other policies that remove the causes or incentives for discrimination. For example, one example is to ensure that there is no wage disparity between a Singaporean and a foreign worker. We can manage the level of wages in the economy to maintain our competitiveness, but we should never allow a wage disparity to exist that disadvantages the Singaporean workers.
As a result, we have urged the Government on many occasions to introduce a Central Provident Fund (CPF) equalisation levy of $1,200 per month on Employment Pass (EP) holders. That is the only way to stop employers from favouring cheaper foreign workers over Singaporean workers. PSP welcomes quality foreign workers who have skillsets that are not readily available in Singapore to be recruited to enrich and complement our workforce, but not cheaper foreign workers who only displaces our more expensive Singaporean workers.
Similarly, while age is stipulated as a protected characteristic in the Bill, this may not be enough to eliminate the temptation for employers to substitute older and more expensive Singaporean workers with cheaper foreign workers to boost the bottom line. We have to back up the Bill with additional measures to strengthen protection of our older workers. These measures may take the form of job support subsidies for older workers, which can be funded by the foreign levies collected.
Next, I will discuss how the exemptions granted may reduce the effectiveness of the new law. Under clause 4(1) of the Bill, the Act will not apply to businesses with fewer than 25 workers. This same exemption is already used in the used in the Complementary Assessment Framework (COMPASS) system.
During the Committee of Supply in 2023, I highlighted that this exemption could provide a potential loophole that will allow larger companies to set up subsidiaries that can discriminate based on nationality, for example, by employing one local and 24 foreign professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs).
Alternatively, foreigners could partner locals to set up small companies to supply manpower to our bigger companies, hence depriving Singaporeans of good jobs in the bigger companies. PSP understands the need to support small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in this transition, but we hope the Minister can assure us that this exemption will be strictly enforced and not abused as a conduit to increase the supply of cheaper foreign manpower.
We have the same concerns about exempting contracts for service under clause 4(3) of the Bill. This exemption means that a service buyer could include discriminatory provisions in his bid document or contract with the service provider. Hence, clauses 4(1) and 4(3) could potentially be used together by a big company to contract SMEs with less than 25 persons to supply it with Work Pass holders and even from one single nationality. Hence, we hope MOM will diligently monitor these exemptions and ensure that they are not abused.
Finally, I would like to address how the coverage of this Bill can be expanded. Under clause 3 of the Bill, the law will exclude platform workers. During the debate on the Platform Workers' Bill last September, I and other Members, including the Leader of the Opposition and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, have spoken about platform workers potentially facing discrimination because of their CPF contributions. This concern is especially pertinent in the short-term until we reach a point where the majority of the workers available for platform work will need mandatory CPF.
Platform workers may now enjoy more legal protections under the Platform Workers Act, but they will not have access to the remedies available to employees under the Workplace Fairness Bill if they experience discriminatory treatment while working on the platforms. PSP calls on the Government to study whether we can similarly cover platform workers under the new law within the next two years.
Additionally, we find it hard to understand the intention of clause 17(3) of the Bill. Can the Minister explain whether this clause 17(3) allows an employer to dismiss a worker A on the ground of the race or religion of A's husband? The Leader of the Opposition has also raised this yesterday and I look forward to a clearer explanation from the Minister later.
The Minister has said that this Bill will be constantly reviewed, but we hope that the Government will commit, today, to periodically reviewing the Bill, after it is passed, every two years to ensure that the protected characteristics are kept up-to-date and keep up with any new types of discrimination that may become prevalent.
Mr Speaker, in conclusion, I have said in my maiden speech in 2020 that a job is the foundation of human dignity. Work is fundamental in providing a person with meaning in life. That is why I have spoken out repeatedly about job security and workplace fairness.
The Government's policies should communicate to all employers in no uncertain terms that all else being equal, Singaporeans will have the first right to a job. We need additional policies to oblige employers to justify why a foreigner is favoured over a Singaporean when both have the same skills to do the same job.
For example, in Australia, employers can sponsor foreign workers only if they can demonstrate that they cannot find an Australian citizen or permanent resident with the skills and experience needed for the job. Similarly, in Canada, most employers need to conduct a labour market impact assessment to determine that there is a need for a temporary foreign worker and that no Canandian citizens or permanent residents are available, before they can hire a temporary foreign worker.
This Bill is a landmarked piece of legislation for Singapore. I acknowledge the hard work put in by the Minister and his Ministry. But its real worth is in substantially improving the job prospects of Singaporeans in general and protecting more vulnerable workers from workplace discrimination. If that is done, it will be a big step towards realising a harmonious and cohesive society.
I have been actively engaging Singaporeans, especially in the West of Singapore for the past four years as a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament. A consistent message has emerged from these engagements. It is increasingly difficult for Singaporeans to find a job that commensurate with their skills and aspirations. It appears that rising under-employment amongst Singaporeans is a growing menace to us as a nation.
The Government needs to do a lot more and not rest on its laurels by just focusing on the low unemployment numbers. The low unemployment numbers may be camouflaging serious underemployment. A whole-of-Government approach is needed to reset our education, training, manpower and immigration policies so that Singaporeans can have stable that commensurate with their skills and aspirations. We must prevent under-employment from taking root in Singapore, or the Singapore we know today may become extinct in the near future. We must have a Parliament that heeds this message and a Government that implements effective manpower policies for Singapore.
Sir, notwithstanding the concerns and reservations that I have expressed today, PSP supports the Bill. For country, for people.
Mr Speaker: Mr Fahmi Aliman.
Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman (Marine Parade): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise today to speak on an issue that cuts to the very heart of our nation's values – workplace fairness.
The Workplace Fairness Bill marks a significant step towards equality and inclusivity in our workforce. For more than a decade, various advocates within the Labour Movement, including fellow Labour Member, our brother, Mr Patrick Tay, have called for more to be done to level the playing field for our workers.
More recently in 2021, the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) together with the Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF), called for more legislative measures to better protect our PMEs against age and nationality discrimination. We are glad that our calls for stronger protections have been heeded.
While necessary, legislation cannot be the only tool to tackle discrimination, especially when it concerns issues on race and religion. We must recognise that these are sensitive issues that can impact our racial and religious harmony.
Today, I will speak on three areas. First, I will highlight the often-invisible cost of racial and religious discrimination to workers. Second, I will speak on what more must be done to foster safer workplace cultures where sensitive issues involving race, language and religion are respectfully navigated. Lastly, I will share my views on some issues raised by the Malay/Muslim community that have been covered by other Members in this debate.
In 2020, NTUC's LabourBeat reported on Michael, a business consultant in his 40s who faced humiliation and mistreatment at work due to his ethnicity. With support from NTUC's U PME Centre, he was able to rebuild his confidence, secure a new job aligned with his career goals and even enjoy a 25% pay increase. This story is a testament to the power of targeted support, but it also highlights that racial discrimination is still present in our workplaces.
Data underscores this reality. According to MOM's Fair Employment Practices 2023 report, race discrimination was the second most common form of workplace discrimination, affecting 1.7% of workers. Among job seekers, race discrimination ranked among the top three forms of bias since 2021, impacting 5.1% of individuals in 2023.
A 2021 joint study by CNA and the Institute of Policy Studies on race relations found that only 32.3% of respondents who experienced racial discrimination at work would file a report. This low reporting rate indicates that many workers feel disempowered or fear repercussions for speaking out.
Mr Speaker, Sir, behind these statistics lie real struggles faced by workers. The workplace is a highly competitive environment where individuals spend a significant portion of their lives. Many travel far from home to work here, contributing to Singapore's economic success. It is only fair that their contributions are judged on merit, free from prejudice or unconscious bias.
However, the complexities of racial and religious issues often result in genuine grievances being overlooked and dismissed. Victims may be accused of using their race or religion as an excuse for poor performance, causing them to question their self-worth. This silent killer, workplace discrimination, can infect and weaken the very fabric of our society. Left unaddressed, it threatens not only individual well-being but also the trust and respect that underpin our social defence, a critical pillar of our Total Defence strategy. I therefore stand in support of the Bill which strengthens protection against discrimination based on race and religion. It sends a signal that our racial and religious harmony must be safeguarded with the utmost care. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] While the Bill is a commendable milestone, it is not sufficient on its own. What more should be done to foster safer workplace cultures, where employers and employees respectfully navigate sensitive issues involving race, language and religion?
We must consider our changing workforce demographics, and the evolving complexities of workplace challenges. That is why, beyond the WFL, we will require a more holistic approach to foster safer workplace cultures upstream in order to stamp out prejudices and biases that can lead to disharmonious workplaces, even if they may not cross the legislative threshold to constitute an offence.
Here are my recommendations to foster safer workplace cultures.
First, the Government should dedicate more resources to equip employers and HR practitioners to manage complex workplace disputes. Training programmes should be enhanced to ensure practical ways in navigating differing perspectives on discrimination.
Second, ongoing education for employees and employers is essential to prevent unconscious bias and discrimination from taking root. This includes fostering and engaging in dialogue that cultivate a culture of respect and understanding.
Third, workers must feel safe to voice their concerns without fear of retaliation. Strengthening mediation processes and offering confidential reporting mechanisms can help address grievances before they escalate.
Yesterday, Mr Faisal Manap raised two issues affecting our Muslim workers: namely, flexibility to participate in Friday prayers and flexibility to don the hijab while working.
Our workplaces are an important common space for workers from all walks of life to earn a living. This diversity is a complex issue as different workers may choose to express their beliefs, practices and convictions differently. Our union leaders understand the difficulties in balancing workers’ different needs for flexibility and accommodations, and work hard to support this diversity.
We are glad that Mr Faisal Manap is appreciative of our unions’ efforts and highlighted that NTUC’s leaders had called for more understanding amongst employers to try to accommodate diverse needs where possible.
However, we are concerned about the approach suggested to resolve these sensitive issues through discrimination claims under the legislation. A claims-based approach may not be adequate to grapple with the sensitivities of the issues involved, beyond the individuals affected. Resolving issues through discrimination claims under the legislation will not lead to the goal of achieving harmonious, diverse and productive workplaces to power Singapore’s economy.
A better way is to handle the issue collectively and sensitively, involving tripartite partners in close dialogue. This is not the first time that such issues have been surfaced and resolved harmoniously. From 2021, Muslim staff working in the public healthcare sector including nurses were allowed to wear a tudung or headscarf at work if they chose to do so. This followed dialogues and close engagements with religious groups and public healthcare institutions, and demonstrates our ability to work through these matters in a constructive manner that promotes rather than erodes our religious harmony.
Mr Speaker, I acknowledge the concerns of some of my fellow Muslim workers around certain workplace practices that may restrict their ability to practice their religion in the way they desire. In a multi-racial, religious Singapore, we will need to work through these issues together. But let us do so sensitively and in a spirit of mutual understanding, rather than through a legal claims process.
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, to conclude, the Workplace Fairness Bill is a significant step forward, but it is only the beginning. To uphold our nation's social defence and ensure that every worker feels respected, valued and included, we must go further. By equipping HR professionals, fostering inclusive workplace cultures and addressing discrimination proactively, we can build a workforce that truly reflects the values of meritocracy and fairness.
Singapore's continued safety and prosperity depend on our ability to safeguard the trust between our diverse communities. Let us commit ourselves to this cause, ensuring that our workplaces are not only spaces for productivity but also bastions for respect and dignity. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): Thank you, Sir. I would like to pose one clarification to Member Mr Fahmi Aliman. I would just like to clarify whether, the two instances that I cited yesterday that are not covered by the law or the WFL. One of them is about allowing Muslim males to go for Friday prayers and the other one is the wearing of tudung for female Muslims. Am I right to say that the Member disagrees that these two instances are supposed to be covered under WFL?
Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman: I thank the Member for the questions and clarifications. I did not mention it that way, but I think what is important is that we can take these two issues together in a form of communications and addressing this in a dialogue, so that we can address this issue in a way to enhance productivity and enhance inclusivity in a workplace situation. That is the thing that I wanted to highlight.
Mr Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: Sir, I am not discounting about using dialogue to manage such issues. But what I am trying to say is, whether under the current Bill, which is going to be enacted soon, most probably, I just wanted to know whether he actually agrees that it should be covered under this legislation, this Bill, for the two instances that I mentioned?
Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman: I thank the Member for the question. It is something that, as what I mentioned, is being highlighted in the Malay/Muslim community because of the current issues. I have got this information through my interactions with some in the Malay/Muslim community, that these issues need to be addressed. And I guess, one of the best ways to address it is through this Workplace Fairness Bill. But the way and how we do it is actually through conversations, through communications and through addressing some of the issues highlighted by the employers and hearing what are the needs of their employees too.
So, that is the gist of what I am trying to promote here – open conversations, open discussions, so that the workers will continue to be productive and not be impacted by all this.
Mr Speaker: Minister Tan See Leng, do you want to add some clarity to this?
The Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I did not want to venture into this discussion, but for the purpose of my wrapping-up speech later, I just needed to understand from the Member of Parliament, Mr Faisal Manap. Did I understand him correctly that he wanted privileges for Muslim men for Friday worship? What about Muslim ladies, because they also go to mosques for worship?
We are all here trying to create a more equitable, a fairer society where we take into consideration all aspects of sex, race, nationality, PwDs, mental health and age. So, I am just trying to understand what his stand was when he put up this point yesterday. And I will try my best to address it in my wrap-up speech later. So, I will be grateful for that clarification.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: Thank you to the Minister for his clarification. On his seeking of clarification regarding the gender equality, if I can put it that way, basically, as what I have quoted yesterday, even the former Member of Parliament, Mr Zainal Sapari, and I think most Muslims know, the Friday prayers are only obligatory upon the male Muslims, not for females. That is why I am asking on behalf of male Muslims.
And my clarification yesterday was pertaining to the two scenarios to get an affirmation and certainty from the Minister that the two scenarios have been happening for so many years, and are even reflected in the Suara Musyawarah, which is the Singapore Conversations equivalent, and even the issue about Friday prayers being highlighted on social media by Assistant Secretary-General, Mr Zainal Sapari.
So, I just want to have a confirmation and certainty that the two scenarios that I cited yesterday can come under the legislation. That is all.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Speaker, this Bill has been a long time in the making. After hesitation for several years, the Government has heeded calls from several quarters, including from the Workers’ Party (WP), to go beyond Tripartite Guidelines and to legislate against discrimination in the workplace. Since the former Prime Minister announced the Government decision to proceed with such legislation at the National Day Rally in 2021, more than three years ago, the day has finally come, at least for the first part of the legislation.
Sir, the Bill has several positive aspects, and two aspects should be mentioned. First, it covers all stages of employment from pre-employment hiring, in-employment decisions to end-employment decisions. Second, when employers are assessed to have breached their obligations, there is a range of responses from financial penalties and corrective directions to state prosecution, with employers having recourse to the courts if necessary.
In my speech today, I would like to raise three questions related to the Bill.
First, on the timing of implementation. We first understood that the anti-discrimination law was expected to be passed by the end of last year. When there was no indication by October last year that the law was being tabled, I was puzzled and filed a Parliamentary Question (PQ) about this for the November Sitting. The Minister replied then that the Workforce Fairness Bill would be tabled in Parliament that month.
We understand that the legislation is being tabled in two parts, the first part now and with a second part on employment claims, to be tabled later this year. Thus, the earlier-indicated timelines have been missed.
The Government has announced that the provisions of both parts would be effective in 2026 or 2027, that is, possibly two years from now. Could the Ministry be more specific as to the various milestones and approximate target dates, so that we can better understand why it will take so much time?
My second question arises from the scope of the Act, that is, what situations are covered or not covered. I note from clause 4(3) that the Act does not cover contracts for service, that is, those who are engaged under arrangements that make them independent contractors.
While I do not disagree with this, I wish to highlight ground feedback I have received about some unscrupulous employment practices. A resident told me that he had worked for his employer for years and when he was nearing retirement age, his work arrangement with the employer was converted from the status of employee to a contract for service, that is, he was re-hired as an independent contractor. This was despite the fact he was working at the same tasks.
Such a change in status from employee to independent contractor would deprive the worker of significant protections, such as CPF contributions, work injury compensation insurance and soon, from the provisions of the Workforce Fairness Act as well. This is not acceptable as such a practice is tantamount to discrimination on the grounds of age. Is the Ministry tracking such situations of potential bullying of older workers, and if so, what is being done?
My last question relates to what the Bill calls “protected characteristics”. The Bill lists 11 protected characteristics, meaning that employers should not use those characteristics to discriminate against jobseekers or employees. These 11 protected characteristics range from age, sex and nationality to marital status, race and mental health condition.
My query relates to the pre-employment stage, that is, when the employer is deciding whether or not to hire an individual. Fundamentally, my question is this: what exactly are the restrictions on what the employer can or cannot do?
While the Bill states that the employer should not make an adverse employment decision based on any of the protected characteristics, it is silent on how the employment processes need to change. For instance, is the employer permitted to ask any questions about the protected characteristics? For instance, it is common in Singapore to see pre-employment forms asking potential hires for their marital status, race and whether they have been ever treated for any mental health condition. During hiring interviews, women especially are often asked about their caregiving responsibilities or potential parenthood plans.
Regarding what sorts of questions cannot or should not be asked during hiring interviews, a brief look at some other jurisdictions is useful. At one end of the spectrum, some jurisdictions, such as South Korea and Denmark, legally prohibit employers from asking for information on marital status and race. Mid-way in the spectrum would be other jurisdictions, such as the United States (US) and the UK, where questions about some characteristics are not permitted at all, for example, on disability and health. However, for other characteristics, such as pregnancy or parenthood plans, employers are merely advised not to ask those questions, as such questions could be considered to be evidence of discrimination.
Is the Ministry’s intention to prohibit certain lines of questioning or is the intention merely to discourage such questions? Will there be, for instance, subsidiary legislation covering prohibited questions and what the consequences will be if they are asked? For questions that are to be discouraged, this change itself will involve overhauling long-standing hiring norms. How will MOM work with employers to adjust their hiring practices and to monitor whether these practices have indeed changed?
Sir, for protected characteristics to be meaningfully protected, a strong framework needs to be in place. If questions about the protected characteristics continue to be asked, it opens the door for employers to make decisions based on those characteristics, but to disguise the real reason in more kosher language to avoid complaints and investigations. Such a loophole should be avoided where possible, as this would render the protection toothless.
Sir, to conclude, this Bill has an important signalling effect that discrimination in the workplace will attract consequences for employers. The WP supports the Bill. I look forward to the Ministry’s clarifications on the three points I have raised concerning timing of implementation, employers who disguise employment as contracts for service and on what is permissible during the hiring process.
Mr Speaker: Ms Usha Chandradas.
Ms Usha Chandradas (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, this Bill represents a significant step forward in codifying protections against discrimination in the workplace, and I support it. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, I would like to express my support for clause 8(a)(i), which considers \"language ability\" as a protected characteristic. Clause 20 goes on to clarify that the ability to \"read, speak, write or understand a language\" is not considered necessary for the performance of a job, just because other employees happen to regularly communicate in that language. This express statement is something that deeply resonates with me as a minority woman. Many Singaporean minorities, including myself, have experienced being in work situations where the majority of their co-workers and, sometimes, even their superiors have preferred to communicate in Mandarin. In these cases, they have little regard for the people around them who may not be able to understand what they are saying. This kind of behaviour is isolating and goes against Singapore’s core commitment to multiculturalism. I wish to thank the Government for being clear that this kind of discrimination, if performed in connection with the acts set out in Part 4 of this proposed law, is totally unacceptable.
(In English): Notwithstanding my particular support for this aspect of the Bill, I have a few clarifications for the Minister.
My main clarifications in my speech are on the definition of “sex” as it is set out in clauses 8(c) and 10 of the Bill. The definition includes biological characteristics from birth and after the completion of sex re-assignment procedures. What it clearly leaves out is discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation.
A person’s gender identity and expression, as well as their sexuality, are a part of who they are. They are not lifestyle choices that can be changed on a whim. While the proposed law supports individuals who have undergone sex re-assignment procedures, it seems to ignore the reality that the transition from one gender to another is something that happens over time and involves more than just surgical changes. Sometimes, individuals may not even choose to undergo surgical procedures. This is a complex process and it involves medical, psychological and social aspects. Individuals in the process of transitioning, or who choose not to surgically transition, can also be susceptible to discriminatory practices in the workplace.
Members of the arts community who are also members of the LGBTQ+ community have told me that they feel very concerned about the additional exclusions at clause 10(2) of this Bill. These exclusions could have the effect of reiterating the fact that characteristics which are relevant to the community will resolutely not have the protection of this law. This could in fact signal to the wider population, as well as employers, that discrimination on the basis of one’s sexuality and gender identity, are not sufficiently serious or valid concerns.
Taken to an extreme, some might interpret this as the Government condoning this kind of workplace discrimination. It could also inadvertently signal to employers that such discriminatory practices will go largely unpunished.
This is not the only place where we see a similar kind of signalling in the Bill. At the explanatory note on clause 17, there is a statement there that when an employer dismisses someone on the ground of the race of that person’s husband, this will not be considered as discrimination under the new proposed law.
Speaking as someone who actually does have a husband of a different race, this was slightly alarming for me to read in the Bill. I understand that given the prescriptive approach that has been adopted by the Government in this piece of legislation, certain lines have to be drawn and clear positions have to be elucidated. To put it another way, when lists are made, there will always be questions on why certain things are included and others are left out. To an extent, this is just something inherent in the structure of the legislation that has been adopted. I think most members of the public and Members of this House can understand that.
But that being said, it is important too that the specific wording in the Bill does not send out unintended messages that seem to actually endorse certain acts of discrimination. To this end, it would be good if the Minister could explain the basis behind the explanatory note on clause 17 and on how members of the public are expected to interpret it.
Yesterday, I note that the Minister has explained and mentioned that the acts that are described in the explanatory note would be caught by the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP) and just not by this Bill. But notwithstanding his explanation, I would like to ask, was it then necessary to include an example like this in the Bill? Could the explanatory note have been clearer that such acts are very much discriminatory, even if they are not covered by this Bill?
Coming back to the definition of sex, very recently, this House debated the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code. In connection with this, many Members on both sides of the House reiterated their views that discriminatory behaviour towards people on account of their sexuality should simply not be tolerated. So, I do not think at all that the Government intends to send the message to the LGBTQ+ community that discrimination against them is in any way permissible.
I was also heartened to hear the Minister yesterday say that no one would be turned away with their workplace grievances just because they do not happen to be covered by the Bill. The Minister seems to have taken a very strong approach towards ensuring that tolerance is displayed by employers and by members of the public. So, I hope the Minister takes the opportunity during this debate to assure the LGBTQ+ community that their rights in the workplace will be protected, regardless of the wording in clause 10(2) of this Bill.
I note from a Straits Times article in November 2024 that the protected characteristics set out in clause 8 of the Bill account for 95% of workplace discrimination complaints which have been made to MOM and the TAFEP. On one level, this is a very logical way to proceed.
However, we should not forget that it is also possible for discrimination to exist in the absence of formal complaints. The report Discrimination and Harassment in the Workplace: The Lived Experiences of Singapore LGBTQ+ Individuals, raises some notable feedback. According to the report, which was based on a survey of around 700 respondents, almost one third had experienced at least one form of discrimination in the workplace due to their sexual orientation or gender identity. Close to half of the people surveyed reported some form of harassment at the workplace. However, the report also noted that among the participants who had experienced discrimination and harassment, only a very small number had actually reported their experiences to their respective companies, to MOM or to TAFEP. Some of the reasons for this included a fear of retaliation, social stigma and the expectation of little support if reports were actually made.
We can see how this fear creates a harmful loop. Victims remain unheard, leading those in positions of authority to mistakenly believe that there are no issues of concern. As a result, protections remain inadequate and those facing workplace discrimination continue to suffer quietly.
So, my questions for the Minister are these: first, Did the Ministry take into account the research and feedback from the ground which indicate that LGBTQ+ individuals tend to under-report incidents of workplace discrimination and harassment? If so, how then was the decision arrived at, to exclude sexuality and gender identity from the protected characteristic of “sex”?
Secondly, how will the Minister ensure that employers do not discriminate against employees on the basis of their gender identity and sexuality, given that the proposed law explicitly excludes these two traits? Is the Minister able to provide any assurances that discrimination against employees on the basis of their gender identity and sexuality, will not be tolerated by the Ministry? For example, will the Minister consider including specific protections, templates and resources for LGBTQ+ individuals through TAFEP and the TGFEP? Will any measures be put in place to ensure that reporting systems are accessible, trusted and effective for LGBTQ+ persons? The Minister yesterday alluded to updates being made to the TGFEP, so I look forward to hearing his further explanations and clarifications later.
I would also like to ask if any measures would be put in place to ensure that reporting systems are accessible, trusted and effective for LGBTQ+ persons. For example, would the Ministry work with LGBTQ+ groups on the ground to conduct training for TAFEP and other frontline MOM staff to ensure that cases of discrimination are dealt with seriously and professionally, and to encourage reporting of such incidents, when they do take place?
Finally, I would like to ask if there any plans for the law to be re-examined at a specific point in the future and to consider whether the exclusions at clause 10(2) may be removed or amended? MOM has indicated in its factsheet on the proposed Bill that tripartite partners will review the exemption set out at clause 4(1) of the Bill in five years’ time. If so, will a similar reconsideration of clauses 8(c) and 10 also take place? A number of countries, including the UK, Australia and New Zealand have codified provisions against workplace discrimination based on gender identity and sexuality. If we in Singapore were to change our position in future, we would certainly not be alone in doing so.
Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Dr Wan Rizal.
Dr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill, particularly its provisions on mental health. The Bill signifies a significant step towards ensuring that our workplaces are not only productive but also inclusive, compassionate and fair.
Sir, mental health remains as a pertinent topic. One in seven individuals in Singapore experience mental health challenges in their lifetime. In the workplace, this often translates to stigma, reduced opportunities and hesitance to seek help.
Beyond the personal toll, mental health issues have a significant economic impact. Research by Duke-NUS Medical School and the Institute of Mental Health estimates that anxiety and depression alone cost Singapore’s economy approximately 2.9% of gross domestic product annually, translating to a staggering S$16 billion in productivity losses. Such barriers affect individuals and hinder workforce morale, efficiency and overall economic growth. Therefore, addressing mental health in the workplace is a moral responsibility and an economic imperative.
The Bill addresses these gaps by recognising mental health conditions as a protected characteristic. Employers are prohibited from making adverse decisions based on an employee’s mental health status, whether during hiring, promotions or dismissals. It requires that grievance processes be established to ensure employees can report discrimination without fear of retaliation. These measures create a much-needed safety net for workers, encouraging equitable treatment and reducing stigma.
However, Sir, I do have some concerns and questions about the Bill, particularly regarding our mental health provisions.
Firstly, these concerns revolve around the definitions of mental health conditions. What diagnostic criteria or medical certifications are required for a mental health condition to qualify as a protected characteristic? Employers and employees need clarity to avoid disputes over whether a condition is eligible for protection. I ask because mental health conditions vary significantly from chronic disorders like schizophrenia, to temporary conditions such as acute stress. Without a clear criteria, confusion or inconsistencies could arise. As an example, an employee with an anxiety might present a certificate from a general practitioner, while any other with a similar condition may seek a psychiatrist diagnosis. Ensuring clarity in what is accepted is crucial to avoid unfair outcomes.
Second revolves around balancing safety and fairness. How can employers assess whether a mental health condition genuinely affects an employee's ability to perform safety critical roles? Employers must navigate a fine line between ensuring workplace safety and avoiding discrimination. I ask simply because certain industries, for example, in aviation or healthcare, or even construction, may involve high risk tasks where safety concerns are paramount. Employers need clear guidance or guidelines to make balanced and reasonable decisions. As an example, we can have a construction worker who has severe anxiety and might require temporary re-assignment to lower-risk duties. The Bill ensures such decisions are grounded in genuine safety concerns rather than bias.
The third revolves around the grievance processes and retaliation. The question is, what mechanisms are in place to ensure grievance handling processes are unbiased and transparent. Employees may mistrust internal process if they are entirely employer driven, undermining the Bill's intent. I ask simply because employers, especially SMEs, might lack the resources or expertise to set up impartial grievance system. External oversight could ensure fairness and accountability. As an example, if an employee files a complaint against their manager and, because it is an SME, the same manager may oversee the grievance process and this creates a clear conflict of interest. Thus, we need to establish independent reviews to mitigate such concerns.
How also will this Bill protect employees from subtle forms of retaliation after they raise a mental health related grievance? Employees often fear indirect retaliation, such as being excluded from promotions or sidelined in projects, even if overt discrimination is addressed. I ask simply because subtle retaliation is harder to detect and prove, making robust protections vital.
The Bill explicitly prohibits such acts and provides penalties for violations. As an example, an employee who discloses that he or she may have post-traumatic stress disorder and subsequently notices a drop in their responsibilities despite consistent performance, might suspect retaliation. Employers must demonstrate that such changes are justified and not punitive.
My fourth point is regarding privacy and confidentiality. What safeguards ensure that employees' mental health information remains confidential during the grievance investigations or workplace discussions. Breaches of privacy could discourage employees from disclosing their conditions, and we want them to come forward, but this may undermine the Bill's intent. I ask simply because sensitive information about mental health must be handled carefully to avoid stigma and protect employees' dignity. Employers must implement robust confidentiality protocols during investigations or accommodations. As an example, if an HR team inadvertently shares details about an employee's mental health condition with co-workers, it could lead to workplace gossip, further alienating the individual. Clear confidentiality protocols then must be enforced.
Sir, beyond these clarifications, this Bill represents a broader cultural shift in how we view mental health in the workplace and in the society. I am encouraged by how this Bill aligns with our broader efforts to strengthen mental health advocacy in Singapore. The Workplace Fairness Bill is not a standalone initiative. It builds on the foundation of community programmes, public awareness campaigns and mental health education.
Last year, during the Motion on mental health, the Government affirmed that mental health is a national priority. Therefore, the inclusion of mental health in this Bill underscores that commitment, translating our national vision into actionable policies that directly impact the workplace and beyond.
Last Sunday, I had the opportunity through the People's Action Party (PAP) Mental Health Group to hold its first meet-up session of 2025, bringing together passionate individuals and organisations that are dedicated in advancing mental health initiative. Some of them include Silver Ribbon (Singapore), SCMH, Calm Collective, Campus Psy, Limitless, Growthbeans and many more. During our discussions, the Workplace Fairness Bill featured prominently as a key legislative step that aligns with our shared vision of creating a healthier, more inclusive workplace. It is inspiring to see so many shared aspirations among the community to make mental health a national priority. Together, I believe we are driving impactful change and this Bill plays a critical role in shaping that transformation.
Mr Speaker, in conclusion, this Bill is more than just a legislation. It is a declaration of our values as a nation. By standing against discrimination and upholding mental health as a national priority, we reaffirm our commitment to fairness, dignity and inclusivity. Together, let us take this important step towards a society where no one feels excluded or undervalued due to their mental health challenges. It sends a clear message: mental health matters and discrimination has no place in our society, and especially in our workplaces.
Mr Speaker: Ms Jean See.
Ms See Jinli Jean (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, through work, many of us reinforce our sense of dignity. Pope Francis said, and I quote, “Work is fundamental to the dignity of a person. It gives one the ability to maintain oneself, one's family, and to contribute to the growth of one's own nation.\"
The Workplace Fairness Bill matters because it opens doors for more persons to access work opportunities regardless of background and personal characteristics. As important, it upholds every person's right to be treated fairly and with respect because it strengthens protections against discrimination and empowers workers to seek remedial action from their employers directly without fear of retaliation. On these grounds, Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
While I acknowledge the Bill as a sound first step in the right direction, I seek clarity on how the Bill would be implemented to counter facets of discrimination in traditional and new workspaces. I also seek clarity on how the Bill would deliver sustained positive impact for less-advantaged communities that have the odds stacked up against them in the job market and the workplace.
First, clause 28 of the Bill outlines the prohibition against retaliation. Could the Minister explain what constitutes, I quote, \"subjecting the employee to any other detriment in relation to the employee's employment\".
Next, the Bill outlines what constitutes direct workplace discrimination in respect of the protected characteristics. However, the Bill leaves out what are reasonable accommodations that must be put in place to facilitate employment outcomes. Clarity on the provision of reasonable accommodations would pave the way for more Singaporeans to be purposefully engaged in work, to develop viable careers and livelihood and to contribute economically to Singapore.
Fellow Parliamentarians, such as Mayor Ms Denise Phua, Mr Ong Hua Han and Miss Rachel Ong spoke extensively yesterday about the need for reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities and offered sound suggestions to nudge more employers into action. I stand in support. In this regard, could the Minister outline how the Ministry plans to normalise for employers to make reasonable accommodations that cater to the different needs of different demographics in the workforce? Such expansion would be in tandem with Singapore's Enabling Masterplan 2030 that gives a big push for inclusive hiring.
Next, advocates for PwDs such as Po Chien who I spoke with had surfaced concern about less-enlightened employers working around the law by asking for a candidate's National Service status or refusing to accept reasonable accommodations. Such concern is shared by those impacted by clause 10 of the Bill on the protected characteristics for sex where characteristics such as sexual orientation and gender identity were excluded. These communities seek assurance that the Ministry would make every effort to guard against indirect methods of discriminating and protect those whose employment opportunities are undermined as a result.
Could the Minister share the recourse available to an individual with grounds to suspect that he or she has been discriminated by an employer because of their disability or sexual orientation or gender identity? What measures would the Ministry consider putting in place to deter such forms of discrimination?
In the context of new workspaces, over 70,000 individuals are regular platform workers and are now protected under the Platform Workers Act that has taken effect from 1 January 2025. Nonetheless, I note that platform work arrangement is excluded from the Bill. This is despite the efforts to differentiate platform workers from other self-employed workers because of the employee-like characteristics of platform workers.
Some platform workers are from less-advantaged communities. They became platform workers because of the limitations that they have. They asked if the Bill could be extended to cover platform workers and protect platform workers against discrimination by platform algorithms.
Because the Platform Workers Act imposes financial obligations on platform operators, these platform workers worry that platform operators would favour workers the operators deem as more productive and thus tighten control on who is allowed to onboard the platform and to participate in platform work. Such control is typically executed by platform algorithms that manage platform job allocation, fares and supervision.
Thus, biases or preferences introduced deliberately or inadvertently by operators or picked up and internalised by platform algorithms would factor into the platform's algorithmic decision-making that could consistently deprioritise a particular worker in job allocation and/or fares or prioritise some workers over others. Such actions hurt the livelihoods of affected platform workers. Workers ask if this Bill would grant them the right and avenue to seek fairness. Could the Ministry consider expanding the Bill to cover the platform workspace and to provide protection to platform workers impacted by such algorithmic discrimination?
In the debate on the Platform Workers Bill, I had recommended for the Government to require platform operators to apply AI Verify to the platform algorithms. Doing so would motivate platform operators from the get-go to design and build artificial intelligence (AI) systems that are aligned with the 11 AI ethics principles. Given the push for fairer workplaces, would the Ministry consider mandating platform operators to apply AI Verify to their platform algorithms and for operators to address gaps flagged out by AI Verify?
Apart from platform work, technology has also evolved recruitment practices. It is now common for companies to advertise their job postings on social media platforms. To maximise advertising spend, recruiters would typically set limitations on the target audience receiving the job post. This inadvertently narrows the audience for the job post to certain segments of the population. In the absence of guardrails, employers could target by options that describe or relate to the protected characteristics. In respect of clause 19 of the Bill on advertising, what are measures that the Ministry plans to undertake with social media platforms to prevent employers from exploiting social media to engage in discriminatory job advertising? Such measures matter to Singapore's push for non-discrimination and fairness in a digital economy.
To prepare for this debate, I had spoken with different stakeholders and members. Many had suggested for efforts to be directed to educate and equip managers and human resource practitioners because these individuals would be much involved in implementing the Bill at the workplace.
Although TAFEP and tripartite bodies have been active in educating the public on fair employment and hiring practices, there are employers that are less familiar with TAFEP's work and the discussions leading up to the drafting of this Bill. These employers might have missed or deliberately ignored TAFEP's messages and thus would not have impressed upon their managers and HR team the importance of fair workplace practices. These employers could also continue to hold on to stereotypes that perpetuate biases and unfair workplace practices.
To give a sense of the potential size of challenge of dismantling such stereotypes and biases, allow me to share a personal example from my capacity as a unionist. To this day, I have union members who were told to terminate their union membership if they accepted a promotion to executive roles. This was told to them by their manager or HR. These management and HR had also communicated to staff members that executives cannot join the union. Such myths have been widely propagated in the hospitality sectors where I am now serving in a unionist capacity.
Despite such myths being baseless and in fact, unlawful given that it is an offence under the Industrial Relations Act to induce persons not to join trade unions or platform work associations, it remains an uphill task for the union leaders and I to debunk these myths. Therefore, I cannot overstate the need for the Government to be relentless in its efforts to level the awareness and implementation capabilities of managers and HR practitioners.
In this regard, could the Minister share the Ministry's assessment of the level of readiness of companies to implement the Bill in 2026 and if the Bill is passed? Given the scale of implementation of the Bill, how does the Government plan to work with stakeholders to level up managers and human resource practitioners by 2026?
I would like to conclude this speech on an encouraging note. Some of us might have caught Wicked, a recent movie release and the highest-grossing film adaptation of a Broadway musical. Wicked featured a wheelchair-bound actress, Marissa Bode. Allow me to share a quote from Jon M Chu, Wicked's director. He said, \"Creating the set was one of the most enlightening and beautiful processes I have ever gone through\" adding, \"You need accessibility, not just when we are on set behind the scenes, but you need to present accessibility in Oz itself.\"
I commend Mr Chu. His mindset and approach must be the desired states which the Workplace Fairness Bill is seeking to steer employers, colleagues and employees to embrace and aspire towards. The Bill is a milestone for Singapore. As important, it is a beacon of hope and resilience for less-advantaged communities.
NTUC and our unions have been championing fair and inclusive workplaces. This Bill gives us firmer ground to work closely with employers and tripartite stakeholders to pave the way for more workplaces to be fair and inclusive. The Bill also gives individuals the courage to surface discriminatory practices that they might experience or come across. NTUC and the unions stand ready to support members in these situations.
In closing, I call upon this House and fellow Singaporeans to unite in purpose and action so that all working people, regardless of their background, can be empowered to uphold that dignity to their right of work.
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.30 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.10 pm until 4.30 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.30 pm.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]
WORKPLACE FAIRNESS BILL
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Chong Kee Hiong.
Mr Chong Kee Hiong (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Workplace Fairness Bill is an important milestone in Singapore's journey to update employment practices and improve the work environment.
I would like to appeal to the Ministry to consider including more measures in the interest of employees, such as prohibiting indirect discrimination and requiring employers to provide reasonable accommodation in the workplace.
These measures are necessary to enable more PwDs to find, maintain and advance in employment. For those who wish to work, they should be encouraged and supported in their endeavours to earn their own living and gain financial independence. Many PwDs want to participate in the workforce, make use of their skillsets and education and contribute to our economy. Workplace accommodation will benefit employers too, as a more diverse and inclusive workplace can add benefits to businesses.
The Ministry's responses to prior feedback on indirect discrimination highlighted its concerns over the wider legal obligations for employers and potential uncertainty for both employers and employees.
Would the Ministry consider this issue from another angle, that legislation is necessary to minimise such workplace uncertainties? Presently, affected employees face the uncertainty of whether the indirect discrimination they experience would be taken seriously, which results in unreported cases. There are grey areas where errant employers exhibit a range of indirect discriminatory behaviours.
The number of cases of discrimination, direct and indirect, are under-reported. The Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness Final Report took note of this. Under Part IV of the section on Recommendations, paragraph 19, I quote, \"Some employees may hesitate to come forward to report workplace discrimination or harassment within the company or to MOM or TAFEP, out of fear of subsequently being disadvantaged in the workplace. This sentiment was raised by participants during the 2020-2021 Conversations on Singapore Women's Development. In addition, the MOM Fair Employment Practices Survey 2022 showed that only one in three employees who experienced workplace discrimination sought help.\"
In August 2022, the gender equality group, AWARE in partnership with a consumer research company Milieu Insight, conducted a comprehensive survey on workplace discrimination. They polled about 1,000 respondents on their experiences of workplace discrimination. The results showed approximately 55% of respondents had experienced at least one form of discrimination in the preceding five years.
For disability-based discrimination, the survey showed that PwDs experienced discrimination at a significantly higher rate of 78%, compared to persons without disabilities who have experienced discrimination of 50%.
The Ministry has stated that it is worried about employee-employer relationship becoming more legalistic if it starts prohibiting indirect discrimination. This is highly unlikely. As it is now, many employees are afraid of reporting the discrimination they face. Most employees would seek to resolve the issue internally through internal channels and avenues, such as by reporting the issue to their manager or the HR department and try to resolve the issue amicably first. This is why it is important to mandate mediation first, before further action, such as litigation, can be taken.
