1 Prof Koh Lian Pin asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment when is Singapore expected to peak its carbon dioxide equivalent emissions.
\tThe Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to address this question from Prof Koh Lian Pin and written Question No 14 from Member Ms He Ting Ru, as well as Question No 29 for oral answer raised by Prof Koh Lian Pin from yesterday, in a single reply, please?
\tMr Speaker: Please do.
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: The REACH public consultation on Singapore's Raised Climate Ambition was part of a comprehensive series of engagements that the Government has carried out since April 2022, under the Singapore Green Plan 2030. Through these engagements, we have received feedback and views from more than 1,700 stakeholders. The National Climate Change Secretariat (NCCS) has published the summary of feedback from these stakeholders, as well as more detailed feedback from the REACH public consultation on Singapore's Raised Climate Ambition on its website on 25 October 2022. Both reports address the question raised by Prof Koh Lian Pin.
The Singapore Government has just submitted Singapore's Second Update to our 2030 Nationally Determined Contribution, or NDC, to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). In the submission, we indicated that Singapore intends to reduce emissions to around 60 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) in 2030 after peaking our emissions earlier.
Peaking our emissions earlier than 2030 is significant and requires substantial transformations across industry, economy and society. Unlike countries that have access to abundant abatement resources domestically, Singapore has to rely on external measures, such as electricity imports and carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS). Negotiations with foreign partners on several arrangements are still ongoing. As such, it is premature to announce a precise year in which our emissions will peak. The Government's best estimate is for our emissions to peak between 2025 and 2028, which will be earlier than our previous 2030 target, at around 65 million tonnes.
Notwithstanding these uncertainties, we remain committed to achieving what we set out in the Second Update to our 2030 NDC – for our emissions in 2030 to be around 60 million tonnes, or five million tonnes lower than what we set out in the First Update in 2020. This five million tonnes reduction is substantial. It is more than the total emissions from households today. We have put in place a comprehensive package of mitigation measures under the five pillars of the Green Plan to achieve this.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Long Waiting Times at Accident and Emergency Departments of Restructured Hospitals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry can carry out educational publicity to remind residents not to go to the accident and emergency departments of public hospitals except for genuine emergencies; and (b) whether the Ministry can encourage more clinics to operate on a 24-hours basis.
3 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health (a) what is being done to reduce the waiting time for (i) consultation at the accident and emergency departments of public hospitals and (ii) ward beds at public hospitals; (b) whether the waiting time has reduced; and (c) if so, by how much.
4 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) whether an in-depth analysis is being done to identify the underlying causes of the hospital bed crunch problem; (b) how will hospitals ensure that care for patients in holding spaces, including those with non-critical issues, will not be compromised; (c) what mechanism is in place for the different healthcare clusters to forecast and raise the alarm about possible upward demand at emergency departments to make necessary arrangements in advance; and (d) when is the bed crunch expected to ease.
5 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) with the activation of inpatient teams to help at emergency departments, whether this will cause other healthcare teams to be overworked; (b) where will the manpower for transitional care facilities (TCFs), particularly the TCF with 364 beds, come from; (c) how well-equipped are healthcare workers and aides in the step-down facilities to care for transferred patients; and (d) what are the immediate measures to expand our healthcare teams, considering that some services cannot be automated in the short term.
6 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the main reasons behind the long waiting times for admission at some restructured hospitals' emergency departments in recent weeks; and (b) what are the measures the Ministry is taking to reduce waiting time especially for patients with higher acuity conditions.
7 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Health in light of the current hospital bed crunch (a) whether non-urgent elective surgeries in public hospitals will be postponed; (b) if so, whether this will once more result in a backlog after the current bed crunch is alleviated; and (c) how will the Ministry prevent the occurrences of deferring non-urgent treatments from turning into a vicious cycle of care backlog.
8 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the critical bottlenecks in hospitals resulting in patients being held for long periods of time at emergency departments; (b) whether this has resulted in ambulances being unable to be deployed for other emergencies; and (c) what steps is the Ministry taking to more permanently resolve the lack of bed spaces in public hospitals.
9 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the risk of suffering from pressure injuries amongst bedridden patients who are kept for significant lengths of time at the accident and emergency departments of acute hospitals before being admitted to the wards is being monitored; and (b) whether such patients may be screened in advance for their susceptibility to develop pressure injuries and treated accordingly.
10 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider developing a gatekeeping role and process at the polyclinics and GP clinics to reduce the number of patients whose conditions do not require emergency care at hospital emergency departments.
\tThe Minister for Health (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I address Question Nos 2 to 10 in today's Order Paper, please?
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: Sir, during the Delta wave last year, our Intensive Care Unit (ICU) wards came under immense pressure. This year, as we encountered the Omicron infection waves – and we have had three so far – the pressure shifted from the ICU to the regular hospital wards, and by extension, the Emergency Departments, or EDs. This is because Omicron is a less dangerous variant, and our population has become more resilient due to vaccinations and safe recovery from the infections.
Hence, over the past year, I have reported to this House on several occasions that although we did not let the virus overwhelm our healthcare system, our hospitals and, especially, the EDs, have been very busy.
Why are the hospitals still experiencing heavy workload, given that life has gone back to pre-COVID-19 normal?
The simple and fundamental reason is that the pandemic is not over. It may feel like it is over for most of us, but it certainly is not over for hospitals and our healthcare workers. We are learning to live with the virus, as an endemic disease. As I have explained to the House before, endemicity does not mean the virus disappears from our lives. On the contrary, it means that it is a permanent feature of our lives, circulating amongst us and we have to take personal precautions and implement public health measures in order to manage and live with it.
What are these public health measures? Essentially, there are three. First, the safe management measures (SMMs) to restrict social interactions and, therefore, reduce viral transmission. Two, transmission still happens and, therefore, we do vaccinations, so that infections do not translate into many cases of severe illnesses and deaths.
When these two cannot prevent cases, the third lever – which is our healthcare system – will then have to manage; it has to catch the problem and then, manage it by treating and caring for infected patients who become severely ill.
Let us take stock of the three measures. For SMMs, we have removed almost all restrictions, so that life goes back to the pre-COVID-19 normal. This is what all Singaporeans wish for and the whole point of treating COVID-19 as an endemic disease. Therefore, the Multi-Ministry Taskforce (MTF) has been very reluctant to re-impose SMMs, unless it is absolutely necessary.
The second public measure, vaccinations. We have already covered the great majority – over 90% – of our population. Our vaccination exercise is ongoing, but this is largely to extend our coverage at the margins, namely, now, infants and very young children, and to keep vaccinations up-to-date for the others. So, we are just maintaining our immunity and resilience, now no longer able to achieve the kind of quantum improvement in resilience that we could achieve when we first started our national vaccination programme.
That means that the burden of endemicity will fall disproportionately on the last public health measure – which is our healthcare system. That is why our wards and EDs have been very busy over the past year. The media highlighted it only recently, but really, our hospitals have been experiencing it for the whole year.
I hope that as we enjoy our hard-fought freedom from COVID-19, we remember the toil and sacrifice of our healthcare workers – doctors, nurses, social care workers and so on. They are sacrificing and toiling away, in order to secure freedom and the state of endemicity for the rest of society. So, COVID-19 may feel like it is over for many of us; it is not over for them.