As for the issue of reasonable accommodations in the workplace, the Ministry can consider referencing comparative legislation and studying the experience of other countries. For example, the US Department of Labor has established reasonable accommodation as a legal concept with clear criteria.
Many jurisdictions' laws also include the intertwined concept of \"undue burden\" where employers are not required to grant accommodation that impose \"undue burden”. Hence, employers are protected from making accommodation which they cannot make with reasonable resource allocation.
In Singapore, employers can approach MOM and disability organisations, such as SG Enable, Disabled People's Association, Autism Resource Centre (Singapore), Serving People with Disabilities and the Movement for the Intellectually Disabled for assistance and guidance on reasonable accommodation. Would the Ministry consider providing greater incentives to encourage employers to proactively work with these organisations to support staff who are PwDs?
How would the Ministry boost awareness and utilisation of the Open Door Programme, Assistive Technology Fund and the Accessibility Fund by employers to fund the costs of reasonable accommodation?
Reasonable accommodation is essential and necessary for PwDs to perform their jobs and is not a matter of personal preferences. For example, blind persons need screen readers, deaf people need written communication, autistics need environments that accommodate their sensory sensitivity. Hence, it is important to recognise that by issuing an advisory instead of legislation on reasonable accommodation, employers would interpret them as optional provisions, when, in fact, they are necessary and indispensable means for PwDs to perform their daily tasks.
Without reasonable accommodation, PwDs are disadvantaged at every stage of the employment process. For example, wheelchair users who are denied interviews because the venue of the interview is not wheelchair accessible. Therefore, the denial of such essential reasonable accommodation would constitute an \"adverse employment decision\" as defined in the Workplace Fairness Final Report.
Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singapore ratified the United Nations Conventions on the Rights of People with Disabilities (UNCRPD) in 2013 and participated in the Constructive Dialogue with the UNCRPD Committee in 2022. It would be timely for our Government to set a timeline and work towards legislating the prohibition of indirect discrimination and denial of reasonable accommodation. Doing so will help us move closer to achieving the Enabling MasterPlan 2030's goal of 40% PwD employment rate and upholding the UNCRPD principles.
There is more work to be done to build greater inclusion in the workplace. Singapore has reached a commendable milestone in introducing the Workplace Fairness Bill. Our PwDs and persons with other conditions would be heartened that the Government has heard their concerns and taken the first steps to improve their employment opportunities and work environment. Hence, I would like to conclude with my full support for the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Mark Lee.
Mr Mark Lee (Nominated Member): Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Workplace Fairness Bill 2024 represents a significant milestone in Singapore's commitment to creating equitable workplaces. This Bill codifies principles that have long been championed under the TGFEP, giving them legal weight and enforceability. By addressing workplace discrimination, it sends a strong message that such discriminatory practices have no place in Singapore.
This Bill is timely. A 2022 Harvard Business Review article highlights that organisations prioritising fairness can achieve up to a 26% increase in productivity. More than a reflection of our shared values of inclusivity and fairness, this Bill demonstrates how fairness is integral to enhancing business competitiveness.
I also like that the Bill achieves a commendable balance between promoting inclusivity and addressing the practical realities of businesses. For example, by applying its provision to employers with 25 or more employees and acknowledges that SMEs often lack the resources to implement extensive frameworks. By allowing smaller businesses more time to adapt, it ensures workplace fairness becomes a shared responsibility across businesses of all sizes.
Section 8 of the Bill also provides vital protections for vulnerable groups, including older employees, women with caregiving responsibilities and PwDs.
Mr Deputy Speaker, while the intent of the Bill is clear and noble, we must also recognise the genuine concerns of businesses, particularly SMEs. According to a recently released Singapore Business Federation's National Business Survey 2024, while business outlook has improved slightly, only 26% of businesses are confident about economic improvement in the year ahead, with 22% of businesses expecting conditions to worsen. Rising manpower costs, cited as the top challenge by 66% of businesses, further strain their ability to invest in fair employment practices.
SMEs face heightened challenges as they navigate rapid global changes while trying to sustain their operations with limited resources. Let me elaborate on five key challenges faced in the implementation of the Bill. In Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] First, implementing the measures outlined in this Bill comes with costs. Setting up grievance handling systems, for example, requires businesses to train staff, create reporting mechanisms and document complaints. For smaller firms, these costs can range from $5,000 to $10,000 annually – significant sums for businesses already facing economic pressures.
Second, employers may also hesitate to hire individuals requiring significant accommodations, fearing operational disruptions or additional costs. This reluctance could inadvertently hinder the inclusion of those most in need of workplace fairness policies.
Third, section 26 requires employers to demonstrate fair consideration for local candidates before hiring foreign talent. While this safeguards opportunities for Singaporeans, it can create challenges for industries experiencing acute talent shortages. For instance, in the technology sector, where roles such as software engineers, cybersecurity experts and AI specialists are in high demand, the limited local talent pool may lead to significant project delays and missed business opportunities.
Fourth, the anti-retaliation provisions under section 28 are crucial to protecting employees who raise legitimate grievances. However, there is concern about potential misuse. For instance, an underperforming employee facing dismissal could file a frivolous discrimination complaint to avoid termination, even if the action was based on legitimate reason like poor performance. Such cases could increase administrative burdens on businesses and undermine team morale.
(In English): Finally, many SMEs express concerns over \"policy fatigue\", particularly as they are already navigating multiple regulatory requirements. These include the Fair Consideration Framework, implementing flexible work arrangements and enhanced parental leave guidelines. Adding new compliance obligations could stretch their resources further, particularly for businesses without dedicated HR functions.
To address these concerns while supporting the Bill's objectives, I propose eight recommendations.
First, we need a clear and comprehensive implementation framework. It is vital to retain the TAFEP's role as the primary point of contact for workplace fairness complaints. Over the years, TAFEP has successfully championed conciliation, education and mindset shifts, earning the trust of both employers and workers. MOM's statutory enforcement powers, while necessary, should remain a last resort.
My concern is the transition to this new framework may create public confusion. Employees may bypass TAFEP and approach MOM prematurely, undermining the conciliation-first approach. Employers, on the other hand, may fear immediate enforcement actions without being given an opportunity for mediation.
To address these concerns, I propose a comprehensive public education campaign, working together with chambers and trade associations, to clarify the process: TAFEP as the first point of contact, mediation as the second step and MOM's intervention as a final recourse for unresolved disputes. Possible feedback mechanisms could also be set up for employers and employees to share their experiences with the new legislation, informing future refinements of the Bill over time.
Second, for the Workplace Fairness Bill to be effective, HR personnel must be equipped with the necessary skills to implement fair workplace practices effectively. I propose that TAFEP collaborate with the Institute for Human Resource Professionals (IHRP) to establish a robust framework for accrediting HR capabilities.
Under this model, IHRP would serve as the standards and accreditation hub, while Institutes of Higher Learning, trade associations and chambers as well as training providers act as deployment spokes. To support this, IHRP, in partnership with TAFEP, could issue jointly branded skills badges. These badges would serve as formal accreditation, demonstrating that HR personnel have been trained and are equipped with the knowledge and skills to implement workplace fairness policies effectively.
Third, to address concerns about the anti-retaliation provisions and to better support both employees and businesses, the Minister could consider introducing clearer definitions of \"good faith\" to prevent misuse of the provisions. It is important to clarify what constitutes a failure to fulfil contractual obligations or subjecting an employee to detriment in employment, as well as outline the relative burdens of proof for all parties.
Including penalties for frivolous complaints and allowing employers to take documented disciplinary actions unrelated to complaints would help maintain fairness. Additionally, MOM could enhance TAFEP’s role to filter out frivolous claims during the initial triage process, streamlining the grievance resolution process and minimising undue burdens on businesses.
Fourth, a tiered compliance framework can be adopted that differentiates obligations based on business size. Large corporations with 250 or more employees should achieve full compliance within one year. Medium-sized firms could have up to three years to adjust, while SMEs with fewer than 25 employees could fulfil lighter but meaningful requirements. This approach ensures that all businesses contribute to workplace fairness while considering their unique capacities.
Forward-looking SMEs, particularly those with 25 or fewer employees, that demonstrate exemplary workplace fairness practices and implementing them ahead of time, should be recognised and publicised. And the Tripartite Alliance Awards could be a useful platform for this. Beyond recognition, SMEs could be rewarded with tangible incentives, creating a balanced approach that includes not just the \"stick\" of compliance but also the \"carrot\" of acknowledgment and support.
Fifth, while MOM’s enforcement framework already categorises breaches into \"low\", \"moderate\" and \"high\" severity levels, the distinctions between these categories remain unclear to businesses. Providing detailed guidelines on what constitutes each level of severity would offer greater clarity and confidence to employers. Furthermore, prioritising education over penalties, particularly for first-time breaches, would allow businesses to adapt in time while maintaining deterrence for repeat or severe violations.
Sixth, simplified compliance reporting should be introduced to ease administrative strain on SMEs. Pre-approved templates tailored for SMEs could reduce administrative overhead and help smaller firms navigate the new requirements more efficiently.
Seventh, financial support is essential in fostering inclusive workplaces. The Government has already demonstrated commendable foresight with initiatives such as the Job Redesign Grant, Open Door Programme and Enabling Employment Credit, which help businesses accommodate seniors, PwDs through workplace modifications and job redesign. However, there is a continued need to shift mindsets and build capacity for inclusivity. I would therefore like to propose expanding grants to support diversity training, grievance system implementation and inclusive hiring practices. For example, the Government could co-fund anti-discrimination training programmes for HR personnel and provide subsidies for setting up grievance systems, particularly for smaller businesses.
Lastly, targeted measures are needed for industries facing acute manpower shortages. Sectors critical to our long-term goals, such as manufacturing, which plays a key role in the Manufacturing 2030 ambitions, could benefit from targeted exemptions or expedited processes for hiring foreign talent. This would help these sectors address their constrained talent pools without compromising the broader principles of workplace fairness.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to acknowledge and express my understanding of the concerns raised by the community advocates regarding the exclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity as protected characteristics. These voices are important and their advocacy highlights the need for continued dialogue and progress toward greater inclusivity.
The Workplace Fairness Bill represents a significant first step in codifying anti-discrimination measures. It establishes a foundational framework that can evolve to address broader concerns in the future. Expanding protections prematurely, without addressing implementation challenges, could create unintended uncertainties for both employers and employees. By focusing on practical and actionable measures today, this Bill lays the groundwork for future enhancements, paving the way for a more inclusive workforce as society and businesses adapt and progress together. I look forward to continued collaboration to address these concerns in the journey ahead.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to conclude by expressing my gratitude to MOM and all stakeholders for their dedicated efforts in bringing this Bill to fruition. While I have outlined some concerns and recommendations, I extend my strong support for this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.
Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a landmark Bill for employment law in Singapore that I am happy to support. This Bill gives the MOM express powers to take action against discrimination in the workplace.
I have been speaking up in favour of anti-discrimination legislation in this House several times over the years, including the very first Sitting of this term of Government in September 2020. And I am grateful to the Minister and the team at MOM that has had the openness of mind to move ahead with this change.
This Bill now makes it an offence to discriminate against employees based on characteristics such as nationality, sex, marital status, pregnancy, caregiving responsibilities, language ability, disability and mental health. There are important carve-outs, of course, including genuine job requirements, referring citizens and PRs over foreigners, and in relation to age, having minimum age requirements. I think there has been broad consensus, both on the characteristics that have been identified, as well as the exceptions carved out.
In dialogues I have had with women's groups over the years, one of the common issues they face in returning to the workforce is that employers are likely not to employ them because of concerns about their age and expected caregiving responsibilities. Now that it will be prohibited to discriminate on these characteristics, they may have better opportunities to return to the workforce.
Likewise, older workers who are moving between jobs and face difficulty with younger, less experienced candidates being hired ahead of them may now also have express protection under the law. I acknowledge that the Government and the unions have done a good job of encouraging workplace fairness over the years, including with the Tripartite Guidelines, but these have generally had the most fight with employers seeking EPs for foreign employees.
The MOM's denial of new work pass applications is already a potent stake against employers whose businesses depend heavily on foreign workers, and these employers had to become extra careful in ensuring they give Singaporeans fair consideration first. This will continue to be the case even with the new legislation.
The provisions in this Bill are unlikely to surprise multinational employers, particularly those from the West, where anti-discrimination legislation is quite common. Indeed, many of these companies already have anti-discrimination provisions as part of their internal policies. I would suggest though, that assistance be provided to local employers, including SMEs, on compliance with these provisions and in particular, the requirements of sections 25 to 27 of the new Bill that require employers to put in place fair employment practices.
I know a number of my colleagues have spoken in favour of recognising indirect discrimination as well. I think it is important to acknowledge that indirect discrimination exists, although these may be more difficult to establish in court. An example is where a person puts out characteristics for a job that may favour some groups over others, such as say a requirement for fair skin or curly hair.
As a starting point, the current legislation does make reference to some forms of indirect discrimination, one of the most common being irrelevant language requirements, which is essentially indirect racial discrimination. Additionally, there is nothing in the legislation that prevents a court finding as a fact that a particular requirement may amount to discrimination under one of the protected characteristics.
In my view, the current legislation may be used to deal with such discrimination, for example, under section 19(1), since they would give an advantage or disadvantage to certain races or nationalities. I think these types of indirect discrimination can be left to the court to determine as and when the situation arises, although if common threats arise, such as in relation to the irrelevant language requirements, then the legislation can be modified to give express protection on these matters.
As with any new legislation, there will likely be a spike in complaints when the legislation comes out and likely, some employers will be taken to task. This is to be expected and natural. However, once people get comfortable with and understand the obligations under the law, there will likely be a cultural shift and change in mentalities amongst both employers and employees, which I believe is healthy in the long run.
One point I had also made in this House in my speech in September 2020 was that anti-discrimination legislation should ideally also give the victim a personal remedy against the employer, rather than just a punishment for the employer by the state. I understand from the Minister's introductory speech that this is exactly the intention – and I support this as well, and look forward to the next Bill on this topic.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Henry Kwek.
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Kebun Baru): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to support this important Bill, which among many things, addresses a matter close to my heart, which is ensuring respect, regard and recognition for our seniors.
As someone deeply engaged in senior policy, I have witnessed first-hand the challenges that some of our seniors face in the workplace. Many have the experience, wisdom and resilience to contribute meaningfully, yet some are unfairly sidelined. This Bill represents a bold step toward changing that reality.
Let me start by sharing a story. A senior construction project manager came to my Meet-the-People Session for help recently. Despite decades of service and a stellar record, he struggled to find work after his company downsized, even after we spent months tapping on our extensive network to help him find a job. “Am I too old to matter?” he asked. His question was heartbreaking. It reflects the silent battle some of our seniors face daily – not against a lack of ability, but against prejudice.
Our seniors want to work and they deserve the chance. From 2018 to 2022, complaints to TAFEP and MOM show that age discrimination is the second largest category, making up nearly a quarter of all complaints. Ageism is a hidden barrier that deprives our society of valuable skills and creates a culture of exclusion. Without more action, we risk wasting the potential of our seniors, losing their contributions to our economy and our shared future. This Bill takes practical, meaningful steps to address these challenges. It not only targets direct discrimination but also sets the stage for a workplace culture that values inclusion and fairness.
I would like to highlight three key reasons why this Bill is a game-changer.
One, it is practical. It focuses on clear, enforceable actions: (a) protecting seniors against direct discrimination; (b) targeting companies with more than 25 employees for the next five years; and (c) prioritising mediation through TADM to resolve disputes constructively.
Second, it is comprehensive. It recognises the realities seniors face: (a) age is now a protected characteristic; (b) hiring practices that exclude seniors are directly addressed; and (c) caregiving responsibilities of seniors is also a protected characteristic.
Third, it supports inclusion. This law supports employers to hire seniors above 55 when candidates are equally qualified, ensuring that experience and maturity are not overlooked.
The PAP Senior Group supports this law because real changes happens through practical, step-by-step progress. This law avoids overreaching, which can lead to defensive HR practices, frivolous lawsuits, or even job losses as companies move overseas. Just look at the controversies surrounding diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, in America. The PAP Senior Group will work closely with the Government to ensure that this law is properly implemented.
We can afford to take practical steps towards progress because we have been building on decades of senior-friendly policies by successive PAP governments, which includes, just to recap, reskilling initiatives like SkillsFuture Mid-Career schemes preparing our seniors for evolving industries, incentives for employers to hire seniors and encourage the creation of age-friendly workplaces, a very tight foreign manpower policy prioritising local employment and investments in healthcare, preventive care and fitness, helping our seniors remain active and ready for work. The PAP Government have always championed respect, regard and recognition for our seniors and this Bill continues that legacy.
While this Bill is a major step forward, there are also areas we can consider further action over the coming years.
First, deepening our understanding. Let us survey seniors more extensively, not just those who have exited the workforce, but also those who are trying to re-enter the workforce or those who deem themselves unemployed, to better understand the nature of discrimination.
Second, we should also monitor HR practices to ensure that indirect discrimination does not rise as a response to this law and this requires monitoring, indirect discrimination by sector, industry and company size.
Third, improving how we measure workers' well-being and mental health. Our tripartite partners can build a consensus on how the mental, emotional and physical health are evaluated through affordable psychometric and fitness tests. This will reduce the scope of disputes over what constitutes discrimination.
Fourth, lead by example. Our Civil Service should, at all levels, implement the Bill in both form and spirit, and ensure that their outsourced HR service providers meet the same standard.
Fifth, share learnings from TADM and the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT). Given that the law calls for TADM and ECT to take the lead in fighting indirect discrimination, regular updates from both groups to Parliament and the public will help us adapt policies effectively.
Sixth, and the last, plan for the future. Start a review in three years to ensure this Bill remains relevant amidst rapidly changing geopolitics, trade-flow and technological changes. It will also allow us to factor our seniors' better health, as Healthier SG bears fruits.
Let me now address our seniors directly: you matter. This Bill opens doors, but it is up to all of us to walk through them together. Stay curious and committed to lifelong learning. Prioritise your health because an active body fuels an active mind. Believe in your ability to contribute, you are not just workers; you are mentors, leaders and role models for younger generations.
Employers, too, have a role to play. Choosing inclusiveness is not just good policy, it is good business, because a diverse workplace brings experience, balance and strength.
Let me now wrap up my comments on fighting ageism. This Bill is more than legislation. It is a statement about who we are as a society. It says that every individual, regardless of age, has value, purpose and potential. It is about building workplace fairness through practical, step-by-step progress. Together, we can build a future, where seniors are not just included but celebrated, where experience is not just respected, but cherished.
Let me now conclude by touching briefly on the rest of the Bill. I am heartened that the practical approach to fight ageism extends to most forms of discrimination. We are staring at a period of significant upheaval – changing geopolitics, trade-flow, global taxation, technology innovation are reshaping employment everywhere. Singapore is not be immune from these upheavals.
Singapore has, frankly, become a high-cost location, with many employers are struggling to adapt. Therefore, by having a very good balance, by strengthening workplace fairness in a practical manner, this Bill provides the stability and the fairness that Singaporeans need to thrive and for Singapore to stay open and successful. With that, I wholeheartedly support this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Razwana Begum.
Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Workplace Fairness Bill. As highlighted by the Minister for Manpower in his introductory comments, the Bill will provide protections against discrimination for employees who possess protected characteristics, while supporting the business needs of employers and our national objectives, including processes to preserve harmonious workplaces and resolve disputes amicably, as well as a range of levers to augment MOM’s education-first approach to address errant workplace practices.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the Workplace Fairness Bill aligns with the final recommendations of the Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness and is an important step forward in protecting the rights of employees and potential employees in Singapore.
Mr Deputy Speaker, treating all people equitably and with respect and dignity, no matter their personal, social, cultural or economic circumstances, is an essential characteristic of a sophisticated society. Workplace fairness provides all Singaporeans the same opportunities to participate and contribute. It ensures that the places we work are representative of the broader community and is a powerful contributor to an inclusive, cohesive and diverse society. Workplace fairness also assists to maximise the economic potential and competitive edge of employers. By broadening the diversity of its people, employers broaden the diversity of available talent, ideas and solutions.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in an ideal world, we would not need this Bill. We would just naturally treat everyone the same. It is, however, a universal phenomenon that most humans treat certain types of people differently to others and Singapore is not immune to this peculiarity. We all have our personal biases, preferences and prejudices; and it is not uncommon for these to consciously or unconsciously influence our thoughts and actions, including in the workplace. Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill commendably attempts to address this imbalance.
Mr Deputy Speaker, before I proceed, I would like to declare my position as President of Persatuan Pemudi Islam Singapura (PPIS), a non-profit organisation focused on women empowerment – a note that some of the data I am presenting is drawn from many years of PPIS' engagement with Muslim women and their families.
While my following comments focus heavily on women, I recognise that discrimination and disadvantage affects several other groups in our community, including people living with disabilities or mental illness; individuals from diverse racial, cultural and religious backgrounds; those from varying socio-economic and educational backgrounds; children and young people; older people; those with a criminal history; and people with carer responsibilities.
As we move forward, we need to ensure that we recognise and address the individual needs and circumstances of all Singaporeans.
Mr Deputy Speaker, women frequently bear a disproportionate burden in the workplace. They often face what I call the \"triple squeeze\" – managing career advancement, family responsibilities and societal expectations, all while navigating workplace biases that can be subtle yet significant. Sir, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Feedback gathered through PPIS' RED space engagement with Muslim women highlights specific workplace challenges that many women encounter.
For instance, some women reported to PPIS that they are often passed over for promotion during their childbearing years, regardless of their intentions to start a family; they are frequently assumed to be less committed to their careers if they have caregiving responsibilities; they are far more likely to face interruptions in their career trajectory due to family obligations; and society and culture still assumes that there are certain roles that women are better and worse at, or should and should not do.
(In English): Women also reported to PPIS that discriminatory hiring and workplace practices are prevalent, especially in male-dominated sectors, with many women reporting a gender pay gap and gender-biased promotions. The burden of proof for discrimination cases often rests on employees, making it difficult to address injustices effectively.
The so-called \"motherhood penalty\" significantly impacts career progression, with mothers perceived as less competent and thus less likely to be hired or promoted. They also face biased evaluations and are often given less challenging work upon returning from maternity leave.
Ageism further marginalises older women, pushing them into manual labour roles despite their skills and penalising them for necessary health-related leave. And \"career returners\" face stereotypes of being less productive and adaptable, with insufficient support for reintegration into the workforce.
To combat these issues, this Bill must address structural barriers related to gender stereotypes, particularly for minority women. Additionally, it should include protections for foster parents as caregivers as well. Furthermore, Mr Deputy Speaker, we must address the unique challenges faced by women returning to work after caregiving breaks.
While the Bill provides protection against discrimination, we also need practical measures to support the re-integration of women into the workplace, including, for example, structured return-to-work programmes, skills updating initiatives, mentorship schemes and flexible working arrangements during the transition period.
Mr Deputy Speaker, effectively combatting discrimination requires us to create harmonious and inclusive workplace environments and I wanted to touch on the related issue of \"quiet quitting\"; where employees merely fulfil basic job requirements without going above and beyond. According to a survey conducted in 2023 by HR agency Randstad, 35% of Singaporean workers have engaged in quiet quitting, which is four percentage points higher than the global average. Among those who have quiet quit, 41% indicated that they did so to improve their work-life balance; 38% attributed it to low compensation and the rising cost of living; and 33% noted a lack of career growth opportunities.
Even more troubling is the persistence of toxic workplace cultures. Toxic workplace is a metaphor used to describe a place of work that is marked by significant personal conflicts between those who work there, including management. According to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a toxic work environment is characterised by disrespectful, non-inclusive, unethical, cut-throat and abusive behaviours and attitudes.
The cost of inaction is substantial. Toxic workplaces do not just harm individuals, they damage our entire economy through increased turnover, reduced productivity and wasted talents. When capable professionals step back from leadership roles, underperform, or exit the workforce entirely due to their workplace culture, we all lose.
Combatting toxic workplace culture is not easy, but can be achieved and I would like to suggest some potential ways forward. For example, regular respect, equity and diversity training for all staff, including senior managers and executives, the establishment of trained Respect, Equity and Diversity Officers in workplaces, in-house systems that routinely and anonymously seek the feedback of employees, enhanced in-house whistle-blowing mechanisms and protections and linking individual managerial reward and bonuses to independent assessments of workplace culture.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now address two other issues of particular interest: reporting mechanisms and psychological safety, as well as workplace discrimination and bias.
First, reporting mechanisms and psychological safety. According to MOM's Fair Employment Practices 2023 report, only 29.5% of employees who experienced discrimination sought help, down from 35.3% in 2022. While the reasons behind this decline are unclear, international data suggests that reasons may include: fear that speaking up will jeopardise their career, lack of knowledge about reporting mechanisms and lack of faith in the investigation process.
For this Bill to succeed we need to reverse this trend and I encourage the Ministry to establish an independent Statutory Board with the legislative authority to receive, investigate and report on discrimination complaints by employees in the public, private and community sectors.
In the absence of such a body, the Ministry should require all employers to have and actively promote safe and accessible internal mechanisms for employees to report discrimination complaints and to have policies and procedures that guarantee an impartial, confidential, expert and timely investigation of all complaints.
The Ministry should also require all employers who prepare annual reports, to include in their annual report data on workplace diversity and inclusion trends and goals; number and outcome of discrimination complaints received and investigated; key strategies to address toxic workplace culture and create a harmonious and inclusive workplace environment.
Mr Deputy Speaker, my second point addresses workplace discrimination and unconscious bias, particularly their impact on vulnerable and minority groups. This Bill correctly prohibits discrimination based on \"protected characteristics\", such as nationality, age, gender and caregiving responsibilities. However, I encourage the Ministry to either now, or in the future, extend the definition of protected characteristics to include, for example, criminal history.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we must also recognise and acknowledge that discrimination often operates in subtle ways, through unconscious biases that can be difficult to identify and address. We have seen successful approaches in other jurisdictions that we might consider. For example, the UK's blind recruitment processes and structured interview protocols have shown promising results in reducing hiring bias.
Incorporating AI into these processes could be also useful. AI can help generate unbiased interviews and provide consistent evaluation metrics, reducing unconscious biasness. By leveraging on AI, we can enhance the fairness and transparency of reporting and investigating procedures, ultimately contributing to a more equitable workplace.
Other strategies could include recruiting, requiring recruitment panels to include members from varied backgrounds to minimise bias and promote diverse perspectives during the recruitment process, the development of mentorship programmes that pair employees from different backgrounds and in-house information and support networks for under-represented employees group, the use of data analytics to identify patterns of discrimination or bias within the organisation and to inform policy procedure and practice review.
Mr Deputy Speaker, my final comments relate to monitoring and evaluation. It is essential that we do not simply pass this Bill and assume that work is done. To ensure that we keep momentum on this important issue, I would like to suggest that the Ministry establish a dedicated task force comprising relevant members from public, private and community sector to monitor the Bills implementation, gather data on the effectiveness of the Bill, provide regular updates and recommend adjustments based on real world outcomes.
In closing, Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill represents more than just legislation. It is a statement about the kind of society we want to be. It reflects that Singapore gives priority to fairness, respect, diversity and inclusion, and that workplace fairness is not just a legal requirement but a lived reality for all Singaporeans. Clarifications notwithstanding, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): The Workplace Fairness Bill aims to foster fairer and more harmonious workplaces by protecting employees from unfair employment decisions. This Bill is the culmination of three years of efforts by the Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness. I thank the Committee for their hard work in studying laws from other countries, consulting a wide range of stakeholders and publishing both interim and final reports.
Members have spoken on groups that will benefit from protection on the basis of age, nationality, sex, marital status, pregnancy, caregiving responsibilities, race, religion, language ability, disability and mental health condition.
I just have one point to raise. The Workplace Fairness Bill is an inclusive and progressive one, but it has a glaring carve-out. As many Members have mentioned, specifically, section 10(2) excludes sexual orientation and gender identity from the definition of \"sex\". These are the only two characteristics that are expressly excluded from the Bill.
What message are we sending? Are we telling LGBTQ+ people that they are not protected from workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity? Are we telling employers that it is okay to discriminate against someone because of their sexual orientation and gender identity?
When we repealed section 377A, Minister Shanmugam explained, \"The time has come for us to remove section 377A. It humiliates and hurts gay people\". He said, \"They deserve dignity, respect, acceptance. They do not deserve to be stigmatised because of their sexual orientation.\" By repealing 377A, Minister Shanmugam said that we will \"start to deal with these divides, heal these divides, remove their pain\".
But now, do we not think that we may deepen the stigmatisation by having our workplace fairness law single out sexual orientation and gender identity for exclusion? With this Bill, will we deepen the divides that we started to heal with the repeal of 377A? The Bill's carve-out of sexual orientation and gender identity is not merely hurtful to LGBTQ+ employees; it could also cause them to face additional workplace discrimination.
Studies have shown that LGBTQ employees already face significant workplace discrimination. A 2024 study by the National University of Singapore (NUS) Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health found that over half of their respondents who were LGBTQ experienced discrimination or harassment at the workplace based on sexual orientation and gender identity. A 2022 study by AWARE and Milieu Insight found that 68% of LGBTQ+ persons reported experiencing discrimination compared to 56% of those who did not identify as LGBTQ.
One respondent to the NUS School of Public Health study, who is lesbian, said that a headhunter warned her against bringing up her sexual orientation at a job interview because a previous candidate had been rejected for mentioning their same-sex spouse. Another respondent, who is gay, said he was told by his employer that he would not be appointed to a managerial position because of his sexual orientation. Indeed, hiring managers and HR representatives themselves have described this same type of discrimination.
The Singapore LGBTQ+ Workforce Audit 2022, which polled 200 HR professionals and business leaders, found that only 64% of respondents said yes when asked if companies were open to recruiting and hiring diverse candidates, including LGBTQ individuals. It is likely that the data understates the scale of the problem and that LGTBQ individuals are under-reporting the discrimination they face.
From 2018 to 2022 none of the 312 workplace discrimination complaints received by TAFEP and MOM were related to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The NUS School of Public Health survey found that for LGBTQ respondents who experienced workplace discrimination and harassment, only 10.71% reported it to their employer, 0.32% reported it to MOM, and only 0.97%, not even 1%, reported it to TAFEP.
The express exclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity from this law is likely to worsen this discrimination. Employers may think they are free to discriminate against LGBTQ employees. Employees may have the belief that TAFEP, TADM and MOM will not assist them.
Can the Minister provide a clear statement that discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the workplace is wrong and unacceptable? Can the Minister also confirm that discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is prohibited under the TGFEP and Prevention from Harassment Act? Will the Minister confirm that TAFEP, TADM, ECT and MOM will assist individuals who report being discriminated against at their workplace due to sexual orientation or gender identity and that LGBTQ+ individuals who face discrimination should feel safe to report workplace discrimination to TAFEP, TADM and MOM?
Moving forward, can the Minister share a timeline for reviewing protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity? This would not be a radical step. The UK's Equality Act already includes sexual orientation as a protected characteristic. This is the law that the Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness has cited as having had a positive impact on workplaces.
I know that in Minister Tan's reply in Parliament in July 2023, he said that the Committee's recommendations were scoped tightly and to address the more common and familiar forms of discrimination. He said that it is better to take a measured first step, let stakeholders adjust to the new rules, before reviewing if more needs to be done.
I agree that our workplace fairness laws should be measured. I welcome the suggestion that our laws will be reviewed and updated. However, it is one thing for the Bill to be silent on sexual orientation and gender identity and a very different thing for the Bill to expressly exclude sexual orientation and gender identity. Again, do we not feel this is a step back by reinforcing discrimination and promoting stigma against LGBTQ+ individuals?
Given that the exclusions already exist under the Bill, I hope again that the Minister can provide a clear assurance that discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is wrong, regardless of whether this position is codified under legislation. Will the Minister also share what data and factors he will consider in deciding when our laws should expressly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity?
I would like to end by thanking groups who have been fighting hard and tirelessly to ensure that we can live in a world without discrimination. In particular, I thank groups that have been speaking up against workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. They include Pink Dot SG, Oogachaga, Same But Different, SAFE, Project X, Q Chamber of Commerce, Action for Aids and AWARE. There are many, many more groups and individuals who have fought hard for a more inclusive Singapore, including for LGBTQ+ individuals. While there are too many to name, I thank them too for their perseverance and advocacy.
As former US President, Bill Clinton, said, \"All of the country loses when any person is denied or forced out of a job because of sexual orientation. Being gay, the last time I thought about it, seemed to have nothing to do with the ability to read a balance book, fix a broken bone, or change a spark plug.\" Indeed, a person's sexual orientation or gender identity has nothing to do with their ability to do a job well.
I support this Bill which ensures that we can live in a world without discrimination. And a world that is without discrimination must be inclusive regardless of a person's sexual orientation or gender identity.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Raj Joshua Thomas.
Mr Raj Joshua Thomas (Nominated Member): Sir, today's Bill is, as many of our Parliamentary colleagues have reiterated, a landmark legislation that will go a long way to create fairer and more equitable workplaces. I support the Bill, notwithstanding the points I will be making in this speech.
I am of the view, Sir, that this Bill is a missed opportunity to extend protections to outsourced workers. By way of explanation, outsourced workers are workers whose nature of work requires that they work on a permanent basis at a different location from their employer's premises. These workers include cleaners, landscape workers and security officers.
Outsourced workers' actual workplaces are therefore the external site that they are deployed at and the terms of deployment are subject to agreement between their employer and the service buyer, for example a Management Corporation Strata Title (MCST). These workers often take instructions and are subject, to a large extent, to the management and instruction of service buyers or their managing agents. Because this Bill covers employer's responsibilities, service buyers are therefore not subject to the obligations and penalties under this Bill. This presents a gap in the protection regime for outsourced workers because the key determinant of their workplace conditions are actually site owners and not their employers.
I can cite examples I have seen myself. In a contract for the deployment of cleaners between an MCST and a cleaning company, a particular MCST had prescribed that the cleaners be of a particular race. I have also seen many security service tenders and contracts between MCSTs and security agencies that stipulate that officers must be younger than a particular age. The Security Association Singapore has publicly called out several MCSTs and managing agents over the past few years who have imposed discriminatory requirements and affected the workplace fairness of workers.
Such contractual requirements then trickle down to the employment practices of service providers, which become inherently discriminatory in order to meet their commercial contract obligations. While this may open the service provider, who is the employer by law, to penalties under the Act, the service buyers get away scot-free and can continue to stipulate discriminatory deployment practices pursuant to the service contract with the service provider. Many service buyers also impose liquidated damages on service providers if they do not comply with the discriminatory deployment requirements.
It is also not uncommon for service buyers to exercise, often in arbitrary fashion, the ability to axe the deployment of these workers at their site, often with immediate effect. This affects workers' security of employment and peace of mind. It also creates an environment in which outsourced workers work perpetually in terrorem of the service buyer or managing agent at the site they are deployed to. There is therefore a significant lacuna in workplace protections that affects hundreds of thousands of outsourced workers.
While I raise this, Sir, I am also aware that it is legally complex to place obligations under law on such service buyers and I can understand if the Minister adopts an incremental approach to possibly eventually impose obligations on such service buyers because they are essentially de facto employers and controllers of the workplace fairness of outsourced workers. I hope the Minister will consider eventually extending the obligations and penalties under the Bill to buyers of outsourced services.
One way, Sir, that we can immediately deal with this would be to issue tripartite guidelines or amend existing guidelines to specifically proscribe such practices by service buyers. This will enable us to increase protections for our outsourced workers, and I hope that the respective tripartite partners can look into this urgently. Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to join the debate today. I support the Bill.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Time Limit for Minister's Speech","subTitle":"Suspension of Standing Orders","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Deputy Speaker: Deputy Leader.
The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Deputy Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of Minister Tan See Leng's speech, please?
Mr Deputy Speaker: I give my consent. Does the Deputy Leader of the House have the general assent of hon Members present to so move?
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
[(proc text) With the consent of Mr Deputy Speaker and the general assent of Members present, question put and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of Minister Tan See Leng's speech\". – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad.] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Workplace Fairness Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: The Minister for Manpower, Dr Tan See Leng.
The Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would first like to thank Members for their strong support for the Workplace Fairness Bill.
We all recognise that this is a landmark Bill. But this is just the start. We are all balancing many considerations, across multiple stakeholders. Some want to move quickly, move much further, but others, a lot more apprehensive, with significant trepidations and therefore, want to hold back. We will not be able to resolve all issues overnight. We cannot build Rome in one day. But rest assured, we will continue to work on it and with all of your support, with all of your feedback, with all of your suggestions, we take them on board, we will work on it and we will improve over time.
What we all agree on, collectively today and this is really the type of unity we need to see across the entire House, is the need to create fairer workplaces which provide good opportunities for all of our workers. We are very, very thankful to have each and every one of you, those of you who have spoken and I am sure many more who have not found the opportunity to speak, within this House and beyond, on this journey, to build fairer workplaces for all of us.
I will now address Members' specific clarifications. And like I said, I want to reassure Members that we are listening closely. Where there are suggestions that we are unable to take on board at this point in time, we will consider if they are suitable at a later stage as part of our regular review. Just because we cannot agree at this point in time does not mean that it is a \"no\". We need to consider the entire ramifications with all the different permutations before we come to a nuanced solution.
Let me start with why we chose to take a prudent approach for this Bill.
Mr Pritam Singh and Ms He Ting Ru said that the Government had disagreed with calls for an anti-discrimination law earlier. Ms Sylvia Lim – I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate her on behalf of all of us here in the House. So, heartiest congratulations to you. Perhaps, maybe you could join me in a round of applause. [Applause.]
Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Leong Mun Wai also asked why the Government took so long with this Bill. It is easy to call for a new anti-discrimination law, but it is complex and it is challenging to define and to design a Bill that strikes not just the right balance, I would add, a very fine and delicate balance. So, instead of rushing into this, we have approached this in a prudent and a circumspect manner so that we do not disrupt our hard-earned social harmony.
We wanted a balanced approach. If it becomes untenable for businesses to operate in Singapore, this will affect jobs for Singaporeans and for our workers. What we do not want, is for the law to change the nature, to alter to such an extent the employer-employee relations, such that our workplaces become more litigious and more divided. But what we do want is for our workplaces, not just to remain, but to improve in terms of its fairness and harmonious nature.
Through our engagements, we know that employers generally do the right thing and they support fairer workplaces that contribute to better business outcomes. We have tried to set the baseline standard with this Bill, recognising that employers need time to adjust to new requirements. Jobseekers and employees also need time to understand how to use the new protections responsibly. Even so, we have always been committed to this agenda, in response to the active advocacy from our Labour Members of Parliament. We revisited this issue, the moment the COVID-19 pandemic abated.
We consulted widely, we deliberated extensively to put together a balanced Bill that preserves our current workplace norms and guards against divisions in our workplaces and society. With the support of our tripartite partners, we decided to start with a surefooted and a prudent approach, which reflects current societal and workplace norms.
We will complement this Bill with the TGFEP, which will continue to cover other forms of workplace discrimination. This includes the remaining 5% of complaints received. To Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Saktiandi Supaat's queries, such complaints involve discrimination based on factors, such as physical attributes, medical conditions and criminal records.
This approach allows us to continue building our expertise in managing cases under the law, while ensuring that other characteristics remain protected from workplace discrimination under the guidelines. In our surveys of many foreign jurisdictions, there are some areas that are heavily litigated. This has created uncertainty for employers. It has imposed significant costs. It has also resulted in workers waiting years to have their case heard out in court and we know that justice delayed is justice denied.
Let me now address Members' clarifications on age, nationality, mental health and disabilities. Please let me reiterate: this does not mean that the other characteristics are any less important. I just intend to address the questions that our Members have raised for the purpose of this debate.
Members like Mr Heng Chee How, Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Yip Hon Weng agreed with the need to address age discrimination and how we need to go beyond the Bill to fundamentally address perceptions and mindsets towards senior workers. This requires a multi-faceted approach, including adopting age-friendly workplace practices and addressing ingrained perceptions of ageism. We agree and we will continue efforts to change mindsets on the ground. Our guidelines and resources will support training and job redesign to nurture more age-friendly workplaces.
Moving on to mental health issues, we agree with Mr Melvin Yong, Mr Keith Chua and Mr Yip Hon Weng's comments that beyond legislation, there is a need for greater education to stamp out stigma against those with mental health conditions and create more inclusive workplaces. We will continue to normalise conversations on mental health, share best practices with employers and co-workers to better support persons with mental health conditions and encourage help-seeking by individuals in distress. We also agree with Dr Wan Rizal and Mr Melvin Yong that it is important to be clear about what constitutes a genuine job requirement to prevent inadvertent discrimination against those with mental health conditions. We will publish further guidance developed with tripartite partners to support employers' compliance.
Several Members – Miss Rachel Ong, Ms Denise Phua, Mr Ong Hua Han, Mr Chong Kee Hiong, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Sharael Taha, Ms He Ting Ru, Ms Jean See and Mr Saktiandi Supaat – raised the issue of reasonable accommodations for PwDs, including legislating it in the Bill. Let me put on record. We recognise the importance of reasonable accommodations in enabling PwDs to access and perform their jobs. The Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness had observed that in other countries, the provision of reasonable accommodations was heavily litigated. This is a point that Mr Sharael Taha also acknowledged. In Singapore, we have been able to improve employment outcomes for PwDs over the years through various measures, including under the Enabling Masterplan.
Hence, rather than at the outset, mandating employers to provide reasonable accommodations, we have embarked on an education first approach via the upcoming Tripartite Advisory. We want to be able to shift and ultimately change mindsets and to mainstream the concept of reasonable accommodations in the employment space first, guiding employers and employees to discuss accommodations that will suit their specific work context.
As suggested by Mr Yip Hon Weng, we will support employers to implement such accommodations, like through the Job Redesign Grant to defray the cost of job redesign and workplace modifications. We will also work with the relevant partners, such as SG Enable and the trade associations and chambers to strengthen outreach to employers. And we want to reassure Members that these efforts will be taken concurrently with our preparations to implement the legislation. To Miss Rachel Ong's query, we aim to release the Tripartite Advisory around about the same time with the implementation of legislation.
Mr Ong Hua Han, Ms Denise Phua and Ms He Ting Ru made various suggestions, including asking the Government to have a clear roadmap to mandate reasonable accommodations. My humble request to you is, let us focus, let us work hard on the education first approach, strengthen the understanding and support first, get the buy-in. Then, we can consider other measures.
Mr Leong Mun Wai suggested giving Singapore Citizens the first right to jobs over foreigners. I believe that Singaporeans know that we need a calibrated position that will work well for our economy and our people, instead of swinging to the extremes. Foreigners complement local workers to grow the economy and create job opportunities for Singaporeans. Our workforce is small and in order to attract the best global companies here, we must allow them to also hire talent globally.
At the same time, we recognise that our fellow Singaporeans are concerned about fair treatment and fair competition at the workplace. Our robust checks today ensure employers fairly consider all job applicants and we have been rooting out discriminatory employers even before this Bill. I have highlighted earlier, before in the past, over 600 EP applications from companies were withdrawn or rejected over the last five years following MOM investigations. COMPASS encourages employers to develop their own local pipeline. It is one of the foundational criteria. It encourages employers to develop their own local pipeline and reduce their reliance on foreign talent, both generally and from a single source.
The minimum cost of hiring EP and S Pass holders are also benchmarked to the top one-third of local PMETs and the Associate Professional and Technicians' wages respectively. This is to ensure a level playing field for locals. More fundamentally, we continue to invest in Singaporeans through lifelong upskilling, reskilling and career health initiatives, so that our fellow citizens are always well-placed to seize, to create better opportunities and build a better future for ourselves.
This Bill adds to the suite of measures already in existence by further strengthening our ability to deter and to penalise discriminatory hiring practices. Our strategy has yielded good results. Over the past decade, unemployment rate for Singapore Citizens has remained low at 3.2% on average.
Unlike what Mr Leong Mun Wai had tried to portray, there is no indication that underemployment is increasing. PMETs now make up 64% of all employed residents – up from 54% 10 years ago – matching the proportion of residents with tertiary education in the workforce. In fact, the number of resident PMETs has grown faster than EP and S Pass holders between 2014 and 2024, the past decade. Resident PMETs grew by 34% over this period, significantly higher than the EP and S Pass holders' increase of 11%.
Let us move on to other forms of discrimination not covered by the Bill. I want to start off by broadly addressing the concern of Members that the Bill does not cover all types of discrimination. Again, let me re-emphasise that this Bill is just the start. Like the song by the Carpenters: we have only just begun.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
TAFEP will track, will analyse and share information on the complaints and cases received and resolved, both under the Bill and TGFEP. This will allow us to more meaningfully discuss and decide on our next moves.
To clarify, discrimination by perception, which is making an adverse employment decision because the employer suspects, assumes or believes a protected characteristic exists, is considered discrimination under clause 17(4) of the Bill and this is contrary to Mr Louis Chua's understanding and comment.
Members, such as Mr Sharael Taha, Mr Chong Kee Hiong, Ms He Ting Ru, Mr Ong Hua Han, Ms Jean See and Mr Vikram Nair, asked about indirect discrimination. Whether a company's practice or policy not based on a protected characteristic has the effect of putting persons with a particular protected characteristic at a disadvantage is arguable in many cases. This is a grey area and legislation can have a chilling effect on employers, preventing them from having practices or policies, such as skills tests that are needed for the job and where certain groups can perform better than others.
But nevertheless, this does not mean that employees have no recourse for indirect discrimination. As Mr Vikram Nair said, the current legislation does make reference to some forms of indirect discrimination and a Court is not prevented from finding, as a fact, that a particular requirement may amount to discrimination under one of the protected characteristics.
I also want to thank Mr Fahmi Aliman for highlighting how the tripartite partners have been able to handle workplace discrimination complaints, including indirect discrimination in a sensitive and constructive manner. I also thank Mr Saktiandi Supaat for sharing how TAFEP has managed and resolved cases that involve wearing of the tudung and the need to perform Friday prayers. To Mr Faisal Manap's clarifications, thank you. Let me emphasise that race and religion are protected characteristics under the Bill.
This Bill is not about legislating whether a firm must or must not allow someone to go for Friday prayers or accede to any other religion's practices or requests. We have to recognise that there are many operational details and implications and we believe that such issues are best addressed through open communication and trust and dialogue to accommodate both workers' and employers' valid needs. But if a person goes for Friday prayers and is fired for being religious and not because of performance, then it is discriminatory under the law. Let me reassure Members, including Mr Faisal Manap, Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Louis Chua, Ms He Ting Ru and Mr Henry Kwek, that TAFEP will continue to seriously look into such cases and engage parties to resolve their issues amicably.
I also thank Mr Henry Kwek, Mr Louis Chua and Mr Ong Hua Han for their suggestions on how to better deal with indirect discrimination, which we will consider. We will also look into how we can work with stakeholders to provide illustrations and guidance on scenarios that constitute indirect discrimination, before implementing the legislation.
Mr Pritam Singh, Ms Usha Chandradas and Mr Leong Mun Wai also asked why the Bill did not include protections against discrimination by association, which is discriminating against an employee due to an employee's connection to someone else with a protected characteristic. It is quite an uphill and complex and difficult task to draw the line where discrimination by association starts and where it ends. It could extend well beyond the employee's spouse to include family members, friends or anyone they have close associations with. Legislating against this, therefore, has far reaching implications that we will not be able to, at this point in time, anticipate and address adequately. And it has the untoward effect of creating a culture of suspicion and distrust between employers and employees. Hence, on balance, we started with a tightly scoped Bill to avoid litigiousness and provide more meaningful protections.
We have included an example in the explanatory statement, which was highlighted a few times during this debate. But let me explain. This explanatory statement, the example, is not part of the Act, but it is an attempt to explain the contours of discrimination under the Act itself. Mr Pritam Singh then asked for examples of TAFEP, the cases of discrimination by association. I have checked with the team, they have trawled through. As far as we are aware, TAFEP has not encountered such cases so far. Notwithstanding, our reassurance is that TAFEP will continue to help workers who face all forms of workplace discrimination, including discrimination by association.
Members like Ms He Ting Ru, Ms Usha Chandrada and Mr Louis Ng have raised the issue of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) and why it should be included in this Bill. Let me state clearly that we do not tolerate any forms of workplace discrimination, including towards LGBT individuals. We currently handle such cases under TGFEP and we will continue to do so. In addition, the Penal Code and the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) protects all victims against violence, against harassment, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
In our engagements, in our consultations with various civic, religious and worker groups, we heard the views, the needs, the concerns of the different stakeholders. Even in this House, during the repeal of section 377A, I recall that the Workers’ Party found it just as hard to take a unified party position. I am not sure if Ms He Ting Ru's emphatic support for the inclusion of SOGI is representative of your party's stance.
Regardless, it is not about questioning your stance. It is about demonstrating the difficulty, the difficulty in reaching a unified position because these issues are complex and they are multifaceted. So, let us focus our attention, our energies on how to provide more concrete support for our workers and, at the same time, build up our expertise, build up our experience in managing such issues under the law.
I thank Ms Usha Chandradas for her suggestions to strengthen the protections for LGBT individuals, including training for our frontline officers. Indeed, in preparation for this legislation, we have undertaken overseas study trips where TAFEP, TADM and MOM officers learned how other jurisdictions manage such discrimination cases and how they manage a diverse group of stakeholders.
TAFEP has also engaged third-party trainers and will continue to train its officers to manage cases of discrimination and harassment delicately and sensitively, including potentially adopting a trauma care approach for vulnerable individuals. Direct referral channels have been established between TAFEP and key stakeholders, including the LGBT and other community groups, to institute a safe process for affected workers to make complaints. We will continue to collaborate with community groups to raise awareness on the TGFEP, so that individuals are assured and they know that TAFEP is ready to provide advice and assistance.
Ms Jean See, Ms He Ting Ru, Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Leong Mun Wai and Mr Raj Thomas asked about outsourced workers and platform workers. TGFEP will be updated to clarify that platform operators and corporate service buyers should not discriminate based on non-job-related characteristics.
Let me, again, be clear. Any such worker who faces discrimination should approach TAFEP for assistance. To Ms Sylvia Lim’s point, rest assured that we will investigate complaints and we will take action against employers who place workers on contract for services to avoid their legal obligations.
Let me now move on to how the Bill supports the genuine business needs of employers. Employers have given us feedback, that they support the need to uphold fairness in the workplaces and most employers do want to do the right thing. Yet, we have to be cautious about how onerous the requirements under the Bill will be, so that we do not inadvertently disrupt businesses' abilities to compete and provide jobs for our workers.
As Mr Mark Lee highlighted, the Bill allows employers flexibility in hiring the right people for jobs where there are genuine requirements to have or not to have a protected characteristic. As suggested by Mr Patrick Tay, we will provide guidelines on how this exception may be applied. This will include illustrations to give more clarity including when a job can or cannot be reasonably performed, as highlighted by Mr Saktiandi Supaat. Let me also assure the businesses that when TAFEP examines the cases, we will take a balanced and nuanced approach and that is to support workers with genuine needs, but we will also triage and manage the cases to avoid burdening employers if there are frivolous claims.
Small firms may lack the capabilities and resources to implement the legislation and they may need more time to prepare for it, and this is something that Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Yip Hon Weng have also acknowledged. Several Members have expressed concern about the exemption of small firms with fewer than 25 employees from the Bill at the start. Mr Pritam Singh questioned whether the exemption threshold of 25 employees would collectively apply to a group of companies operating as one entity or to each individual corporate entity; while Mr Leong Mun Wai asked if contracts for service with small firms can be used to bypass the protections under the Bill. Ms Yeo Wan Ling spoke about supporting SMEs in the journey towards upholding workplace fairness. Mr Sharael Taha, Mr Edward Chia, Mr Yip and Mr Tay also asked about our plans and considerations in reviewing this exemption. Let me try to make the following clarifications.
First, the exemption threshold will apply to each individual corporate entity. Second, this Bill, as it is, if it gets passed by all of your support, will still cover around 75% of employees. Third, this exemption does not mean that the remaining 25% of our workforce are unprotected and that small firms are free to discriminate against them. All firms today are already expected to abide by TGFEP, including small firms.
So, even in a group setting or contracts of service with multiple small firms, each of these firms will still need to follow fair employment practices. TAFEP has also been collaborating with partners, like the Association of Small and Medium Enterprises, to prepare and to support small firms to create fair and progressive workplaces.
Lastly, we agree with Mr Tay and Mr Yip that the exemption should not be indefinite. Hence, we plan to review this five years after the commencement of the Workplace Fairness Act and small firms which are ready earlier can position themselves, of course, we encourage them to position themselves earlier, as the employer of choice amongst their counterparts.
Moving on to the next segment. I will, next, explain how the Bill will preserve harmony in the workplace and society. The Bill requires companies to have clear grievance handling processes for their employees. Mr Patrick Tay spoke about ensuring that employers abide by their grievance handling processes and provide recourse for employees dissatisfied with the process. Dr Wan Rizal also queried on how to ensure grievance handling processes are unbiased and transparent. TAFEP has available resources, such as the Tripartite Standard on Grievance Handling, setting out good practices which employers can refer to.
We hear Miss Rachel Ong's call to consider persons with disabilities and we will develop our resources on grievance handling with this consideration in mind. So, thank you, Miss Ong.
To Mr Patrick Tay’s point on non-legislative levers to strengthen protection against harassment, we will develop a Tripartite Standard to emphasise the importance of creating harassment-free workplaces. Anyone who faces workplace harassment can approach TAFEP for assistance. TAFEP also guides employers and runs the Workplace Harassment Resource and Recourse Centre to support victims.
The Bill will also prohibit employers from retaliating against those who report workplace discrimination or harassment. Together with the grievance handling processes, which provide a safety net, we want to encourage workers to step forward to resolve their disputes early at the firm level, which are points also raised by Assoc Prof Razwana Begum and Mr Fahmi Aliman. Both spoke about it earlier.
Dr Wan Rizal asked how employees will be protected from subtle forms of retaliation. We recognise that not all retaliatory acts are overt in nature and have prohibited any act that is detrimental to the complainant such as pressurising him or her into accepting less favourable contractual terms, to address Mr Patrick Tay and Ms Jean See's queries.
Other than preserving workplace harmony, the Bill also provides provisions to cater to the role of religious groups in Singapore's multi-religious society. Mr Yip Hon Weng suggested providing more clarity on this exception. To explain, this exception applies to two categories of job roles: roles that are religious in nature and roles related to the running of places of worship, institutions of religious instruction and groups that oversee religious affairs or other religious groups. Social service agencies, hospices and charities with a secular purpose, I suppose some hospitals can be included as well, established by religious groups, will not automatically qualify for the exception. We have scoped this exception tightly to preserve the common space for jobs, even as we provide some flexibility to cater to the purpose and character of religious groups.
I will move on to the queries on the Government's approach towards errant practices. Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Louis Chua commented that it would be difficult for employees to prove discrimination, and Mr Patrick Tay asked about the types of evidence needed. When making a complaint, the complainant should clearly cite the incident that led him or her to believe that an adverse employment decision was made against him or her because of a protected characteristic. Placing the burden of proof on the claimant is an approach that strikes a balance between facilitating employees’ access to redress and safeguarding employers against frivolous claims. Other jurisdictions, such as the UK, Australia and Hong Kong, also take the same approach. The claimant can provide evidence in various forms, including emails, phone messages, documents and signed testimonies. To Mr Pritam Singh’s query, just to share an example of a case managed by TAFEP, TAFEP intervened against a company for age discrimination for rescinding its job offer to a group of senior workers and hiring only sales promoters below 30 years old.
Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about the civil and administrative penalties for contraventions. If an employer commits an act of discrimination that does not amount to a serious civil contravention, we can impose administrative financial penalties. But if there is a systemic element where an employer has a longstanding practice of hiring workers of a certain nationality, we may treat this as a serious contravention and pursue a civil penalty action in Court. To Mr Pritam Singh's question, yes, a serious civil contravention refers to one under clause 30. More details will be included in subsidiary legislation.
Next, I thank Mr Ong Hua Han, Ms Yeo Wan Ling and Mr Patrick Tay for their questions on whether employees who report discrimination not covered by the Bill will be protected from retaliation. This protection will not apply to them, currently, but we thank Mr Tay for the suggestion to include this in the Act and we will certainly keep this in mind.
At the same time, while we have gone through very intense debate, I think we all can acknowledge that legislation and guidelines are not a panacea. At the core, we must continue our efforts to educate our employers and, generally, our population at large, in order for us to promote fair employment practices.
Discrimination, at its root, is a mindset issue and this is also something that Mr Sharael Taha pointed out. Our priority is to provide information and support to employers so that they get it right in the first place and I certainly hope that enforcement is a last resort. I agree with Mr Patrick Tay on the importance of communicating the legislation thoroughly to employers, the unions, employees and other stakeholders.
Several Members, such as Mr Fahmi Aliman, Mr Edward Chia, Ms Jean See, Miss Rachel Ong, Ms Yeo Wan Ling and Mr Patrick Tay, have rightfully pointed out that managers and human resources professionals play a critical role. As suggested by Mr Tay, we will update the IHRP certification curriculum.
Beyond that, we will also work with tripartite partners and certified HR professionals to uplift broad HR capabilities and ensure compliance with employment-related legislation, particularly the Workplace Fairness Act. We also thank Mr Mark Lee for his suggestions on supporting companies in implementing the requirements of the legislation and we will take them into consideration.
I will now address the last set of issues on this Bill. Mr Sharael Taha, Mr Melvin Yong, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Patrick Tay raised concerns on employers requesting information relating to a protected characteristic, such as mental health conditions. Requesting information, in itself, is not an adverse employment decision and thus is not prohibited by this Bill. But having said that, we recognise that jobseekers may find it concerning to be asked for information unrelated to job requirements.
In this regard, TGFEP already states that employers should only collect information or ask questions that are relevant to the job requirements to assess an applicant. In such cases, employers should also explain the reasons for doing so and how it relates to the job requirement.
Some Members, such as Mr Sharael Taha, have also asked about private employment claims, such as how they will be managed. As mentioned previously, there will be a second Bill that sets out the claims process for individuals who feel that they have been discriminated against and we hope to have an equally fruitful debate on the second Bill when it is introduced in this House.
The Public Service, too, plays a role in promoting workplace fairness, as Mr Henry Kwek pointed out. To address Mr Pritam Singh’s question, the Public Service, comprising the Government and the Statutory Boards, will not be covered under the Workplace Fairness Act because public officers deal with sensitive areas of work and it will not be appropriate to involve external parties, such as the tribunals, to handle grievances or resolve disputes involving public officers.
However, I want to reassure Members that public officers will be accorded a similar level of protection as the Bill and the Public Service has put in place policies and processes that adhere to the key principles of the legislation as well as the existing TGFEP. The Public Service is committed to providing a safe workplace for all public officers and it does not tolerate any form of workplace discrimination and harassment.
Mr Speaker, Sir, to conclude, I am heartened by the strong support for this Bill. It has been an immense endeavour to develop a Bill of this magnitude. It was not easy and we have worked hard with our partners on this. We have the conviction that this is the right thing to do. But we acknowledge, we have the humility to acknowledge, that we have to continue to work hard, to continue to learn and to continue to improve.
But importantly, the mindset is that we should start somewhere. I know, listening to the speeches today, we can always do a lot more. But we cannot let perfection be the enemy of progress. I want to thank all partners who have helped to make this first Workplace Fairness Bill in Singapore possible, especially our tripartite partners, NTUC and the Singapore National Employers Federation.
I also want to thank Members, the various stakeholders, who took the time, the efforts to contribute to our engagements. The employers, our HR professionals, our non-governmental organisations, the legal practitioners and members of the public. Please bear with me. Bear with us if we could not take all of your suggestions onboard at this point in time. I seek your patience, your understanding, but I want to reassure you, we will take time to further build and consolidate this regime.
We also need to demonstrate patience and understanding, towards one another, in our very own workplaces, knowing and acknowledging that there are unique situations where employers' and employees' needs and their expectations may differ. To each and everyone of you, within and outside the House, please continue to walk with us as we strive towards fairer and more harmonious workplaces in Singapore. Mr Speaker, I seek to move.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just two clarifications for the Minister. Firstly, I thank the Minister for clarifying clause 17(3) and the Minister shared that the explanatory statement on this clause is not part of the Bill. I thank him for that clarification.
The second point was the Minister raised the example made by my colleague for Sengkang Group Representation Constituency, Ms He Ting Ru, about the call for the legislation to cover individuals of a different sexual orientation and gender identity, what the Minister referred to as SOGI. I can confirm that all the WP Members of Parliament stand behind our colleague, Ms He Ting Ru, on the point she made. And we do so because we see the repeal of 377A and discrimination against LGBTQ individuals at the workplace as two very different issues, two separate issues. LGBTQ individuals deserve to be treated fairly at the workplace.
That said, I also note even though the coverage is not explicitly included in the Bill, Minister shared that they would be covered under the TGFEP guidelines. I hope the call made by my colleague, Ms He Ting Ru, can be considered in future iterations, as the Minister shared that the Bill will be reviewed and it is akin to a work-in-progress and that this is just – not the first chapter – it is just the start.
Dr Tan See Leng: I thank Mr Pritam Singh for the support. My point about raising the differences during the time of the repeal of the 377A was not to highlight differences, but to demonstrate that it is a complex issue. And you can be rest assured that we are actively, actively sending our officers to overseas jurisdictions to get training, to see how they deal with it. We have also opened up access channels between the different groups, with TAFEP, with MOM, so that we, in the same way as we have built up experience, we have built up expertise in handling the 11 protected characteristics, we hope to be able to come to speed to also manage other characteristics.
In time to come, if we are able to reach a level where we are comfortable with and also, in terms of societal norms, it is always, like I have said in my concluding remarks, that we are always a work-in-progress and we will always want to improve our system. I hope that gives you enough reassurance.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): I thank the Minister for the reply and the confirmation again that discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is covered under the TGFEP. But, and it is a big but, this is actually not explicitly stated on the TAFEP website.
It would mean a lot for the LGBTQ+ community if we can explicitly state on the TAFEP website that discrimination based on SOGI is covered under the Tripartite Guidelines. This would also help address the issue of under-reporting. Many might go on the website and realise it is not there, so they do not report it. So, explicitly stating it might help with the under-reporting.
My second point is on whether it is fair to just leave SOGI under the Tripartite Guidelines because of the penalties. So, if you discriminate against someone who is lesbian or gay and the penalty is you cannot hire foreigners, how would that make sense?
Dr Tan See Leng: I thank Mr Ng for the clarification. Our sense is that, if you list it on a website, it may actually have a counter-effect that each and every single attribute has to be listed. If you do not list it, it means that it is not covered. By the way we have approached it, we have given enough reassurance.
On the Member's point about whether the penalties, because of the fact that it is under TAFEP and TGFEP, whether it is sufficient, thus far, our experience is that when TAFEP calls up the company, they rarely, rarely dare to not comply. If the hon Member, Mr Louis Ng, knows of any company after being called up by TAFEP, still ignores TAFEP's guidance, I would be very interested to know the company.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: I am not giving a name of the company now, but I thought again that the problem now is we do list certain characteristics on the TAFEP website. We already state age, race, gender, religion, marital status, family, responsibility or disability. So, it is not a case where we do not state anything. We do state some characteristic that is protected under TAFEP, but we just leave out again sexual orientation and gender identity, and that is the issue where the LGBTQ+ community feel that then, it is not fair. TGFEP just sort of leaves them out and, to be inclusive, the website already lists some, it is fair enough that we should list these additional two characteristics.
Dr Tan See Leng: We should not belabour the point. I have sort of made it very clear that we will not tolerate any form of discrimination and, today, if we are able to pass the Bill, it is a very significant landmark. And we started off with these 11 protected characteristics because when we have enough experience, we have also got a treasure trove of information as to how to deal with them, let us grow. Let us move ahead and as we accumulate more information, we can widen the reach.
I ask for the Members' understanding and support in that. So, this is surefooted, it is a prudent approach and it is also in tandem with our societal norms today and how we can move forward.
Mr Speaker: The Minister's assurances will all be recorded in the Hansard. Mr Patrick Tay.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): I thank the Minister for the round up, but I brought up three questions, specifically, on three clauses, which I hope the Minister can articulate and answer, if not, otherwise, provide it later in the accompanying deck when this is rolled out.
First, it is on three clauses: clause 12, clause 18 and clause 28.
Firstly, clause 12. I asked about the age range for an infant. Clarity is important because if the maximum age for who is deemed to be an infant is too low, a female worker may lose her protection when breastfeeding an older child. Hopefully, some clarity on this as we implement.
Secondly, clause 18 covers discrimination by employer's direction, instruction or policy published in writing. I would like to ask the Minister how would unwritten disciplinary directions, instructions or policy be dealt with. As currently worded, employers may get around clause 18 by not putting things in writing.
And, finally, clause 28, I did ask a question earlier, hoping to get an answer. Clause 28 prohibits employers from taking any retaliatory action against employees who raise grievances or pursue claims under the Bill, so not offering re-employment is an adverse employment decision, only if it is attributable to retaliation. In other cases where the employer did not offer re-employment, the affected employee can make representations to the Minister under the Retirement and Re-employment Act. So, in those other cases, would evidence of discrimination by the employer be relevant? Just these three.
Dr Tan See Leng: On the definition, we certainly can take the Member's points and, like I said, we are still reviewing in terms of in the final Bill when it comes out. Without appearing to be over-delegating, TAFEP will work on the other two items. From the perspective of even the definition of the age of an infant, should there be reasonable indication beyond even whatever the defined age is, because of extenuating circumstances, it is something that any sort of employee can bring up.
But, of course, the first thing that we hope to be able to get everyone into the same cadence is, first and foremost, because most employers are reasonable, the employee should try to resolve it through the grievance handling mechanism within the company. If that does not work, come to us. We will, then, try to organise mediation and we believe that just the first two steps would resolve the vast majority of the cases. I hope that gives the Member that reassurance.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Speaker, I have debated in this Parliament many times on the manpower policies and I have two questions to ask the Manpower Minister today. But let me have a short preamble.
I am very concerned, having debated this Government over the last few years, that the Government seems to be very complacent about the effect of its foreign manpower policies on Singaporean workers – and every time the Manpower Minister has countered me with selected macro indicators.
Today, in the same fashion, I have said that low unemployment does not mean there is no significant under-employment. So, the first thing, the first question —
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, ask your clarification. Do not make another long speech, please.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: So, the first question I want to ask is: has the MOM conducted any study on the possibility of under-employment in the Singapore job market?
The second question I want to ask is – this is also something that I have debated with the Manpower Minister over the years – just now, he had written off my assertion that low unemployment does not mean no significant under-employment. By quoting another macro indicator, that is the PMET or PME ratio, he quoted roughly that the ratio has gone up from 50% to 60% over a certain period.
But I want to know, has the Government actually looked at this ratio again after stripping out the immigration effect? We know that this ratio is very corrupted, with original Singaporeans at the beginning of a period, new citizens that came in and new PRs. So, there is a lot of immigration effect on these macro indicators. So, did MOM look into a kind of pure indicator, rather than having all these effects and then, now, telling Singaporeans that the ratio has gone up from 50% to 60%? These are my two questions. I hope that is clear enough.
Dr Tan See Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, out of due respect to you, I will answer his two questions. But I do not see how they are related to the WFL. I hope that after this, we can come back to issues that are pertinent because we just had a seven-hour debate, starting from yesterday till now and we will continue.
I have given clear statistics. Through my last four years, I am privileged and very honoured to be given the opportunity to be able to come to the highest office here, to be able to have this debate. But Mr Leong Mun Wai has consistently been looking for a smoking gun. The fact of the matter is that each time the Member asks for certain statistics, I give him the statistics. He would say that this is not what he is looking for. Has he ever considered the fact that maybe something that he is looking for does not exist?
Let me put it to the Member. Because of the fact that, after a while, the Member's cadence, my understanding has not changed. Hence, I also pre-emptively prepared the statistics for him because I expected that he will bring it up today. Just to put it into perspective and I hope that, after this, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I humbly request that we just stick to the debate on the WFL? I seek your indulgence on this.
Foreign-owned firms today account for 24% of all companies in Singapore and they employ about one-third of our local resident workforce and more than one-third of our fresh graduates. I just wanted to tell the Member about foreign firms first.
If we talk about what kinds of jobs they offer, because they do hire a very high number of foreigners as well, but let me just give the Member the breakdown. Foreign-owned firms provide high-paying jobs to our locals. About 60% of locals in the highest income decile, who are earning about approximately $13,000 a month and above, are working in foreign-owned firms. The median salaries of our resident employees working in foreign-owned firms are more than 70% higher compared to locals working in local-owned firms.
The Member talked about foreign high-skilled workforce displacing resident PMETs. Let me tell the Member, categorically, the answer is no. The number of resident PMETs has, in fact, grown faster than EP and S Pass holders between 2014 and 2024. Resident PMETs grew by 34% over this period, significantly higher than the EP and S Pass holders' increase of 11%.
As a result, the ratio of EP or S Pass to resident PMETs has improved, from one EP or S Pass holder for every three local PMETs in 2014 to now, one EP/S Pass holder for every four local PMET in 2024. This improvement is observed across most sectors, including the growth sectors of Information and Communications, Professional Services and Financial Services.
The Member talked about labour market performance. Has the labour market performance of locals been impacted by foreign workers? Our locals continue to enjoy favourable employment outcomes. Singapore leads globally in labour force participation rate of its residents and we are ahead of other major cities, such as Tokyo, Helsinki, Berlin and Hong Kong. In the last decade, incomes have grown across all percentiles, with the larger increases for lower income groups. In the last five years, Singapore's real income growth is also higher than countries, such as the UK, US, Japan and Germany, many of whom are seeing income stagnation or declines.
I urge Mr Leong – we are here to pass this very landmark, historic Bill. We are facing increasing global geopolitical contestation. The war continues to go on. We are at a crucial inflexion point. Some things we can try, but our total fertility rate continues to drop. The tax burden will start to shift to our future young. So, we are in this state of hyper competition all over the world. Countries are competing, top companies are competing for global talent. I hope that we can work together, Mr Leong, for your grandchildren and my grandchildren. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Deputy Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exempted Business","subTitle":"Business Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2.\" – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad.] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Workplace Fairness Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat: Mr Speaker, I have just two short clarifications to the Minister. First of all, I would like to thank the Minister and his team in MOM for setting this landmark Bill forward.
The first question is in terms of timeline, when will this Bill be implemented? I am not sure whether I missed the exact date in his speech. But can the Minister share when the implementation would be? I am aware that there is going to be another Bill with regard to the ECT.
Second is, in terms of, I heard the word TAFEP mentioned many times in this Bill and me being in the TAFEP Committee – and I have seen the TAFEP staff and resource constraints there and how much good work they have done. Can the Minister share, in terms of budget and in terms of resources, going forward, after the implementation, whether there will be more resources for TAFEP?
Dr Tan See Leng: I thank Mr Saktiandi and applaud him for his optimism. We have not passed the Bill today, yet. But assuming that we can get all Members' support today, we envisage that the second Bill will come sometime in the second half of this year. We should get the Bill implemented by 2026/2027.
Contemporaneously, we are tightening TAFEP. We are tightening TGFEP, because we need to ensure that it continues to support WFL well. At the same time, we have also committed to reasonable accommodations, how we want to step up education efforts, grievance handling and so on and so forth. So, there is a lot of work to be done and all that will move simultaneously so that by the time the Bill is up and fully implemented, all of the other supporting entities will be ready. I know that embedded in the Member's second question is that we will, indeed, be reviewing and, hopefully, increasing the resources of TAFEP. I will personally appeal to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance for that.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you for calling on me again, Mr Speaker. I missed out another clarification for the Minister pertaining to the Bill. I have asked some questions on clause 31. These are the administrative penalties. What is the range of the penalties that the Bill envisages, vis-a-vis, clause 31(A) to (I)?
The second clarification, pertaining to clause 31, again, is whether the Ministry intends for the companies that commit violations and are subject to administrative penalties, whether they will be named and if not named, at least the circumstances of their infractions made public so workers and employees alike would be educated.
Dr Tan See Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, for the first part, I ask for a bit of time for clause 31 for my team to revert. I have to admit, I am not a lawyer. So, I am waiting for the explanation to come. But broadly, the administrative penalties will be prescribed in the subsidiary legislation.
With regard to naming, what we intend to do is that for the breaches, our first approach is to engage them and provide an education first approach. Because our basic intention is that, thus far, it has worked well for us. I do not think that a particular employer would have intended or set it up to discriminate, unless they are very egregious. In which case, then, there will be the administrative and, on top of that, there will be the civil penalties.
But what we intend to do is engage them, educate them, point them to the right resources, the help and to see how we can also help them and educate them. If we are not able to get them beyond that, then obviously, we will blacklist them as a last resort, put it up in the public. But, thus far, from our past experiences, each time when TAFEP engages the companies, they have been very, very understanding and they have been very compliant. I hope that gives the Member that reassurance.
Mr Speaker: Ms Usha Chandradas.
Ms Usha Chandradas: I thank the Minister for his very extensive replies to all the questions that have been raised, including my own. I just have one very brief question for the Minister. Does the Ministry have a window of time in mind, after which it will review the definition of the protected characteristic of sex, as it is set out in clauses 8C and 10?
Dr Tan See Leng: We have plans to review. For the time itself, we need to cross the bridge first and, after crossing the bridge, work out the rest of the subsidiary legislations. Post-implementation, we can have greater clarity before we can commit to a particular timeline. But the reassurance that I want to share with Ms Usha is that we will constantly review. We will constantly improve on the framework. I am sure that given the universal huge amount of interest in this particular Bill, I am sure we will be kept on our toes.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, just ask your clarification.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, I would just like to reiterate my clarification because the Minister did not really answer my question. So, I would just like to confirm that the MOM has not done any study into under-employment? Two, the MOM has also not —
Dr Tan See Leng: Mr Speaker, I am sorry. I do not intend to interrupt, but I have already made it clear. For the record, I hope that this would be the last point. We are working with the International Labour Organization on the under-employment data.
When it is ready, we will release the results. So, can we please focus on the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Minister, please take a seat. So, Mr Leong —
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay, I appreciate the answer.
Mr Speaker: Okay. That is all?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Can I ask one more question? One more clarification?
Mr Speaker: Okay, final clarification, alright. You recall what I said? Ideally, if you have clarifications, ask them all at one go, do not to break it up.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: No, but the Minister interjected. I wanted to ask.
Mr Speaker: Anyway, ask your clarification. One final one and a short one.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes, yes. So, the Minister also denied that the effect of immigration has not altered his conclusion on the PME ratio that he had raised? Does the Minister understand my question? Because the PME ratio is not a pure ratio.
Mr Speaker: You mentioned that you had a clarification to his response.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes.
Mr Speaker: Which is?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Can he clarify that MOM has confirmed that the effect of immigration has not altered the conclusion of the PME ratio that he has raised? Because he is trying to say that there is no under-employment, Singaporean PMEs are doing well. And why are they doing well? It is because there is low unemployment, it is because the PME ratio is increasing.
So, I raised my point because every economic indicator the Minister has raised, I can actually raise a lot of issues about it, as I am an economics statistician.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, then I suggest, maybe, if you have specific points to ask, you could file a PQ on them, with the specifics and ask your questions.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: But we can get an answer from the Minister now.
Mr Speaker: But it is rather general.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: He just need to confirm that.
Mr Speaker: Okay, please take a seat. Minister, would you like to respond?
Dr Tan See Leng: I am sorry, Mr Speaker, I thought you told me to sit down. I did not respond because I do not see how it is relevant to our debate on WFL today. If Mr Leong Mun Wai has a separate PQ, as how Mr Speaker has also appropriately advised, he can file a PQ. MOM will never step away from answering his PQ.
Mr Speaker: We have spent a long time discussing this. Twenty-eight Members have spoken. The Minister has also given a very comprehensive reply. I will now put the question to the House.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Tan See Leng]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee. (proc text)]
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
The Chairman: The citation year \"2024\" will be changed to \"2025\" as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.
[(proc text) Clauses 1 to 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Food Safety and Security Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Speaker, I move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Through you, Sir, I would like to wish everyone in the Parliament House, that is Mr Speaker and your Team, the Members here, visitors, representatives from the food sector who are here to support the Bill, thank you very much; translators, staff, ushers, I wish everybody a very happy new year.
Soon, many of us will be celebrating the Lunar New Year, another time for family gathering and feasting. Will you be getting a caterer? Have you booked a restaurant for the reunion dinner? What new cookies and New Year goodies are there in the market? Where can we get fresh meat at good prices for our steamboat? I am sure these are plausibly some of the usual questions that are floating around at this time.
This year, I would like to invite Members to spare some thoughts on the safety and supply of these festive foods. Where do they come from? How are they prepared, handled, made? Are they safe to consume?
Often, in Singapore, we take our safe and secure food supply for granted. This is the result of many decades of hard work by stakeholders and the trust that they have help built in the minds of the consumers.
Stakeholders, including Government agencies that have implemented relevant and effective policies, regularly reviewed and updated; businesses who have extended their supply network, instituted good food management practices and supported the growth of our food industry; and consumers who played an active role in ensuring food safety and supported our diversification policy and local food businesses.
Over the decades, many agencies have been involved in the regulation and development of the food sector: the Primary Production Department, I am sure that sounds familiar to some of us here, was involved in regulating our local farming sector; the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore (AVA) regulated food safety from importation, local production and manufacturing; the National Environment Agency (NEA) regulated food hygiene in the retail sector; the Health Sciences Authority supported food safety by rendering testing expertise to regulatory agencies; and Enterprise Singapore administered the Rice Stockpile Scheme to ensure adequate supplies of rice, mitigating the impact of any unforeseen disruptions.
For more effective governance of food safety and security, the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) was formed in 2019 to consolidate these functions under one agency. This Bill serves to consolidate the relevant food-related laws that were enacted at different points in our history.
A new, single food Bill is essential as Singapore faces evolving new and rising food risks. Our global food supply network is expanding with our push for market diversification. Consumers are demanding more and new types of foods. Food safety hazards can arise at any point along the agri-food supply chain. With advancements in science and technology, we have seen the emergence of new food production methods, inputs, such as pesticides, and novel food products.
Singapore has also faced various food supply challenges in recent years. The COVID-19 pandemic saw the impact of supply disruptions when we experienced the effects of lockdowns and restrictions on cross-border movements. Supply chain disruptions arising from many other factors, extreme weather events, disease outbreaks and trade restrictions, also affected our food supply on several occasions. With climate change, rising biosecurity risks and geopolitical tensions, the risk of food disruptions is expected to increase.
Our policy responses have helped us ride out these storms. However, our policies must be supported by our laws to enable SFA to achieve its mission of ensuring and securing a supply of safe food in Singapore for Singaporeans.
This Bill is timely to bring about several attributes in our laws: simplified, combining elements of the law now scattered in nine Acts to one, reducing complexity and increasing ease of doing business; consistent, bringing several laws that evolved over decades at different times to set common definitions, regulatory regime and penalty framework, thus reducing compliance cost for businesses and increasing the effectiveness of our regulations; effective, enabling SFA to respond quickly and effectively against threats to food safety and security; future-ready, updating our regulations to be relevant for the future, enabling technology and industry practices to innovate and evolve, helping our business grow.
There are three main thrusts in the Bill: first, to consolidate and rationalise food-related legislation; second, to update our food safety regime to better protect consumers, support industry development and prepare for emerging trends; and third, to strengthen our food supply resilience.
I will introduce the key legislative changes to the food safety regime. Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon will elaborate on the details of the food safety regime and introduce the food security provisions under the Bill. Minister of State for Health Rahayu Mahzam will elaborate on provisions related to health promotion.
Let me start with consolidating and rationalising food-related legislation. The Bill will become the main legislation that provides a regulatory framework covering food sector in Singapore, from farm to fork.
The Government recognises that a safe and secure food supply needs to be underpinned by streamlined regulations that facilitate compliance and business innovation. This is not only vital for a healthy population and workforce, but also for a strong economy and continued local businesses' access to international markets.
This Bill will consolidate existing legislation in different Acts, standardise definitions across the industry, rationalise requirements across food types and establish common penalty frameworks. This provides a common operating context, reduces complexity and, in turn, supports improved compliance with legal requirements directed at protecting public health. I will elaborate on two elements in this aspect.
One, the Bill will cover the distribution of food in all forms, whether through sale, movement of food items or given for free. This is an expansion of the current scope, which mainly covers sale. This expansion of scope is important as food safety risks exist not just in the food that is sold. Food that is given for free can also be unsafe and it is important to provide protection to recipients of donated food. Accordingly, offences currently in the Sale of Food Act (SOFA) and other Acts that apply to the sale of food will be replaced by part 8 of the Bill, covering all manner of food distribution, including giving food for free.
There may be some concerns among charities, food donors and entities which support their food distribution efforts. However, these concerns have been addressed with the passing of the Good Samaritan Food Donation Act last year. A food donor has legal immunity if the food donor can meet the four conditions in section 5 of Good Samaritan Food Donation Act. Clause 164 in the Bill makes this clear.
SFA has sought feedback from food charities and distribution groups on its guidelines for food donation and distribution. The updated guidelines will be published later this month. We hope these will provide more detailed guidance on safe food handling practices.
Two, current regulatory approaches are uneven across different groups of food industry participants and different food types. Some of our legislation regulates by types of food, while others regulated by types of activities. The Bill will standardise the approach. Part 3 of the Bill provides for a two-tier regulatory regime for trading of food-related commodities. For example, for food imports, the first tier is the licensing of the food trader to ensure that they have the required systems and processes in the course of business to source safe and suitable food, ensure the integrity of items imported and to recall food if necessary.