In the hospitals and EDs, therefore, service levels may drop and waiting times become longer. Out of frustration, we understand that there will be public complaints, but I sincerely hope that our hospitals and healthcare workers will continue to receive the appreciation, understanding and support of all Singaporeans.
Sir, let me now describe what exactly is the situation at the EDs today. First, I want to assure the House, that for critically ill patients, they are attended to almost immediately at the EDs, due to the way that we triage patients and allocate resources. So, priority always goes to them.
For non-life-threatening but emergency cases, the median waiting times for consultation across all our EDs are averaged to about 20 minutes from January to September this year. It is not a very long wait, and it is important for this group of patients to be attended to quickly, so that they are evaluated and then can be discharged promptly.
For emergency cases that require hospital admission – this is where the bottleneck is – the median waiting times for wards is about seven hours, from January to September. It is a few hours longer than 2019. What I quoted, \"seven hours\", that is the median. There are variations. So, when we have an infection wave, like recently, waiting times can spike up sharply – to the reported 50 hours – for certain hospitals that are busier.
Despite the heavy workload, our hospitals will not compromise the safety of patients. As mentioned earlier, life-threatening cases will be attended to immediately. If surgery is required, it will be carried out promptly and beds will be there for the patients.
For non-life-threatening patients who are waiting for admission, medical teams will continue to monitor them and institute appropriate investigations and treatments.
For bedridden patients who are at higher risk of developing pressure injuries, hospitals will implement preventive nursing interventions. This includes the use of thicker mattresses or air mattresses, turning of the patients periodically and changing of diapers and drawsheets for bedridden patients.
Sir, I will now address the most pertinent question, which is what can we do about crowded EDs, to alleviate the problem?
The current situation, make no mistake, is not sustainable, and we need to resolve it. But it has not been easy to solve the problem as we are still in the middle of a pandemic. Each time a wave subsides and we started dealing with the problem, another wave would come, and attention and resources will be diverted to fight fire again.
With the XBB wave subsiding earlier than expected, we hope that this time round, we will have the time and space to deal with the problem properly and decisively. To do so, we need to diagnose where exactly is the operational bottleneck.
The issue actually is not the ED. It is really about matching the demand and supply of hospital beds. The crowdedness and long waiting times for patients at the EDs in some hospitals, especially during a wave, is a manifestation of the problem, a mismatch of demand and supply of hospital beds.
Let us look at the demand for hospital beds. If we look at average monthly ED attendances, which translate into demand for hospital beds – from 2019, before COVID-19 started – to 2022, there is a reduction from 75,000 patients per month to 63,000 patients per month. So, translated to daily attendances, it was about 2,500 patients a day in 2019 to 2,100 patients a day in 2022. This is a 16% decrease.
Hence, it would appear that all of our measures to educate the public to not go to EDs unless absolutely necessary, the GPFirst initiative and the setting up Urgent Care Centres in the heartlands as an alternative – they have all worked. Or there can be a simple reason – that during a pandemic, people actually do not like to go to EDs; that is also a possible reason.
However, while the overall number dropped, if you look at all ED attendances, the proportion of patients with highest acuity – this means they have the most serious conditions and need the most attention and probably need hospital beds – had increased from about 8% in 2019 to 11% in 2022. In absolute numbers, this is an increase of a few hundred patients per month. It is not huge but it does add to the operational burden of hospitals.
More importantly, I think, is this point, we are again looking at averages. While the average number has come down, during a pandemic, that number is a lot more volatile. So, during an infection wave, many more infected people and recovered patients go to EDs.
For example, at the peak of the mid-year Omicron wave and the recent XBB wave, COVID-19 infected patients added another 600 ED visits every day. This is 30% more workload at the ED, which is very significant.
I should mention a separate problem that we now encounter at KK Women's and Children's Hospital (KKH). The ED has been experiencing very high visits every day – at levels that they used to experience only during Chinese New Year, when all other clinics are closed. So, come Chinese New Year this round, I do not know what kind of numbers they are going to get.
This is a separate problem, due to what we call an \"immunity debt\" in children. It means that for the past two years, SMMs – including mask wearing – has shielded children from many forms of viral infection, and not just COVID-19. Now that life is back to normal, viral infections are making a strong comeback and demanding payback – with interest!
Let us look at the supply side of the hospital beds. There are a few factors constraining the supply and slowing down the process of warding ED patients.
First, due to our ageing population, there is a secular trend of rising numbers of patients with long stays and that reduces the turnover of hospital beds. To illustrate, the percentage of patients who stay longer than 21 days has doubled from 1.6% of all hospitalised patients in 2019 to 3.8% in 2022.
Second, the pandemic caused construction disruptions which delayed the opening of healthcare facilities, namely the Woodlands Health Campus and the Integrated Care Hub at Tan Tock Seng Hospital. If these facilities had opened as originally planned in 2022 without the COVID-19-related delays, they would have added at least a few hundred beds to our system and would have alleviated the problem.
Similarly, construction delays due to the pandemic have also postponed the opening of several nursing homes and community day care facilities, and that also constrained the ability of hospitals to discharge less acute patients and free up hospital beds.
Third, supply constraints. As part of our emergency planning, hospitals are required now to set aside, or ringfence, beds for the care of COVID-19 patients. Members of the House may recall at the height of the pandemic – and at that time we were imposing SMMs to preserve healthcare capacity – many Parliamentary Questions were filed, asking the Ministry of Health (MOH) if we had planned for adequate healthcare capacity in such emergency scenarios.
Well, ringfencing hospital beds for COVID-19 patients is part of that planning effort. However, we inject flexibility into the plan, raising or lowering the number of ringfenced beds according to the pandemic situation. So, for example, again, at the peak of the recent XBB wave, we set aside 800 beds for COVID-19 patients, as ringfence. About 80% were occupied at the peak of the wave, which meant we still had 160 beds unoccupied for contingency purposes. Not a big number, but nevertheless, constrains hospital operations and impedes the clearing of patients waiting at EDs.
Whether due to demand or supply factors, we need to recognise this – that is, we run a very high throughput hospital system. In such a system, even a very small mismatch of demand and supply, a couple of hundred beds, will cause waiting times to spike up very significantly. You think of it that way – it is not very different from an expressway with very heavy traffic flow. All it needs is for one branch to fall on one lane or half a lane, and you will have a massive traffic jam. We have a similar situation in a very high throughput hospital system.
So, how do we resolve the current problem? The hospital clusters, working with MOH, have issued a statement recently, outlining all the measures they are taking. They continue to be relevant and we will continue to pursue them.
Just to briefly recap, they include the reducing of EDs demand through primary care, alternative pre-hospital care options; educating the public to use EDs only when absolutely necessary; diverting them to nearby primary care clinics; and coordinating with the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) to divert less serious cases away to less crowded EDs.
We are also actively transferring patients in acute hospitals to step down or home care whenever possible. We are partnering private hospitals, such as Raffles Hospital, to accept patients sent by SCDF ambulances for emergency medical treatment and we also offer subsidised rates even though treatment is at Raffles Hospital.
New nursing homes are coming on stream and they are very helpful during the XBB wave. From the end of next year, Woodlands Health Campus and Tan Tock Seng Hospital Integrated Care Hub should start to open progressively. Over the next five years, we target to add about 1,900 more public hospital beds, including the aforementioned two projects, and also the expanded Singapore General Hospital Medical Campus.
But today, let me focus on two important structural adjustments that we will make which will hopefully help to alleviate the crowdedness at EDs in the short term.
Number one, we will activate more TCFs, what we call Transitional Care Facilities. Three TCFs are already in operation, with a total of 400 beds. These are operated by private providers at wards at Sengkang Community Hospital, Changi Expo Hall 10 and Crawfurd Hospital, along Farrer Road, which just opened a few days ago.
The TCFs serve a special purpose. They admit medically stable patients from public hospitals while they wait for their transfers to intermediate or long-term care facilities, or for their discharge plans to be finalised. It is, therefore, a very important step-down care facility, to free up acute beds in hospitals.
But TCFs are not just about providing beds space that is operated by private hospitals. There has to be a very firm handshake between the TCF operator and a public hospital. Because with that firm handshake, the privately operated TCF will gain confidence in admitting patients transferred by a public hospital – because they will feel assured that should they need any clinical help, in unforseen circumstances and for some complications, the public hospital will still step in. Without this understanding, TCFs will naturally be very conservative in admitting patients and there will be very little movement in stable patients.
The Sengkang Community Hospital TCF run by Thomson Medical Centre is a very good example. They have a very strong partnership now with Sengkang General Hospital.
We will replicate this, to pair up Changi General Hospital with Expo Hall 10 run by Raffles Medical Group; and Tan Tock Seng Hospital with Crawfurd Hospital. We are actively working on new TCFs in the north and in the west, to partner Khoo Teck Puat Hospital and Ng Teng Fong General Hospital respectively.
The second structural shift: our approach to living with COVID-19 needs to be extended to hospital operations as well. It is time for us adopt a more flexible and balanced approach to hospital bed assignments. We should move away from ringfencing beds just for COVID-19 patients. We had done so in the earlier stages of the pandemic, when hospitalised COVID-19 patients faced a very high chance of developing severe illnesses and numbers can spike very high during an infection wave. Hence, reserving beds – actually, we reserved wards – is the appropriate thing to do.
However, we are now at the stage when most residents have been vaccinated and boosted or recovered safely from COVID-19 and have good levels of hybrid immunity against severe illnesses. We should, therefore, allow hospitals to triage or assess their patients based on clinical severity and priority for treatment, and not manage COVID-19 patients to a different standard. This flexibility is important for our hospitals to help them optimise the use of beds. In a crunch situation, just like the expressway with very high throughput, it makes all the difference.
With this change, hospitals will no longer set aside whole wards to cohort COVID-19 positive patients as a standard pandemic practice. They will continue their current practice of using isolation beds for patients with infectious diseases, including COVID-19, if there is a risk of infection spread.
This is not a sudden change, but a transition process that has started and is ongoing. Hospitals will continue to exercise various precautionary measures on infection control to protect the vulnerable and prevent spreading of infectious diseases in hospitals. They have done so for many years, for influenza, for all kinds of infectious diseases. They will apply the same measures now for COVID-19, but without setting aside entire wards which will stall their operations.
Beyond these two structural measures, every one of us can do our part. While ED attendances have fallen compared to 2019, non-urgent cases still make up 40% of all ED attendances. We can use EDs more judiciously. Use alternatives, such a general practitioner (GP) clinic or call our family doctors.
We should exercise social responsibility, such as staying at home and self-testing when not feeling well. Most importantly, we need to continue to keep our vaccinations up-to-date and prevent ourselves from falling severely ill if we are infected by COVID-19. Today, a senior without minimum vaccination protection is still about three times more likely to end up in hospital and needing to be warded, than one with minimum vaccination protection. So, by taking another jab to keep vaccination up-to-date, you may well be freeing up an additional hospital bed.
If we can do our part, we will help healthcare workers earn back their normalcy of life, as they have sacrificed and worked hard to earn our freedom and normalcy of life.
Mr Speaker: Dr Lim Wee Kiak.
\tDr Lim Wee Kiak (Sembawang): Sir, I welcome the Minister's announcement to our new direction, instead of ringfencing beds, we will treat it as almost an endemic situation. I would like to ask three supplementary questions. One is, what is the estimated backlog of —
Mr Speaker: You can keep it to two, please. Thank you.
Dr Lim Wee Kiak: Okay. What is the estimated backlog for elective surgeries that we are currently facing now? And what is MOH doing now about this and when we clear this backlog?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: The backlog is not huge. Because ever since we started opening up, hospitals have all realised that to postpone electives and postpone non-urgent surgery, it all comes back after a while – and with interest usually. So, for the past two or three waves, we have been very reluctant to postpone these electives. In the recent wave, we postponed some, but only 5% to 10%. So, it is not a huge backlog and certainly we will want to clear it as soon as possible.
Mr Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.
\tMr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Thank you, Speaker. May I ask the Minister, what can we do to encourage more clinics to open 24-hour services. Earlier this year, my 90-year-old mother was ill and I just found it so difficult to find a 24-hour clinic. So, if MOH can encourage more clinics to open for longer hours, that will certainly help. Otherwise, my option was to send her to the emergency department.
The second question, Sir, is TCFs, will that be a difference in cost because these would be run by private clinics? So, if I am a patient going to a TCF, I would be concerned about the cost.
And finally, what is the percentage of space that is available, when you free up the number of beds for COVID-19 purposes?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: I thank the Member for his questions. The short answer is we will try to encourage it, but opening for 24 hours is not easy. They will need a few doctors to cover each other. Many clinics do open to late at night and, hopefully, with something like Healthier SG, we are changing the mindset of GPs and also changing health-seeking behaviour. Hopefully, we will get more help from GPs in attending to some of these urgent cases. For your mother, if it is in the middle of the night, I think going to ED is probably justified.
Two, TCFs cost no different from public hospitals. We are running these and subsidising them in the same way.
And finally, the percentage, or number of beds that would be freed up, I gave a ballpark just now at the peak of the Omicron variant XBB wave, we were still setting aside 160 beds at the peak; sterilised it, ringfenced it, even though we had patients waiting downstairs because we were afraid of a spike of COVID-19 patients. Off-peak, the number was actually larger. So, I would say, at least 200 to 300 beds. And I think they will make a big difference to the operation of hospitals.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his reply. I have two supplementary questions. First, I am heartened to hear that TCFs will be paired with our hospitals. Notwithstanding, would there be enough healthcare workers to run the TCFs, given the overall tightened manpower situation in our hospitals?
Second, how is MOH supporting our healthcare workers to do their work more efficiently and to prevent burnout during this period of high patient load?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: We know that healthcare workers are never enough. There is a manpower crunch and intense competition between different countries trying to hire healthcare workers. Fortunately, this is something we can solve in the short term, over a few months, by recruiting, training them and putting them in place. So, this is something we are doing actively. Now that the COVID-19 situation has stabilised, borders are opening up, we have started our overseas recruitment process as well as continue to work with our local institutions to bring in more healthcare workers.
The second question on how to prevent burnout, if we solve all these jam problems, manage the pandemic and move to endemicity form of operations, I think it will go a great extent to reduce the workload.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): I thank the Minister for his reply. I deeply appreciate all our healthcare workers and staff – from doctors to nurses to hospital receptionists – for their tireless efforts in caring for patients. Both they and the patients suffer tremendous stress when the queues of patients build up. So, I have two clarifications for the Minister.