The second tier is the requirement of a permit for every food consignment imported. This second regulatory tool is necessary for food-specific safety requirements to be applied at the consignment level. For example, when an animal disease outbreak excludes specific sources from supplying to Singapore.
Today, most food traders are subjected to some form of a two-tier regime. The Bill will standardise and apply this two-tier approach to all kinds of food. This will ensure consistency across different food commodities and reduce regulatory complexity for food traders importing or exporting different food types.
An exception is made by the Bill for the import of food for private consumption. Singaporeans often bring home food from overseas to enjoy them here or to share with friends and family. The Bill will set out the maximum quantity of food that individuals can bring in from overseas without the need for a licence and permit, provided none of the food is for use in the food business or for donation. This Bill calls this the private consumption exception.
The Bill provides a single rule to allow each individual to bring in a total of not more than 15 kilogrammes of various categories of food, including a clutch of up to 30 eggs. Given such food is meant for consumption by the individual and family and not for wider distribution, the food safety risk to the public is significantly lower. The private consumption exception will exclude food of higher regulatory concern, such as game meat or animal blood products.
The second thrust of the Bill is to strengthen our food safety regime to better protect consumers, support industry development and keep pace with emerging trends. Singaporeans rely a lot on food businesses for our daily meals – many of us either eat out or order food delivery. Strong regulation of food safety laws is therefore necessary to ensure public health and build public confidence in our food businesses.
We are strengthening our regulatory regime in two ways by: (a) providing for more comprehensive offences that apply along all steps of the food supply chain, regardless of commodity type and business activity; and (b) standardising the penalty frameworks including aligning maximum penalties.
Part 8 of the Bill will provide a common set of offences by rationalising the existing offences under the different Acts today. For example, unlike the SOFA that makes selling unsafe or unsuitable food an offence, the current Wholesome Meat and Fish Act, or WMFA, covers meat and fish products only and not food in general; while the Environmental Public Health Act, or EPHA, covers only the retail setting. Under the Bill, all food will be covered under the new offences of supplying unsafe or unsuitable food, regardless of the commodity type or business activity.
Existing offences related to food handling processes are overly specific and prescriptive. Yet, given the varied operating conditions of food businesses, it is ineffective for the law to specify every possible practice that might lead to unsafe food. We cannot be constantly amending the law to deal with a new method of handling or production.
Clause 9 of the Bill therefore defines \"food handling\" more comprehensively to cover activities from preparation, manufacturing, storing, packing and transporting up to the point of delivery to consumers. The Bill outlines the offences in clauses 144, 145, 148 and 149. This broader coverage seeks to ensure accountability of the food handlers who may come into contact with the food in the entire process. It will also provide SFA with the flexibility to adapt to new food safety risks, as the industry evolves and new practices emerge. This will place greater emphasis on having good food control processes and afford better protection to the public.
As part of rationalisation, some offences under existing laws are decriminalised. This is replaced with regulatory sanctions which are more immediate and effective in deterring unacceptable conduct by licensees. Doing so will avoid criminalising persons for infringements that do not lead to direct harm or danger to people.
This change frees up the resources of the court system and enables SFA as a regulator to move faster by meting out regulatory sanctions directly. For instance, where breaches in import licence conditions are administrative in nature, these will now no longer warrant prosecution in Court. However, SFA will still be able to take regulatory actions such as financial penalties and licence suspensions against such breaches.
Two, on standardising the penalty framework for offences, including aligning maximum penalties. Currently, similar offences under the different Acts attract different penalties. For instance, under the WMFA, an offender who sells meat or fish that is unfit for human consumption faces a maximum fine of $50,000, whereas he or she would face a fine of up to $5,000 under the SOFA if it was some other food.
The Bill seeks to align the maximum penalty for the most serious food safety-related offences to $50,000 for a first-time corporate offender and for a first-time individual offender, to $25,000 or a jail term of up to 24 months or both. This considers the existing penalties in the WMFA, which are the highest among existing food legislation and the Courts today have been meting out sentences close to the maximum fines for offences under the older food laws, which are much lower. The actual quantum for each case remains to be a decision for the Courts to make on convicting the offender.
Further, current penalties may sometimes not commensurate with the severity of the impact from the offence committed or the culpability of the offenders as these offences had been enacted some time back.
The Bill therefore organises the offences and their corresponding maximum penalties based on severity and threat to public health, culpability of offences and the circumstances of when, where and how the breach occurred. For example, the more severe the offence, the higher the penalty. A more severe breach, such as the supply of unsafe food will attract a higher criminal punishment than a less severe breach, such as failing to keep records. There will also be differentiation between individuals and entities, and between first time offenders and repeat offenders.
Part 14 of the Bill introduces a framework to disqualify certain persons from holding licences. Under this framework, an ex-licensee whose food trading licence, food business licence or animal feed production licence has been revoked will be disqualified from holding the same licence for a specified period of up to three years.
Today, all ex-licensees whose licences have been revoked, can reapply for the same licence immediately after conviction, even though they may still be unfit or unsuitable to carry on a food business. The disqualification framework will address this.
Disqualification will only apply to ex-licensees who had their licences revoked. Grounds of licence revocations include infringements that had posed severe risks to food safety or are in the public interest, non-compliance with Part 7 directions and fraud.
The actual disqualification period will be determined by SFA after considering factors, such as compliance history of the ex-licensee and the severity of the violation. The maximum disqualification period is three years. The intent is to provide sufficient deterrence while avoiding being overly punitive.
The disqualification applies only to the activity or trade that the revocation of licence had covered. Disqualified persons will not be allowed to be an executive staff in the same type of licensable food businesses at any premises, where they may be placed in charge of making decisions on the day-to-day operations.
By clause 347, a similar disqualification framework is introduced to Part 4 of the EPHA, in connection with licensing of temporary fair operators. While operators of temporary fairs will continue to be licensed under the EPHA, food stalls in temporary fairs will be licensed under the Food Safety and Security Act when passed. Introducing the disqualification framework in the EPHA ensures that the same treatment will apply to both temporary fair operators and food stall operators.
Next, on changes concerning food safety. In 2017, special powers in the SOFA were conferred on the Director-General for Food Administration, or the DG (FA), to issue directions. This power has proven essential in securing immediate corrective actions or initiating recalls in the event of a food safety incident. Our priority is to protect consumers and to prevent or mitigate any serious danger to public health. Part 7 of the Bill retains these powers.
Four new types of directions are introduced to enable more effective and faster response to food safety threats. Under clause 137, the DG (FA) will be able to issue directions to deal with threats to primary production or the health of food producing animals to mitigate or prevent a threat to the food supply here. This will include directions to implement measures to prevent spread of diseases on farms, such as culling or movement control over animals.
There will also be a new direction in clause 130 aimed at the food worker lapses in a licensed food business environment. Sometimes, the food safety lapse is due entirely to an individual, for example, failure of a food worker to maintain personal hygiene. Clause 130 will support a more targeted response to require corrective actions by the individual, instead of affecting the entire licensable food business and every other food worker of the business in every instance.
To manage contamination from food vending machines and equipment used in the food production process, directions may be issued under clause 124 to ensure cleanliness and production of safe and suitable food. Such directions will be issued to the owner of a food vending machine or equipment. Lastly, clause 134 extends directions on the maintenance of premises, equipment and dealing with source of contamination to animal feed production.
As with current day practice, the failure to comply with Part 7 directions constitute an offence.
SFA works closely with other agencies as one Government, in the interest of protecting public health against food threats. For instance, officers from the Ministry of Health (MOH) are appointed powers to enforce against non-compliances with nutrition and health claims. Appointed officers from the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapore (MUIS) may also carry out monitoring and enforcement on halal labelling.
The Bill will allow SFA to continue with the current practice, where SFA officers or officers of any other Singapore public sector agency may be appointed as food inspectors. The Bill will also provide powers for the Minister to appoint food security officers from among SFA officers or officers of any other Singapore public sector agency. These appointed officers will be vested with monitoring and investigating powers, which are detailed in Part 13 of the Bill.
The Bill also empowers SFA to appoint \"outsourced enforcement officers\" to supplement its resources in carrying out selected functions. The scope of powers conferred to outsourced enforcement officers will be much more limited, as they are not public service officers. Their powers are outlined in clause 286.
All outsourced enforcement officers, authorised officers, food inspectors and food security officers, will be issued identification cards that they must carry at all times when exercising their powers conferred under the Bill.
Existing powers of arrest, which are provided in current legislation, will no longer be provided in the Bill. Egregious cases involving fatalities or intentional contamination of food, will be referred to the Police for investigation.
Under Part 12 of the Bill, parties aggrieved by discretionary decisions made by SFA or the DG (FA) can appeal to the Minister, as an independent authority, to reassess the merits of the decision taken.
Finally, the third objective of the Bill is to strengthen our food supply resilience. Two food security measures that the Bill will allow us to implement are: one, a Minimum Stockholding Requirement (MSR) for entities along the food supply chain to hold stocks of essential food items or agri-food production inputs; and two, a Farm Management Plan by local farms to ensure the sustainable scale up of local production. Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon will elaborate on these measures in his speech.
Before I conclude, even as this Bill updates our food safety regime and strengthens our food security, many of the requirements will not be new to businesses and are already implemented today. By simplifying and bringing about consistency, the Bill reduces regulatory complexity for businesses, which in turn reduces compliance costs. The food security requirements which Senior Minister of State Koh will elaborate on shortly, will also help increase businesses’ resilience and ensure operational continuity.
As we have consolidated all food related functions under a single agency, SFA, there is a need to do the same with our legislation.
Mr Speaker, the proposed legislative changes build on the strong foundation our predecessors have left us and enable us to address anticipated future challenges to food safety and security.
Mr Speaker: Minister Grace, you wanted the Senior Minister of State to continue?
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Yes, I would like Senior Minister of State Koh to continue with his speech, as I had alluded to earlier. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker: Before that, Minister Grace, do you want to put the question? Move the question that the Bill be read a Second time?
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Yes, I started with that, Mr Speaker. I said that I move, “That the Bill be now read a second time.”
Mr Speaker: Alright.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon.
The Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Koh Poh Koon): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, my Minister has given Members an overview of the Food Safety and Security Bill and elaborated on some of the key proposed amendments to the food safety regime. I will further elaborate on four areas: first, how the Bill will enable a shared commitment across Government, industry and consumers in pursuit of food safety; second, how we aim to minimise regulatory burden on the food industry; third, how we intend to strengthen our food resilience in the face of emerging challenges; and fourth, how the Bill will be implemented in stages.
The agri-food supply chain is getting increasingly complex, involving multiple stakeholders and more potential points of failure. Before food reaches our tables, the base ingredients are very likely grown in multiple countries, processed in yet another country, and then packaged and distributed to supermarkets and retail food businesses located locally. Ensuring food safety from farm to fork requires every player across the food value chain to play their part. It requires a shared commitment from Government, industry and consumers.
The Bill therefore contains provisions aimed at two agri-food production inputs which, if not properly used or produced, can directly affect the safety of food produced namely, animal feed and plant pesticides. Parts 3 and 11 of the Bill regulate the import and the production of animal feed for food-producing animals, and Part 11 regulates the use of plant pesticides that are for growing food.
Contaminated feed can expose food-producing animals to food-borne illnesses which can endanger consumer health and disrupt farm production. Excessive use of plant pesticides can leave high levels of harmful chemical residues on fresh produce, which may be difficult to wash off and pose health risks to consumers when ingested.
Through amendments in Division 6 of Part 17 of the Bill, SFA will regulate animal feed for food producing animals while the National Parks Board (NParks) will regulate animal feed for non-food producing animals. Through amendments in Division 4 of Part 17 of the Bill, SFA will regulate pesticides use on edible plants while the use of pesticides other than for growing of food will be deregulated.
The changes better match and support the respective regulatory missions of SFA and NParks. SFA’s concern is one of food safety and security for humans, whereas NParks considers protection of animal health.
Hence, under the Bill, businesses which manufacture animal feed for food producing animals will need to get a licence from SFA. Businesses which manufacture animal feed for non-food producing animals will need a licence from NParks. This will ensure that feeds used are fit for their intended purposes and makes it clearer for our businesses.
Currently, plant pesticides for both food and non-food plants require registration. Going forward under the Bill, product registration will only be mandatory for pesticides used on edible plants. Given that such plants would be ultimately consumed by people, improper use of pesticides can pose food safety risks. Pesticides use for non-food plants will no longer require registration as they are not intended for human consumption and will not compromise food safety. Existing registrations of food plant pesticides will be transitioned without the need for re-registration.
Certification will continue to be required for all pesticide operators applying or supervising pesticide use on edible plants that are intended for human consumption, to ensure that these individuals are trained to apply pesticides safely. This excludes the use of pesticides on edible plants grown for personal consumption, such as those in home gardens, or whole edible plants which are retailed in pots, such as potted herbs and ornamental plants like kumquats, which though can be eaten, largely serve more for ornamental purposes.
Water is another key component, integral to every stage of the food value chain from production to preparation for sale or supply. Under Part 6 of the Bill, we will continue to require those providing a drinking water service to supply wholesome drinking water that is safe for human consumption.
As technology advances, we are seeing innovations across different parts of the food value chain, along with the emergence of innovative food types. Their long-term effect on human health needs to be evaluated. We must therefore indicate clearly to businesses which are developing or selling these products what their responsibilities are.
To achieve this, Part 5 of the Bill will introduce a category of “defined food” to help industry navigate the types of food that are of higher regulatory concern and therefore require prior approval before they can be supplied or advertised in Singapore as food. This category will comprise yet-to-be approved novel foods, genetically modified, or GM, foods, and insect-like species. Once approved, such food will then be taken off the defined food list and may then be freely supplied in Singapore.
The Bill formalises SFA’s existing practice for novel foods, insects and GM foods, and seeks to ensure any food safety risks are identified early, without stifling innovation. Over time, this would foster greater trust and confidence among consumers and industry stakeholders.
We do not expect the Bill to lengthen the approval process. SFA will continue to engage with food companies and provide guidance to facilitate the approval process.
Alongside safety regulations, marketing plays a crucial role in communicating crucial information about food such as ingredients, allergens and nutritional value. Modern marketing strategies have also transformed how businesses influence consumers’ food purchase decisions.
Hence, Part 10 of the Bill sets out offences relating to misleading or deceptive marketing, covering newer forms of advertising and innovations in food labelling such as the use of QR codes. It also more clearly defines the parties responsible for ensuring accurate and substantiated food labelling and advertising.
It can be hard for consumers to verify the credibility of claims such as the composition, effect and origin of food before consumption. Misinformation can potentially compromise food safety and consumer health. Provisions under the Bill will place the onus on food suppliers to provide accurate information and representations of the food so that consumers can make accurate, informed choices.
Between 2022 and 2024, an average of 43% of food-borne gastroenteritis outbreaks resulted from poor food safety practices by food workers. Therefore, food-borne illnesses can be reduced significantly when food workers understand the importance and the basics of food handling and safe practices; and are subject to monitoring of their food handling proficiency.
Under clause 103, it is an offence if a licensed food business deploys an untrained individual as a food worker in that business. A food business licensee should be proactive in ensuring that food workers are current in their food safety knowledge and attend refresher training before their training certifications expire. These measures will help to foster a strong food safety culture, reinforce food safety protocols, reduce the risk of safety lapses and ultimately protect consumers. Businesses can use SFA’s newly launched Food Handler Digital Data Hub to track the expiry dates of their workers’ certification.
The food industry is responsible for ensuring that their food is safe. It is not practical nor possible for SFA to verify and test all food items before consumption. We take a risk-based approach, aligned with international standards, to inspecting the safety of our food at the border, prioritising checks on food items that have higher safety risks. Hence, food products may sometimes still be found to be unsafe for consumption after they enter the market. When this happens, the food industry and SFA must be able to swiftly recall products to prevent the products from further circulating in the market and to reduce the potential for widespread illness or harm from occurring.
To implement swift recalls of products, there must be proper record-keeping. While some progressive industry players practice record-keeping, it is not consistently implemented across the sector. As a result, significant effort is often required to trace implicated food batches during incidents.
To address this, Parts 3, 4 and 11 of the Bill imposes traceability and record-keeping obligations on selected licensed food businesses, licensed importers and licensed animal feed producers.
In cases of voluntary recalls initiated by the industry due to food safety concerns, the industry will also be required to inform SFA as soon as practicable or within 24 hours after making the decision to recall. SFA will then identify other affected companies to ensure coordinated and timely responses to protect consumers.
For example, through SFA’s proactive surveillance, a potential outbreak was averted last September when some mooncakes were found with excessive levels of Escherichia coli, or E. coli. Effective traceability allowed for the swift identification and recall of the affected mooncakes, as the business had a good record-keeping system in place. The business was able to isolate the contaminated mooncakes and recall them swiftly with precision. This minimised the cost impact for the business as well because the alternative would have been to recall every single batch of mooncakes.
To support the industry in this transition, SFA will undertake consultations in detailing records to be kept in subsidiary legislation. SFA will provide guidance documents to help compliance with the regulations. SFA is also developing a portal to facilitate the submission of documents from those required to maintain traceability records.
Let me move on to how we aim to minimise regulatory burden on the industry, through providing greater operational flexibility and decriminalising less egregious offences. Sir, we are mindful of striking a balance between ensuring food safety and minimising compliance costs for businesses. We are calibrating and updating our regulations to align with SFA's risk-based approach to food safety.
Instead of prescribing requirements across businesses' different operating contexts, each business will have the flexibility to devise and implement preventive measures suited to their operation model to ensure safe food and animal feed that is fit-for-purpose. This will be done through the Food Control Plan and the Feed Control Plan, which will be introduced as licence conditions under Part 4 and Part 11 of the Bill respectively.
All licensable food businesses which are not in primary production must design and implement a Food Control Plan, while licensed animal feed producers must design and implement a Feed Control Plan. Today, businesses are already required to show they have measures to ensure food safety before SFA grants them a licence.
By taking an outcome-based approach, the Food Control Plan would not prescribe specific measures, but allow businesses to consider what works for them to meet food safety outcomes. This approach also recognises that food business licensees understand their operations best and are well-positioned to design effective food safety solutions.
They will need to maintain these solutions to ensure hygienic and safe conditions and implement them throughout the entire licence period. It also ensures that food business licensees stay accountable even as new food products and business models emerge while encouraging innovative means to ensure food safety. SFA will provide guidance on the scope of the Food Control Plan and the Feed Control Plan, according to the operating modality of the different businesses.
My Minister also, earlier, mentioned how some breaches, which are offences under existing law, will be decriminalised. Under Parts 3, 4 and 11 of the Bill, SFA will decriminalise non-compliances such as breaches in licence or permit conditions that are less egregious in nature. Proportionate regulatory actions, such as suspension of licence, imposing of financial penalties and issuance of directions, may be taken instead to avoid over-penalising less serious infringements.
As Minister mentioned earlier, Singapore is no stranger to food supply disruptions.
As a small country which imports most of our food, we will not be able to insulate ourselves entirely from global food supply disruptions and the risks of unsafe food. Local production buffers against the impact of supply disruptions and add to Singapore's food security. For farms to viably produce and scale up in the long term, we must balance sustainability with productivity to ensure that farming activities do not harm the environment in which the animals and the plants need to grow.
Currently, all farms are already required to maintain their farms in clean and sanitary conditions. We will strengthen farm management and animal husbandry practices by introducing the Farm Management Plan (FMP) as a new requirement for those licensees undertaking primary production activities.
The FMP is aimed at mitigating risks to food safety, disease spread and ensuring sustainable production. Farmers will need to come up with their methods and processes addressing the key areas of waste, feed, fish stocking, biosecurity and disease management. Sea-based aquaculture farmers will also have to state how they will monitor water and sediment quality. All licensed farmers will need to appoint trained personnel to oversee implementation of the FMP.
Two farming enterprises that have already benefited from having comprehensive farm management and documentation systems are Metropolitan Fishery Group, a local fish farm; and Sustenir Agriculture, a local vegetable farm. Both farms are certified under Singapore's Good Agricultural Practices, a farm management standard that ensures food safety, produce quality and environmental sustainability.
These practices have improved the farms’ operational efficiency, leading to higher productivity and safer, higher-quality produce for their customers. The practices have also helped the farms to foster a culture of continuous improvement in farm management and production. Hence, we are optimistic that similar requirements in the FMP will benefit other farms as well.
The FMP implementation will be phased in, to allow time for transition and SFA will provide the necessary support to help farms adjust to the new regulations. This includes working with Temasek Polytechnic's Aquaculture Innovation Centre to conduct training to guide farms. The training course will be subsidised for Singaporeans and Permanent Residents. SFA will also provide guidance documents to help farmers understand the requirements and implementation of the FMP and work with relevant agencies to contextualise requirements for different farm types.
SFA will continue to support the industry in overcoming challenges through other practical means. This includes supporting capability development by co-funding the adoption of technology through the $60 million Agri-food Cluster Transformation (ACT) Fund. SFA also rolled out the Aquatic Animal Health Service in August 2023 to provide aquaculture farms with funded veterinary consultations, to assist them in farm management, disease diagnoses, prevention and control. More recently, in November 2024, SFA had announced the updated Singapore Aquaculture Plan and initiatives that seek to uplift the aquaculture sector to be one that is more productive and sustainable.
The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the fragility of global food supply chains, as unexpected, unprecedented lockdowns disrupted production and logistics, causing delays and shortages. Geopolitical tensions, more recently, and climate change also continue to add pressure to food systems worldwide.
As a small country with limited natural resources, import diversification remains a key strategy alongside efforts to build up our local production as a buffer against supply chain shocks. However, in the face of severe food supply disruptions or emergencies, these measures alone may not be enough. Any food supply disruption could have significant impacts on businesses, consumers and the Singapore economy. But it is hard to predict when a significant food disruption might occur. On the other hand, food importers and wholesalers have limited incentives to hold reserve stocks above the commercial stockholding level and to invest in back-up food storage and distribution facilities.
In the absence of Government intervention, Singapore may not keep sufficient domestic food stocks or back-up arrangements to mitigate the impact in food supply disruption scenarios adequately. As such, another key food security measure the Bill introduces is the MSR in Part 2 of the Bill. The MSR would help to ensure that we have a certain level of in-country stocks to tide over impacts to supply during potential disruptions in the future.
Today, SFA only administers a Rice Stockpile Scheme, requiring rice importers to stockpile rice as an import licence condition under the Ministry of Trade and Industry's Price Control Act. With the Bill, the powers to administer the Rice Stockpile Scheme will be right-sited with the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE). Instead of a licence condition, the MSR is a legal obligation under the Bill.
The Minister will appoint a Director-General for Food Security, or DG (FS), to administer Part 2 of the Bill. The role of the DG (FS) will be to oversee and coordinate the formulation and implementation of our food security strategies in a comprehensive and effective manner.
Part 2 of the Bill will enable the Minister to declare other essential food items or agri-food production inputs to be subject to stockpiling requirements if the need arises in the future.
That said, there are currently no plans to extend the stockholding requirement to entities other than rice importers or to other commodities beyond rice. We will consult closely with the industry before prescribing any other food or agri-food production input as an MSR product and any activity as an MSR activity attracting the stockholding requirement and provide sufficient lead time for the industry to meet the new requirements. For rice importers, the shift in legislative regime to the MSR will not change what they basically need to do today, which is to continue to stockpile prescribed quantities of rice.
Under clause 23, a stockpiling obligation arises for an entity, called an MSR entity, when the entity is given a formal written notice, called a \"Trigger Notice\", from the DG (FS). The trigger notice will indicate the specific requirements, such as minimum stockholding quantity, the daily and average monthly minimum, the storage location, the duration of the obligation and the implementation timelines. Every MSR entity will need to maintain a minimum daily MSR product stock and a minimum average MSR product stock over a prescribed period. Unlike today where the only recourse is to revoke the rice import licence upon non-compliance, the Bill will deter non-compliance through a range of enforcement actions, such as civil and/or criminal penalties.
Part 2 of the Bill will also confer powers on the DG (FS) to collect data and information from participants in the agri-food supply chain, other than the ultimate consumer and others closely connected to the agri-food supply chain. This is to allow the DG (FS) to monitor and assess ways to strengthen Singapore's food resilience in a timely manner. This information will also be used to support the administration of the MSR scheme. Steps will be taken to ensure only what is necessary is collected and that what is collected is kept confidential.
First, the DG (FS) will specify the data required, how and when it should be provided and for what purpose. Second, the DG (FS) will also work closely with relevant industry stakeholders to build up data reporting capabilities. This includes, reviewing data collection processes and encouraging the adoption of technological solutions. Third, the DG (FS) will take the appropriate data protection measures to ensure the data will not be mishandled. Information will not be disclosed to persons outside of the Singapore Public Sector except in an anonymised form or as required by an order of Court.
Finally, let me talk about implementation. We will implement changes in phases to facilitate a smooth transition for the industry.
To support the industry in the transition, the Bill will be implemented in phases by 2028, starting with that for defined foods and non-packaged drinking water in the second half of 2025. The industry and public will be informed ahead of the implementation of the relevant provisions to allow time for them to prepare for the changes. The Second Schedule spells out savings and transitions to ensure a smooth transition to the new regulatory regime. We will also make consequential amendments to existing legislation that SFA leverages today and repeal and replace the SOFA and the Wholesome Meat and Fish Act.
Let me conclude. Sir, given the complexities of our food supply chains today, strengthening food safety and security requires joint responsibility and collective effort. I thank the industry and members of the public who have contributed your views in shaping this Bill, which marks a crucial step towards enabling this joint responsibility.
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Rahayu Mahzam.
The Minister of State for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam): Mr Speaker, as mentioned by the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment, the Food Safety and Security Bill, or FSSB, will contain provisions related to health promotion. It will enable MOH to issue, administer and enforce food-related regulations for the purposes of promoting better health for the general public.
Food choices impact on nutrition and our health. Unhealthy diets increase our risk of developing chronic diseases, such as hypertension, diabetes, heart disease and cancer. Regulatory measures for health promotion purposes pertaining to food complement voluntary and educational efforts. MOH currently taps on SOFA and its subsidiary legislation, the Food Regulations, to make such regulations. Examples include, Nutri-Grade labelling and advertising prohibitions for beverages that are higher in sugar and saturated fat; and the ban on trans-fat, also known as partially hydrogenated oils (PHOs) in food.
The intention is for SOFA to be repealed and replaced by FSSB. While the primary purpose of FSSB is for food safety and security, it would be appropriate for FSSB to also support better population health and nutrition, given the close link between food, health and nutrition. This will allow MOH to continue with our current health promotion measures that are in place under SOFA and to implement additional measures, if needed, to improve population health in the future.
A key difference between SOFA and FSSB is that, FSSB will provide the Minister for Health with statutory powers to make food-related regulations for health promotion purposes. Today, such regulations are administered and enforced by MOH but made with powers vested with the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment under SOFA. FSSB will allow for clearer delineation of Ministerial responsibilities between the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment and the Minister for Health, while allowing MSE and MOH to regulate the food supply chain for our respective purposes under a common regulatory regime.
Key provisions in the FSSB for better health and nutrition are consolidated under Part 9. Under Part 9, clause 174 of the FSSB sets out the types of food regulations, known as Part 9 Regulations, that the Minister for Health is empowered to make for health promotion purposes. They broadly fall under two categories.
The first category is more stringent regulations that apply only to \"target food\". These include regulations to prohibit import of a food; prohibit or restrict the way a food is manufactured, supplied or used in the manufacture or preparation of other foods; prohibit or restrict the way the public acquire or access a food; and require warnings to be included in food advertisements or food labels. An example of an existing regulation that falls in this category is the ban on PHOs, which currently prohibits the import of any edible fat or oil that contains PHO for use as an ingredient in other foods and the use of edible fat or oil that contains PHO in the manufacture of other foods.
In making more stringent regulations, the Minister for Health will need to determine a non-communicable disease (NCD) of public health interest and identify the \"target food\". Let me use the PHO ban as an example to show how this works.
The PHO ban aims to reduce the population's consumption of artificial trans-fat which is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease. To continue with the PHO ban under the FSSB, the Minister for Health will need to determine that cardiovascular disease is an NCD of public health interest. This may be done in consultation with the Director-General of Health and the public will be notified of this determination. PHO will be identified as a target food as it contributes to the occurrence of an NCD of public health interest. More stringent regulations that continue the current PHO ban may then be made as subsidiary legislation under the FSSB.
The other category of regulations can apply to all foods. These include regulations to restrict import of a food, prohibit or restrict content used in advertisements or labels of a food, require display of prescribed dietary and nutritional information about the food at food premises and prohibit or restrict the medium or way in which food is advertised, sponsored or promoted for sale. An example of an existing regulation in this category is the prohibition of claims on the advertisements or labels of infant formulas that idealise its use or compares it to breast milk.
MOH intends for the existing food regulations for health promotion purposes to continue under the FSSB. Should there be any new regulations, MOH and the Health Promotion Board will appropriately consult the public and industry to ensure that measures are practicable and implementable, as per our current practice.
For regulations to be effective and meet their policy intent, they need to be enforced appropriately. To support the enforcement of any Part 9 regulation, the FSSB will empower the Director-General of Health to appoint enforcement officers, who are referred to as Part 9 enforcement officers in the Bill. The investigating powers provided to such enforcement officers are outlined in Part 13 of the Bill.
Beyond being provided with investigating powers, enforcement officers may also issue a remedial notice to require a person to remedy a contravention of any Part 9 regulation within a specified period, including directions to take reasonable steps to do so. Non-compliance with the remedial notice without a reasonable excuse will be an offence.
The main intent is to limit the impact of a contravention on the general public. Enforcement officers will issue a remedial notice if it is appropriate to give the person an opportunity to remedy the contravention. Otherwise, MOH may prosecute a person for the contravention of a Part 9 Regulation without first giving a remedial notice.
Let me conclude. A safer and more resilient food system that can also support better population health and nutrition is aligned with our ongoing efforts to strengthen preventive care and will empower Singaporeans to lead healthier lifestyles.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill consolidates and updates laws relating to food safety and security. I support this Bill, which allows Singaporeans to put food on the table with peace of mind every day and addresses the existential issue of food security for our nation.
Last year, my fellow Members, Ms Poh Li San, Ms Hany Soh and Mr Edward Chia and I tabled the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill in Parliament. The Good Samaritan Food Donation Act and the Food Safety and Security Act are complementary pieces of legislation, which strike a balance in ensuring safety of food while reducing food waste and insecurity.
I have three points of clarification to raise on this Bill.
My first point is on the supply of food past its labelled date. By labelled date, I am referring to expiry dates, consume-by dates, use-by dates, sell-by dates and best-before dates. Currently, it is already an offence to sell food that is past its labelled date. The FSSB goes further by making it an offence to supply food that is past its expiry or best-before date. This includes donating or giving food without receiving any money or money's worth.
What this means is some food rescue or donation activities on the ground will become illegal. Some groups rescue and redistribute food that is past its labelled date. This is in the spirit of saving food that may be edible past its labelled date. Some groups, such as SG Food Rescue and Divert for 2nd Life, educate consumers to use the look-smell-taste test to determine if food past its labelled date is still safe to eat.
Can the Minister clarify whether supplying food that is past its labelled date is permissible under any circumstances? For instance, if a retailer has expired food and permits an individual to take them for their individual consumption, would the retailer be committing an offence? If no supply of food past its labelled date is permitted at all, can Minister share how the Ministry intends to mitigate food wastage? For instance, will SFA consider encouraging retailers to look for alternative avenues to sell or supply food that is close to its labelled date? Will SFA provide more support for initiatives and companies that help to redistribute food that is close to its labelled date?
My second point is about the MSR. The MSR will require certain industry participants to hold a certain level of food or agri-food production input. I agree with the requirement, which strengthens Singapore's food security. But it may also increase the risk of food waste. Can the Ministry share what measures will be taken to ensure that food waste is minimised if MSR is imposed? For instance, will the Ministry support stakeholders subject to the MSR in reselling, redistributing or donating stocked food that is approaching expiry?
Food waste can also occur if stakeholders do not have the logistical and operational capacity to properly maintain the stockpiles. Can the Ministry also confirm that the MSR quantity that will be set will take into account stakeholders' logistical and operational capacity to maintain the stocks? Will the Ministry also support the stakeholders that may be subject to the MSR in building their logistical and operational capacity?
My third and final point is on the pre-market approval regime for defined foods. Part 5 of the FSSB provides a new framework for pre-market approval of novel food technologies. Novel food technologies are an opportunity for Singapore to reduce our reliance on imported food and reduce our carbon footprint from importing food.
Under Part 5, it is an offence to supply any defined food without pre-market approval. Section 13(1) sets out three categories of \"defined food\". These are novel food, genetically modified food and insect-like species as food. In turn, \"novel food\" is defined to include a substance that \"has not been used to a significant degree as food for a period of at least 20 years, whether within or outside Singapore\". There is some subjectivity in determining whether something has been used to a significant degree as food.
Can the Ministry provide more guidance on how it will consider if a food or production process has gained sufficient normalcy that it is no longer considered novel in Singapore? How will the public and industry be made aware that the \"defined food\" is now considered by the Ministry to be normal \"food\" in Singapore? Will there be a plan for publicity and education?
Notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill represents a significant step forward in safeguarding Singapore's food security and public health. However, I would like to seek clarifications on several aspects to ensure that the legislation is both effective and considerate of residents' concerns.
First, Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 20 introduces the MSR for essential food items like rice. It also mandates farm management plans for local farms. While these provisions aim to strengthen food security, I urge the Minister to address the potential financial burden on our local farms. Will these measures lead to significant cost increases for farmers, potentially disincentivising local agricultural investments?
Singapore's 30 by 30 initiative, which aims for 30% local food production by 2030, is an ambitious and important goal. However, if compliance with MSR or farm management plans under clauses 21 to 24 increases operational costs substantially, we risk undermining the very farms we seek to support. Could the Minister elaborate on how the Government intends to alleviate these financial pressures? For example, are there plans for subsidies, grants or technical support to help farmers comply without jeopardising their livelihoods?
Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill also increases the personal food import allowance to 15 kilogrammes across all categories as stated in clause 44. This is a commendable step towards flexibility. However, the prohibition on selling such imports raises enforcement challenges. Given the sheer volume of personal imports and the rise of online transactions, does SFA have sufficient resources and intelligence capabilities to enforce this regulation?
Additionally, clause 160 prohibits selling personally imported food. However, it is unclear about inadvertent oversupply. If individuals buy more than they can consume, what are their options? Would they be penalised for reselling excess items, or would gifting or donating be permissible? Clarity on enforcement mechanisms is critical to prevent undue penalisation of well-meaning individuals. I would suggest that SFA collaborate with ecommerce platforms like Shopee and Carousell to monitor and regulate transactions effectively, while minimising inconvenience to residents.
Mr Speaker, Sir, my third clarification is on food donations. Clause 144 extends food safety regulations to donations, ensuring that all consumed food is safe. However, we must ensure this does not inadvertently discourage food donation efforts, especially those supported by community initiatives like our Yio Chu Kang food rescue programme. Our programme, which redistributes surplus food to over 200 residents with the help of student volunteers, thrives under the Good Samaritan Food Donation Act, which protects donors from liability. Could the Minister clarify how clause 144 interacts with this Act? Will volunteers and donors continue to be shielded from penalties for unintended oversights? Without assurances, these efforts to reduce food waste and support the community may be impacted.
Fourth, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill's tiered penalty framework as stated in clauses 29 to 31 and 144 to 146 to address repeat offenders and negligent food handling. However, I caution against applying penalties in ways that deter volunteerism or community-based food rescue. Could the Minister confirm whether exemptions or safeguards will be in place to protect well-intended individuals contributing to food security?
Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 173 empowers the Ministry to introduce food-related regulations targeting non-communicable diseases. While I commend this focus on public health, I question the necessity of separating these provisions from the SOFA. Consolidating them under SOFA instead could streamline the regulatory framework and reduce complexity for businesses and consumers. Could the Minister elaborate more on why the current approach was chosen and how this enhances clarity or efficiency?
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, the FSSB is a step in the right direction. However, its success depends on addressing key concerns. First, we must ensure that the proposed MSR supports rather than hinders our local farmers' efforts toward the 30 by 30 goal. Second, enforcement of personal food import allowances must be practical and clearly communicated to avoid unfair penalties. Third, food donation initiatives should be encouraged, not discouraged, by ensuring sufficient legal protection for volunteers and donors.
Additionally, consolidating regulations on public health under existing legislation like SOFA could simplify compliance. More importantly, we must remain mindful of affordability for Singaporeans. As food costs rise, any new measures should prioritise accessibility to ensure no resident is left behind in our pursuit of safety and security.
I urge the Minister to address these points to ensure that it strengthens our food security, promotes public health and upholds the values of affordability and community solidarity. Notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, the Food Safety and Security Bill is a refresh of our food-related legislation with a strong focus on strengthening food safety regimes and installing safeguards for food security and the Workers' Party supports its implementation.
Part 2 of the Bill is titled Strengthening Resilience of Food Supplies in Singapore. I would thus like to focus on our food resilience and how we can build an environment that enables a thriving local agri-food ecosystem as a co-pillar of this. My speech today will cover two areas: one, resilience farming; and two, moving from support local to champion local.
Post pandemic, attempts have been made to diversify our import sources and we set a goal for local food production. SFA is overseeing these efforts, from the Lim Chu Kang Master Plan for the High Tech Agri Food sector to the Agri Food Cluster Transformation Fund and the Singapore Agri Food Enterprises Federation Limited to facilitate long-term commercial contracts between farmers and food businesses.
However, we still face many headwinds. The number of countries that we import food from grew from 172 to 180 between 2019 and 2021, yet as diversified as our food sources are, according to a World Bank dataset, we remain dependent on a small handful, just five countries, for approximately 60% of our food in 2022. This number has gone up slightly from around 57% in 2019.
We have seen local vegetable and aquaculture farm closures due to unviable economics and the proportional of local vegetables and seafood eaten in Singapore declining since the announcement of the goal decreasing from 4.5% to 3.2%, and 7.9% to 7.3% for vegetable and seafood, respectively, between 2019 and 2023.
Lastly, in food abundant Singapore, around 10% of Singaporean households are estimated to remain food insecure, primarily due to financial constraints, according to the Hunger Report in 2020, published by the Lien Centre for Social Innovation supported by the Food Bank Singapore.
Our starting point should thus be the concept of resilience, especially in the context of food. According to the SFA, in a 2022 food statistics report, we import 90% of our food and 40% of our water, while our local agri-food sector only produces 29% of eggs, 8% of vegetables and 4% of seafood, far from meeting local demand. We are therefore far from being said to have food resilience. This is clearly evident in the SFA strategy to diversify food import sources, encouraging consumers to support local and boost local food production.
However, are our efforts tackling the sources of food sufficient to enable us to achieve food resilience? According to a 2020 paper on the resilience of local food systems and the links to food security published in the Food Security Journal, I quote: \"Resilience is about the capacities of households and communities to deal with adverse events in a way that does not negatively their well-being and/or functioning.\"
The framing of resilience in this context is therefore broader and more holistic than simply addressing food security. It is understanding three dimensions: first, exposure, that is, how much of our communities are exposed to externalities or risks; second, sensitivity, how much harm would it cause; and third, adaptive capacity. The ability of our communities to mitigate the harmful effects.
For example, a pandemic is an exposure risk. Our high dependence on a small handful of countries for a high proportion of food imports is a sensitivity factor and the financial ability of households is a measure of adaptive capacity.
A holistic, resilient building frame entails the need to recognise the interplay between these three dimensions of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity. Such an overarching frame for resilience will guide the top level objectives that we should be setting, for example, our thirty by thirty goal, and to foster the right holistic ecosystem to enable our agri food sector to thrive across the entire value chain. This means from subsidising, financing, design and conceptualising the farms to the streamlining of multi-agency red tape, and local food affordability and access. Expanding this frame would ensure we always think beyond diversifying import sources and local production.
SFA's vision is safe food for all and its mission is to ensure and secure a supply of safe food. SFA's mandate is therefore centred around the themes of food safety and security. If SFA is responsible for our 30 by 30 goal, we should thus refresh and add to this mandate to reflect a frame of resilience. An aligned mandate will enable SFA to effectively oversee the implementation of holistic policies that complement its role as an accountable body for Singapore's overall food resilience.
We are also now seeing the complex dynamics of multiple dimensions, such as climate change and public health, being interconnected with food resilience. This is already evident in some of the objectives of the Bill, which includes safeguarding against potential supply disruptions and enabling MOH to promote public health through better diet and nutrition.
It is time that we do more than merely to support local. We need to champion local. It means listening to the needs of all players across the agri-food value chain, to introduce policies that actively address these needs, while being a part of a holistic strategy built upon strengthening food resilience, and not just leave it to the vagaries of consumer sentiment to bring about genuine change. It also means recognising and harnessing strengths of our local produce, championing them and not merely seeing local produce as a charity course to be supported.