First, I understand that some patients are not discharged because the downstream care facilities are not available to receive and accommodate them. The Minister said just now that there were some delays in the opening of nursing homes and daycare facilities, and transitional care facilities are being used to reduce the burden on acute care hospitals. Can the Ministry also look into providing more home support for patients to help their families care for the patients who are suitable for discharge from acute care hospitals?
And secondly, queue clearance depends, in part, on the ability to triage and diagnose arriving patients and this, in turn, is limited by the number of qualified healthcare professionals. Is the Ministry looking at giving greater responsibilities to nurses so that they can take on more of the responsibilities that are currently being done by doctors?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: We are certainly looking at home discharge as well. In fact, that is a major initiative. So, in a complex system like that, it is all of the above – whether it is a nursing home, step-down care, community hospital, home discharge. We will look at all of them.
Just a point on home discharge: actually, it is quite manpower intensive. Because once you bring a patient home, a nurse does have to visit them, call them; but it frees up the bed spaces. So, it does add to the workload of nurses. So, we are managing different resources as optimally as we can. But this is a major area that, at some point, we should discuss further with Healthier SG, ageing-in-place, home nursing is a very important prong.
Second, on triage, I think nurses are already doing some of the triaging. And certainly, with our move to Healthier SG, preventive care, bringing healthcare into the community away from the hospitals, there is a lot more our nurses, allied health professionals and pharmacists can do. It is a direction we are moving towards.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Ng Ling Ling.
\tMs Ng Ling Ling (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I also want to express my deep appreciation to our healthcare workers, especially the doctors, nurses and staff working in the EDs, some of whom are my personal friends and I have seen how they have persevered through these few years of COVID-19 pandemic. And I am journeying with them. I have two supplementary questions.
Pertaining to the GPFirst initiative that was piloted in Changi General Hospital back in 2014, how many of our current slate of about 1,800 GP clinics are on it?
My second supplementary question is that I have spoken to some of the GPs in my Jalan Kayu constituency about the situation in the EDs and what is the role that they can play, especially under Healthier SG to be part of the solution for the ecosystem. They have asked whether there can be more practical resources, such as a peer-to-peer call line for them to reach out to their Accident and Emergency (A&E) doctor counterparts in the public hospitals in the region so that they can triage and also assure the patients that the conditions may not warrant an ED admission.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: I thank the Member. First question, I do not have the number. Maybe the Member can file another Parliamentary Question? GPs can certainly take a load off the EDs. First, open 24 hours; if not, open at night, make yourself available to telemedicine; you can assuage the concerns of many patients and avoid the ED visits. As to whether to set up a call line to EDs, I suppose the more they call, it does add to the workload of EDs as well. Notwithstanding that, I think we can approach the Agency for Intergrated Care (AIC), and AIC will help link up with the nearest EDs.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
\tMs Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Thank you, Speaker. I have one supplementary question for the Minister. There may be elderly facing non-life-threatening cases who may not have been able to share their condition while waiting for a doctor to see them at the A&E. They may have felt nauseous, cold, scared, hungry. How then does MOH identify or how then do the nurses identify such cases and help comfort them during that waiting period?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: When the queue is long and you start to have crowded EDs, the nurses do that. I think they have the skills to do that, including the language ability, because in a team, there will be multiple language skills and they would be able to comfort the elderly. I think the problem that the Member raised is probably a result of very crowded EDs, when nurses are under tremendous pressure, so the kind of attention is probably not given, compared to normal times.
So, I think we still go back to the same problem we raised earlier, that if we can resolve the crowdedness at the EDs, I think the problem that the Member raised will be addressed.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Thank you, Sir. The Minister mentioned about the non-urgent cases attended by EDs. I understand some are because the clinics could not cope and refer the patients to EDs – including some polyclinics, I understand. So, can I ask the Minister – he mentioned about TCF, whether that can also be another place? So, can clinics refer patients to a TCF instead of going to the EDs?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: A TCF is not quite the place to refer ED cases to. It is more a step-down care facility. But what we are doing is setting up more Urgent Care Centres (UCCs). We have one in Admiralty and that has been very useful.
Ultimately, it goes back to how we diagnose a problem. Reducing non-emergency cases to EDs certainly will help. But that is not the main bottleneck today. The main bottleneck remains a mismatch in demand and supply of hospital beds, which leads to long waiting times at the EDs, waiting for wards and crowding the EDs. So, that remains the most urgent problem to be resolved.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker. Just a question on the situation at KKH. The Minister spoke about the heavy demand on beds there. Does the Minister have some indication as to when that demand is likely to taper or is it a case of having to stand up more beds in KKH over time?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: The bed situation for paediatrics is actually quite okay. It is a different problem from the EDs of the other hospitals where there is a mismatch in demand and supply of beds. For children's beds, it is actually okay. This is more a case of ED visits, where they can be attended to, treated and discharged and go home.
When will this subside? I mentioned there is an immunity debt, which means it can be repaid over time. As to how long – I have to consult the experts in MOH, and they may have some idea.\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"GST Paid by Foreigners Residing in Singapore, Tourists and Top 20% Of Households, and GST Refunds Disbursed to Tourists","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance of the estimated more than 60% of net GST that is accounted for by foreigners residing in Singapore, tourists and the top 20% of resident households, what is the share paid by each group.
12 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance between 2016 and 2021, what is the Ministry's estimate on the proportion and amount of GST revenue that are paid by non-residents.
13 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance how much has the Tourism Refund Scheme paid out in GST refunds for tourists between 2010 and 2021.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Finance (Mr Chee Hong Tat) (for the Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Parliamentary Question Nos 11, 12 and 13 together?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Thank you, Sir. The Ministry of Finance (MOF) has estimated that households and individuals paid around $6.8 billion of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) annually in 2018 and 2019, after netting off refunds under the Tourist Refund Scheme. After further netting off GST Vouchers (GSTV) of over $1 billion provided annually to Singaporean households, the net annual GST from households and individuals was estimated to be around $5.7 billion.
Tourists and foreigners residing in Singapore accounted for around 50% of this net GST, while the top 20% of resident households accounted for close to 20%.
We have not used data for 2020 and 2021, as they are not representative of general consumption patterns due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
On the Tourist Refund Scheme, from 2010 to 2019, an average of around $200 million per year was refunded to tourists. This works out to just around 2% of total GST collections. The refunds in 2020 and 2021 were much lower, averaging at around $22 million per year, due to travel restrictions associated with COVID-19.
\tMr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the response. Just two follow-up questions. The first is, I am wondering whether the benefit of the additional revenue gain from an estimated, as he had shared, 50% drawn from foreigners and non-residents may actually be worth the additional pain that our middle class will need to endure? I speak especially for our sandwich generation in my constituency of Sengkang, where households who earn sufficiently high incomes nevertheless receive limited support, in terms of support programmes from the Government and continue to face high expenses supporting their children and parents, which will now be subject to a higher GST.
My second question has to do with whether the Ministry has also studied the incidence of the tax. Because, as we know, the burden need not fall on the party which the tax is levied on. To put it another way, the higher GST charges may well crimp demand at the margin, and this may result in Singaporean businesses bearing the burden of reduced demand and hence, lower profits, rather than foreigners paying more, even if it looks like the revenue comes from foreigners. Does the MOF have any estimates of the relative share of GST that will be paid for explicitly by foreign consumers versus local businesses?
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, the first question from Assoc Prof Jamus Lim – if I understood him correctly – because I shared earlier that 50% of the net GST is borne by foreigners and tourists, he asked whether that GST collection is worth it – if I understood him correctly.
Sir, we have explained that if you look at the package that we have designed, due to the support package and due to permanent features like the GST Voucher, the bulk of the net GST that the Government collects is borne by two groups of people. If you look at the total amount, 50% comes from tourists and foreigners residing in Singapore and about 20% comes from the top 20% of households.
What this means is that the remaining 30% is spread over the rest of the 80% of households and individuals. So, yes, there will certainly be some part of the net GST that is paid for by different groups of society, different income quintiles, including the middle-income and the upper middle-income. So, if you look at the middle 40th to 60th, and also the 60th to the 80th, certainly, I think they do bear some of the GST. But the impact of the GST that they bear is not the full amount. The bulk of the net GST that is collected is borne by foreigners and the top 20% of households, and the remaining 30% of the net GST is spread over this remaining 80% of households and individuals.
In addition to that, Sir, we have also shared earlier that we provide support, to include the middle-income households. So, the support that goes to lower-income households is a lot more because they are more vulnerable and they are more affected by price increases. But in designing the support packages, what was announced in Budget this year and the two packages of $1.5 billion each, we did not leave out the middle-income. In fact, part of those packages included the middle-income.
\t
And there were some parts of the support package that were not means-tested. All were designed such that people who stay in private properties or who earn higher incomes – those who I believe would belong to the middle class and upper-middle class that Assoc Prof Jamus Lim spoke about – they would also be included. For example, the special payment that would be given out in December this year, 2.5 million Singaporeans will benefit.
Sir, for the second question that Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked, the figures that I shared earlier, including the percentages, were not based on theoretical analysis but are based on actual data. So, what I shared with Assoc Prof Jamus Lim earlier were based on what we had actually collected in 2018 and 2019.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of Fee Waiver in Encouraging More to Sign Up for Lasting Power of Attorney","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for Social and Family Development since the extension of the fee waiver for Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) Form 1 application for Singapore Citizens (a) how many applications have been made with the fee waiver; (b) what is the target number of LPA applications that the Ministry aims to achieve by the end of this fee waiver period on 31 March 2023; (c) whether the fee waiver strategy has been effective in encouraging more LPA applications; and (d) what other initiatives will be considered to encourage Singapore citizens to plan for the long term and apply for an LPA.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Eric Chua) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): Mr Speaker, the issues raised in Question No 14 were addressed by Minister Masagos Zulkifli in the combined answer provided yesterday during Question Time. But I am happy to address supplementary questions, if any, that Ms Ng Ling Ling has.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Revision of Electricity Market Structure and Its Impact on Singapore's Energy Security and Prices for Consumers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in relation to guardrails to ensure the security and adequacy of gas supply (a) whether this is expected to result in higher input costs and retail electricity prices; (b) what is the impact on the marginal cost of producing electricity in Singapore; and (c) what is the expected cost burden across the Government, generation companies and consumers.
16 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Trade and Industry following the Ministry's announcement at the Singapore International Energy Week Summit to revise the electricity market structure, what are the plans to update the Code of Conduct for Retail Electricity Licensees to strengthen retail consumer protection.
17 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in relation to the stricter rules for energy retailers to strengthen the existing market structure of Singapore's power sector (a) what are the specific enhanced regulatory requirements and tightened eligibility criteria to be introduced for better consumer protection; (b) what is the projected timetable for implementation of each area; and (c) whether there can be a prohibition on retailers prematurely terminating contracts with retail consumers.
\tThe Second Minister for Trade and Industry (Dr Tan See Leng) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 15 to 17 together?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tDr Tan See Leng: We are at a critical juncture in the development of our energy market. Since the 1990s, we have operated an open energy market and this has served us well. A competitive market has incentivised generation companies (gencos) to bring in new and more efficient technologies and they also offered more choices for consumers. Many consumers have also enjoyed lower electricity prices as a result.
However, the energy landscape has changed drastically, and new sources of supply risks and volatilities have emerged.
First, heightened volatility arising from tight power generation capacity. This has emerged in liberalised markets all around the world, where capacity planting decisions are made by private gencos based on short-term price signals in the wholesale electricity market. For these gencos, high electricity prices typically signal that capacity is tight and that new generation plantings are, therefore, needed. However, very often, these price signals can come a bit too late and it takes about four to five years typically to build a new generator. The time lag between the price signals and the construction of new generators, therefore, leads to shortages of generation capacity and can lead to sharp spikes and protracted elevation of electricity prices and even blackouts during periods of system stress, as we saw in some cities last year.
Second, supply risks and volatility arising from disruptions in global gas supply. As we rely on imported natural gas for almost all of our electricity production, global supply and demand shocks will spill over into our domestic electricity market. As fuel prices surged last year, our electricity market was severely tested. Gencos were reluctant to contract for gas, for fear that they would be left holding on to expensive gas inventories should prices moderate subsequently. This, in turn, increased the risks of gas shortfalls and it caused prices in the wholesale electricity market to surge.
Third, volatility arising from failures in intermediaries. We observed this in the fourth quarter of last year, where six electricity retailers exited the market as they were not sufficiently prepared to deal with the extreme market volatilities. While affected consumers did not experience any disruptions to their power supply, some of them experienced inconveniences as well as price surges while sourcing for alternative electricity retail contracts and they faced higher prices.
These sources of volatility have tested our energy market over the past year, with the ongoing energy crisis. Since the fourth quarter of last year, the Energy Market Authority (EMA) has put in place emergency measures which have helped to stabilise the market. However, Members of the House, this is unlikely to be the last energy crunch that we will face, and we would need to be even more prepared for a more volatile global energy market going forward.
We will, therefore, need to introduce safeguards to manage the risks of volatilities in our energy market. Last month, the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) announced that it would be introducing guardrails to strengthen our energy market in three key areas – power generation, gas supply and electricity retail markets. These guardrails are intended to ensure that our energy market continues to function well even under volatile conditions.
Mr Speaker, allow me to broadly recap these measures for this House.
First, to ensure that we continue to have sufficient generation capacity in time to come, EMA will introduce a centralised approach to facilitate investments in new generation through a competitive tender. The tender will be conducted in advance of when the new capacity is needed, taking into account the lead time which is required for construction and development. Should there be inadequate private sector interest to plant new capacity, EMA will step in to build the required new capacity.
Second, to safeguard energy security and enhance the resilience of our natural gas supply, we will institutionalise some of the measures that we had introduced late last year to safeguard energy security as permanent features of our market. These are the regulations requiring gencos to maintain sufficient fuel for power generation and the standby fuel facility to guard against risks of gas supply disruptions. EMA will also be working with the industry to explore ways to aggregate gas procurement and obtain longer-term, more secure contracts.