In this vein, two main groups I would like to speak on are: first, food producers or farmers; and second, consumers.
For food producers, current strategies revolve around helping farms grow more with less. Policy examples include the unlocking of land and sea space, and co-funding schemes such as the Agriculture Productivity Fund for high tech productive farming systems. There is much emphasis on farming technology and research and development. However, this means that we might sometimes lose sight of the unviable economics that most farms in Singapore currently face.
Energy, manpower and rent are the largest cost contributors to the operation of urban farms in Singapore. High tech farming systems and controlled environment agriculture approaches are capital and energy intensive, while energy price volatility and looming increases in carbon taxes further exacerbates high operating cost concerns. We need policies based on first principles in order to mitigate the large cost buckets for operating a farm. How can we streamline administrative hurdles in order for farmers to, for example, tap into renewable energy options such as solar panel installations.
Additionally, the Bill contains provisions relating to an MSR to secure our own supply of food sources, which is important, given the rise in protectionist sentiments globally. However, this mechanism can be more robust. Part 2 of the Bill contains provisions that allow the Minister to specify that a food is an MSR product through subsequent legislation regulations and thus, means that under clause 20, an entity subject to the MSR provisions must hold minimum stocks either on a daily or on average over a period of time, which will be communicated to the MSR entity through a trigger notice under clause 23. Clauses 28 to 31 further describe the obligations that MSR entities are under and the penalties that they are subject to should they fail to adhere to the directives given to them by the DG (FS).
There is thus concern amongst food producers and other players about which foods will fall under the MSR framework, and that this will add to additional compliance and other costs, particularly for SMEs or startups in the space. Could there be more specific guidance given to industry players over the short to medium term about what foods will likely be considered as MSR products? Additionally, what assistance, be they financial subsidies, shared infrastructure will be made available to support any additional costs associated with being subject to the MSR regime?
Additionally, we understand that the previous rice stockpile scheme will come under this MSR. But beyond rice, should we consider an MSR for seed storage, given how prone seeds are to supply chain disruptions, and as a lifeblood for each harvest.
If we are serious about achieving our 30 by 30 goal and more, should we also not critically evaluate the 1% of land allocated for agricultural land use in Singapore against other competing land use needs?
Moving to consumers. SFA aims to raise awareness on food security issues and rally support for local produce by encouraging consumers to make environmentally sustainable food choices. This is especially given how food systems account for one third of global greenhouse gas emissions and food miles account for 19% of those emissions. The Minister herself echoed this narrative by calling on Singaporeans in April 2023 to support local, even if it costs more than imported produce.
Yet, a survey conducted by UGov in 2024 found that only between a third to just under half of consumers expressed a preference to buy local eggs, vegetables or seafood. Of those who did not currently prefer to buy local produce, over eight in 10 Singaporeans said that they would likely switch to buying local if prices were lower than imported produce. The average price premium of local produce stands at approximately 30% to 83%.
While there are undoubtedly factors that may prompt Singaporeans to support locals, such as safety and freshness, it appears that cost remains a barrier. Rallying and nudging Singaporeans to support local will not be sufficient in itself if we were to spur demand on a long-term sustainable basis. How then can we build the right demand conditions to allow our agri-food sector to thrive? Greater subsidies for local farms, and/or the imposition of import taxes could help, but if we want to achieve our food security goal, we have to sustainably tackle the issue of cost.
In light of this, I have some questions on the topic of cost premiums associated with local produce. The tiered Farm to Table Recognition Programme (FTTRP) recognises businesses that produce at least 15% of local produce in at least one food category from a list of six categories, or the roughly 70 establishments that are on the FTTRP benefit from exposure and publicity in the hotels, restaurants and catering sector, there is little by way of encouraging eventual demand.
How can the qualifying criteria for the programme be strengthened over time in order to increase producer offtake? Simultaneously, can there be preferential credits or tax relief that can translate into local costs for end consumers dining at FTTRP recognised establishments? Just like in any industry, local farms operate in an individualistic competitive environment, facing both local and foreign competition. While there are benefits in having a free and open market, the issue of strengthening food resilience begs the question of whether such an approach will continue to be in our best interest in the long term. Can we explore cooperative structures for local farmers in order to mitigate key challenges, especially in the key cost buckets of energy, manpower and rent?
To be sure, Singapore is not the only urban centre facing the challenge of encouraging eating local, especially where there are budgetary constraints. More specifically, while there have been tentative steps in starting community supported agriculture in Singapore, it would be remiss of us not to learn from where this has worked and the potential pitfalls experienced by other countries in this model of farming. Under this kind of arrangement, a direct relationship is formed between consumers and farmers, where consumers subscribe to the harvest of a farm or collective of farms, and receive portions of the farms' harvest on a regular basis.
Given that we had discussions in this House about the difficulties associated with ensuring that our children and schools are fed well, could we not combine central catering and schools with a CSA type arrangement with local farms in a bid to boost the consumption of local produce?
Additionally, food and nutrition are intrinsically linked to public health, and every human being should have a right to access healthy and fresh food or produce that is not cost prohibitive. This is especially so given the increasing awareness and research about the severe health risks associated with the consumption of ultra processed foods.
Overall, rising cost and the cost premium of fresh local produce are standing in the way, hitting low-income households the hardest. How can we tackle existing food insecurity and ensure more equitable access to fresh, healthy food for all? This calls for new intervention models and multi-sector collaboration for food support between the Government, non-profit and private sector, and we have every reason for local produce to form the pillar of such models.
To conclude, what does it mean to champion local? It means pushing a holistic resilience frame. It means we must be prepared to challenge prevailing strategies, approaches and tools at our disposal. It means for us to look to a cooperative mindset as a collective whole. It means that we start from a young age and ensure that our young ones understand both the challenges and benefits of eating local, particularly in a world facing a climate emergency. Most of all, it involves addressing the targeted needs of each stakeholder, in order to build a food system that champions local, boosts demand for local, while ensuring that vulnerable low-income households can also benefit from having affordable access to fresh and healthy local produce.
Mr Speaker: Ms Carrie Tan.
Ms Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, I would like to first appreciate and acknowledge the Government’s efforts to strengthen our food security and safety to ensure the long-term benefit and survivability of Singaporeans in an increasingly volatile world, where food supply chains can be disrupted abruptly.
I would like to focus my speech specifically on the part of the Bill that expands SFA's powers over food supply channels beyond sale channels.
According to the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.
Approximately one-third of all food produced globally is wasted. In Singapore, food waste accounted for about 11% of the total waste generated in Singapore in 2023. The recycling rate for food waste was 18%, and we can do better.
As a small nation highly dependent on food imports, ensuring less wastage while diversifying food sources locally, will help to bolster our food security. With the diversity of food sources, it is, therefore, necessary to ensure that food is safe for consumption, no matter how it reaches us; whether we purchase it as consumers, receive it through the goodwill of donations, or participate in community initiatives like neighbourhood food distributions. Community gardens and localised food production initiatives, not only supplement fresh produce supply but also foster a sense of community ownership and responsibility over food resources.
Useful resources, such as \"A resource guide for community gardeners\" by the American Community Gardening Association, suggest that increasing access to fresh produce can strengthen the role of enhancing food security at the local level. Research also supported the findings that individuals who engage in gardening activities experience an increased physical activity, and contributes to better overall health and well-being.
In light of case studies from urban farming projects like ComCrop and Edible Gardens Singapore, can SFA share what is its position on community-based local farming on a small-scale for local sharing?
As my colleagues are aware, many of our neighbourhoods have community gardens, which often yield a variety of produce that is generously shared among residents. Therefore, I would like to understand SFA's position on community-based local farming on a small-scale for local sharing. Can SFA elaborate on what are some guidelines or regulations it plans to implement, if any, for community grown and shared food?
Currently, there is no need for a small community farm producing less than 200 kilogrammes of food a month to apply for a licence if it does not use pesticides or human, raw animal, or bird excreta in the cultivation process. I am keen to understand the science and rationale behind this policy. For instance, chickens have been traditionally used in many farms in kampongs; they are excellent natural workers that help till the soil and provide organic fertiliser. Can SFA clarify its concerns and design challenges regarding the prohibition of chickens on vegetable gardens?
I ask this because I am aware that NParks expends regularly significant resources to manage wild chicken populations in various neighbourhoods due to residents' feedback about loud roosters crowing at early hours. Rather than focusing on culling, could there be a more innovative and sustainable solution to redirect these chickens for local farming efforts? Might it not be a good idea to deploy them to community gardens instead – perhaps, minus the roosters?
However, some people I know have innovatively fashioned soundproof coops with repurposed construction sound barrier material – the ones that you see outside of construction projects – to prevent noise disamenity from the roosters. This is a good way of repurposing materials. According to permaculture practitioners worldwide, sharing their experiences online, one backyard chicken can effectively till 50 square feet of soil in just a few weeks while providing nitrogen that enhances soil health for better yields. This farming method, rooted in sustainable, low-input techniques, is both environmentally friendly and resource-efficient; and the children love them!
I am personally involved in advocating and implementing permaculture farming within my constituency in Nee Soon South. We collaborate with like-minded citizens who are helping Singaporeans learn about food growing cycles with a focus on reducing food waste, promoting sustainable practices and fostering community engagement in urban farming.
Some of these efforts have successfully actualised circular economy principles, such as recollect used coffee grounds from nearby coffee shops and viable kitchen scraps from residents for composting. Community gardens can be co-designed and re-imagined to play a vital role in promoting sustainable practices, such as composting and water conservation. These gardens serve as educational spaces, teaching residents about the importance of environmental stewardship. Actually, anyone who is interested and everyone who would like to come and visit our Khatib Wellspring Farmden at Blk 783, Yishun Ring Road, can come any Sunday between 9.00 am and 3.00 pm to see these principles in action.
A vibrant ecosystem with diverse plant and animal species working symbiotically offers wonderful opportunities for children and adults to learn about the interdependence of various living beings within the web of life. It makes our neighbourhoods come alive and helps alleviate climate anxiety because people feel more secure knowing that Mother Nature blesses us with abundance when we learn to care for and work with her.
I am not saying this as a theory. This is actual feedback shared by young people from Singapore University of Social Sciences who collaborated with us and participated in our Famden in permaculture, in order to help us with a public education campaign. They shared that being hands on with growing food and seeing the community actively doing so, helped to alleviate their anxiety about climate change and climate crisis.
I would also like to share an interesting piece of history I came across in my research. Did you know that during World War II, many countries including the UK, Canada, Australia, Germany and the US promoted backyard gardening and chicken rearing to ensure food sufficiency for their war efforts? These initiatives were known as \"Victory Gardens\", encouraging citizens to grow food in backyards, rooftops, window boxes and vacant public lots. By 1944, Victory Gardens produced 40% of all vegetables grown in these countries, freeing up resources used in packaging and transportation while promoting better health through physical activity.
We can take a leaf out of this book, because now, with the fossil fuel shortage, we can also look into how hyper local farming and hyper local food sources can help to reduce the carbon footprint of our food chain.
While we are not at war now, and I hope we never will be, it does not mean we cannot learn from this historical context. In true Singaporean spirit of \"kiasu\", fear of losing, and \"kiasi\", fear of death, I see no harm in cultivating our citizens' green fingers en masse. It might come in handy one day, in creating viable hyper local community food gardens that can help to mitigate any supply chain crisis.
There is a growing community of nature and permaculture enthusiasts who genuinely wish to contribute to Singapore's food resilience. Understanding SFA's stance on this matter, would be beneficial as we forge alliances toward our common goals related to food resilience and safety. To this end, I would like to ask: will there be plans by the Ministry to evolve SFA's role beyond being merely a regulatory body? Can we envision an agency that collaborates with citizens – learning together and co-creating solutions for food resilience?
I sincerely hope SFA will work towards lowering barriers for community farming in the spirit of enabling greater citizen participation. I hope we can grow our collective knowledge and evolve Singapore's food system into a more inclusive and resilient one, enabling community-based food growing efforts to grow at scale. Notwithstanding these considerations, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Speaker, food safety and security are increasingly important concerns for our country. While I welcome the introduction of this Bill, I do have some questions for the Minister and I would like to share some concerns. I welcome the change in law providing for the increased flexibility for Singaporeans to import food of all types, save for a few specific items like animal blood.
For personal consumption, limited to 15 kilogrammes, doing away with existing rules, allowing Singaporeans to, say, bring home meat products from certain countries alone. I think the rule change makes good sense and allows Singaporeans to make decisions for themselves for their own personal consumption. I recall that on a constituency trip to Johor last year, a resident of mine happily bought a number of rice dumplings with pork, intending for family members to enjoy having first tried one and found them to be good. But she had to share the dumplings with fellow travellers for consumption before coming back to Singapore when she found out that she was not allowed to bring the dumplings into Singapore.
Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the good efforts of SFA in promoting and enhancing food safety in recent years, we continue to read of incidents of food poisoning arising from catered food. I know the tiering and enhancing of penalties and the strengthening of food safety regulatory framework beyond increasing penalties.
Can the Minister share with this House, what are the other efforts of SFA to promote best practices in the industry and minimise incidents of food poisoning? How can SFA engender a deeper appreciation of good food safety practices and ingrain a strong food safety culture among caterers and workers in the industry?
I will next turn to food security. Mr Speaker, over the Chinese New Year period in 2019, Malaysia banned the export of four species of fish to Singapore, as well as considered limiting egg imports here to Singapore. Shortly after that, at the Committee of Supply debates in March 2019, the then Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, Mr Masagos Zulkifli, told Parliament about SFA's grow local strategy to, I quote, \"reduce our reliance on imports and buffer the impact of overseas supply disruptions\". The stated aim was, I quote, \"to locally produce 30% of Singapore's nutritional needs by 2030\".
Last August, Senior Minister of State, Dr Koh Poh Koon, replied to Parliamentary Questions from myself and other Members of this House on the 30 by 30 vision, and gave some updates on our efforts to achieve the 30 by 30 vision. Among other things, he mentioned that the business climate has, since 2019, become less favourable due to factors such as COVID-19 pandemic, geopolitical tensions and inflation. He mentioned that during COVID-19 pandemic, an initial phase of reopening, our farms face a shortage of foreign workers and construction delays, and in a post pandemic period, inflation and energy price highs exacerbated by geopolitical tensions, as well as a more challenging financial environment have added to their challenges. Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon also said that, and I quote, \"the 30 by 30 vision has always been an aspiration.\"
While I note the challenges is mentioned, I do hope that the aspiration will not imply any buckling down from the Government's resolve to achieve its goal of locally producing 30% of Singapore's nutritional needs by 2030. It cannot be, because we need now more than before, to press on towards the goal in the next five years, in spite of the challenges.
Given the geopolitical economy and landscape now, more than before, we need to use to use Minister Masagos' words from five years ago to, I quote, \"strengthen climate resilience and overcome our resource constraints.\" Mr Speaker, many felt that the recently concluded 29th Conference of the Parties (COP29) have focused more on securing agreement for the carbon credit issue over the need to reduce carbon emissions.
At its current pace, the world's current Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) lead to about 2.7°C warming, far from the 1.5°C Paris Agreement target. Falling short of this target for 2030 is worrying for the world and for Singapore, as climate changes are ever visible everywhere in the world with more frequent and unexpected bad weather or serious weather pattern changes, including floods, droughts and so on.
One important consequence we are starting to see is how climate changes more frequently and adversely affect farming output, including aquaculture. The recent crop failures of cocoa and coffee beans worldwide leading to massive increase in prices is a good reminder of how climate changes can affect worldwide supply and pricing of staple foods. Black pod disease and extreme heat followed by heavy rain impacted cocoa yields, sending price increase from US$2,500 per tonne in March 2023 to US$10,000 a year later.
Temperature rises and lack of rainfall in Brazil led to price increase of Arabica coffee beans from US$1.5 per pound in October 2023 to US$2.5 per pound in July 2024. Price of Robusta coffee beans rose from US$2.60 per kilogramme in July 2023 to US$4.68 per kilogramme a year later due to one of the worst droughts in Vietnam.
Even rice, which is a stockpile item under the MSR in this current Bill, is highly vulnerable to climate change as it requires a high amount of water, is unable to withstand any drought and can only grow between 21°C to 37°C. Temperatures, in fact, above 35°C, can adversely affect yields. With the current global warming trajectory of 2.7°C, one cannot rule out rice yields being affected by weather changes in the coming years.
Many smaller states are disproportionately affected by climate change, as compared to bigger countries who have greater means and may prioritise their own climate change interest ahead of others. In COP29, many small states were disappointed that small states receive much less funding than required – US$300 billion instead of the US$1.3 trillion required. Some progress, but arguably insufficient for the Paris goals.
In this post-COVID world, the continual rise of protectionism worldwide, coupled with the lack of enforceable global frameworks, may likely see countries prioritising self-preservation and self-interest, leaving vulnerable small states like Singapore, who requires import of most of our food needs. If food-producing countries are affected by crop failures or declines brought about by climate changes, there may not be sufficient food exports and countries like Singapore will suffer by the drop in supply or even significant price increases, which will also bring financial hardship to our people. Likewise, geopolitical conflicts or tensions may also affect food production and exports, leading to similar consequences.
In short, the above circumstances underlie the increased importance of food security for Singapore in an increasingly uncertain world.
This Bill introduces the MSR regime. I can agree that the MSR regime will, in principle, be able to provide us with short-term food supply, especially in times of crisis, when for political or environmental reasons, fresh supplies of food are suddenly cut off from Singapore. However, the devil is in the details. Besides rice, which is already subject to the current rice stockpiling scheme, what other food will be required to be maintained under the MSR regime? Would the MSR regime eventually cover a full range of food items, providing for adequate nutritional and calorific requirements for every adult and child.
I heard Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon said in his speech just now that it will only be rice now. But what are the conditions that will enable the DG to decide on other food categories to be included under this regime?
The Bill also does not explicitly specify the required levels or thresholds under the MSR regime. Given that Singapore relies heavily on imported food supply, about 90% of our food supply, the MSR must be set at a level that can sustain our population during significant disruptions. Such risks can include pandemics, geopolitical tensions, export bans and climate-related shocks. Can the Minister share with the House what are the expected levels of stockpiling required under the MSR regime? I urge the Government to give some details to give assurance to Singaporeans of the sufficiency of the MSR stockpiles in times of crisis.
On the other hand, the MSR regime may impose significant burden on our food suppliers and importers. While the Bill is imposing penalties on businesses under the MSR regime, has the Government studied the financial impact the MSR regime may have on our Singapore suppliers and importers, especially our SMEs and local businesses? Will financial assistance, by way of grants or subsidies be given to SMEs to help them to comply with the MSR stockpile requirements? If so, what are these?
Beyond financial assistance for the additional stocks required to be stockpiled by businesses under the MSR regime, will the Government also provide direct financial assistance by way of grants or subsidies, or even actual warehouse space for the additional storage space for the mandated stockpile so that businesses will not be out of pocket. It is pertinent that Government should take steps to ensure that all compliant costs will not be passed on to the ultimate consumes.
Mr Speaker, I have asked in my Parliamentary Question in August last year how the Government will assist our agri-trade businesses in coping with business cost challenges as they play their part in the Government's 30 by 30 vision. Senior Minister of State Koh replied that SFA ensures that the ACT Fund remains relevant in meeting farms, business and growth needs. The Agri-food Cluster Transformation Fund is a $60 million fund in Singapore that supports local food producing companies in the agri-food sector. The Fund was established in April 2021 by the SFA to help local farms adopt advanced farming systems and technology.
Senior Minister of State Koh also said that the ACT Fund encourages our farms to invest in productive and resource-efficient technologies that can help to manage resource use and consequently, operating costs. He added that the SFA introduced the Energy Efficiency Programme in 2023 under this Fund to co-fund energy efficiency audits and adoption of energy-efficient equipment and technologies to help our farms better manage their energy costs for the longer term.
While I am sure that the ACT Fund has helped some businesses, I urge the Government to also consider giving assistance beyond capital expenses. This may be for farms which are not necessarily high technology or require assistance outside of technology or capability upgrades. Labour and rental costs are always a bugbear in Singapore.
Senior Minister of State Koh, in a reply to another Member of this House in August, was vehement against directly offsetting operating expenses, stating, and I quote, \"It will be something quite challenging because it could well end up having the perverse effect of paying for inefficient players offset their costs to the detriment of taxpayers money as well. So, we want to fund them so that whatever they do has durability and sustainability for the longer term and fundamentally changes the way the company operates for more sustainable future.\"
I understand this reasoning, but I still hope that the Government can do more to help our agri-businesses who are impacted by high operating expenses. Unlike other business sectors, the Government needs to find different ways to help our farms and agri-trade businesses to produce sufficiently so that they can, in turn, help Singapore to achieve the 30 by 30 vision for our food security. How can the Government do more to help our farms and businesses to supply the required products, given weather and other environmental constraints, higher production, labour and rental costs, which may make their products more expensive as compared to the same products from another country?
It would not be just any type of vegetables or fish that is easy and cheaper to grow or breed in Singapore. Our farm must supply part of the common basic food choices required by our own consumers. The global norm for our agriculture policies in developed country is to provide direct ongoing subsidies for farms to meet operation expenses tied to various goals, such as maintaining soil health, improving livestock management and reducing emissions. This can be seen in the EU member countries – Japan, Canada and New Zealand. Granted that our agriculture is on a different scale compared to these countries, but a little more help to our farms and businesses, where possible, even not on the same scale, can still help to push the needle for food security.
One of our residents has asked about the effectiveness of the current measure as taken by the Government. He asked that if the current Government initiatives are adequate or productive, why are local farms still struggling and, in some cases closing down? Indeed, those who are struggling or closing down, they cannot all be inefficient players. Our resident has also asked what are the additional steps which can be taken to ensure the sustainability and growth of local farms and whether there are gaps in the current approach that needs to be addressed to better support our local producers.
Mr Speaker, I also urge SFA to look into assisting our agri-businesses to secure seeds, feed and fertiliser. The same issues of food security for crops will also affect the security of seeds, feed and fertiliser. Without security of supply with stable pricing, this will also affect the ability of our agri-businesses to secure their production and ultimately, supply of food to Singaporeans, not to mention the survival of their businesses.
Mr Speaker, regardless of the challenges, we need to continue to push up our domestic food production. At the same time, there should be more bottom-up conversations with all stakeholders in the food sector to identify the pain points that each is facing, whether in farming, supplying or in procuring local produce. Minister Grace Fu, in a recent reply on12 November 2024 to a Parliamentary Question from my colleague, our Aljunied Member, Mr Gerald Giam, shared that the SFA has been supporting the industry in achieving greater offtake for local produce through various initiatives. She said that this included incorporating a criterion in Government procurement to give additional points to businesses who have undertaken sustainability initiatives, such as being recognised under the FTTRP for procuring locally grown produce. The additional points increase their chances of securing Government catering contracts, including those with key Government entities. I welcome these and other efforts she shared.
Indeed, to support Singapore's 30 by 30 goal of producing 30% of nutritional needs locally by 2030, efforts should focus on increasing uptake of locally produced food by major institutional buyers. These institutional buyers supply food to key government entities like the Singapore Armed Forces, public hospitals, Prisons, welfare homes and senior care centres and play critical roles in scaling demand for domestic food. Incentivising these major institutional food buyers through long-term contracts, contractual requirements or price support measures can make locally sourced products more competitive, promoting the market viability of Singapore's local food producers and enhancing national food security.
Minister Grace Fu also said our local agri-food sector also depends on consumer demand for their products, that consumers can play a part by choosing to purchase local produce, which can be easily recognised by the red SG Fresh Produce logo or on dine and food businesses under the FTTRP. I strongly agree with her when she said that local produce, I quote, \"Local produce is fresher, lasts longer and incurs less transport miles as it need not travel long miles or for long periods of time before reaching customers.\" For many years, this adage of incurring less air miles has been in our minds. Whenever my wife and I are buying groceries, we may not always be able to avoid buying foods from afar, but it does help to steer decisions to buy local products whenever they are available. Less air miles, my wife will always remind me.
Mr Speaker, in closing, I hope the Government will continue to spare no efforts to achieve its 30 by 30 vision to locally produce 30% of Singapore's nutritional needs by 2030. This should complement the new MSR regime, setting up food stockpiles. Notwithstanding my questions, I support this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Don Wee.
Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome the Ministry's decision to update and consolidate all food-related legislation in this Bill. The new regulatory framework will enhance our capabilities for food safety enforcement, support the growth of our local agri-food sector and bolster food security against potential supply disruptions caused by outbreaks, climate change or global conflicts. This is a timely and necessary step to ensure Singapore's resilience. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, Sir, the public remains deeply concerned about food safety, especially following last year's high-profile mass food poisoning cases affecting preschools and corporations. Parents, in particular, worry about the safety of their children. Beyond enforcement and increased penalties, what preventive measures will the new Bill introduce to mitigate future lapses? Are there provisions to address systemic gaps in hygiene practices or monitoring?
Additionally, while penalties serve as a deterrent, how does the Ministry determine their calibration to ensure they are neither excessively punitive for small businesses nor too lenient to deter large offenders?
For small food businesses, the transition to the new safety regime will likely result in increased compliance costs. This may disproportionately impact small operators, leading to challenges in adapting or passing costs on to consumers. How will the SFA provide guidance, subsidies or transitional support to ease their burden?
Food recalls, even when not caused by negligence, can severely disrupt small businesses. Could the Ministry introduce assistance schemes – such as grants, access to financing schemes or insurance programmes – to help these businesses recover swiftly and stay operational?
(In English): I am also concerned about the proposal to decriminalise failures by food workers to attend training. Training is essential to ensuring proper food handling practices. If individual accountability is removed, how will the SFA enforce compliance and incentivise food business licensees to send their workers for training? Should not both businesses and workers be held accountable to uphold food safety standards?
While the new limit of 15 kilogrammes on food imports for private consumption will delight some residents, there are correlated risks of heightened biosecurity threats. What measures will the Ministry implement to prevent the entry of contaminated or non-compliant food products? Will enhanced screening or consumer education be part of this change?
Lastly, home-based food businesses represent an important source of livelihood for many. Yet, these enterprises are not, currently, required to obtain licenses. How will the SFA work with these businesses to encourage food safety training and refresher courses? Could we provide affordable training options or incentives to raise safety standards across all food operators?
Mr Speaker, Sir, while I support the Bill for its comprehensive updates to food safety legislation, I urge the Ministry to carefully consider the concerns of households, small business owners and home-based operators. Addressing these concerns will ensure that the new framework enhances food safety without undue burdens on Singaporeans as well as the small business owners.
Mr Speaker: Ms Jean See.
Ms See Jinli Jean (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I commend the Ministry for introducing this comprehensive yet streamlined Bill. The Bill establishes food-related businesses' core obligations and responsibilities to workers, consumers, and other businesses in the agri-food supply chain. As important, the Bill reconciles new needs that emerge because of dynamic travel and trade landscapes and the evergreen priorities of food safety and food resilience.
Nonetheless, I seek clarity on three areas of impact to consumers and workers. Before I proceed, I would like to declare that I am also the Executive Secretary of the Food, Drinks and Allied Workers Union, the union for persons working in accommodation and food sectors.
First, section 124 outlines the direction for food vending machines and other equipment in respect of food safety. Could the Minister elaborate on the type of checks that the authorised officer or food inspector might undertake to determine if a food vending machine is in unclean or unsanitary condition as to make any food obtained from the machine unsafe or unsuitable, or likely to be unsafe or unsuitable?
To help consumers to exercise safe consumption, SFA might wish to consider requiring vending machine operators to display on a conspicuous part of the machine, the most recent date the machine was cleaned; and for highly perishable foods, such as cut-fruit, the \"sell-by\" date.
Second, the explanatory notes on Part 4 of the Bill had stated, \"Part 4 moves more towards emphasising preventative measures devised by the food business licensees themselves for ensuring food safety and hygiene along the licensee's entire food handling process.\"
Under this shift, some food businesses could be required to implement a food control plan of preventative measures, such as tailored safety and hygiene conditions and specific training plans for staff, to ensure the safety and suitability of the food in a food business' production process. Food businesses must also be able to trace food one step backwards and one step forwards. Implementing these requirements is a noble endeavour.
Yet, implementing these requirements could also be a tall order given the state of churn of food businesses in Singapore. The Business Times reported that close to 2,500 F&B businesses ceased operations in the first nine months of 2024, representing an increase of 19.7% over the whole of 2023. Thus, could the Minister share SFA's plans to ensure that persons setting up food businesses are made aware of the new requirements and geared up to implement the requirements, such as putting in place the training and processes to ensure that their workforce can implement and upkeep the requirements?
Last, in respect of section 92 that outlines the criteria for grant of food business license. Sub-section 4b states that a license applicant must have, “relevant knowledge, competency and experience in identifying, controlling, managing and eliminating or minimising hazards for the purpose of achieving safe and suitable food in carrying on that licensable food business.”
To this end, could the Minister share if SFA takes into consideration past employment contraventions of license applicants when assessing these applicants' suitability to operate food businesses? Especially if the applicant is intending to enter the food services sector, a sector under the progressive wage model, where practices must be strengthened if the sector is to be able to uplift Singaporean workers' skills and wages and enhance worker's safety and health.
To conclude, the Bill is timely and commendable. It charts the way forward for Singapore and its agri-food supply chain stakeholders and consumers to embrace a food safety culture and be assured of food security and resilience for the long-term. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I support the Food Safety and Security Bill. The Bill will update and consolidate existing rules and regulations related to food safety and security. With an overall framework, SFA can better strengthen and enforce the system for regulating food safety to protect public health.
I have some questions.
In order to strengthen our country's food security, in addition to the MSR that white rice importers must comply with under the current rice reserve program, SFA is considering requiring key food operators and farm feed suppliers other than for white rice to meet minimum stockpile requirements in the future. What factors will the authorities consider when implementing the new requirements?
This Bill aims to improve the level of procurement and production safety in the food industry, and also to increase the accountability of industry organisations in handling food, including record traceability, submission of food control plans and feed control plans.
May I ask the Minister, what are the main concerns of the food industry about this Bill when the authorities are conducting public consultations? What plans does SFA have for the challenges and problems they will face? Are there any measures to help the industry, especially small companies, adapt to the transition period and meet the requirements of the new food safety system?
Finally, could the Minister share his views on the impact these new requirements will have on the industry?
Mr Speaker: Mr Keith Chua.
Mr Keith Chua (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, firstly, I would like to declare I am an office bearer at the Restaurant Association of Singapore and also chairing a food service business.
Food safety practices have contributed to the success of food-based businesses in Singapore. Singaporeans, residents and visitors can be assured that operators are required, by law, to observe standards and practices that ensure all food sold is safe for consumption.
While the barrier to entry for establishing a food business is low, the basic licensing requirements hold operators responsible and accountable. The only exception would be home-based food businesses which fall outside current licensing requirements. The rationale to exclude home-based food business from requiring licensing relates to the scale of operations, being a smaller scale operation and, therefore, the resulting lower risk in the area of food safety issues.
Home-based food business is a helpful means, both as primary and supplementary sources of income. It encourages entrepreneurship. It also presents a low-cost means to test out whether a food and beverage concept or model is viable. I am glad the Government agencies continue to keep a light touch on this group of operators.
One result of this light touch is the lack of data, as anyone can start a home-based food business. Would the Minister consider some simple form of tracking the number of home-based food businesses? Could the Minister also clarify, whether an operator can establish a home-based food business in a second premise whether this is an owned or rented property? If so, are there any upper limits on the number of home-based food businesses an individual or family can operate without the requirement to be licensed?
It is clear that home-based food business must adhere to proper food safety practices and will be subject to enforcement should lapses occur. It would, therefore, be helpful for food-based operators to access courses on best practices relating to food safety and hygiene. This is currently not mandatory. Whether the food business requires a licence or is exempt, it would certainly be in the interest of the operator to observe proper safety standards for the business to thrive.
The Bill seeks to streamline some of the processes and also reduce compliances costs for food businesses that do require licensing. This is welcome news for an industry facing many areas of cost increases. Food operators should remain responsible in ensuring that the food safety standards are not diminished.
On the matter of food security. Food security is in our national interest. We are currently progressing toward our goal of producing 30% of our annual requirements by 2030.
Food businesses are prepared to play an increasing part in providing demand for local produce by including locally-sourced or grown products in the primary ingredients. Similarly, consumers are also willing to switch to local produce to bring the local supply chain to financially sustainable levels.
While some food operators have introduced successful farm to table or farm to fork concepts, these tend to be at the higher price end. For operators whose concepts fall more in the mass market, or middle or lower price end, there are possibly two factors currently limiting the switch to local produce. One is the matter of price as local produce will compete with produce from other sources of supply. The other is the ability to supply in sufficient quantities.
As we will need to bridge this phase together, could the Minister kindly update us whether there will be further assistance considered for the producers as they transition toward a sustainable business level? Also, will food operators who support local suppliers be considered for some form of support or subsidy until suppliers can reach economies of scale and, therefore, become more price competitive?
Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I support this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Suspension of Standing Orders to Allow Senior Minister of State to Speak More Than Once","subTitle":"Suspension of Standing Orders","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(3) to allow Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon to speak more than once?
In the course of debate, Members of Parliament have directed queries to the Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon. I therefore wish to move this Motion so that the Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon can respond to Members' queries on the specific elements of the Bill and related matters.
Mr Speaker: I give my consent. Does the Leader of the House have the general assent of hon Members present to so move?
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
[(proc text) With the consent of Mr Speaker and the general assent of Members present, (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, That the proceedings under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(3) to enable Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon to speak more than once. – [Ms Indranee Rajah.] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Food Safety and Security Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Poon.
Dr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Speaker, I thank Members for their support and feedback for the Bill. Some Members have also sought clarifications, which largely revolve around three themes.
First, how the Bill will consolidate and enhance food safety requirements. I will address clarifications on how these apply for certain types of food businesses, worker training and food recalls, while the Minister will address clarifications relating to the supply of food, such as implications for donated food.
Second, how the Bill will help us prepare for emerging challenges in safeguarding food security. I will address questions about the MSR and FMP.
Third, how we will support the industry and collaborate with stakeholders in the transition towards the updated food safety and security regime.
First, on how the FSSB will consolidate and enhance food safety requirements. Mr Louis Ng said there might be subjectivity in determining novel foods as defined in the Bill and asked if the Ministry could provide more guidance on this. He also asked about plans for publicity and education to the industry and consumers on defined foods that have obtained pre-market approval.
Sir, since 2019, SFA has put in place a novel food regulatory framework to ensure that only novel food which is safe for human consumption can be manufactured, imported, distributed, or sold in Singapore. When in doubt on whether a food or food ingredient is considered a novel food in the first place, companies should consult SFA to discuss the available evidence on the history of safe use that they have compiled.
Companies that intend to supply novel food are required to seek SFA's pre-market approval. To obtain pre-market approval, companies must conduct and submit safety assessment of the novel food for SFA's review. The safety assessments should cover potential food safety risks such as toxicity, allergenicity, safety of the production methods used and dietary exposure arising from consumption.
To assist companies in this journey, SFA has published and regularly updates the guidance document on novel food safety assessment requirements on its website. Companies can also consult SFA or sign up for the bi-monthly Novel Food Virtual Clinics to better understand SFA's requirements. SFA will continue to ensure that sufficient clarity is provided to industry through direct engagements with novel food companies, as well as through the updating of guidance documents online.
Following pre-market approval, the novel food at hand will no longer remain as a defined food and can be made available for consumption as food by the general public. SFA currently already publishes information on approved GM food and will also be publishing information on the identities of approved novel foods on its website. This is intended to help interested consumers and industry better identify these approved novel food and GM food.
Mr Don Wee asked how SFA will work with home-based food businesses, which are non-licensable, to ensure food safety standards. As I explained in my opening speech, SFA takes a risk-based approach. Home-based food businesses are allowed by the Housing and Development Board and the Urban Redevelopment Authority to operate only on a small scale. This limits the scale of food production and preparation, and food sold, making the associated food safety risks low. As such, home-based food businesses are not required to be licensed by SFA. In response to Mr Keith Chua, SFA does not, therefore, track the number of home-based food businesses.
While there is no requirement to be licensed, home-based food businesses must not sell unsafe food or food prepared under unsanitary conditions. Directions can be given to a home-based food business to stop its activities if they are assessed to threaten food safety. This is the law today and the FSSB does not change this.
In addition, clause 104 prohibits an unlicensed food business from undertaking certain activities. These disallowed activities will be set out by SFA in regulations. These will consist of higher risk activities such as the supply of sashimi, which is uncooked.
The best way for home-based food businesses to ensure that food prepared and sold is safe for consumption is to observe food safety practices. SFA has provided guidelines on food safety and hygiene practices for home-based food businesses online, and I encourage home-based food businesses to refer to them.
Home-based food businesses are also encouraged to enrol in food safety courses to be equipped with essential food safety knowledge and skills for correct food handling. A list of these courses, including those that are subsidised for Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents by SkillsFuture Singapore, can be found on the MySkillsFuture website.
On food workers, Mr Don Wee said that both food businesses and workers should be held accountable to uphold food safety standards and expressed concern over decriminalising failures by food workers to attend training. I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Don Wee that training in proper food handling is a key contributor to ensuring safe food. The approach taken under the FSSB considers that adequate training of food workers can be best ensured by the food business, which supervises and has oversight of its food workers. Often, food workers come and go. It may not be reasonable to expect new food workers entering the industry to know what kind of training is required.
Ensuring trained food workers is not a new responsibility for food businesses. Currently, licensed food businesses are already required to ensure their workers are trained before deploying them.
That said, we agree that food workers also have a responsibility in ensuring food safety. So, I want to assure Mr Don Wee that even while we are decriminalising failure by food worker to attend food handling training, clause 130 will allow the DG (FA), in appropriate cases, to issue directions directly to the food worker to enable targeted interventions where the food safety lapse is due entirely to the worker. This includes undergoing training or re-training. The food worker directed will be committing an offence by refusing to go for the training.
Ms Carrie Tan asked about our position on the sharing of produce from community gardens. Whether this is considered as \"supply\" under the Bill would depend on the context. In general, community gardens are small in scale and growers typically keep the produce for personal consumption. They may also sometimes share the fruits of their labour with their families and friends. The Bill makes an exception for such situations, as outlined in clause 8.
Those who produce edible plants at a larger scale, for sale or to distribute to others whom they do not have a personal relationship with, will be considered to be engaged in the activity of \"supply\". The food safety and suitability requirements would hence apply to such groups.
Ms Carrie Tan also asked if there are guidelines for those in the community who grow and share food. NParks publishes online, good food safety practices when growing edibles. Those who are interested can find out more on NParks' GardeningSG portal.
Ms Carrie Tan gave the example of chickens being used in farms to help till soil and provide organic fertiliser, and asked about the considerations behind exempting licensing for community gardens only when their monthly production volume is less than 200 kilogrammes and there is no use of human excreta, or raw animal or bird excreta as manure, as well as pesticides, during the cultivation process.
SFA's principal consideration in regulating primary production activity is to minimise the risks to human health from agri-food production inputs including fertilisers. We consider a monthly production volume of 200 kilogrammes per month or less as small scale, which limits the extent of the potential food safety impact. As I explained before, we are taking a risk-based approach.
Regarding pesticides, there is a potential food safety risk from the transfer of harmful chemical residues and other contaminants to humans from the consumption of plants that are cultivated with the unsafe use of pesticides. Pesticide misuse is a food safety concern and hence, the registration of pesticides used on edible plants and the certification of pesticide operators are covered under Part 11.
Lastly, the use of human excreta or raw animal or bird excreta as farm manure is prohibited to minimise food safety risks related to microbial contamination.
Ms Carrie Tan also asked if wild chickens can be integrated into community gardens to support local farming efforts. This matter is outside the scope of the Bill, but I will briefly address the question, with the Speaker's permission, of course, so as to keep this debate relevant to the House.
In accordance with the Animals and Birds (Prevention of Avian Disease in Non-commercial Poultry) Rules, no person shall keep more than 10 non-commercial poultry in any premise to mitigate the risk of spread of avian disease and to safeguard human and animal health. So, that explains why there are some prohibitions in place.
Mr Don Wee expressed concern on the impact of food recalls on small businesses and asked if the Ministry could introduce assistance schemes to help them recover and stay operational. I thank Mr Wee for his question. And indeed, food recalls, while necessary to ensure that food products that are found to be unsafe for consumption do not remain in the market, can have costly consequences for food businesses, affecting their reputation, productivity and profit margin. The potential impact from recalls would hopefully encourage greater vigilance by businesses.
Traceability and record-keeping can help minimise the cost impact from recalls as they would be better able to identify the affected products and avoid having to recall more than necessary. The FSSB takes a calibrated approach by requiring only businesses that are key food distribution nodes to take on traceability and record-keeping, but businesses are encouraged to do so even if it is not required under the law.
Apart from strengthening food product traceability, food manufacturers, importers and distributors can scrutinise and verify partners and processes within their supply chain and ensure that food products comply with the relevant regulations, for example, food safety standards and proper labelling. These proactive actions can help to mitigate the likelihood of recalls.
Ms Jean See asked about SFA's plans to ensure that food business licence applicants are made aware of and geared up to implement the Food Control Plan requirements. Currently, food businesses are already required to meet prescriptive requirements to ensure food safety as part of their licensing requirements.
Under the Bill, food businesses that are prescribed to require a Food Control Plan will have the flexibility to decide on the preventative measures suited to their operational needs, and this should not add significant compliance burden to them. SFA will also provide information and guidance documents to facilitate compliance to regulations.
Ms Jean See asked if SFA takes into consideration past employment contraventions of food business licence applicants while assessing their suitability to operate food businesses. Yes, that will certainly be the case. As per clause 92, SFA will consider, among other factors, whether the applicant has been subject to regulatory action or convicted of relevant offences; whether the applicant or their associate is or was disqualified from holding the same licence or another licence; as well as the applicant's compliance history as it relates to the licensable food business.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the necessity of separating the health promotion provisions from the Sale of Food Act and including them in the Bill. Minister of State Rahayu has addressed this in her opening speech earlier. So, I will not further talk about this.
Second, on how the Bill will help us to prepare for emerging challenges in safeguarding food security. There were a number of questions on the MSR. I will take them together here.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Mr Louis Ng and Mr Dennis Tan asked about the factors that MSE or SFA would consider in imposing MSR on entities dealing with essential food items other than rice, or agri-food production inputs; and in fixing the MSR quantity. Mr Dennis Tan and Ms He Ting Ru also asked on the types of food which will be required to be maintained under the MSR, and if medium-term guidance can be given to MSR entities. Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Dennis Tan expressed concern with the potential impact of MSR on the food industry, including local farms and importers. Mr Louis Ng also asked if the Ministry would put in place measures to ensure that MSR does not increase the risk of food wastage.
In deciding whether to require certain industry players to hold a certain level of foods or agri-food production inputs in Singapore to mitigate the risk of agri-food supply disruptions, the DG (FS) will consider matters that can affect the supply resilience of essential food items or agri-food production inputs in Singapore. These matters are outlined in clause 18(1) and clause 25 and includes food security factors such as global food availability, local production capacity, and range of supply sources, which can affect the supply of the item, as well as local consumption patterns and preferences, which can influence the demand of the item. This will enable us to subject essential food items or agri-food production inputs to stockpiling requirements, if the need arises in the future.
And as I had shared earlier, there are no immediate plans to extend MSR to entities other than rice importers, or to commodities beyond rice. If there is a need to extend MSR to other food items or agri-food production inputs, we will engage the relevant stakeholders before doing so and give MSR entities sufficient lead time to comply with the requirements.
Before the MSR is imposed, SFA will support relevant MSR entities in making preparations to ensure that they have the capacity to meet their MSR obligations.
Currently, the Government already works closely with the industry to maintain rice stocks under the Rice Stockpile Scheme. This has served us well by ensuring that Singaporeans never face shortage, even during the COVID-19 pandemic when supply chains were disrupted.
For rice importers, the transitioning of the Rice Stockpile Scheme to the MSR scheme should pose minimal compliance burden to them. Rather, the design of the MSR, such as the \"daily MSR\" and the \"average MSR\", aims to provide the industry with more operational flexibility. This will allow the rice importers to more effectively manage and churn their rice stocks, which will help to reduce wastage. Given that the rice stocks are commercially-owned, it will be in the commercial interest of the MSR entities to do so.
Ultimately, stockpiling provides a cushion against food supply disruptions and provides some degree of assurance to Singaporeans. It also enhances our ability to manage the impacts of food supply disruptions by buying us time for supply chains to recover or to bring in alternative supplies. Such a scheme is akin to an insurance policy for food security and must naturally come with an insurance premium. The Government will review our food supply resilience situation regularly to ensure a careful balance between how we deploy MSR to meet our national food security needs and the potential costs to the industry.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked if the FMP will end up incurring higher costs for our local farms to adhere to the requirements. Under the new approach, as proposed under the Bill, farms are not constrained by prescriptive requirements to ensure food safety in their primary production activity. Instead, the farms are empowered to design and implement an FMP tailored to the specific needs of their business. In my opening speech, I mentioned that farmers will need to come up with their methods and processes addressing the key areas of waste, feed, fish stocking, biosecurity and disease management.
Clearly, failing to plan is planning to fail. Our aquaculture farms have been hit by toxic algal blooms before and would know the devastation that this causes. With better management of farms, we expect that farms would be far less likely to experience such incidents. The FMP would also be important to promote sustainable farm practices and the long-term viability of farm sites. Aquaculture players I spoke to agreed that a well-managed fish farm that protects the marine environment will also ensure the safety of other nearby farms and protect the industry as a whole. After all, they all share the same body of water.
Farms are responsible for ensuring the processes in their FMP are followed. Farms can revise the FMP, subject to SFA's agreement, to adapt to changing conditions or operational needs. This flexibility helps farms to stay resilient and responsive to evolving challenges while maintaining necessary standards.
Earlier, I also mentioned that the FMP implementation will be phased to allow time for transition. SFA will provide the necessary support to help existing farms adjust to the requirement to have an FMP, such as through SFA's collaboration with Temasek Polytechnic's Aquaculture Innovation Centre to conduct training to guide farms and the rolling out of the Aquatic Animal Health Service in August 2023.
Additionally, we have worked with the Singapore Standards Council on the development of Good Agricultural Practice, Good Aquaculture Practice, and Clean and Green standards. These standards will provide valuable guidance that farms can refer to when developing and implementing their FMPs.
I thank Members, Ms He Ting Ru and Mr Keith Chua, for their remarks on local production. While this is out of the scope of FSSB, I want to assure Members that SFA is committed to supporting our local farms to grow food in a productive, climate-resilient and resource-efficient way. Over the years, we have increased support to our farms for energy-efficiency and productivity transformation. We will also continue to support the industry in achieving greater offtake of local produce through various initiatives, such as working with the Singapore Agro-Food Enterprises Federation Limited to facilitate long-term commercial contracts between farmers and food businesses.
Third, on how we will support the industry and collaborate with stakeholders in the transition towards the updated food safety and security regime. Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked about the concerns raised during consultation with the industry and how SFA and MSE incorporated the feedback into the Bill.
SFA has been engaging the industry since 2023 via a series of in-person engagement sessions, during the drafting of the Bill. A total of 1,500 companies, associations and entities have been consulted. Public consultation also took place in tranches between March and September 2024. MSE and SFA received feedback from 112 respondents via REACH and 260 participants who attended the in-person engagement sessions. Public consultations on health promotion and marketing offences, led by MOH, received feedback from 17 respondents via REACH.
There was general support for the Bill's provisions and most comments related to clarifications on the scope of the requirements, for example, the responsibilities imposed on food delivery companies and when the new requirements would take effect. SFA published responses to these questions on 11 November 2024.
We have incorporated the feedback received in the Bill, where relevant. For example, we amended the definition of novel food for clarity by excluding food additives; and including a qualifier that material of mineral origin, such as rock salt, will not be considered novel food. This was in response to clarifications from the industry on the definition of \"novel food\".
We included a provision to allow Minister to declare by order in the Gazette any substance or a mixture of substances that are not plant pesticides. This would allow the exclusion of predatory insects, predatory mites, parasitoids and nematodes that prey on and eliminate plant insects, from the definition of \"plant pesticides\".
Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked about the likely impact to the industry arising from the additional requirements and how the Government plans to facilitate the industry's transition towards the new regulatory framework. Mr Don Wee also asked if SFA will provide guidance, subsidies or transitional support to ease the burden of compliance costs on small food businesses to transition to the updated food safety regime.
I understand Members' concern about the potential cost impact of these requirements, especially for small businesses.
First, the implementation of the various measures in the Bill will be staged. Second, the Bill provides flexibility for SFA to take a calibrated approach in imposing requirements to suit the operating context of different types of food businesses. For example, some licensed food businesses will be required to have a Food Control Plan and the components of the plan for smaller-scale operations would be much fewer and simpler than that for larger-scale operations like food caterers. In prosecuting food safety lapses, SFA will also consider the impact on public health, such as the number of people affected, in prosecutions. Finally, many of the requirements will not be new to businesses and are already implemented today. The simplification and consistency that the Bill brings would reduce regulatory complexity for businesses, which would reduce the cost and compliance costs.
As I mentioned earlier, the food security requirements would also help businesses strengthen their resilience. I had also shared some of the support measures SFA would implement to support the industry through the transition, such as guidance documents and training. Businesses which need support in implementing systems, such as inventory management systems, could tap productivity-boosting technological solutions, such as the Industry Digital Plans launched by the Infocomm Media Development Authority and the Productivity Solutions Grant.
Ms Carrie Tan pointed out that collaborating with citizens would be beneficial for food resilience and asked if there are plans to evolve SFA's role beyond that of a regulator. In fact, SFA today already plays a role beyond that of a regulator. SFA works closely with the industry to develop capabilities in various areas, from food safety measures to growing local produce. SFA also has public outreach programmes to educate the public about food safety and resilience matters, for example, the steps the public can take during food disruptions.
That said, regulations are important. Regulations can provide greater clarity, assurance and public trust, which can, in turn, promote industry development and build an innovative ecosystem.
Let me conclude. Building food safety and security is a long-term endeavour, one that requires the collective effort of the Government, industry and consumers. The COVID-19 pandemic and recent geopolitical tensions have laid bare the fragility of global food supply chains. I thank Members for recognising the importance of taking steps to assure our nation's food resilience, particularly in the face of emerging challenges. This Bill provides a solid foundation for all stakeholders to continue to work together towards a safe and secure food supply in Singapore.
Mr Speaker: Minister Grace Fu.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Speaker, Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon has addressed some of the Members' clarifications. Let me respond to the remaining questions.
Mr Louis Ng asked whether the supply of food that is past its labelled date is permissible under the Bill in any circumstances. An example cited was a retailer permitting an individual to take expired food for their individual consumption.
Food manufacturers locally and overseas use a variety of date marks on their packaging. This includes date marks, such as \"Use by\" and \"Best Before\", which are used by different jurisdictions and are internationally accepted terms under the Codex General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods. Under the Bill, \"outdated\" food will be considered \"unsuitable\" food, the supply of which will not be permitted. The meaning of what constitutes \"outdated\" relates to date marking requirements and will be prescribed by Subsidiary Legislation.
To guide the future Subsidiary Legislation on date marking, SFA is conducting a study on the feasibility and implications of differentiating the various date marks, based on their relevance to food safety risks. This would allow SFA to prescribe only date marks indicating that the food may have become unsafe for consumption as \"outdated\". SFA targets to complete the study before the relevant Part of the Bill comes into force.
To Mr Louis Ng's question about the Government's efforts on food waste reduction, this is not within the scope of the Bill, but I will briefly address the question, with Speaker's permission. The preferred way to manage food waste is upstream, before the food becomes close to being \"unsuitable\" or \"unsafe\". It is in the interest of the businesses to optimise the turnover of their inventory and to minimise food waste and unsold food. Retailers should contribute to reducing food waste in a safe manner, by ensuring surplus food given away is not \"outdated\".
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked how clause 144 of the Bill interacts with the Good Samaritan Food Donation Act and whether volunteers and donors will continue to be shielded from penalties for unintended oversights. Mr Yip also noted the penalties in clauses 29 to 31 and 144 to 146, and asked if exemptions and safeguards will be in place to protect well-intentioned individuals contributing to food security.
This Bill and the Good Samaritan Food Donation Act are complementary. The purpose of the Good Samaritan Food Donation Act is to offer food donors protection from criminal liability, such as under clauses 144, 145 and 146, and civil liability, which would in turn encourage donation of surplus food and reduce food waste. However, the protection cannot be absolute as the health of the consumers, similarly, needs protection. So, section 4 of the Good Samaritan Food Donation Act outlined the conditions that donors have to comply with. Clause 164 explicitly states that the defences in the Good Samaritan Food Donation Act are available against offences in the Bill.
To better support food donors, SFA will be publishing an updated Guidelines for Food Donation on its website later this month. The guidelines will contain a list of food safety practices to help food donors ensure that their donated food is safe for consumption. For example, maintaining a process to check that the food they are donating is safe and suitable for consumption; and adhering to safe food handling requirements, such as temperature control and hygienic food handling practices. SFA will continue to engage food donor bodies to raise awareness on safe food donation-related matters, including proper understanding of date labels on food products.
Mr Don Wee asked about the measures to prevent the entry of contaminated or non-compliant food products under the private consumption limit.
SFA takes a risk-based approach to our food safety regime. The allowable limit under the private consumption takes into consideration the small quantity which limits its distribution potential and food safety risks. However, we recognise that some food types, such as game meat or animal blood products, could pose greater risk to consumers and public health. Such food are of higher regulatory concern and are not allowed to be brought in under the private consumption limit. We encourage consumers to exercise caution when purchasing food from overseas. SFA will raise public awareness on the potential food safety risks associated with consuming overseas food products brought in by travellers.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked if the Bill permits the selling, gifting or donation of excess food brought in under the private consumption allowance and whether SFA has the capability to enforce the prohibition of selling the food brought in under private consumption. He also suggested collaborations with e-commerce platforms to monitor and regulate transactions.
Clause 160 makes clear that any food brought in under the private consumption allowance cannot be sold or donated. Gifting of such food is also restricted to that carried out as part of a personal relationship, as distribution beyond which, such as through sale or donation channels, will increase the food safety risks. Consumers should exercise discretion and only purchase what they can reasonably consume. SFA will monitor the situation and review our enforcement periodically.
Mr Don Wee expressed concerns about the mass food poisoning cases last year and asked about the preventive measures the Bill will introduce to assure consumers on food safety. Mr Dennis Tan asked whether there are other efforts to promote food safety besides penalties and licence suspensions.
SFA adopts a science-based risk management approach to safeguard food safety, consistent with international standards. As part of SFA’s import control regime, SFA accredits import sources for higher-risk food such as meat and eggs. SFA then inspects, samples, and tests food imports based on their risk profile, and may require the treatment, destruction or re-export of food that fails checks. The Bill will provide powers for SFA to establish inspection schemes, to identify food and other controlled items which require prior clearance for import, what is needed for this clearance, and the different levels of inspection for specific hazards.
At the retail level, food businesses such as restaurants and caterers must ensure cleanliness of their premises and the safe preparation and handling of food. SFA may impose certain requirements on licensed food businesses, such as on the design and cleanliness of the premises or equipment. Similarly, taking a risk-based approach, SFA will conduct inspections based on risk profiles of the premises and food sold, and track records of past infringements. The Bill will also require food businesses to put in place upstream preventive measures through Food Control Plans.
SFA works closely with sectoral agencies, such as the Early Childhood Development Agency for preschools and MOH for nursing homes, on guidelines and regulations to protect these communities from food safety incidents. This includes the sharing of good food handling practices and food safety management systems such as the design and management of in-house kitchens to uphold food safety practices. SFA also conducts training for sectoral agencies, to strengthen their capabilities in assessing food safety risks associated with food production and preparation on their premises.
SFA requires food businesses to ensure that their employees have adequate capability in ensuring food safety. All employees who handle food must be trained and have passed the Workforce Skills Qualifications Food Safety Course Level 1 before carrying on work as a food worker. Food businesses with higher food safety risk, such as caterers, are also required to appoint Food Hygiene Officers to assist the food businesses in establishing and maintaining proper food safety system.
Mr Don Wee asked how we are calibrating the penalties to ensure that they are neither excessively punitive for small businesses nor too lenient to deter large offenders. The penalties are intended to deter egregious behaviour to safeguard public health. Hence, the penalty framework is organised around severity and threat to public health, culpability of offences and circumstances of the breach, instead of size of business. The maximum fine quantum of $50,000 takes reference from the Wholesome Meat and Fish Act, which today already provides for a maximum fine of $50,000 for offenders who sell meat or fish that is unfit for human consumption. While the Bill puts in place the penalty framework, ultimately the actual penalty for each offence will be decided by the Courts.
To avoid being overly punitive, lapses of less serious nature, such as a breach of licensing conditions, will be decriminalised. However, such transgressions will still be subjected to penalties under SFA’s licensing framework. Specifically, any of these defaults will form a ground for regulatory action by SFA, which can range from suspension or cancelling the licence to imposing a financial penalty of up to $5,000 per contravention.
On the expanded scope of directions, Ms Jean See asked about the type of checks that the authorised officer or food inspector might undertake to determine if a food vending machine is in unclean or unsanitary condition as to make any food from the machine unsafe or unsuitable, or likely to be unsafe or unsuitable. She also suggested for SFA to consider requiring vending machine operators to display on the machine the most recent date the machine was cleaned, and for highly perishable food, the “sell-by” date.
SFA takes a risk-based approach to regulating food vending machines. Operators of food vending machines are required to hold SFA licences if the machines have in-machine food processing functions, or sell raw meat or seafood, given the higher potential food safety risks involved.
Under the Bill, licensed operators will be required to put in place a Food Control Plan, which would include regular cleaning and maintenance regime to ensure the machine is kept in clean, hygienic, and good working condition. Companies may wish to adopt Ms See’s suggestion of displaying the most recent date of cleaning, to better track the implementation of their cleaning regime. Operators must also display their SFA licence and contact number on the machines to facilitate the provision of feedback by the public.
SFA conducts checks on food vending machines, to ensure food safety. This includes ensuring that the machines are clean, pest-free and that the storage temperatures within the machines are in accordance with the regulations. SFA will investigate if there are suspected food safety lapses and, where necessary, take the relevant enforcement actions.
Mr Speaker, Singapore’s journey for food safety and security has been one of adaptability and agility. While we have come far in this journey, the food industry has and will continue to see new opportunities, and face new challenges. The Bill will strengthen food safety to better protect consumers; reduce regulatory complexity, thereby increasing ease of doing business, reducing compliance cost, and supporting industry innovation and growth; and enable effective responses to food safety and security threats.
Ultimately, safe and secure food is existential; it is essential to the normal functioning of our daily lives, our economy, our security, our entire society. This is the significance of this Bill. I call on all Members of the House to give your support to this Bill.
Mr Speaker: It is late. Does any Member have clarifications for the two Ministries? No?
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee. (proc text)]
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
The Chairman: Minister I think this is one of the thickest Bills we have had for a while. The citation year \"2024\" will be changed to \"2025\" as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.
[(proc text) Clauses 1 to 405 ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The First and Second Schedules ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Customs (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"Mr Speaker: Second Minister for Finance.
The Second Minister for Finance (Mr Chee Hong Tat): Mr Speaker, I move, “that the Bill be now read a Second time.”
Sir, the Ministry of Finance and Singapore Customs regularly review the Customs Act to ensure that it remains up to date and in line with policy intent. The Customs Act was last amended in 2018. Since then, we have carried out another review and propose further amendments to the Act in two areas.
The first set of amendments seeks to improve the effectiveness of Singapore Customs’ regulatory and enforcement operations. The second will introduce new offence provisions and enhance the penalties for specified offences. These amendments will enable Singapore Customs to more effectively carry out its mandate of trade facilitation and revenue protection and ensure that bad actors are deterred from committing offences under the Customs Act.
Mr Speaker, the first set of amendments will grant additional powers to Singapore Customs to improve their operational effectiveness. First, we will give the Director-General of Singapore Customs the power to authorise auxiliary police officers, or APOs, to exercise powers of search, arrest and seizure.
Today, only officers who are directly employed by Singapore Customs can exercise these powers. However, Singapore Customs also engages APOs to support its enforcement operations, and APOs will need to be granted these powers to perform their duties effectively.
And this is in line with the practice in other public agencies, such as the Health Sciences Authority, the Land Transport Authority, and the National Environment Agency, who are able to appoint APOs as authorised officers under their respective legislation to exercise similar powers.
Second, we will grant Singapore Customs the legal power to require licensees to remove all dutiable goods from licensed warehouses before the expiry or withdrawal of their licences.
Today, the Licensed Warehouse scheme allows licensed companies to store imported dutiable goods in a designated premise known as a Licensed Warehouse, with duty and the Goods and Services Tax on these goods suspended. To qualify for this scheme, companies must meet requirements including having good compliance records and ensuring the security of the dutiable goods.
In the absence of any legislative lever today, Singapore Customs has no legal powers to compel these companies to remove their goods when the company’s license expires or is withdrawn. Hence, the amendment will make it a requirement for licensees to remove all dutiable goods from the warehouse even before the expiry or the withdrawal of their licence, failing which, Singapore Customs will have the legal powers to remove and dispose of all dutiable goods from the warehouse, and recover any costs incurred for the removal and disposal of these goods.
Third, we will provide officers of customs with the power to stop and conduct searches on the belongings of a person that is committing or is reasonably suspected to have committed an offence under the Customs Act.
Today, officers of customs can only exercise the power of search on persons under three narrowly prescribed conditions: one, when a person is arriving in Singapore; two, when a person is suspected to be in possession of a bribe; and three, when a person has been arrested for an offence under the Customs Act.
However, these conditions are too restrictive for situations when officers of customs conduct inland operations. For instance, officers of customs may receive tip-offs of persons suspected to be in possession of and illegally selling duty unpaid cigarettes in a particular part of Singapore.
These suspects are not arriving in Singapore, so they do not meet Condition 1 to invoke search; and they are not suspected to be in possession of a bribe, so they do not meet Condition 2. As for Condition 3, while an officer of customs can arrest an individual to invoke the power of search, an arrest would be a high signature move which can have a significant impact on the person involved.
In some cases, arresting the individual may not be necessary if the officer wants to first verify whether an offence has been committed. Hence, it is more effective to amend the law to give officers of customs the legal powers to conduct searches before assessing whether an arrest should be made. All in all, this amendment will allow Singapore Customs to conduct their inland enforcement operations more effectively.
Fourth, we will grant Singapore Customs the legal power to seize computers or associated devices, mobile communication devices and cash that are reasonably believed to be connected to offences under the Customs Act. In the course of enforcement operations and investigations, it may be necessary for officers of customs to seize such devices and cash proceeds as these may be used as evidence to prosecute the offender under the Customs Act.
Sir, let me now move on to the second set of amendments, which seeks to introduce two new offence provisions and enhance the penalties for specified offences.
First, we will introduce a new offence provision to penalise individuals who allow their premises or vehicles to be used to commit an offence under the Customs Act. This will more effectively deter individuals from committing an offence or taking actions that assist others in the commission of an offence.
For example, there have been cases where individuals repeatedly allowed their premises or vehicles to be used by criminal syndicates to store or transport duty unpaid goods. These individuals then claim innocence by saying that they did not know their actions had helped to facilitate the commission of offences. With this amendment, Singapore Customs will be able to take action against such individuals, unless they are able to show that they had exercised due care in respect of the actions in question.
Second, we will also introduce a new offence provision for acts of altering, suppressing, concealing or destroying any books, documents or other records with the intent of obstructing investigations under the Customs Act.
Today, such acts are considered offences under the Penal Code, but not the Customs Act. This means that when officers of Customs encounter such acts, Singapore Customs will need to refer offenders to the Singapore Police Force (SPF) for investigation. The proposed amendment to include this offence under the Customs Act will allow Singapore Customs to investigate these cases directly and decide on the necessary follow-up actions without referring these cases to the SPF.
Third, we will enhance the penalties for some offences, to strengthen their deterrent effect. For offences involving the evasion of duties, where the amount of duty cannot be ascertained, we will increase the maximum fine from $5,000 to $10,000. This aligns the maximum fine with that of other similar offences under the Customs Act.
For specified offences under section 128 of the Customs Act, such as those related to fraudulent evasion and possession or storage of uncustomed or prohibited goods, we will provide for the option for the Courts to impose an imprisonment term in addition to the current penalty of a fine.
Mr Speaker, in sum, the amendments in this Bill will enable Singapore Customs to carry out their regulatory and enforcement operations more effectively and strengthen the deterrent effect for offences under the Customs Act. These efforts will ultimately strengthen Singapore's status as a trusted and thriving trade hub. Mr Speaker, I seek to move.
Mr Speaker: Are there any clarifications? No.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Chee Hong Tat]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee. (proc text)]
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
The Chairman: The citation year \"2024\" will be changed to \"2025\" as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.
[(proc text) Clauses 1 to 16 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to a date to be fixed.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah.] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tackling Occupational Diseases for a Healthier Workforce","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to table my third Adjournment Motion related to workplace safety and health (WSH) and it is not on the right to disconnect.
In August 2022, I spoke about the need for us to prioritise the safety of every worker, as companies sought to clear the backlog of work caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. In September 2023, I spoke about the importance of keeping workplaces safe beyond the heightened safety period. Since then, thanks to the work put in by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), the unions and our employers, our workplace fatal injury rate has dropped to 1.0 per 100,000 workers in 2023 and this continued into the first half of 2024.
My speech today will focus on an aspect of WSH that is often overlooked. This aspect of WSH is not as acute as workplace injuries and fatalities but can become as debilitating as injuries and mental health issues. I am referring to Occupational Diseases (ODs), a \"silent terror\" at the workplace.
ODs are health conditions caused by risk factors at the workplace. ODs not only cause debilitating effects but can have lasting negative effects on a worker's earning ability, productivity and employability. Some examples of ODs include noise-induced deafness due to exposure to excessive workplace noise and work-related musculoskeletal disorder due to physical factors, such as lifting heavy loads or working in awkward postures for extended periods of time. These two types of ODs made up more than 90% of our local OD cases reported in 2023 and the first half of 2024.
According to national WSH statistics released by MOM, there were over 1,200 cases of OD reported in 2023, a 17% increase from 2022; and about 473 reported cases in the first half of 2024. The increase in the number of reported cases over the past two years is the result of ongoing efforts to detect OD cases through enhanced surveillance and increased awareness in reporting among doctors and employers. I commend MOM for these efforts.
However, the Labour Movement is concerned that we have barely scratched the surface and that there remains significant under-reporting of OD cases in Singapore. Often, the worker's condition and symptoms will only show at a later stage after prolonged exposure to workplace risks and some could be mistaken for the side effects of ageing. I will elaborate more on this later.
Today, I wish to present some suggestions on how the Government and the industry can better prevent, detect and deal with OD cases at the workplace.
First, workplace health surveillance efforts should be expanded and more stringently enforced to ensure early detection and to tackle under-reporting of ODs. I earlier mentioned that Singapore was seeing a rising trend of OD cases. MOM has attributed the increase to the Enhanced Workplace Health Surveillance efforts, also known as the WHS+. I believe that the increase in OD cases that we have seen is only the tip of the iceberg. Let me explain.
WHS+ is currently focused on workers' exposure to excessive noise and chemical hazards. Sectors surveyed are limited to those in industrial settings, such as in construction. But we must not forget that workers in other workplace settings, such as food and beverage outlets that play persistent loud music, and call centres where the operators have to put on headsets throughout the day during work, may also be exposed to excessive noise, as experts have recently reported in a CNA article. I therefore urge MOM to expand WHS+ to require more companies and industries to undergo surveillance for excessive noise.
Surveillance under WHS+ should also be expanded to cover other types of OD, beyond noise. One example is what I have described earlier, work-related musculoskeletal disorder, the second-highest reported OD category in Singapore over the past three years. Work-related musculoskeletal disorder is not restricted to any sector but can affect workers across diverse work environments.
Office workers may unknowingly suffer from this disorder due to poor posture and doing repetitive activities. In healthcare, workers are subject to heavy loads due to shifting and assisting patients, which can lead to back injuries. Our taxi drivers and bus captains also tell me that they experience back pain from prolonged sitting. Expanding the scope of surveillance to include other ODs would enable early detection and facilitate timely treatment of conditions before they worsen.
Sir, we can do even more to detect ODs early. Today, the Workplace Safety and Health (Medical Examinations) Regulations specifies certain occupations in the First Schedule that are subject to periodic medical examinations due to the risks of ODs. The policy position taken in the Medical Examinations Regulations differs from that of the Work Injury Compensation Act, which states that ODs can happen from any occupation.
We should therefore amend the First Schedule of the Medical Examinations Regulations by expanding mandatory health screenings to all high-risk industries. In doing so, the Government can leverage the wide network of Healthier SG general practitioner (GP) clinics to ensure that our healthcare system would not be overloaded.
Mandatory health screenings will also go a long way in tackling the issue of under-reporting of OD cases. According to global research on ODs, there are many reasons for under-reporting of OD. For example, workers may not seek immediate medical attention from their workplace doctor because of a mild discomfort. Workers may also turn to a GP for temporary symptom relief, not understanding that the root cause of their pain was due to work. The potential hefty costs of having to see a specialist is another possible reason that could deter some from seeking treatment early.
We should conduct local studies to examine the prevalence of under-reporting of ODs locally. I hope that MOM will study and investigate all possible reasons for under-reporting of OD cases here in Singapore and take measures to plug the gap.
Sir, other countries are utilising additional data sources to provide a more representative picture of the prevalence of ODs. For example, the United Kingdom (UK) collects its WSH data from a wide variety of sources, including voluntary reporting of anonymised cases by specialist doctors and self-reported data through its labour force survey. This is in addition to data from its compulsory reporting regime. Through these, the UK was able to report in 2024 that it had an estimated 543,000 workers suffering from work-related musculoskeletal disorders, or a rate of 1,600 cases per 100,000 workers. We can learn from the UK and other countries how they collect and use additional data points to investigate the prevalence of OD.
I hope MOM will review how we in Singapore collect data on OD cases, with a view of reducing under-reporting. Timely, relevant and accurate data is crucial to help us assess the extent of OD in Singapore.
The use of technology can aid the early detection of OD risk factors at work and improve work processes to reduce workers’ exposure to OD risks. This includes the use of automation to limit human exposure, as well as preventive surveillance of risk factors.
As the popular proverb goes, “prevention is better than cure.” We must start by trying to prevent ODs from occurring in the first instance.
Employers have an onus in preventing ODs, by providing workers with the appropriate equipment and a safe working environment. This is a widely accepted principle in many countries, such as the United States and the UK, where obligations are placed on employers to help workers deal with the inherent risks associated with the work that they perform.
Here, I would like to highlight the proactive efforts of KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital (KKH) as an example of such preventive surveillance. The hospital has identified work-related musculoskeletal disorders as an issue affecting its healthcare workers and took measures to address this using technology. In collaboration with the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), they will pilot a surveillance programme using thermal sensors to detect improper postures of workers during their work.
Thermal imaging has no known negative health side effects, but it adds also a layer of privacy as it does not allow for the identification of an individual. This allows risk factors leading to the disorder to be detected without compromising privacy concerns.
Such projects and innovations can help to uplift the safety standards, but I acknowledge that not all companies have the same investment capabilities as KKH. As such, I call on the Government to provide more funding support for more companies to innovate and adopt technological solutions to reduce workers’ exposure to OD risks.
Sir, we must also do more to raise awareness of OD among employers and workers. This is especially important for workers, who might not understand the impact that their jobs have on their health. We must educate our workers on the dangers of OD and place an emphasis on younger workers before prolonged exposure to OD risks causes irreparable damage to their health in the years ahead.
The WSH Council currently has a set of guidelines on the diagnosis and management of ODs. However, it has been 10 years since the guidelines were last updated in 2015. Therefore, it is timely to review and update these guidelines to ensure that they remain relevant and effective.
Singapore has numerous medical facilities and research institutes specialising in occupational health and disease. The Centre for Environmental and Occupational Health at the National University of Singapore and specialised clinics at Singapore General Hospital that focus on treating ODs, such as lung and skin conditions, are key examples. I propose for the Government to consolidate our all current expertise in OD to create a national Centre of Excellence for Occupational Diseases. This Centre would serve to galvanise all research on the various ODs, with a focus on our local context and, more importantly, consolidate resources for more effective public education on OD.
I hope the Government will also ramp up efforts to educate employers and workers on the long-term dangers of OD, and I invite employers to work with NTUC to identify and address OD risks at your specific workplace.
Sir, guidelines will simply remain as guidelines when there is no one assigned to act on it. I would therefore like to, once again, call on the Government to mandate the need for a WSH representative in all companies. I have been repeating this proposal for many years. The last, I think, was in 2017.
Having a mandatory WSH representative in all companies will allow MOM to impose an audit requirement, where every company, no matter how big or small, would need to take time to take care, just to borrow the tagline of the WSH Council, to examine if the work that they do can subject their workers to the risk of OD.
Sir, as Singapore becomes a super-aged society, we must do all we can to prevent OD from taking root, amend our existing regulations to be able to better detect OD early and put in place measures to allow workers to seek early treatment of ODs before their conditions worsen. We must also tap on existing expertise to develop more targeted, industry-specific guidance to reduce OD across all industries.
In the area of WSH, our emphasis has always been on safety, as any mishap there can be immediate and acute. However, ODs, if not dealt with, can have a long-lasting impact on workers’ productivity and health span. Workplace safety and health; it is time we pay equal emphasis on health as we do in safety. The Labour Movement stands ready to partner with all our tripartite partners to tackle ODs for a healthier workforce.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Zaqy Mohamad.
The Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for sharing his concerns on ODs. While he was speaking, some Members have reminded me they have been here for 11 hours and therefore, they asked if the Member can also advocate for shorter Parliamentary Sittings, so that we can reduce the risk of ODs for Members in Parliament!
On a more serious note, tackling ODs is crucial for achieving a healthier and more resilient workforce in Singapore. Every worker deserves a safe and healthy work environment. I share the Member’s views that the latent nature of ODs is a major challenge in tackling them. This makes it a lot harder to pinpoint the source of ODs, such as noise-induced deafness or musculoskeletal disorder, which develop over time as workers move across different worksites or different employers.
Employers may also attribute workers’ ODs to non-work-related sources, such as personal lifestyles or ageing, and this makes for a complex issue, which goes beyond the lack of awareness. I will touch on how we are addressing these challenges here in Singapore.
First, we are strengthening our surveillance efforts to enable early detection and prevention of occupational diseases before they start to affect workers’ health. For this purpose, MOM had in 2021, rolled out the Enhanced Workplace Health Surveillance programme to address two groups of occupational diseases, namely those caused by excessive exposure to noise or chemical hazards.
Under the Enhanced Workplace Health Surveillance programme, companies with work processes that are noisy or involve toxic substances must monitor the noise or chemical levels of their workplace environments respectively. Such designated companies must also send their workers for statutory medical examinations to detect early signs of ODs, such as deterioration of hearing or elevated levels of heavy metals in the body. If any worker is found to be exposed to excessive noise or chemicals, the company must implement risk control measures immediately to protect their workers’ health. Companies with excessively high exposure levels must also undergo third-party audits to ensure the effectiveness of their workplace health programmes and these audit reports would have to be submitted to MOM.
With the introduction of the Enhanced Workplace Health Surveillance programme, the number of ODs reported increased from 659 in 2021 to 1,229 in 2023. The increased numbers are due to our enhanced surveillance rather than more reporting, but it also shows that it shows up in our numbers as we enhance our enforcement efforts or inspection efforts, and through reporting to the hospitals and polyclinics. Since June 2024, we have also commenced targeted inspections for industries, such as metal-working companies, where noise-induced deafness has been more prevalent since 2022. Hence, we are more targeted, we are more focused and therefore, we hope to intervene a lot quicker in specific sectors that are causing ODs.
As suggested by the Member, the Government is also supporting companies to apply appropriate technologies that can help monitor and reduce workers’ exposure to OD risks. MOM publicises the use of such technology solutions on its website. The solutions include digital wearable devices, which can provide real-time monitoring of workers’ health, detect biomechanics and alert workers when they adopt unsafe postures or are exposed to body vibration transmitted from work tools for prolonged periods. Employers could then use the data collected by such digital wearable devices to pinpoint specific work activities and implement necessary interventions.
Additionally, employers can use sound level meters to monitor the noise level real-time, so that they can implement measures to ensure that the noise levels do not exceed pre-set thresholds, thereby lowering the risk of hearing loss among workers. Eligible companies can apply for Government grants, such as the Productivity Solutions Grant, to adopt technological solutions that make our workplaces safer and healthier.
Secondly, we are taking active steps to raise the awareness of OD risks, so that the industry can know how to protect their workers better. MOM and the WSH Council have developed and published several industry guidelines, including guidelines on the diagnosis and management of ODs, guidelines on hearing conservation programme and guidelines on improving ergonomics in the workplace. Companies may refer to the guidelines on workplace ergonomics to tackle work-related musculoskeletal disorders. We have also partnered the WSH Council to promote good workplace practices, such as installing noise barriers or insulation to reduce the noise emitted from machines, as well as switching to the use of safer chemicals for work processes.
Apart from educating employers in high-risk industries, we collaborated with the Ministry of Health (MOH) to raise awareness in the medical community to detect and report ODs. This is very similar to what the Member shared earlier of what other countries, such as the UK, are doing, where we work with medical practitioners at hospitals and our polyclinics of the importance of reporting ODs to MOM. And this is also circulated by joint circulars by both Ministries, MOM and MOH. And this contributes towards MOM’s OD monitoring efforts and informs us on which OD we should target. So, taking in all the joint data from our polyclinics and hospitals enables us to do, watch trends, to look at sources and what kind of interventions might be needed and where the sources would be.
The Tripartite Committee on Workplace Health also recently established a sub-committee on occupational health comprising representatives from healthcare, Government, businesses and worker groups to improve the detection, prevention and management of ODs in Singapore. The sub-committee will develop approaches to strengthen the prevention and management of occupational diseases, especially in high-risk industries.
Sir, we remain committed to our Workplace Safety and Health 2028 goal to improve OD prevention and detection. This is not a task that we can achieve on our own. It will require the combined efforts of corporate leadership, industry associations, the medical community, union leaders and workers – and all of us here in this room. Together, we can protect our workforce from the dangers of these “silent killers” and make our workplaces safer and healthier for all of us.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 10.15 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":"Infringement of Occupancy Cap That Allowed Up to Eight Unrelated Persons in Larger Private Residential Properties","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"22 Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many cases of infringement or nuisance have been reported since the temporary relaxation of the occupancy cap to allow larger private residential properties to house up to eight unrelated persons from 22 January 2024; and (b) what enforcement actions have been taken for such cases.
Mr Desmond Lee: From 22 January 2024 to 31 October 2024, the Urban Redevelopment Authority investigated a total of 415 complaints involving alleged breaches of the occupancy cap in private residential properties. Ninety-one properties were found to have breached their applicable occupancy cap. Of these, 89 had breached the six-person occupancy cap, while two had registered for the eight-person occupancy cap and breached it.
Penalties for breaching the occupancy cap include warnings, composition fines of up to $5,000 or prosecution for which offenders face a fine of up to $200,000 and/or imprisonment for up to 12 months, if convicted. The two registered properties that were found to have breached the eight-person occupancy cap were given warnings and their registrations for the higher occupancy cap were revoked, which means they will only be allowed to house up to six unrelated persons. They will not be permitted to re-register for the higher occupancy cap for 12 months after their registrations were revoked.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Prioritisation of Childcare Centre Slots for Households Located within One Kilometre of Centre","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"23 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Early Childhood Development Agency takes into consideration the distance between the home and childcare centre, such as within a one kilometre radius, for the prioritisation of childcare slots in the event that a childcare centre reaches maximum capacity; and (b) if not, why not.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) plans for preschool places to meet anticipated enrolment demand. It considers various factors including demographic trends, projected resident birth rates, enrolment patterns and availability of preschool places within each Planning Area. From 2018 to 2024, we have added more than 40,000 full-day preschool places, or a 25% increase. Today, there are over 200,000 full-day preschool places, which is more than sufficient to meet demand at both the national and Planning Area levels.
Nevertheless, demand can exceed supply in a small number of districts due to varying parental preferences and the lead-time needed to set up new centres or expand existing centres. ECDA prioritises the expansion of capacity in such districts.
Preschool operators, including those under the Anchor Operator and Partner Operator schemes, generally manage enrolment on a first-come, first-served basis. When a preschool approaches its maximum capacity, the operator will prioritise new enrolment by considering factors, such as whether the child has a sibling already enrolled in the centre and the distance from the child's home to the preschool.
ECDA also encourages parents to broaden their choices by considering centres with available vacancies in adjacent neighbourhoods, near their workplaces or the grandparents' homes. To better assist parents in this effort, ECDA has designed a new preschool search function on LifeSG, which allows parents to look for preschools with available vacancy in a given locale and directly liaise with preschools on enrolment matters.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulations for Usage and Operating Hours of Sports Facilities Located in Private Educational Institutions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Education (a) what processes exist to regulate the usage and operating hours of sports facilities within the premises of private educational institutions including international schools; (b) how do the processes compare with the norms for SportSG facilities; and (c) what is the approach taken by agencies in addressing disamenities which may arise, including light pollution caused by unshaded spotlights shining into the nearby homes of residents during late night hours or past midnight.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: As with all community facilities, the use of sports facilities, whether in Private Education Institutions (PEIs) or Sport Singapore (SportSG) facilities, should not cause undue disamenities to residents in the surrounding areas.