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim and Ms He Ting Ru have asked about our measures to strengthen the electricity retail market. We will enhance the regulatory requirements imposed on electricity retailers, to ensure that they are sufficiently prepared and that they are better able to withstand market volatilities. The regulatory enhancements include raising the qualifying criteria so that only credible industry participants with sufficient financial strength and sustainable business propositions will be allowed to retail electricity to consumers. As for whether EMA will prohibit retailers from prematurely terminating contracts with their consumers, this is already the case under the Code of Conduct for Retail Electricity Licensees. Retailers cannot unilaterally terminate contracts unless under stipulated conditions, such as if they are exiting the sector, or consumers are insolvent or had a breach of contract. EMA will be launching a consultation in the coming weeks on specific proposals to enhance the regulatory requirements for retailers.
For consumers, EMA will look into tightening the eligibility criteria for Wholesale Electricity Price (WEP) plans, so that only larger consumers who are better equipped to deal with the risks of price volatilities would be allowed to enter into such plans. All consumers will continue to have the option of entering into retail contracts with electricity retailers, or, in the case of households and small business consumers, returning to the regulated tariff.
EMA is also in discussion with market participants on operational measures to strengthen the wholesale electricity market.
Members of the House, our experience over the past year has demonstrated that a robust wholesale electricity market can have a stabilising influence on the broader retail market, and is an important pillar of our efforts to strengthen the electricity retail market.
EMA will consult the industry as well as the public on the details of these enhancements. We plan to implement them progressively from 2023 onwards. We welcome feedback and suggestions from Members of this House, the industry and members of the public on our enhancements.
Mr Speaker, all of these measures will incur higher costs. I would like to reassure Mr Louis Chua that in implementing these measures, MTI and EMA will do so in a calibrated way to balance the cost burden, while ensuring that electricity continues to remain affordable. But the value of a more stable, secure and resilient energy system cannot be overstated. It is fundamental and foundational to our ability to grow our economy, to create good jobs for our people and to maintain our quality of life. EMA will continue to do its best to ensure that Singaporeans can continue to enjoy a stable, secure and reliable source of electricity for years to come.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
\tMr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have just two supplementary questions for the Second Minister.
I read recently that Indonesia will extend its gas supply contract to Singapore by about five years. I think it was announced over the past week. But, reportedly, based on a Reuters article, distribution volume is reportedly 30% to 40% lower but at higher prices. So, in light of these guardrails which, I recognise, strengthen our gas supply agreements, what is the expected change in the mix between piped natural gas and liquified natural gas (LNG) over the next five years and beyond when this new contract expires?
Secondly – and this is related to my original Parliamentary Question – in terms of the expected increase in the cost of electricity eventually, what is the increase in this gas supply pricing agreement versus what was agreed on in the prior contract?
\tDr Tan See Leng: Currently, the majority of the gas supply comes from piped natural gas and the balance from liquefied natural gas.
As the Member would have known, we have our Singapore LNG (SLNG) terminal and this terminal allows us to import liquefied natural gas from all over the world. And the mix – I do not have it off-the-cuff today – I think that it is probably about 60:40, or 40% LNG. So, that drop from the new gas contract that was signed and entered into – I think that it was announced today – between Gas Supply Pte Ltd (GSPL) and MedcoEnergi (Medco), there is some drop. But the drop will be made up for by imports through LNG. And the shortened period today, the new gas contract of five years, is also a function of the volatility in terms of the pricing that countries all over the world are going through and experiencing.
If the price is pegged at too high a level, then obviously, the ability for us to import LNG from other parts of the world would become more attractive. So, it is actually a fine balance. This is a commercial arrangement between GSPL and the Indonesian entity, just like for the imports of natural gas from other entities, those are also private commercial agreements. I do not think the Government should comment on these things.
To the point about how these gas prices will translate into higher cost, natural gas, over the medium term, is still one of the most environmentally-friendly transition fuel as we move towards our zero-carbon emission target by 2050.
As we progressively move towards renewable energy imports from the region to the ASEAN regional grid, as we adopt and intensify our land use for solar power adoption, as we move towards funding, going into more research into the carbon capture storage solutions, as we go into hydrogen – there is a Parliamentary Question, if we get there, which I will speak more on later – we believe that the dependency in the long haul on natural gas will start to drop.
However, I think the caution that I want to add to this House is that the transition towards renewable energy may not necessarily result in cheaper electricity, because there is a cost in terms of adopting green sources of renewable energy. I hope that clarifies.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Nadia Samdin.
\tMs Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Speaker. I have just one follow-up supplementary question for the Minister. This relates to retail consumer protection. Will EMA or MTI consider strengthening retail consumer protection and safeguards such as the ease of transfer ability or novation of consumer contracts to alternative retailers, or also maybe a recourse mechanism for a more cost-efficient and expeditious consumer-related dispute resolution.
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank Ms Nadia for her question. Indeed, EMA will launch a consultation in the coming weeks on specific proposals to enhance some of these regulatory measures and requirements for retailers. As part of the consultation, we will be releasing more details in the coming weeks. We want to reassure the Member that in tightening regulatory requirements, EMA will also strengthen safeguards for consumers affected by exiting retailers, or even retailers who want to novate their agreements. So, the short answer is, we will be consulting more, and we will be tweaking and also improving on the existing suite.
One of the key takeaway is that, the energy market, the Open Electricity Market (OEM) has worked well for us thus far; it has resulted in a lot more efficiencies in terms of the pricing mechanism. What has worked, has worked based on a certain band of volatility. In this particular period of time and in the foreseeable three to five years, as I have shared in my earlier speech, the volatility range has increased significantly. And the existing frameworks would now have to be tweaked, to take into consideration the heightened range, the increase range of volatilities and it is timely for us to also do this public consultation exercise to see how we can work collectively together. As I have also exhorted the House: Members, if you have ideas, please share them with us, we are happy to take them on board.
Mr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
\tMs He Ting Ru (Sengkang): I thank the Minister for the reply. It is also good to hear that some of these protections for retail consumers will be progressively rolled out from 2023. I just have one supplementary question and it is whether or not there will be consideration given to better consumer education about the choices that they are facing, in terms of which retailer to go for. I think some of the feedback that we often get is that the various options available, the various contractual options, the lock-in periods, even the rates that we are paying, the differing rates; some consumers can find that quite confusing and I am just wondering whether there will be better consumer education or sharper consumer education, so that the consumers do not think, \"Hey, there are more protections coming in, therefore, there is no risk or lower risk\". Because, as the Minister shared earlier, there is still volatility that we expect in the future. So, whether or not we can start looking at sharpening the consumer education, about the consequences of the choices that they might make.
\tDr Tan See Leng: We will certainly improve, we will certainly consider – we would not just consider, we will certainly add on in terms of strengthening consumer education. But for the Member's information and perhaps to add to her understanding: under the Electricity Act currently, EMA has issued and published on its website, the Code of Conduct for retail electricity licensees.
This Code of Conduct sets out the minimum standards of performance which retail electricity licensees have to adhere to. And particularly, I think three points to protect consumers that would be of interest to everyone here, in addition to Ms He.
These include: one, requiring retailers to comply with fair contracting practices, such as providing consumers with the consumer advisory and fact sheets to summarise the key terms of their retail plans and consumers must acknowledge such information before signing contracts with the retailers.
The second point, the code of conduct also prohibits retailers from unilaterally terminating contracts with consumers, unless under stipulated conditions – such as if they are exiting the sector, or consumers are insolvent, or had breached the terms of their contract with the retailer.