Where specific instances of feedback are raised, SkillsFuture Singapore, SportSG and other relevant agencies will work with the PEIs and/or public users to address the issues. For example, PEIs have, in some instances, reduced the luminosity of floodlights in their premises to reduce light pollution and switched to lower decibel whistles to address noise pollution. PEIs may also be asked to align their practices, that is, operating hours, with that of SportSG facilities and/or the Housing and Development Board common spaces.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Projected Expenditure for Next Generation Electronic Medical Record System and Impact on Healthcare Costs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"26 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the total projected expenditure for implementing the Next Generation Electronic Medical Record (NGEMR) system to provide a single patient record across all public healthcare clusters; (b) how does the Ministry assess its impact on overall public healthcare costs; and (c) what measures are implemented to ensure that the NGEMR system (i) delivers value for money and (ii) does not increase overall healthcare costs for patients.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The phased roll-out of the Next Generation Electronic Medical Record (NGEMR) at the National University Health System and the National Healthcare Group (NHG) was completed in July 2024, while that for SingHealth will take place from late 2026 to 2028. In total, the Government would have invested $1.5 billion over 10 years to develop and implement NGEMR for the whole public healthcare sector.
NGEMR is a strategic investment with very significant benefits. More than 100 legacy information technology (IT) systems and the associated costs will be phased out. For patients who receive care at different public healthcare institutions, detailed medical records and doctors' notes on their care will be readily accessible by their doctors in the different institutions, which will improve the coordination of care for the patient. This benefit is now already realised for patients that seek care from both the National University Hospital Singapore and NHG clusters. NGEMR will also enable public healthcare institutions to utilise various analytical and operational IT tools in the system, that is available currently and in future, to enhance workflow, raise efficiency and improve health outcomes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Blocking of Illegal Gambling Sites","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many illegal gambling websites and apps are currently blocked and banned in Singapore; (b) why are Singapore residents still able to access such sites and services; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider allowing families of problem gamblers to request the blocking of bank accounts used by these problem gamblers for their gambling activities.
Mr K Shanmugam: As of 31 December 2024, the Ministry of Home Affairs has blocked more than 3,800 illegal gambling websites which we assess to be likely targeted at or likely to be frequented by the Singapore public, and more than 145,000 illegal gambling transactions involving the Singapore public, amounting to approximately $37 million.
These blocking measures have impeded access to illegal online gambling to some extent. However, this approach is clearly not foolproof as illegal operators can easily create new websites and we do not have the ability to know of every gambling website. We encourage members of the public to report illegal gambling websites, apps and advertisements as well as bank accounts used by illegal gambling operators to the Police.
The Government has put in place various measures to help problem gamblers, such as funding Social Service Agencies to provide counselling and run support groups. Families of problem gamblers should encourage them to seek assistance by calling the National Problem Gambling Helpline at 1800-6-668-668 or visiting www.ncpg.org.sg.
Regarding the Member's suggestion, there are no plans for now to allow families to request the blocking of bank accounts used by problem gamblers. Our view is that our current measures are adequate as the probable pathological and problem gambling rate has remained low and stable at about 1%.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Changes to Child Protection Policy, Procedures or Practices In Response to 2024 Domestic Violence Trends Report","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"28 Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what are the key lessons learned from the September 2024 Domestic Violence Trends Report; and (b) what changes will be made to existing child protection policy, procedure or practice in response to those lessons.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Ministry of Social and Family Development's (MSF's) Domestic Violence Trends Report highlights the importance of raising awareness about domestic violence and intervening early to prevent such cases from escalating into more severe situations.
First, MSF will continue to equip professionals in preschools, schools, healthcare institutions and social service agencies to identify and report suspected child abuse for early intervention.
Second, we will continue to review our laws to enhance protection for survivors. For instance, the Women's Charter was amended in 2023 to strengthen protection for survivors of family violence, including children. Enhancements include the new Stay Away and No Contact Orders to prohibit perpetrators of family violence from being in the vicinity of the survivor and from visiting or communicating with the survivor, respectively. The amendments came into force on 2 January 2025.
Third, we will collaborate with our community partners to review and enhance protocols for supporting families with child protection concerns.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Factors Determining Booking Priority at National Stadium","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) why is the 55,000-seater National Stadium being allowed to be booked for concerts during the period when the Singapore national football team is playing in the semi-finals of the AFF Mitsubishi Electric Cup 2024; (b) whether the team will have to play at the 6,000-seater Jalan Besar Stadium if it reaches the final; and (c) how the Singapore Sports Hub rationalises its priorities following the takeover by the Government.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The Football Association of Singapore (FAS) and its venue partner Kallang Alive Sport Management (KASM) had ensured that the National Stadium (NST) was booked and made available to the Singapore national football team for the full duration of the ASEAN Football Federation (AFF) Mitsubishi Electric Cup 2024. This was based on the original dates of the competition being fixed from 23 November 2024 to 21 December 2024. This was announced in February 2024. Had this schedule been kept to, the Singapore national football team would have been able to play at NST at every home game.
However, the dates were subsequently changed by AFF in August 2024, shortly before the start of the tournament. By then, based on the original dates, two other major events had already been confirmed for late December 2024 and early January 2025 at NST. Contractual commitments had been made and tickets for one of them had gone on sale since July 2024. These are large-scale events and time is needed to prepare the venue ahead of the event. Despite this, KASM checked if it would be possible to nonetheless accommodate the hosting of the football matches at NST along with these two events. This is due to the time required for pitch preparation and event set-up. However, it was assessed to be not logistically possible.
Consequently, FAS had to find an alternative venue at Jalan Besar Stadium for Singapore's semi-final home match on 26 December 2024.
To enable more Singaporeans to cheer on the Lions together, the People's Association and HomeTeamNS broadcasted both semi-final matches live at 14 community clubs and centres and HomeTeamNS venues. Fans also watched these matches live on Mediacorp's free-to-air Channel 5.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Availability of Internship Places for Each Cohort of Penultimate Year Students of Institutes of Higher Learning","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"31 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Education (a) how many internship places are available each year for each cohort of penultimate year students from public and private Institutes of Higher Learning; and (b) whether there are sufficient places to meet the increasing demand from students in other years seeking internships.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHL) offer students a wide variety of internship opportunities and all IHL students who are required to complete an internship to graduate have been able to secure one. While IHLs continue to work with companies and sector agencies to provide quality internship opportunities, students can also look for their own internships to support their education and career development, beyond meeting their graduation requirements.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Address Longer-term Housing Affordability and Cost-of-living Concerns Besides Property Tax Rebates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance regarding the one-off property tax rebate for owner-occupied homes (a) whether there are other measures to address longer-term housing affordability and cost-of-living concerns for homeowners as this rebate offers only temporary relief; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider reviewing the property tax rate structure, extending the rebate, as well as additional direct housing schemes or subsidies and further improve housing affordability for Singaporeans.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Government is committed to keep public housing affordable, accessible and inclusive for Singaporeans. Eligible first-timer families buying a Build-To-Order (BTO) flat can receive up to $120,000 in housing grants, on top of significant market discount in the selling price of the BTO flat. Those buying a resale Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat can receive up to $230,000 in housing grants. Under the new flat classification framework implemented from October 2024, Plus and Prime BTO flats come with additional subsidies and tighter restrictions to ensure that flats in attractive locations remain affordable to a wider range of incomes, while maintaining a good social mix in our HDB estates and keeping the system fair for all buyers.
To cater to private housing demand and maintain market stability, the Government closely monitors Government Land Sales supply and regularly releases land to meet market demand.
The Government also introduced four rounds of cooling measures in December 2021, September 2022, April 2023 and August 2024 to stabilise prices in both the HDB resale market and the wider Singapore property market.
Property Tax (PT) is a tax on property ownership and our principal means of taxing wealth. Over the years, we have taken steps to make our PT regime more progressive, such that those with high-value properties as well as those with non-owner-occupied properties, pay higher PT. This is in line with what Members from both sides of the House have asked for: more progressive taxation on wealth.
To cushion the impact of a higher PT, the Government provided a PT rebate of 20% for owner-occupied HDB flats and 15%, capped at $1,000, for owner-occupied private residential properties in 2025.
Mr Yip asked if the Government would consider reviewing the PT rate structure. We have indeed done so. At Budget 2024, the Government announced that in light of the market trends in the last two years, all Annual Value (AV) bands of the owner-occupier residential PT rates will be raised with effect from 1 January 2025. This means that the first AV band will be raised from $8,000 to $12,000, with corresponding adjustments to the other bands.
As a result of both of these measures, all owner-occupied HDB flats and over 90% of owner-occupied private residential properties, will see lower PT in 2025 compared to 2024.
Besides PT rebates, the Government has also rolled out measures to support all Singaporeans with their cost of living. In particular, we have enhanced the Assurance Package to more than $10 billion. The enhancements include measures, such as the Budget 2024 Cost-of-Living Special Payment that was disbursed in September 2024, Community Development Council (CDC) vouchers and additional utilities save (U-Save) and service and conservancy charges rebates.
We will continue to ensure that public housing remains affordable and accessible to all Singaporeans, and that our overall system of taxes and transfers remains fair and progressive so that those with greater means contribute more and more help is given to lower- and middle-income Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Issuance of Care and Protection Orders Where Child Involved Was Not Required to Stay in Place of Safety","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"33 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development for each year in the past five years, how many care and protection orders were issued by the Youth Court where the child involved was not required to stay in a place of safety or a place of temporary care and protection for a specified period of time.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The breakdown of care and protection orders by specific placement types is not available. Each case is assessed by the Youth Court in terms of what arrangement would be in the best interest of the child.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Use of Bus Boarding Ramps for Wheelchairs and Baby Pushchairs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"34 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Transport (a) what operational considerations underpin the current differentiation in the deployment of bus boarding ramps for wheelchair users and parents with pushchairs; and (b) what are the specific targets and resources allocated to improve public transport accessibility for families with young children.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Parents or caregivers have the flexibility to board from either the front or rear doors and to decide whether they wish to leave their child in the stroller as they board. Parents or caregivers who prefer to use the ramp at the rear door can ask the bus captains for assistance. For passengers in wheelchairs who require the use of the ramp to board from the rear door, bus captains will deploy the ramp as a standard procedure. There is a difference for passengers in wheelchairs as many of them may be by themselves, unlike the case for children, and it may not be easy for someone in the wheelchair to alert the bus captain.
Stroller restraints have been installed in the wheelchair bays of buses for families who prefer to keep their strollers open. Since 2014, all new bus interchanges are equipped with family-friendly features, such as baby care rooms and child-friendly facilities in toilets. For existing bus interchanges, we will include these family-friendly facilities during upgrading works where feasible. All stations along the Thomson-East Coast Line and the upcoming Jurong Region Line and Cross Island Line are also equipped with similar features.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons for Recent Telecommunication Disruptions and Steps to Address Root Causes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"35 Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what are the causes for the recent spate of telecommunications disruptions that Singaporeans have had to face, the latest being a disruption to Singtel services on 24 October 2024; and (b) what steps are being taken by the telecommunications service providers and the Government agencies to address the root causes of these disruptions. \n
Mrs Josephine Teo: The issue of recent telecommunication service disruptions and steps being taken to address them was addressed in the Ministry of Digital Development and Information's response to a similar Parliamentary Question filed by Mr Saktiandi Supaat, which was published in the Hansard for the 12 November 2024 Parliament Sitting. [Please refer to \"Penalties for Service Outages that Affected Mobile Network, Broadband Internet and Subscription Television Services in 2024\", Official Report, 12 November 2024, Vol 95, Issue 146, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Minimum Occupation Period for Beneficiaries Who Have Inherited HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"36 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for National Development whether beneficiaries who have inherited HDB flats are required to occupy the flat for the minimum occupation period from the date of the ownership of the flat by the deceased or from the date of inheritance of the HDB flat.
Mr Desmond Lee: Beneficiaries who have inherited a Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat but do not wish to stay in it may sell the flat or return it to HDB. Alternatively, beneficiaries can choose to take over ownership of the flat, if they meet the conditions to do so.
For such cases, the Minimum Occupation Period (MOP) will apply, as it does for all flat owners. If the beneficiaries were already occupiers of the flat prior to the demise of the original owner, the MOP will begin from the time that they were first included as occupiers of the flat. Otherwise, they will need to fulfil a fresh MOP after taking over ownership of the flat. This upholds the owner-occupation intent of public housing.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support for Persons Concerned about Their Capacity to Parent Their Children Safely","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in light of the September 2024 Domestic Violence Trends Report, what culturally safe and non-statutory avenues are available to parents to seek information or support if they are concerned about their capacity to parent their children safely.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: For parents interested in learning more about how to parent their children safely, there are multiple avenues for them to receive information and support. The Families for Life portal provides comprehensive, evidence-based parenting resources. Parents can also visit their nearest Families for Life@Community agencies to access information about parenting workshops and family resources. Strengthening Families Programme@Family Service Centre and Family Service Centres offer social and emotional support to families requiring more individualised support. Parents may also approach their child's school for advice and be referred to community services and resources as needed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Response Rate of Operationally-ready NSmen to Mobilisation Exercises and Assessment of Preparedness Level Related to Ongoing Developments in Middle East and Europe","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant asked the Minister for Defence (a) what has been the overall response rate of operationally-ready NSmen to the both silent and open mobilisation exercises; (b) how have these mobilisation exercises been useful in preparing the NSmen to be mobilised under the Ministry’s scenario planning drills related to the ongoing developments in the Middle East and Europe; and (c) to what extent is realism injected in the deployment exercises in these mobilisation exercises.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) conducts regular mobilisation exercises (MOBEX) of our National Service (NS) forces. In a silent mobilisation, NSmen are notified through their personal contact numbers. Open mobilisations include the broadcast of unit code-words through mass media. Average attendance rates for both are consistently high: 95% or more of mobilised NSmen would turn up within the stipulated timings.
Mobilisation exercises sharpen the operational readiness of our NS forces, keep our systems and processes well-oiled and enhance SAF's preparedness to respond in a national security situation. Different scenarios may be used in different mobilisation exercises for greater realism and validation of different functions, such as force equipping, force preparation procedures and refresher training.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Management Change at SingPost on Postal Services and Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"39 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information with regard to the termination of key management personnel at SingPost in December 2024 (a) whether there is any impact on SingPost's performance as a public postal licensee with respect to its service obligations and standards as set by the Government; and (b) what impact does this development have on the Government's ongoing review of (i) SingPost's postal obligations in future and (ii) the safeguard of the interests of the public and postal workers.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The issues concerning the whistle-blowing report and subsequent dismissals by SingPost was addressed in the Ministry of Digital Development and Information's response to similar Parliamentary Questions filed by Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Louis Chua, which was published in the Hansard for the 7 January 2025 Parliament Sitting. [Please refer to \"Probe in to Manual Manipulation of Delivery Status Codes for SingPost Parcels\", Official Report, 7 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 148, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
The Member was present in Chamber at the time of the response but did not ask a follow-up question.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Approval for Courses under SkillsFuture Mid-career Support Programmes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"40 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Education why are certain SkillsFuture-approved courses not included under the SkillsFuture Mid-career Support programmes.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The $4,000 SkillsFuture Credit (Mid-Career) supports mid-career Singaporeans aged 40 and above to pursue substantive upskilling and reskilling to stay relevant and competitive. Today, it can be used on over 7,000 courses with better employability outcomes, including academic full qualifications and industry-specific courses. SkillsFuture Singapore will work closely with sector agencies, industry and training providers to refresh these courses and ensure that they support our economic and manpower needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Bulk Purchase of Shingles Vaccination to Reduce Cost to Consumers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"41 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider a bulk purchase of the drugs for shingles vaccination to reduce the purchase price and potentially making the vaccine cost-effective for the prevention of shingles at the population level.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Today, the Ministry of Health uses value-based pricing negotiations with vaccine manufacturers, as well as bulk purchasing, to ensure that drugs and vaccines are procured at cost-effective prices. However, the shingles vaccine is currently priced at a level that is not commensurate with its benefits. We are not giving up and will continue to engage the supplier.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Probe into LinkedIn Recruitment Advertisements for Chinese Communist Party Branch Secretaries at Ngee Ann Polytechnic","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"42 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether any investigations will be conducted into recruitment advertisements for Chinese Communist Party branch secretaries at Ngee Ann Polytechnic on LinkedIn.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Ministry of Home Affairs is looking into the case.
44 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether there will be sufficient HDB and public car parks to cater to the increase in car population from the additional 20,000 COEs; and (b) what is the maximum number of increase in car population that will warrant the adjustment to increase car park facilities.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Land Transport Authority will progressively inject the additional 20,000 Certificate of Entitlements (COEs) across vehicle categories from February 2025, over the next few years. This represents about 2% of the current total vehicle population in Singapore.
At the national level, public car parks have sufficient capacity to cater to the expected increase in season parking demand by residents arising from the COE injection. Currently, nearly all public car parks within residential estates have more than 10% of season parking lots still unallocated.
That notwithstanding, localised shortages in season parking occur at some public car parks from time to time. Agencies closely monitor car park utilisation rates and where there are localised shortages, agencies employ parking demand measures to ensure that the parking needs of residents are met. These measures include controlling season parking sales, increasing number of reserved lots, disallowing night parking for visitors and implementing differential pricing for short-term parking.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Promoting Public Understanding of Daily Caregiving Boundaries in New Guidelines on Healthy Family Boundaries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"45 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what measures are in place to ensure the widespread dissemination and understanding among parents and caregivers of the new guidelines on healthy family boundaries which spell out appropriate boundaries in daily caregiving between parents and children in areas, such as expressing affection, privacy and toileting.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: I thank the Member for the question. This matter has already been addressed in Parliamentary Question Nos 59 and 60 on the 7 January 2025 Sitting. [Please refer to \"Observed Trends that Led to New Guidelines on Healthy Family Boundaries\", Official Report, 7 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 148, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
I refer the Member to the written reply for further details.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Determining Factors in Secondary 1 Posting Exercises Given Less Differentiated PSLE Scoring System","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"47 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry continues to maintain finer distinctions internally in determining secondary school assignments despite the ostensibly less-differentiated PSLE scoring system introduced in 2021; and (b) if so, how frequently has (i) the choice order of schools and (ii) computerised balloting, respectively, been a determining factor in school assignments.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Ministry of Education (MOE) conducts the Secondary 1 Posting Exercise in accordance with a clearly defined set of criteria. This is publicly available on the MOE website. The first posting criterion is determined by the student's Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) score, which is the sum of the Achievement Levels of their four PSLE subjects. If there are more students with the same PSLE score vying for the remaining vacancies in a school, MOE will apply tie-breakers: first, based on the students' citizenship, then their choice order of schools and, if there is still a tie, computerised balloting.
Students whose school choice required tie-breaking had their posting mostly determined by citizenship and school choice order. Over the past three years, the proportion of students who underwent computerised balloting has remained at around one in 10.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Deterrence for Use of Kpods or Vape Juices Mixed with Etomidate","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"48 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Health whether the Health Sciences Authority has any plans to detect and deter the use of \"Kpods\" which are vape juice mixed with etomidate and which have been touted by online sellers to be undetectable by urine tests.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: My response will also cover the matters raised in the written question by Ms Hany Soh for today's Sitting. [Please refer to \"Enforcement against \"Kpods\" or Vape Juice Mixed with Etomidate\", Official Report, 8 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 149, Written Answers to Questions section.]
The Ministry of Health (MOH), together with the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) and other partner enforcement agencies, have been stepping up our physical and online checks to enforce the ban on importation, supply, possession and use of e-vaporisers. As of 31 December 2024, HSA has issued fines to more than 14,000 individuals found to be in possession and use of e-vaporisers and removed about 6,800 offending listings of e-vaporisers. This was double that of 2023, when about 7,800 composition fines were issued and 3,000 listings were removed.
Based on samples of e-vaporiser pods sent for testing, five cases of e-vaporisers containing etomidate were detected and investigations are ongoing. As etomidate is classified as a poison under the Poisons Act, a licence is required for the importation and sales of etomidate. HSA takes a serious view on the illegal sales and use of etomidate and will take stern actions against offenders. Contrary to the advertisements touted by online sellers, individuals consuming such e-vaporisers may also have etomidate detected in their urine. Those found to be supplying etomidate-containing pods are liable upon conviction to a maximum penalty of imprisonment for up to two years and/or fine up to $10,000 under the Poisons Act. The presence of etomidate laced e-vaporisers reinforces our concern that vaping is harmful and our commitment to enforcing the ban on importing, supplying, possessing or using all varieties of e-vaporisers.
I Quit, a programme by the Health Promotion Board, supports individuals seeking to stop the habit of vaping.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Percentage of Companies with Workplace Fatalities that Had Previously Received Stop-work Orders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"49 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what percentage of the 15 construction sector workplace deaths in the second half of 2024 have occurred at sites that have previously received safety violations or stop-work orders; (b) what percentage have occurred during overtime or rushed work to meet project deadlines; and (c) whether the Ministry will implement a system where contractors with safety violations are barred from bidding for public projects for a period of time depending on the severity of violations.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Member may refer to the reply to Parliamentary Question Nos 39, 40 and 41 for Oral Answer at the 7 January 2025 Sitting, which addressed the same issues. [Please refer to \"Effectiveness of Workplace Safety Time-out at Construction Sites\", Official Report, 7 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 148, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of Incentives for Off-peak Travelling and Switching to Selected Bus Services Beyond North East MRT Line Regions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"50 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Transport whether the incentives to encourage commuters to avoid travelling during the morning peak period or switching to selected bus services can be extended to beyond the North East Line region, such as the Downtown Line.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Travel Smart Journeys initiative was recently enhanced on 2 January 2025, focusing on certain stations along the North East Line. The Land Transport Authority will monitor the outcomes to assess its effectiveness before deciding whether to extend the initiative to other rail lines.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Timeline for Report by Equities Market Review Group","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what is the projected timeline for the Equities Market Review Group to provide its phased recommendations to the Government; (b) what is the projected timeline for the Government to review these recommendations and subsequently the phased announcement of the recommendations; and (c) what is the expected implementation date for these recommendations.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): The Review Group is targeting to complete its report by August 2025. It may provide updates and announce its recommendations in phases before August.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rationale for Change in Policy on Disclosure of Full NRIC Numbers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"52 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what is the reason for the change in the Government's position to allow for public disclosure of NRIC numbers on ACRA's website; and (b) how will this change align with existing provisions of the Advisory Guidelines on Personal Data Protection Act for NRIC and other National Identification Numbers, given that public agencies in Singapore are already excluded from the Data Protection Provisions of the PDPA.
Mrs Josephine Teo: This Question was addressed through the Statement by the Minister for Digital Development and Information during the Parliament Sitting on 8 January. [Please refer to \"Responsible Use of NRIC Numbers\", Official Report, 8 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 149, Ministerial Statements section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Lease Tenure Selection for Community Care Apartment Applicants at Time of Flat Selection","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"53 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB will consider reviewing its policy and allow applicants for Community Care Apartments to select their lease tenure at the time of flat selection instead of at the time of HDB Flat Eligibility (HFE) Letter application.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Community Care Apartment (CCA) is a public housing assisted living concept designed to expand the continuum of housing options for seniors aged 65 and above. CCA integrates senior-friendly housing with care services that can be scaled according to individual needs. It provides seniors with a home for life by offering flexible lease lengths of between 15 and 35 years, in five-year increments, to cover applicants and their spouses (if any) till at least the age of 95. The choice of lease length is made at flat selection, based on the age of the youngest applicant/spouse at the time of their application for a Housing and Development Board (HDB) Flat Eligibility (HFE) letter.
Using the age at the time of HFE letter application allows HDB to be fair and consistent to all applicants across different sales launches or Build-To-Order (BTO) projects, which have different flat selection schedules. For example, even within the same BTO project, flat selection timing can vary by several months. This variation introduces uncertainty, which may, in turn, impact buyers' financial planning and purchase decision.
CCA buyers with extenuating circumstances, who require a deviation from this lease tenure computation methodology, can approach HDB for assistance. HDB will review such appeals on a case-by-case basis. We will also take in the Member's feedback in our regular policy reviews to ensure that we continue to meet the diverse needs of households, taking into account prevailing conditions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Encouraging More Singaporeans to Utilise SkillsFuture Credits Top-up Given in 2020 before Expiration","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education in view that only 26% of eligible Singaporeans have used their $500 SkillsFuture Credit (SFC) top-up given in 2020, what measures are being implemented to encourage the remaining eligible Singaporeans to utilise their SFC top-up before it expires at the end of 2025.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Government provided a one-off SkillsFuture Credit top-up of $500 for eligible Singaporeans in 2020. This top-up will expire by the end of 2025.
As of 26 November 2024, about 26% of eligible Singaporeans have used their one-off top-up. Many individuals have also gone for training, without tapping on SkillsFuture Credit. For example, of the 520,000 individuals who participated in training supported by SkillsFuture Singapore in 2023, almost half were sponsored by their employers.
We encourage individuals who wish to use the $500 top-up to plan how they can utilise it meaningfully. A wide range of around 30,000 skills-related courses are available. The list of courses can be accessed on mySkillsFuture portal, which has been enhanced so users can more easily search for courses that match their interests and career goals. Individuals could also refer to the jobs and skills insights published by SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) to guide their training decisions. Those who require more personalised guidance could sign up for SSG's free Skills and Training Advisory services. We also welcome more community partners to work with SSG to raise awareness of SkillsFuture Credit and eligible courses, through local workshops and roadshows.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Preventing Individuals with Outstanding Debts and Claims Tribunals' Orders from Setting Up New Business Entities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"55 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether there are any plans to have ACRA work with agencies, such as the Ministry of Manpower and the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore, to prevent individuals from setting up new business entities without having first paid off debts owed to employees and consumers arising from tribunal orders imposed by the Employment Claims Tribunal and Small Claims Tribunals respectively.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: There are established procedures for creditors to seek enforcement of the orders granted by the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT) and Small Claims Tribunals (SCT). If a business entity fails to comply with an ECT or SCT order, employees and consumers can apply to the Court to enforce the order.
The Government does not require individuals to pay off the debts of their business entities before they can set up a new business entity.
For business entities that have no separate legal personalities from their owners, such as sole proprietorships and partnerships, the business owners would remain personally liable for the debts of their businesses.
For business entities with separate legal personalities, such as companies, shareholders have limited liability under the law, which is consistent with the legal structure in other jurisdictions. This limited liability does not preclude creditors from being paid. When a company is being wound up, its remaining assets will be distributed among its creditors in accordance with insolvency law, although there may not be sufficient remaining assets for all creditors to fully recover the debt that they are owed.
Such limited liability fosters entrepreneurship, as individuals can embark on business ventures without facing the forfeiture of their personal assets in the event of corporate insolvency. That said, shareholders are likely to lose the amount they had invested.
This balance between shareholder liability and creditor protection must be carefully managed to maintain our competitiveness vis-a-vis other jurisdictions in promoting entrepreneurship, which is important for developing a competitive economy and creating good jobs for our people.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Policies for Persons with Links to Singapore and Associated With INTERPOL Red Notices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"56 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Ministry has plans to review the existing practices and policies in relation to persons who are subjected to an INTERPOL Red Notice while having links with Singapore.
Mr K Shanmugam: We constantly review our various policies and processes, including on individuals flagged with INTERPOL Red Notices. For information on the existing policies and processes, the Member of Parliament may wish to refer to the Ministry of Home Affairs' written reply to Parliamentary Question Nos 16, 17 and 18 on 7 January 2025. [Please refer to \"Keeping Track of or Assessing Singapore Citizens or Residents Placed On INTERPOL's Red Notice\", Official Report, 7 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 148, Written Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Evidence Required for Breach of Disputes Resolution Tribunal Order to Cease Smoking at Home","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"57 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Law what kind of evidence needs to be presented to the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT) to demonstrate that there is a breach of the CDRT order for a neighbour to stop smoking at home.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Smoking at home is generally permitted.
A claim can be made under section 4 of the Community Disputes Resolution Act 2015 (CDRA) for cases of smoking at home where the second-hand smoke interferes with a neighbour's enjoyment of his or her home.
The Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT) is not bound by the formal rules of evidence. CDRT will take into consideration evidence that is relevant to establishing the claim or proving the breach of an order. Some examples of evidence that might be presented to the CDRT were previously given in response to a Parliamentary Question on 18 February 2022. [Please refer to \"Proceedings under Section 4 of Community Disputes Resolution Act 2015 for Cases of Smoking Near Balconies or Windows in Homes\", Official Report, 18 February 2022, Vol 95, Issue 49, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
Ultimately, CDRT will assess the evidence holistically to determine if a claim is proven on a balance of probabilities. The kind of evidence that will be helpful to CDRT is relevant, credible, reliable and sufficient to persuade the Court. Members of the public who have doubts about how to present their case in CDRT may wish to seek legal advice, or approach Pro Bono SG's various Community Legal Clinics.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Balancing Public Housing Demand and Environmental Preservation at Woodlands N1 Site","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"58 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for National Development with regard to the Environmental Impact Assessment Report dated 29 August 2024 on the Woodlands N1 site zoned for residential development, how does the HDB strike a balance between meeting public housing needs and preserving the environment.
Mr Desmond Lee: A reply was provided at the 7 January 2025 Sitting in response to Dr Lim Wee Kiak and Ms Hany Soh's questions on planned housing developments at Sembawang and Woodlands. [Please refer to \"Timelines and Environmental Impact Assessments for Planned Developments in Marsiling, Woodlands and Sembawang Areas\", Official Report, 7 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 148, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reports of Incidents Involving Intoxicated Passengers on Public Transport","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"59 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport (a) for each year over the past three years, how many incidents involving intoxicated passengers on public transport have been reported; (b) how many individuals have faced enforcement actions in connection with these incidents; (c) how are public transport staff trained to manage intoxicated passengers including deciding whether to admit them onboard; and (d) whether new measures are being considered to prevent intoxicated behaviours on public transport and enhance commuter safety and comfort.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Passengers who are intoxicated and in an unsuitable condition to travel are prohibited from boarding public transport. An intoxicated passenger who exhibits disruptive behaviour may be asked to alight from the bus or train. Should the passenger be uncooperative, rowdy or aggressive, the Police will be activated. These passengers may also be issued with a Notification of Offence by the operators and could be liable to a fine.
Over the past three years, there has been an average of around 34 reported incidents each month involving intoxicated passengers on public transport. Most of these cases did not require enforcement action by the rail operators, the Land Transport Authority or the Police, as the individuals were cooperative.
Public transport staff are trained to manage situations involving intoxicated passengers. This includes identifying signs of intoxication, such as the smell of alcohol, slurred speech and difficulty in walking or standing, to determine if they are fit to travel on public transport. They are also trained on procedures for handling intoxicated passengers who are causing nuisance or danger to others.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Housing Grants Disbursed after Revision of Enhanced CPF Housing Grant Amount for First-timer Home Buyers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"61 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development since the revision of the maximum amount of Enhanced CPF Housing Grant for first-timer buyers of HDB flats, what has been (i) the increase in total housing grants disbursed and (ii) the increase in housing grants per HDB flat across BTO flats and resale flats, as compared to the same had the quantum not been revised.
Mr Desmond Lee: In September 2019, the Enhanced CPF Housing Grant (EHG) was introduced as a means-tested grant to provide additional support for lower-to-middle income first-timer households buying new or resale flats. On 20 August 2024, EHG was increased to a maximum of $120,000 for families and $60,000 for singles, with higher increases for lower-income households.
For Build-To-Order (BTO) flats, the Housing and Development Board disburses EHG before eligible buyers sign the Agreement for Lease for their booked unit, so that they can use EHG for downpayment. The first BTO exercise after the EHG enhancement was in October 2024, for which flat booking has yet to commence. As such, there is no data at this juncture on EHG disbursed for BTO flats under the enhanced EHG framework.
For resale flats, the total increase in EHG disbursement for resale applications registered from 20 August 2024 to 30 November 2024 is about $12 million. On a per flat basis, the EHG increase ranged from $2,500 to $40,000 for households with household incomes below $8,000.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Requirements on Social Media Platforms to Ensure Age-appropriate Use In Addition to Efforts to Raise Public Awareness","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"62 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information in light of Australia's recent move to ban social media for children under 16 and Albania's announcement to shut down TikTok for at least a year, whether the Ministry is considering complementing the existing educational and counselling toolkit with regulatory interventions, such as requiring social media platforms to customise age-appropriate versions of their content for Singaporean children and teenagers.
Mrs Josephine Teo: I thank Mr Saktiandi for his question, which I have answered in the reply to the Parliamentary Questions filed by Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr Pritam Singh at the Sitting of 7 January 2025. [Please refer to \"Examining Australia's Move on Social Media Ban for Those Aged 16 and Below\", Official Report, 7 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 148, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
I invite him to seek clarification, if any, on my reply.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Maximum Age Limit for Blood Donation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"63 Mr Xie Yao Quan asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry will consider raising the maximum age to become a blood donor from 60 years old currently to 65 years old; and (b) if not, why not.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: There is a maximum age for first-time blood donors because elderly individuals have a higher incidence of cardiovascular risk factors and diseases, which puts them at increased risk of adverse reactions, such as dizziness and fainting spells, after donation.
The Health Sciences Authority regularly reviews donor eligibility criteria to determine if the upper age limit of first-time donors could be safely increased to broaden the donor pool whilst ensuring donor safety. We will take the Member's suggestion into account in the next review.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Protection for Police Officers against Targeted, Pre-mediated Attacks","subTitle":"Follow-up after Pasir Ris Park attack on Police officers in November 2024","sectionType":"WANA","content":"64 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Home Affairs in light of the targeted attack against Police officers on 8 November 2024 at Pasir Ris Park, what is being done to protect our Police officers from such targeted, pre-mediated attacks.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Member may refer to my reply to Question No 62 for Oral Answer on the Order Paper for 7 January 2025. [Please refer to \"Measures to Ensure Safety of Police Officers in Light of Attack Using Improvised Flamethrower\", Official Report, 7 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 148, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"School- or Community-based Programmes to Educate Children on Definitions of Types of Abuse and Ways to Seek Help","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"65 Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in light of the September 2024 Domestic Violence Trends Report, what school or community-based programmes are in place to educate children and young people about (i) definitions of emotional, physical, sexual abuse and neglect (ii) their right to always be safe from all forms of emotional, physical, sexual abuse and neglect and (iii) age-appropriate and child-centred avenues to seek help if they have concerns about their safety and well-being.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Children and young persons are taught in schools or through programmes developed by Social Service Agencies, on how to keep themselves safe. Preschoolers learn about body safety awareness, including recognising safe and unsafe body touches and seeking help from trusted adults when they feel unsafe. From Primary 1, students participate in Character and Citizenship Education lessons which cover different forms of abuse, their right to safety and the importance of respecting boundaries. These lessons also emphasise how students can seek help from trusted adults, such as their parents, teachers and school counsellors, when in need of support.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposed Connection of Cross Island MRT Line's Punggol Extension to Yio Chu Kang MRT Station","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"66 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Transport whether a feasibility study can be made on connecting the Cross Island MRT Line's Punggol extension to Yio Chu Kang MRT station so as to reach residents along Yio Chu Kang Road and Fernvale.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: There are no plans to extend the Cross Island Line – Punggol Extension (CPE) beyond Punggol station.
Residents in the Yio Chu Kang and Fernvale areas have access to the North-South Line, North East Line and Circle Line via several bus services and the Sengkang Light-Rail Transit. Under our Bus Connectivity Enhancement Programme and rail expansion plans, residents in these areas will enjoy better access to public transport. For example, the upcoming Cross Island Line, which interchanges with the North-South Line at Ang Mo Kio and the North East Line at Hougang, will provide additional travel connections. Fernvale residents are also served by City Direct bus service 671, which was recently extended to call at additional bus stops in the Central Business District in November 2024.
The Land Transport Authority will continue to assess the need for future transport infrastructure, taking into account factors, such as existing and future land use developments, travel demand and engineering considerations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Complaints about Aggressive or Jerky Bus Driving","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"67 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport (a) how many complaints about aggressive or jerky bus driving have been received by LTA and public transport operators in the past year; (b) how does LTA monitor and assess the prevalence of such behaviours; (c) what factors contribute to such driving behaviours including bus schedules and driver demographics; and (d) what measures are in place to reduce such driving behaviours to improve commuter safety and comfort.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Bus operators are required to submit details of public feedback received to the Land Transport Authority every month. In the first 11 months of 2024, out of close to four million daily bus trips by commuters, there was an average of around 10 pieces of public feedback per day relating to the driving behaviour of bus captains (BCs), including feedback on jerky driving. Based on investigations, the majority of such feedback were attributed to BCs reacting to other roads users, for example, BCs had to suddenly apply the brakes when other vehicles cut into the path of their buses.
Bus operators regularly review the runtime of buses to allow BCs to keep to their schedule, while driving safely at a reasonable speed and within speed limits. BCs are not asked to speed up in order to regulate the intervals between buses. All newly-licensed BCs undergo a five-day Enhanced Vocational Licence Training Programme, which includes a module on safe driving techniques, followed by an additional five to six weeks of on-the-road training before they are deployed to drive public buses. BCs also attend regular safety briefings and go through refresher courses on safe driving techniques, such as the BC Drive Safe course, which incorporate techniques on smooth driving.
Bus operators have also equipped their vehicles with telematics systems to monitor driving behaviour. BCs with good driving behaviour will be rewarded with additional incentives, while BCs with persistent driving issues will be sent for additional training and may be subject to disciplinary action.
The Bus Safety Tripartite Taskforce was formed on 1 July 2024 to review how road safety may be enhanced for bus commuters, BCs and other road users in their interactions with public buses. One area that the Taskforce is looking into is how we can further enhance the situational awareness of BCs in their interactions with other motorists. The Taskforce aims to complete its review by the first half of 2025.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Reports of Damaged or Choked Drains","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"69 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) in the past two years, how many reports regarding damaged or choked drains has PUB received; and (b) whether PUB has a systematic plan to expedite repairs on damaged drains to prevent mosquito breeding.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Public Utilities Board (PUB) received about 600 feedback per year in the past two years regarding damaged or choked public drains, most of which were minor that did not impact the performance of drains to convey stormwater.
To maintain Singapore's vast network of drains, canals and waterways, PUB works closely with the National Environment Agency (NEA) on regular cleaning and structural maintenance.
PUB regularly inspects and upkeeps public drains. Drains that show structural defects will be repaired promptly, with repair works prioritised based on the drain conditions. Drains beyond repair will be scheduled for upgrading through PUB's drainage improvement programme, with interim repairs promptly carried out to ensure their performance.
NEA undertakes the regular cleaning of public drains. Debris, litter and shed leaves in the drains are removed promptly to allow stormwater to flow freely and to prevent pockets of stagnant water from forming. This prevents drains from becoming potential mosquito breeding habitats. Drains are also flushed periodically to remove silt.
PUB and NEA will continue to keep our drains, canals and waterways clean and in good condition to protect Singaporeans from floods and vector-borne diseases, like dengue.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Notification of Animal Escapes by Mandai Wildlife Group Enclosures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"70 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Mandai Wildlife Group is required to inform NParks when an animal escapes from its enclosure; (b) how many animals have escaped from the Mandai Wildlife Group's facilities over the past five years; and (c) how many of the escaped animals have not been captured and returned to the respective facilities.
Mr Desmond Lee: The National Parks Board (NParks) and Mandai Wildlife Group have a working arrangement for the latter to promptly report any incident where an animal escapes from its facilities, to NParks. This allows NParks, as the authority overseeing wildlife management matters, to ensure that animal welfare and public safety are maintained in the process of capturing the escaped animal. While this arrangement has been adequate thus far, NParks is reviewing its licensing conditions for animal exhibitions to formalise the requirements for reporting of animal escapes.
In the past five years, Mandai Wildlife Group had reported the escape of two animals from their facilities to NParks – a bird and a monkey. Both escapes took place in 2024. The monkey has since been captured and returned to its enclosure. Efforts to recapture the bird are ongoing. NParks will continue working closely with Mandai Wildlife Group to ensure a prompt and coordinated response in capturing escaped animals.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Safeguards to Prevent Misuse of Banking Customers' Personal Data Given New Advisory on Full NRIC Number","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Don Wee asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what safeguards and regulations will MAS be implementing in order to address public concerns about the potential misuse of personal data, including NRIC numbers, under the Personal Data Protection Commission's advisory guidelines to be updated to align with the Government's new policy intent; and (b) what steps will be taken to reassure banking clients that the risk of thefts of identities will be eliminated, particularly in light of increasing cybersecurity threats.
2 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether banks and financial institutions will be required to enhance account authentication requirements for access to services and information, beyond requesting for NRIC numbers, phone numbers or full names; and (b) if so, how will the roll-out be timed with the discontinuation of the use of masked NRIC numbers within the Government.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): The Association of Banks in Singapore has recently assured consumer banking customers that the National Registration Identity Card (NRIC) numbers alone cannot be used to effect payment and fund transfers. Banks are also conducting a thorough review of their practices on the use of NRIC numbers to confirm that their practices are in line with the prevailing Personal Data Protection Commission's Advisory Guidelines on NRIC.
The Ministry of Digital Development and Information has announced that the Personal Data Protection Commission will be updating its Advisory Guidelines on the use of NRIC numbers, following public and industry consultations. This has been addressed in the Ministerial Statement on 8 January 2025. [Please refer to \"Responsible Use of NRIC Numbers\", Official Report, 8 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 149, Ministerial Statements section.]
The Monetary Authority of Singapore will work with financial institutions to align practices where needed when the revised guidelines are issued. Financial institutions will continue to educate their customers on good cyber hygiene habits and guard against identity theft.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Deregistered Entities and Measures to Ensure They Fulfil Obligations on Claims and Payments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) since 2020, how many entities from and what percentage of each sector have been deregistered from ACRA's registry annually; (b) what percentage of deregistered entities fail to fulfil all dissolution obligations including compliance orders by the Small Claims Tribunal or the Employment Claims Tribunal; (c) how are the directors of such entities made responsible and held accountable; and (d) what are the measures to ensure that registered entities provide for and uphold payment obligations to employees and contractors.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Payment obligations between registered entities and their employees or contractors are governed by the law of contract. Employees and contractors have avenues for recourse, should such entities breach their payment obligations. Employees may submit a salary-related or wrongful dismissal claim for mediation at the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management.
If the dispute remains unresolved after mediation, the Employment Claims Act 2016 allows eligible employees to file a claim of up to $20,000, or $30,000 for union-assisted claims, against his or her employer in the Employment Claims Tribunals. Contractors may file a specified claim of up to $20,000 in the Small Claims Tribunals, or up to $30,000 if there is a Memorandum of Consent from both parties.
Alternatively, both employees and contractors can file a civil suit in the Courts for breach of contract. If registered entities fail to comply with an order by the Tribunals or Courts, employees and contractors may apply to Court to enforce the order as a judgment creditor.
From 2020 to 2024, there were approximately 247,000 cessations of business entities. Data on whether wound up entities have fulfilled all dissolution obligations is not captured by the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority.
Employees and contractors of deregistered business entities that have not complied with their obligations, including Court orders, can seek recourse depending on the type of business entity.
For business entities that have no separate legal personalities from their owners, such as sole proprietorships, partnerships and limited partnerships, employees and contractors may continue to pursue and enforce their claims against the business owners even if the business entities have been deregistered.
For business entities that have separate legal personalities from their directors and members, such as companies, variable capital companies and limited liability partnerships, employees or contractors can lodge a claim as creditors when the entity is being wound-up or liquidated. Specifically, employees' claims on salaries will be given priority over most unsecured debts in an insolvent winding up.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for New Occasional Paper on Income Growth, Inter-generational Inequality and Mobility Trends","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Ministry has plans to issue another Occasional Paper to study income growth, inter-generational inequality and mobility trends in Singapore, especially for Singaporeans born after 1982, similar to the Occasional Paper released in August 2015; and (b) if not, why not.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Government has plans to do so. We have also been providing data and analysis on these trends through annual reports, such as the Key Household Income Trends report, published by the Singapore Department of Statistics as well as in publications and speeches.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Monitoring of Clean Electricity Imports from Indonesia and Safeguards against Price Renegotiations and Policy Changes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the projected cost differential between importing clean electricity from Indonesia as compared to alternative sources; (b) how many of the seven conditionally approved Indonesian import projects have achieved financial close; and (c) what safeguards are in place to prevent the renegotiation of agreed pricing terms after infrastructure investments are made.
6 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether there are contingency plans for any reduction in Indonesia's planned clean electricity exports below the 3.4 GW committed for 2030; (b) what amount of Singapore's 2035 low-carbon electricity import target of 6 GW is currently backed by binding government-to-government agreements; and (c) what mechanisms exist in the current conditional import licences to protect Singapore's interests in situations where source countries modify their export policies.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Energy Market Authority has issued Conditional Approvals to seven importers to import 3.4 gigawatts (GW) of low-carbon electricity from Indonesia. Of these, five importers have been awarded Conditional Licenses as their projects have made more progress. We will continue to work closely with the Indonesian government to support the progress of these projects. This includes, aligning approval processes within both governments before projects progress to the next stage of development.
The importers aim to achieve financial close from 2025. If successful, they plan to begin commercial operations from 2028. The importers are currently negotiating Power Purchase Agreements with large-scale electricity consumers. It is in the interest of both importers and consumers to come to mutually acceptable commercial terms, especially on the pricing and length of the contracts, so that the consumers can secure access to low-carbon electricity to meet their decarbonisation needs and importers can improve the viability of their projects.
Aside from the projects in Indonesia, we are also working with project developers to import low-carbon electricity from other countries in the region. This will give us a diverse portfolio of projects that can help us collectively meet our imports target of six GW by 2035 and potentially import more electricity beyond 2035.
We will ensure our energy security as we embark on the energy transition. Natural gas will continue to underpin our energy portfolio for the foreseeable future, even as we scale up electricity imports, maximise domestic solar deployment and potentially introduce new low-carbon energy sources, such as hydrogen, in the future. We will also have sufficient local backup generation capacity to meet our needs if there are disruptions to the electricity imports.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Citizenship or Residency Status of Persons on INTERPOL's Red Notice and Currently in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether there are persons wanted on INTERPOL Red Notices who are currently at large in Singapore; and (b) if so, how many are (i) Singapore Citizens (ii) Permanent Residents (iii) non-resident.
Mr K Shanmugam: This question has been addressed in the Ministry of Home Affairs' written reply to Parliamentary Question Nos 16, 17 and 18 on 7 January 2025. [Please refer to \"Keeping Track of or Assessing Singapore Citizens or Residents Placed On INTERPOL's Red Notice\", Official Report, 7 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 148, Written Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of New Citizens by Educational Qualifications since 2019","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Home Affairs for each year since 2019, what is the breakdown of new citizens by their highest education qualification attained at the point when they were granted Singapore Citizenship.
Mr K Shanmugam: The proportion of new citizens aged 20 years and over with (a) secondary and below qualification and (b) post-secondary qualification, is released annually in the National Population and Talent Division's \"Population in Brief\" publication and can also be found on the Singapore Department of Statistics' website.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Applications to Amend Date of Birth in Passport in Past Five Years and Moves to Facilitate Hassle-free Travel","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) in the past five years, how many applications have been received by the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) to amend the applicant's date of birth in his or her passport; and (b) how can the ICA better aid Singaporeans in this process so that they are able to travel without hassle.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) does not track the number of requests to amend the date of birth in passports.
Some individuals have incomplete records of their date of birth in the national register. Such individuals may update their date of birth by providing verifiable documentary proof of their date of birth to ICA. If they do not have such proof, ICA will consider the specific circumstances that resulted in the incomplete records and advise the individual of the appropriate course of action.
If the request to amend the date of birth is successful, ICA will update the individual's date of birth in the national register, following which the individual may apply for a new passport with the updated particulars.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Locally Produced and Imported Food","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) since 2014, what is the annual total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for locally produced and imported food in Singapore; (b) what is the change in GHG emissions per person over this period; (c) whether Singapore is on-track to meeting its milestone targets leading to the 2050 target of net zero GHG emissions; and (d) what are the local and multilateral economic and social measures that have been or will be introduced to reduce the per person GHG emissions.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: In 2022, Singapore announced our commitment to reduce emissions to around 60 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) in 2030 after peaking emissions earlier and achieve net zero emissions by 2050. As stated in our first Biennial Transparency Report (BTR1) submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in November 2024, Singapore is on track to meet our 2030 Nationally Determined Contribution and remains committed to achieving our 2050 net zero target, despite our limited potential for alternative energy sources. From 2014 to 2022, Singapore's per capita emissions increased by around 1% per annum. However, our carbon intensity, that is, carbon dioxide emissions per dollar gross domestic product (GDP) purchasing power parity (PPP) remains among the lowest globally1.
Our BTR provides information on our greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory, including emissions from the agriculture sector. Since 2000, the GHG emissions for local agricultural activities has contributed around 0.01% of Singapore's annual GHG inventory. In the latest reporting year of 2022, this translates to 0.008 MtCO2e. Singapore does not track emissions from imported goods, including imported food products, as such emissions occur outside of Singapore's national territories and are excluded from our national GHG inventory in accordance with UNFCCC reporting requirements.
Singapore takes a comprehensive approach towards climate action, to enable us to meet our international climate commitments while achieving sustainable growth. We are advancing mitigation efforts across all sectors of the economy, with particular focus on major sources of emissions, such as industry, power generation and land transport. For example, to decarbonise our power grid, we are moving forward with ambitious solar deployment plans and are also working with partner countries to import six gigawatt of low-carbon electricity by 2035. Incentives, such as the Resource Efficiency Grant for Emissions and legislation such as the Energy Conservation Act have been introduced to improve energy efficiency across the economy. We have also implemented a carbon tax since 2019 to provide an economy-wide signal for businesses and individuals to reduce their carbon footprint in line with our national climate goals.
For Singapore to achieve our climate goals, it is also important that every individual plays his or her part. Singapore will continue to push ahead with the Singapore Green Plan 2030, which aims to galvanise every individual to contribute to our national agenda on sustainable development. Beyond that, we have also introduced initiatives, like the Climate Friendly Household Programme, to encourage individuals to take climate actions and be more efficient in their energy and water consumption.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : In 2022, Singapore ranked 137th out of 156 countries/territories for CO2 emissions per dollar GDP PPP, where first place represents the highest carbon intensity and 156th place represents the lowest. International Energy Agency, 2024."],"footNoteQuestions":["10"],"questionNo":"10"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons for Decrease in Enforcement Actions against High-rise Littering in 2023","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what are the reasons for the decrease in the number of enforcement actions taken against high-rise littering in 2023 as compared to previous years given that feedback instances remain on the rise; and (b) whether the Ministry is considering more technology options to augment surveillance beyond basic cameras and public feedback.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: My response to Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling, Dr Tan Wu Meng, Ms Foo Mee Har and Ms Yeo Wan Ling's Parliamentary Questions will also address the related Parliamentary Question on high-rise littering filed by Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui on 7 January 2025. [Please refer to \"Deployment of Surveillance Cameras to Catch High-rise Littering and Trial of Other Technologies to Supplement Present Efforts\", Official Report, 08 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 149, Oral Answers to Questions section; and \"Developing New Technical Solutions to Detect High-rise Littering\", Official Report, 7 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 148, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
In addressing high-rise littering, the National Environment Agency (NEA) undertakes various measures to educate the public, detect instances of high-rise littering and enforce against offenders. In 2022 and 2023, NEA received an average of about 27,100 high-rise littering feedback per year. This was significantly lower than the annual average of about 33,500 feedback received in 2020 and 2021. When there is such feedback at a block of the Housing and Development Board flats, NEA will work with the Town Council (TC) to first issue advisories to residents in the block. Should the high-rise littering issue persist, NEA will investigate to determine the likely offending unit and deploy surveillance cameras with video analytics to capture acts of high-rise littering and support enforcement efforts.
Between 2021 and 2023, NEA deployed cameras in about 97.1% of 7,400 persistent high-rise littering cases. The remainder were assessed as unsuitable due to the design and layout of the blocks and the lack of appropriate vantage points. In instances where camera deployment is not feasible, NEA will step up educational outreach to households in the affected stack, conduct stakeouts and initiate further investigations if there are eyewitness accounts. Members of the public who are aware of their neighbours' littering behaviour may also submit video evidence of high-rise littering acts to NEA for investigation.
Depending on factors, such as the weather, duration of surveillance and visibility of the camera to would-be offenders, the detection rate of high-rise littering acts could vary and result in fluctuations in the yearly enforcement rate. From 2021 to 2023, such acts were detected in about 30% of surveillance cameras deployment resulting in over 3,300 enforcement actions. In the coming year, NEA will be introducing new operational measures to improve the detection rate. These include the use of cameras with higher resolution and longer deployment durations. Cameras will also be deployed in more covert locations to better detect high-rise littering activities.
To increase public awareness and deterrence against high-rise littering, NEA also collaborates with TCs to deploy standees indicating ongoing surveillance or localised statistics on offenders caught and display posters indicating the number of incidents of high-rise littering caught for the affected column.
My Ministry will continue to monitor and explore measures to enhance detection and enforcement capabilities for high-rise littering, including keeping pace with technological advancements in video analytics and artificial intelligence and monitoring the suitability and safety of technologies, such as drone flights, for high-rise littering surveillance. In addition, we will continue to strengthen partnerships with communities to develop localised solutions to address high-rise littering and urge residents to be considerate and not commit such acts, which is an anti-social behaviour that threatens public safety and hygiene.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support for Stallholders Affected by Central Kitchen Meal Provision in Schools and Ensuring Nutritional Values for Such Meals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education (a) how does the implementation of central kitchen meal provisions affect existing school canteen stallholders; and (b) what measures are in place to support stallholders during the transition to new canteen models.
13 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education (a) how does the Ministry ensure that meals provided by central kitchens adhere to nutritional guidelines and are accepted by students; and (b) what feedback mechanisms are in place to monitor student satisfaction and dietary health outcomes.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: To ensure that our students can have access to a good range of food options, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has been working with schools that face or foresee facing difficulties in filling vacant stalls. For schools that are keen and ready, MOE is exploring different canteen operating models, such as those using central kitchens. Schools that still have a healthy number of stalls operating can retain their existing model of individual stallholders.
As we explore these new models, we will make every effort to preserve the livelihoods of existing stallholders who still want to work. We do so by referring them to nearby schools and recommending them for employment under the appointed central kitchen operators.
Similar to our existing canteen stallholders, MOE will require central kitchen operators to serve meals that adhere to the Health Promotion Board's (HPB's) guidelines, which require a balanced diet covering the four main food groups: carbohydrates, proteins, vegetables and fruits. In fact, it will be easier to ensure the quality of food prepared in central kitchens, as HPB officers can carry out checks directly at these facilities, compared to the current practice of checking across many individual stalls. Schools will work closely with central kitchen operators to provide feedback on the variety and quality of meals, based on surveys and food tasting sessions with parents and students.
MOE will continue to work with schools to explore a diversity of canteen models to complement individual canteen stallholders to ensure students continue to have access to a good variety of nutritious yet affordable food options.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Local Graduates Working in Jobs Related to Field of Studies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Education (a) in the last 10 years, what is the percentage of diploma holders and university graduates from local institutes of higher learning who work in jobs related to their fields of study; (b) which fields of study have recorded more alumni having such jobs and which have recorded the least, respectively; (c) what measures have been or will be introduced to increase the inflow of alumni into such jobs; and (d) what is the target, if any, that the Ministry is working towards.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The proportion of polytechnic and autonomous universities (AU) graduates working in jobs related to their fields of study has increased in the last 10 years. Based on the Ministry of Education's Graduate Employment Survey, polytechnic graduates working in a related full-time permanent job increased from 71% to 79% from 2014 to 2023. For AU graduates, the proportion increased from 82% to 86% in the same period.
Graduates from specialised disciplines are more likely to enter related jobs. For example, more than 95% of polytechnic and AU graduates from the health sciences reported entering related jobs in the last 10 years. In comparison, a greater proportion of graduates from broader disciplines report working in unrelated jobs. For example, an average of 69% of humanities and social sciences AU graduates entered related jobs in the last ten years.
Given that students have diverse interests that may change over time, it is not meaningful for Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) to set hard targets to ensure that graduates work in jobs related to their field of study. That said, our schools and IHLs provide education and career counselling to help students identify their strengths and interests and encourage them to choose courses accordingly, rather than simply choosing the most popular courses. IHLs also work with sector agencies and employers to encourage the inflow of graduates into jobs related to their training. This includes, enhancing students' internship experience and raising awareness of available job opportunities in the sector. More broadly, IHLs seek to ensure that students are equipped with skills, such as problem-solving and critical thinking, that are valued across different job roles and industries.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Value of Scholarships and Tuition Grants Given to International Students","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Education in 2024, what is the total value of scholarships and tuition grants given to international students in our schools and autonomous universities, respectively.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The total value of scholarships and tuition grants given to international students in our schools, polytechnics and autonomous universities is comparable to that of five years ago. The value of scholarships given to international students amount to less than 1% of the Ministry of Education's (MOE's) budget. The total combined value of scholarships and tuition grants amount to less than 2% of MOE's budget.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Applicants and Successful Admissions to Primary 1 under Phases 2A and 2B of Registration Exercises from 2020 to 2024","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Education what is the number of children who applied for and gained admission to Primary One from 2020 to 2024 under (i) Phase 2A where a parent or a sibling was a former student of the primary school and (ii) Phase 2B by virtue of a parent being endorsed as an active community leader, respectively.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Over the past five years, about 17% of the Primary 1 cohort successfully registered under Phase 2A. Phase 2A includes children whose parents or siblings were former students of the school, whose parents were staff members of the school or members of the School Advisory or Management Committee or who came from the Ministry of Education Kindergarten located at the primary school.
During the same period, about 5% of the Primary 1 cohort successfully registered under Phase 2B. Phase 2B includes children whose parents were eligible parent volunteers, church or clan members directly connected with the school, or active community leaders. The children of active community leaders made up around 1% of the Primary 1 cohort, which has been stable.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Youths with Special Educational Needs in Tertiary Educational Institutions and Undergoing Internships","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Education (a) since 2018, how many youths with special educational needs have undergone or are undergoing tertiary education; (b) of which, how many have undergone or are undergoing internships and have subsequently entered jobs in their fields of study; and (c) what initiatives have been or will be introduced to (i) encourage employers to offer internships to these youths and (ii) educate, guide and support employers in creating inclusive work environments and jobs that are calibrated to accommodate different skill levels.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Students with special educational needs (SEN) are enrolled in either mainstream or Special Education (SPED) schools. For students in SPED schools, some learn the national curriculum with support and others benefit from a customised SPED curriculum.
For students with SEN learning the national curriculum, the Ministry of Education (MOE) strives to have as many of them progress to post-secondary education institutions (PSEIs) as possible.
Secondary and older students in mainstream schools have Education and Career Guidance Counsellors to guide them in making informed decisions about their education and career plans. Students with additional needs will receive further guidance and support from teachers and school personnel, such as SEN officers.
Students in SPED schools also receive support in transitioning to PSEIs. Schools work closely with students and their families to develop an Individual Transition Plan for each SPED student, to realise their post-school goals.
Presently, we have approximately 7,000 students with reported SEN enrolled across the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs).
For IHL courses that have internship requirements, students with SEN are expected to participate in them. The SG Enable IHL Internship Programme assists in matching students with disabilities to inclusive organisations in various sectors. Many of our IHLs provide internship opportunities on campus for students who may face greater difficulties securing external internships. Pre-internship, employment workshops and job matching programmes are also provided to help manage the transition of students with SEN from IHLs to the workplace. All students, regardless of their SEN condition, are encouraged to exercise self-advocacy to communicate their needs and request job accommodations at the workplace, if needed.
For students who offer a customised curriculum in SPED and demonstrate potential for employment, MOE also partners with SG Enable on employment support through programmes, such as the School-To-Work Transition Programme. MOE has also enhanced the SPED Vocational Education curriculum to emphasise the intentional teaching of soft skills and more structured vocational guidance. Eligible students can also enrol in selected Institute of Technical Education Skills Certificate programmes and Workforce Skills Qualifications courses in SPED schools, such as Metta School and Delta Senior School. In addition, SG Enable provides incentives, such as grants, from the Open Door Programme to help employers redesign jobs for students with disabilities.
We encourage more employers to be part of our whole-of-society effort and adopt an inclusive mindset to enable more young Singaporeans with SEN to enter and thrive in our workforce. With some adjustment and greater understanding, employers can benefit from the value that students with SEN bring to their work teams.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Foreign Students Unable to Pay School Fees and Removed from School in Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Education for each year in the past five years, how many foreign students have been unable to pay their school fees and are removed from the primary school and secondary school they studied in, respectively.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Over the past five years, on average, 0.2% of international students were not allowed to continue their study in the Ministry of Education schools due to fees arrears that remain unpaid despite repeated reminders. International students who require financial assistance can approach their schools, community or welfare organisations for advice on assistance that is available to them.
19 Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in respect of the Domestic Violence Trends Report 2024, whether the Ministry can provide data expressed in rates per 1,000 population for each year from 2021 to 2023 for (i) Tier 1 child abuse (ii) Tier 2 child abuse (iii) emotional, physical, sexual abuse and neglect cases, with a breakdown by the age groups (i) 0 to 6 year-olds (ii) 7 to 12 year-olds (iii) 13 to 18 year-olds, respectively.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The overall Tier 2 child abuse incidence rate can be found in the Report. Generally, there is no significant difference for the Tier 2 incidence rates across the years, by types of abuse and age groups, at below one per 1,000 population.
The Report also indicates why the Tier 1 incidence rate is not computed. Tier 1 cases could include duplicates of the same person, if a case was closed by the Ministry of Social and Family Development or a community agency and subsequently, re-opened due to new incidences of abuse.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessment of Usefulness of Next Generation Sequencing in Cancer Identification and Treatment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the prevalence of next generation sequencing (NGS), a technology for determining the sequence of DNA or RNA to study genetic variation associated with diseases or other biological phenomena, in Singapore; (b) what is the Government's assessment of the usefulness of NGS in cancer identification and treatment; and (c) whether the Government intends to provide guidelines on the use of NGS in Singapore.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: This question has been addressed in written reply to Parliamentary Question No 35 in the 7 January 2025 Sitting. [Please refer to \"Timeline for Developing Guidelines on Next Generation Sequencing and Potential of Sequencing as Screening Tool\", Official Report, 7 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 148, Written Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Waiting Time for Dental Services at Public Healthcare Institutions and Proposal for More Polyclinics to Offer Dental Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the current average waiting time for subsidised dental services at public healthcare institutions; (b) whether the Ministry has plans to increase the number of polyclinics offering dental services; (c) how is the Ministry promoting dental health and raising awareness about subsidised dental services; and (d) whether there are plans to include dental care into the Primary Care Providers (PCPs) scheme and Healthier SG programme.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The waiting time for subsidised dental services depends on the type of service and urgency of the case. The median waiting time for new appointments for non-emergency, basic dental services at polyclinics is approximately three months. For specialist services at our national specialty dental centres, the waiting time is around one month. Emergency cases are seen on the same day.
Subsidised dental services in the community are currently available at 14 polyclinics. They are also available to eligible patients at over 900 private dental clinics under the Community Health Assist Scheme. The Ministry of Health monitors the demand for dental services and will further expand subsidised services, if necessary.
Oral health promotion and education predates Healthier SG and are already carried out in schools and by partners in the public and private sectors to effectively reach out to the target groups.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enforcement against \"Kpods\" or Vape Juice Mixed with Etomidate","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the number of cases of \"Kpods\" or vape juice mixed with etomidate that are detected in 2024; (b) how is the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) conducting enforcement against such sale and consumption; and (c) whether HSA offers support to consumers who are trying to cease the habit.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: This question has been addressed in oral reply to Parliamentary Question No 48 in the 8 January 2025 Sitting. [Please refer to \"Deterrence for Use of Kpods or Vape Juices Mixed with Etomidate\", Official Report, 8 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 149, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Length of Stay in Transitional Care Facilities and Capacity Expansion of Mobile Inpatient Care @ Home Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Health (a) in each year from 2022 to 2024, what is the average length of stay for patients in transitional care facilities; (b) whether the Ministry has expanded the capacity of the Mobile Inpatient Care @ Home (MIC@Home) programme to the planned 300 beds in 2024; and (c) what is the current average length of stay for patients under the MIC@Home programme.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The average length of stay (ALOS) for patients in Transitional Care Facilities was 32 days and 37 days in 2023 and 2024, respectively. As of December 2024, the Mobile Inpatient Care at Home (MIC@Home) bed capacity is about 185 beds. The ALOS for patients under MIC@Home is six days.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Future Uses of Interim Bus Park at Corner of Boon Lay Place and Boon Lay Drive","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for National Development (a) what future uses are being considered for the interim bus park located at the corner of Boon Lay Place and Boon Lay Drive; and (b) whether the users of the interim bus park will be consulted and provided with alternative parking options.
Mr Desmond Lee: Agencies are studying plans to rejuvenate Boon Lay Neighbourhood Centre, which includes the interim bus park, to ensure that it continues to provide for the needs of current and future residents and remains an attractive place for the community. As part of these studies, agencies have commenced engagements with the operator of the interim bus park. More details will be shared when ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Animal Welfare and Cruelty Complaints Lodged against Pet Boarders and Groomers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development in each year for the past five years (a) how many animal welfare and cruelty complaints have been lodged against (i) pet boarders and (ii) pet groomers; and (b) what are the top three complaints raised against (i) pet boarders and (ii) pet groomers, respectively.
Mr Desmond Lee: The number of complaints against pet boarders and pet groomers relating to animal welfare and cruelty concerns received by the National Parks Board (NParks) in the last three years is shown in Table 1 below.
The most common complaints against pet boarders include, overcrowding of pets in facilities, dog walking practices and noise disamenities from dog barking. Complaints against pet groomers primarily involve allegations of injuries to animals during the grooming process.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Provision of Seating Areas in Retail and Commercial Developments for Elderly and Individuals with Mobility Challenges","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether URA will mandate a minimum number of seating areas in shopping malls to support the elderly and individuals with mobility challenges; (b) what guidelines currently govern the provision of such amenities in commercial developments; and (c) how does the Ministry ensure that the needs of these vulnerable groups are addressed in the planning and approval of new retail spaces.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Building and Construction Authority (BCA) requires that all new buildings and existing buildings undergoing major addition and alteration (A&A) works comply with the Code on Accessibility in the Built Environment. Under the Code, resting areas with seats must be provided along long paths of travel around and within buildings. The distance between each of these resting areas should be no greater than 50 metres. The Code also recommends that these seats be designed with armrests at an appropriate height to assist older persons or persons with disabilities to get up from the seats.
In addition, BCA has published Universal Design Guides, which provides industry with guidelines and good practices for accessibility features beyond the mandatory requirements, including the design of resting areas with seats.
BCA regularly reviews the Code to ensure that its standards meet the changing needs of the population. For instance, in the Draft Code on Accessibility in the Built Environment 2025, that is currently undergoing public consultation, the Code Review Committee has proposed to require at least one passenger alighting and boarding point to be equipped with seats. We encourage members of the public to provide feedback on the Draft Code, which is available for public consultation until 27 January 2025.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Retrofitting Multi-storey Car Parks in New Estates to Accommodate Taller Vehicles","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for National Development in newer estates, such as Sengkang and Punggol, where surface carparks are scarce (a) whether HDB has considered retrofitting existing multi-storey carparks to accommodate taller vehicles; and (b) if not, what are the main constraints to doing so.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) multi-storey car parks (MSCPs) are provided primarily to serve the parking needs of residents. They are built in compliance with the Land Transport Authority's Code of Practice on Vehicle Parking Provision, with height limits sufficient for access by passenger cars and most light goods vehicles. Larger commercial vehicles are generally not allowed to park in HDB MSCPs due to safety concerns and potential disamenities to residents.
Vehicles that are unable to park in HDB MSCPs can park at public surface car parks, commercial and industrial car parks as well as purpose-built heavy vehicle parks instead. For temporary parking needs, such as to facilitate loading and unloading activities, they may also use the loading and unloading bays which do not have height limits.
HDB has no plans to retrofit existing MSCPs to accommodate taller commercial vehicles. Such retrofitting works would require major additional and alteration works or reconstruction of the building, affecting all existing car park users.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Inclusion of Arts-related Businesses as Participating Merchants in CDC Vouchers Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Ms Usha Chandradas asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what is the Ministry's policy on the inclusion of arts-related businesses as participating merchants in the Community Development Council Vouchers Scheme; (b) whether certain types of arts-related businesses have been excluded from the scope of the scheme; and (c) if so, what are the reasons for such exclusion.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The aim of the Community Development Council Vouchers Scheme is primarily to support Singaporeans in addressing cost of living issues. Hence, the focus of the scheme is to support Singaporeans in their daily expenses, such as daily necessities like food and groceries, and boost the businesses of heartland merchants and hawkers, rather than to subsidise all goods and services to residents.
Nevertheless, arts-related businesses in the heartlands can apply to join the scheme and be considered on a case-by-case basis. In addition, the People's Association also provides subsidised arts-related courses and programmes for residents in the heartlands.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Help for Migrant Workers Faced with Sudden Job Loss and Enhancing Migrant Worker Employment Safeguards","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Manpower (a) since 2021, how many migrant workers (MWs) have approached the Ministry for help due to sudden job loss; (b) of which, what percentage of MWs have owed fees to foreign recruiters; (c) what help has the Ministry extended to such MWs; (d) what transnational measures will be introduced to protect MWs against excessive recruitment fees; and (e) what safeguards will be introduced to ensure businesses hiring MWs are responsible employers and are financially sound.
Dr Tan See Leng: Around 2,000 Work Permit holders (WPHs) approach the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) for assistance annually on issues related to dismissal. Depending on the circumstances of each case, MOM will advise and assist the worker to file salary or wrongful dismissal claims. WPHs with valid salary claims or who are assisting with investigations may also obtain another job in Singapore in the meantime and will not be repatriated. MOM does not track if dismissed WPHs owe fees to foreign recruiters.
To safeguard the interests of workers, MOM regulates employment agency activities in Singapore. This includes setting limits on the amount of recruitment fees that agents can collect from workers. However, Singapore does not have legal jurisdiction to influence the recruitment fees incurred in the WPHs' home countries, which form the bulk of the recruitment fees borne by WPHs. Instead, MOM works with the industry to explore measures, such as direct outreach and referral programmes, to reduce the need for workers to approach foreign recruiters or middlemen to find jobs in Singapore.
To ensure employers of WPHs manage their foreign workforce responsibly, the Employment Act and Employment of Foreign Manpower Act prescribe the obligations of employers, such as ensuring prompt payment of salaries, as well as the penalties for failure to comply.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Harmonising Workforce Regulations across Regions under Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Manpower whether workforce regulations will be harmonised across the two regions under the Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone, including procedures for obtaining work permits and the ability to work in the other country, to enhance cross-border flows of people.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone will strengthen economic cooperation and connectivity, including facilitating the cross-border movement of people and goods, to bring mutual benefit to the businesses and people of both countries. However, there is no intent to harmonise workforce regulations between Singapore and Malaysia. Singaporeans who wish to work in Malaysia and vice versa, must meet the requirements of the respective work pass frameworks.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Release Date of Tripartite Guidelines on Restraint of Trade Clauses in Employment Contracts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Manpower when will the Ministry release the tripartite guidelines on restraint of trade clauses in employment contracts which were previously said to be released in the second half of 2024.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower is discussing with its tripartite partners, the National Trades Union Congress and the Singapore National Employers Federation, on how and when restrictive clauses in employment contracts can and should be used, based on established principles that the Courts have articulated. More details will be made available in due course.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of CPF Contribution Threshold for Silver Support Scheme amid Inflation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the CPF Board has reviewed the adequacy of the $140,000 total CPF contribution threshold for the Silver Support Scheme in light of inflation trends since 2021; (b) what economic indicators guide decisions on the timing and extent of adjustments to this threshold; and (c) whether a systematic review process will be implemented to keep the threshold aligned with the cost of living.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Silver Support Scheme is targeted at seniors who had lower incomes during their working years and now have little or no family support and resources in their retirement.
We review the Silver Support Scheme periodically to target support at seniors who need it the most and consider factors, such as inflation, while ensuring that the scheme remains fiscally sustainable. From January 2025, the qualifying per capita household income threshold has been raised from $1,800 to $2,300 and the quarterly payments are increased by 20%. The Total Central Provident Fund Contribution is indicative of the incomes that seniors earned during their working years. The contribution threshold is reviewed periodically and was raised significantly in the last review, doubling in 2021 from $70,000 to $140,000.
The Government has rolled out additional measures to support all Singaporeans with cost-of-living pressures, by enhancing the Assurance Package to more than $10 billion. This includes measures, such as the Budget 2024 Cost-of-Living Special Payment that was disbursed in September 2024, Community Development Council vouchers and additional utilities save (U-Save) and service and conservancy charges rebates. Seniors who need more assistance can also tap on ComCare assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Gross Monthly Incomes of Full-time Self-employed Taxi and Private Hire Car Drivers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Manpower for each year between 2016 and 2023, what are the (i) 25th, 50th and 75th percentile and (ii) mean, gross monthly incomes of residents who are full-time self-employed taxi drivers and private hire car drivers.
Dr Tan See Leng: The (i) 25th, (ii) 50th, and (iii) 75th percentile, as well as (iv) mean of the gross monthly incomes of residents who are full-time, self-employed taxi drivers and private hire car drivers are in Table 1 below.
34 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Transport (a) what has been the ridership of the new express feeder Bus Service 298X compared to its parent Bus Service 298 since its introduction; and (b) whether the Land Transport Authority will consider introducing express variants of trunk bus routes that will only call at selected bus stops along the route of the parent trunk bus service, instead of having this only for feeder bus services and, if not, why not.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Express feeder Service 298X was introduced less than a month ago on 9 December 2024 and its ridership has yet to stabilise.
While express feeder services like Service 298X are a new service type introduced as part of the Bus Connectivity Enhancement Programme, express variants of trunk routes are not new. One example is Service 30e, which is an express variant of trunk Service 30, plying between Bedok and Pasir Panjang. Another example is Service 97e, an express variant of trunk Service 97 that plies between Jurong East and the Central Business District.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"KTM Tebrau Shuttle Train Service's Capacity to Meet Demands","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"35 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Transport whether the KTM Tebrau shuttle train service between Woodlands and Johor Bahru has sufficient capacity to meet demands.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The KTM Tebrau shuttle is a commercial rail service run by Malaysia's Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad (KTMB). Ticket sales for the KTM Tebrau shuttle do not come under the Singapore Government's purview.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Recently-announced Increase in Airport Fees and Charges on Changi's Competitiveness","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"36 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Transport regarding the recent announcement on the increase in Changi Airport charges (a) whether the increase will impact the airport's competitiveness, in view of lower fees charged by neighbouring international airports; (b) what will be the anticipated effect on attracting airlines to Changi Airport, especially low-cost carriers; (c) whether any airlines have indicated plans to relocate or reduce operations due to the increase in fees; and (d) whether alternative sources of funds for investment in infrastructure projects have been explored.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Ministry of Transport and the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) are committed to safeguarding the Singapore air hub's competitiveness. This includes ensuring that the Changi Airport operator, the Changi Airport Group (CAG), runs airport operations smoothly, makes the necessary investments to build capacity and capability for the future and has the financial resources to do so.
CAG's key revenue sources include airport charges collected from airport users as well as other revenue streams, such as the rental of office and shop spaces at the airport, amongst others.
The increase in airport charges were needed to ensure that investments could continue to be made to upgrade and maintain Changi Airport to keep it competitive, amidst increasing competition from other air hubs. The increase would also cater for higher operating costs, including manpower costs, to allow wages for airport workers to continue to grow in line with national initiatives, such as the Progressive Wage Model, and go towards improving working conditions at the airport for workers.
CAAS assessed the increase by CAG to be reasonable. Based on current ticket prices, the announced increase in passenger fees was estimated to be less than 1% for an economy class ticket for most flights departing from or connecting through Singapore.
CAAS and CAG had consulted key airlines, including low-cost carriers, on the increase in airport charges and the majority understood the need for the increases.
We will continue to monitor the overall performance and competitiveness of Changi Airport, including Changi's connectivity, passenger experience and service levels to ensure that Changi remains competitive and continues to provide value to passengers and airlines.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Minister of State for Trade and Industry","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WS","content":"[(proc text) The following statement was made in a reply given by the Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Alvin Tan) during Question Time in response to Question No 18 on the Order Paper for the Sitting of 8 January 2025: (proc text)]
The Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Alvin Tan): Sir, I thank Ms Hany Soh for her suggestions. Indeed, the Government will take those into account. There are already a few existing plans: Enterprise Singapore is working with the neighbourhood centres, for example, to upgrade; and there are plans to upgrade Fuchun Neighbourhood Centre, for example. In fact, five neighbourhood centres in Woodlands have been upgraded under the Housing and Development Board's Remaking Our Heartland's programme. I also encourage the grassroots advisor, and particularly, Ms Hany Soh, to work with us to encourage the heartland enterprises to make use of many of the different schemes – heartland merchandising improvement schemes, placemaking grants, and in fact, also the Heartland Enterprise Centre Singapore – to increase their marketing ability and to increase their competitiveness. [Please refer to \"Impact of Johor Bahru-Singapore Rapid Transit System Link on Singapore's Retail, Manufacturing and Commercial Rental Sectors and Job Market\", Official Report, 8 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 149, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
[(proc text) Written statement by Mr Alvin Tan circulated with leave of the Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5): (proc text)]
I wish to make the following factual correction to my reply given during Question Time at the Parliament Sitting of 8 January 2025, in response to Question No 18 for Oral Answer on the Order Paper for the Sitting. My reply should read as follows:
The Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Alvin Tan): Sir, I thank Ms Hany Soh for her suggestions. Indeed, the Government will take those into account. There are already a few existing plans: the Housing and Development Board is working with the neighbourhood centres, for example, to upgrade; and there are plans to upgrade Fuchun Neighbourhood Centre, for example. In fact, five neighbourhood centres in Woodlands have been upgraded under the Housing and Development Board's Remaking Our Heartland's programme. I also encourage the grassroots advisor, and particularly, Ms Hany Soh, to work with us to encourage the heartland enterprises to make use of many of the different schemes – heartland merchandising improvement schemes, placemaking grants, and in fact, also the Heartland Enterprise Centre Singapore – to increase their marketing ability and to increase their competitiveness.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Second Minister for Finance","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WS","content":"[(proc text) The following statement was made by the Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah) during the Ministerial Statement on NRIC Numbers in ACRA’s Bizfile Service at the Sitting of 8 January 2025: (proc text)]
The Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah): There are two key steps to access information on business entities and their associated individuals on Bizfile: first, the People Search or what I will, for convenience, call “Step 1”; and second, the People Profile search or what I will call “Step 2”. [Please refer to \"NRIC Numbers in ACRA's Bizfile Service\", Official Report, 8 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 149, Ministerial Statements section.]
[(proc text) Written statement by Ms Indranee Rajah circulated with leave of the Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5): (proc text)]
I wish to make the following factual correction to my Ministerial Statement on NRIC Numbers in ACRA’s Bizfile Service at the Sitting of 8 January 2025. My Statement should read as follows:
The Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah): There are two key steps to access information on business entities and their associated individuals on Bizfile: first, the People Search or what I will, for convenience, call “Step 1”; and second, the People Profile purchase or what I will call “Step 2”.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":6291,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Saktiandi Supaat","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20250108/vernacular-Saktiandi Supaat Workplace Fairness Bill 8 Jan 2025 - Malay.pdf","fileName":"Saktiandi Supaat Workplace Fairness Bill 8 Jan 2025 - Malay.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6292,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20250108/vernacular-Mohd Fahmi Aliman Workplace Fairness Bill 8 Jan 2025 - Malay.pdf","fileName":"Mohd Fahmi Aliman Workplace Fairness Bill 8 Jan 2025 - Malay.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6293,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Usha Chandradas","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20250108/vernacular-Usha Chandradas Workplace Fairness Bill 8 Jan 2025 - Malay.pdf","fileName":"Usha Chandradas Workplace Fairness Bill 8 Jan 2025 - Malay.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6294,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Mark Lee","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20250108/vernacular-Mark Lee Workplace Fairness Bill 8 Jan 2025 - Mandarin.pdf","fileName":"Mark Lee Workplace Fairness Bill 8 Jan 2025 - Mandarin.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6295,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20250108/vernacular-AP Razwana Begum Workplace Fairness Bill 8 Jan 2025 - Malay.pdf","fileName":"AP Razwana Begum Workplace Fairness Bill 8 Jan 2025 - Malay.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6296,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Don Wee","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20250108/vernacular-Don Wee Food Safety and Security Bill 8 Jan 2025 - Mandarin.pdf","fileName":"Don Wee Food Safety and Security Bill 8 Jan 2025 - Mandarin.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6297,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Gan Thiam Poh","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20250108/vernacular-Gan Thiam Poh Food Safety and Security Bill 8 Jan 2025 - Mandarin.pdf","fileName":"Gan Thiam Poh Food Safety and Security Bill 8 Jan 2025 - Mandarin.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6298,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mrs Josephine Teo","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20250108/vernacular-Josephine Teo Ministerial Statement 8 Jan 2025 - Mandarin.pdf","fileName":"Josephine Teo Ministerial Statement 8 Jan 2025 - Mandarin.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}