And the third point is that there are safeguards in retailer exits. Exiting retailers are required to refund all security deposits collected from household consumers, after offsetting outstanding charges. Exiting retailers must also approach other retailers to seek their interest and agreement to accept the novation of the contracts on the same terms and conditions before the consumer can be transferred to SP group under the default supply arrangement.
So, there are safeguards today but we will continue to strengthen the education to all consumers. But I want to also seek Members of the House, including Ms He, to underscore the fact that, at the end of the day, energy conservation must still remain the foundation of how we are going to move forward in our overall energy transition story.
\tMr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
\tMs He Ting Ru: Sorry, just to quickly follow up. The question really was – the point I was trying to get at is that, yes, I know that they are required to have certain requirements when they signed a contract with the consumer; there is a checklist, I believe. I am just wondering whether the consumers truly understand, or whether it just becomes one of those check boxes that get ticked. And so, whether has EMA, for example, surveyed how helpful this checklist is, whether the buyers truly understand what they are signing as opposed to, that they kind of \"half understand\" but just signed a sign a piece of paper. And, whether this is also provided in all four languages.
\tDr Tan See Leng: This will be part of the public consult that we are going out with to see how we nuance it and reach a wider group of Singapore population, and at the same time, improve the communications to them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Preparing Trainee Teachers for Changing Demands of Education","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"18 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Education how has the National Institute of Education been preparing trainee teachers to meet the changing demands of education.
The Minister for Education (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Speaker, Sir, for teachers to lead and inspire students to thrive in a complex and uncertain environment, they must all be lifelong learners who understand the diverse learning needs of our students, appreciate the intent behind education policies and practices, and facilitate meaningful learning experiences for the students through effective use of pedagogies.
The National Institute of Education (NIE) works closely with the Ministry of Education (MOE) to deliver both pre-service preparation and in-service professional development to support teachers throughout their careers to become competent and caring teachers who are respected by their students and the public, and who can work well in teams with their peers and the community.
NIE's pre-service curriculum focuses on training teachers to build character in students. The curriculum balances theory with practice, is backed by research and is supported by a robust partnership with MOE and schools.
It prepares pre-service teachers to meet the changing demands of education by first, deepening professionalism through a focus on a deep understanding of their student learners, developing values and professional ethos, and ownership of learning.
Second, strengthening practice through practicum in schools that hone their craft and develop their inquiry and reflective skills.
Third, broadening the repertoire of pedagogies that can promote innovation, inquiry- and technology-based learning. Teachers learn to create lessons that harness technology, like augmented reality and virtual reality to enrich learning and help students explore beyond the confines of the physical classroom. Teachers also learn how to make use of online tutorials, websites, artificial intelligence (AI) and chatbots to make learning more accessible to the diverse students anytime, anywhere, including those with special educational needs. Additionally, teachers would also learn how technology, such as learning analytics, can be used to support students to learn in teams, and to provide choices and customised feedback for students to become self-directed in learning.
Last, but not least, to develop perspectives related to the community, society and the world, and to partner stakeholders like parents and the community, and industry leaders through courses, service learning, talks and seminars. For the four-year degree programme, the pre-service teachers also have the opportunities to go for industry internship and international practicum.
NIE reviews the effectiveness of its programmes regularly. It gathers feedback from the pre-service teachers' portfolios, internal and external assessments and metric surveys. Annual survey feedback from beginning teachers and school leaders also enables NIE to refine its pre-service programme to ensure their relevance.
Beyond pre-service training, teachers continue deepening their competencies throughout their careers. This is done through a range of in-service learning opportunities organised by MOE, NIE and the schools, including our Teacher Work Attachment Plus (TWA+) programme.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.
\tMs Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): I thank the Minister for the comprehensive reply. I have no doubt that MOE and NIE are doing their very best. I ask this question because we all know that the future of education, the future of work, now require very different competencies of the educators – now and in the future. On top of what the Minister has just mentioned – and he gave a hint of all the things that they have to do – educators now take on the role of content curators and even developers, and they have to design learning experiences, they have to deliver on different platforms. And on top of that, are expected to even be life coaches for their students.
So, I just wonder what kind of manpower and resources – how does NIE do it? And are they given sufficient resources like money, manpower and even in terms of mindset, to do so, to meet these demands of the future?
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, we thank Ms Denise Phua for her questions and also her comments. Indeed, the skillsets for both the learners and the teachers will have to evolve to meet the demands of the future. As I always share with my colleagues in MOE, teaching today is not just about the transmission of knowledge and learning is not just about the absorption of knowledge. A few things have changed and will continue to change.
In today's world, knowledge is commoditised. Having knowledge alone is not sufficient; what is more important is the ability to make use of the knowledge to discern and to make clear decisions, good decisions, based on sound values. And, to this end, that is why the skillsets of our teachers must continue to evolve. Beyond just being a transmitter of knowledge, it is increasingly important for our teachers to be able to be a facilitator in the learning environment that our students are in, for our teachers to help our students make sense of the amount of information that they come across.
Having said that, I would say this. Two things will never change in our preparation of the teachers: one, that of values inculcation; two, the basic pedagogical approach of how to teach and teach well.
While these two things do not change, three things will need to change and evolve.
First, as Ms Denise Phua said, we will need more of our teachers to pick up the basic skills to help the high needs students and the special needs students.
Second, we will need our teachers to be able to work with partners beyond the school environment. These include families, the community and also the industry.
Third, we will need our teachers to learn throughout their life to make use of the latest technologies available – how to use technology to scale up the size of the classroom so that we can spend more time to attend to the high needs students. Such technologies include the adaptive learning technologies that allow us to stretch the abilities of the high performing students while allowing us to dedicate more time to the high-needs students. So, these are the new skillsets that we will require our teachers to constantly evolve.
But having said that, we do not believe that we will be able to frontload all these new skillsets even or only when they are at NIE. What we need is a continuous professional development programme that allows our teachers to keep learning throughout life so that they can also inspire their students to do so.
Having said that, I will pick up on the last point that Ms Denise Phua talked about.
Indeed, today, we are focused not just on the quantity – the number of teachers that we have. More importantly is the quality of teachers that we must have, enabled and supported by technology.
So, we will continue to put in efforts on this front to make sure that, given the finite number of teachers that we can have in our education system, how do we make sure that they are of the highest quality, supported by the best technology in order to stretch the abilities of our high performing students to their fullest while devoting more time to the high needs students and their families.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Public Transport Fare Adjustment in Fare Review Exercise 2022","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"19 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport (a) for each year between 2018 and 2022, what have been the Excess Wait Time (EWT) scores of (i) all buses operated by each public bus operator and (ii) service number 228; (b) whether the Public Transport Council took into account the EWT and On-Time Adherence scores of bus services when deciding on the 2.9% fare increase for the 2022 fare review exercise; and (c) if not, why not.
20 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport given that 10.6% of the maximum allowable public transport fare adjustment quantum in the Fare Review Exercise (FRE) 2022 will be carried over to future exercises (a) whether this will be on top of the maximum allowable fare adjustment quantum for future FREs; (b) when is the earliest time it will be effected; and (c) whether cost of living concerns will be considered in deciding whether this quantum will be effected.
21 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Transport with regard to the additional Government subsidy of about $200 million in 2023 to support the public transport system (a) what is the amount of subsidy granted to (i) each public transport operator and (ii) households, respectively; and (b) whether the subsidies granted are in addition to or negates the need to implement the 10.6 percentage point fare increase for consumers that is carried over to future fare review exercises.
\tThe Minister for Transport (Mr S Iswaran): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 19 to 21 on today's Order Paper together, please?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMr S Iswaran: Sir, my reply will also address questions that had been raised by Mr Mohd Fahmi Bin Aliman in an earlier Sitting, and also by Mr Saktiandi Supaat1 for a later Sitting on the topic of public transport fare adjustments.
Sir, in deciding on changes in public transport fares, the Public Transport Council (PTC) aims for fares to keep up with costs increases over time whilst ensuring affordability. The fare formula, therefore, incorporates component indices, such as core inflation, wage growth and energy prices, which reflect the cost drivers of providing public transport services. The output of the fare formula establishes the fare increase cap for a given year. PTC then considers various other factors before deciding on the actual fare increase to implement and, consequently, how much to carry over to future Fare Review Exercises (FREs).
PTC considers overall economic growth, wage growth, unemployment rate and other metrics that reflect the state of Singapore's economy at the time of each FRE.
PTC also seeks to ensure that public transport, as an essential service, remains affordable to all Singaporeans. As wages have risen over the past decade, households have been spending a lower proportion of their income on public transport. For the second decile of households, which essentially represents lower-income public transport users, this has fallen from 3.5% in 2012 to 2.5% in 2021. For the second quintile, which represents average public transport users, that figure has also fallen from 2.3% to 1.8%.
In this year's FRE, the fare formula output set the maximum allowable fare adjustment at 13.5%. One main contributory factor was the 117% increase in energy prices. PTC decided to implement a lower increase of 2.9% after considering the economic and social impact on commuters. The remaining 10.6% will be carried over to future FREs. Meanwhile, the Government will provide additional subsidies of about $200 million in the coming year to make up for the shortfall. This benefits all commuters as it defrays the overall fare increase. To reiterate, without this additional support, commuters would have had to pay a much higher fare increase of 13.5%.
At each FRE, PTC will also consider both the carry-over from previous FREs, as well as that year's fare formula output. So, for example, in 2021, the formula output was -2.2%, in other words, a reduction, but there was a carry-over amount of 4.4% and, therefore, the increase that was implemented was 2.2%. Apart from the 10.6% carried over from this year, all other carried-over amounts have been implemented.
Over the past decade, we have enhanced the quality of our public transport system, with a larger network, higher frequencies and more reliable services. Despite this, fares have not kept up with costs of running the public transport system. From 2012 to 2021, the compounded increase in costs has been about 7%. Fares have been increasing over the same period at about 1% a year.
So, the Government has stepped up with funding to bridge the gap and ensure the continued operation of public transport services. The cumulative sum is now more than $2 billion a year, with the additional subsidy of about $200 million in the coming year.
Mr Gerald Giam has asked whether PTC decides on fare adjustments based on bus service reliability. We have made steady improvements over the past decade, with maximum scheduled frequencies during peak periods falling from 30 minutes to 15 minutes today. In terms of Excess Wait Time (EWT) and On-Time Adherence (OTA) scores between 2018 and 2022, all services have met the required standards, and this includes service 228, which, I know, is close to Mr Gerald Giam's heart.
Looking ahead, it is essential that public transport fares keep pace with cost increases. Otherwise, the public transport system will become financially unsustainable and that will be to the detriment of commuters and taxpayers. When PTC reviews fares, it will continue to ensure that any increases are subject to prevailing economic and social considerations.
So, let me reassure Members that we are fully committed to ensuring that public transport fares remain affordable, even as we keep a keen eye on the financial sustainability of our public transport system. Today, seniors, students, lower-wage workers and persons with disabilities are eligible for concession fares and increases in their fares are typically less than that for adult commuters. The Government has also made available Public Transport Vouchers (PTVs) to cushion the impact of fare increases for eligible households. For this year's FRE, these vouchers will help up to the 30th percentile of income-earning households, or the 40th percentile of all resident households. And we will continue to address the needs of vulnerable commuters through the provision of PTVs and other measures as necessary.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Thank you. I thank the Minister for his reply. Indeed, bus service 228 is very close to my heart and, more importantly, close to the hearts of my residents in Bedok Reservoir.
I would like to clarify with the Minister what he deems to be an acceptable interval between feeder buses, because he says that all the services, including bus service 228, have met the standard. What is really the interval, because I just checked the bus stop opposite Block 716 in Bedok Reservoir Road and it shows an interval of seven to 15 minutes, which I would think that it is a bit long because, previously, residents had several other buses to be able to get to Bedok Interchange from their houses. But now, they have only one bus. So, they depend on that bus and the low interval of that bus.
Secondly, can the Ministry look into reducing the headways further because this will go a long way in terms of improving the commuter experience of many commuters?
\tMr S Iswaran: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his questions. I note that his questions are very specific, and actually quite a deviation from public transport fares themselves.
Nevertheless, first, what constitutes an acceptable interval? I think it is very hard to give a universally applicable answer. The reason is because the same bus service, or the time of day, there will be variations because of traffic conditions, such as peak, off-peak. Peak periods, you try to keep the headway shorter because of the needs. But off-peak, you allow for more.
So, there will always be a range and that also applies to geographic distribution. What we try to do is – because, specifically, the Member's point is on buses – bus contracts spell out clearly the performance requirements and we hold the public transport operators (PTOs) who are awarded the contracts closely to the delivery of those key performance indicators (KPIs). There are incentives and disincentives that apply when they deviate. And, of course, if the deviations are systematic or problematic, then we take further action in that regard.
Secondly, can we reduce headways? Well, this is basically re-canvassing the discussions we have had at the Budget and many other occasions, and I compliment the Member on his consistency in raising the issue. But the bottom line is this: every decision has an accompanying cost implication. I notice the Member has not commented on the 2.9% increase. So, I assume the Member finds it acceptable. But bear in mind that this comes with a significant subsidy from the Government, on top of what we are already doing for this year. Every time we reduce headways, it means you either have to have more buses and, therefore, you also need more bus captains, costs will go up and we have to find ways to address this.
This is not a theoretical argument either, because over the years, if you look at it, in terms of rail reliability – mean kilometres between failures – we have actually made significant improvements because the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has specified an outcome. But that is a number. To achieve that number or exceed it, then the PTOs have to invest significant resources on maintenance. That has a cost implication. We have added, I think, about 80-odd new bus services. That has a cost implication.
So, when we advocate, sure, I think we would all like to have shorter headways, more capacity and so on. But I just want to make the point that even as we consider this, we also have to take into account the cost implications and, as this year's exercise demonstrates, there is a major cost overhang that we are carrying, and we are carrying this as a Government, as representatives of the people.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
\t
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The supplementary question I am going to ask is in relation to the gap that the Minister mentioned. There is a 7% increase in the cost of transport expenditure and infrastructure itself, as the Minister mentioned before. Also just now, the Minister mentioned about the 1% transport price increase annually. So, there is this gap of about 6%. Whether this gap is sustainable is one question that I have, and will the Government subsidies eventually stop?
The second supplementary question is in relation to the PTVs. Can I ask if, eventually, these PTVs can be permanent or enhanced even further and made automatic in future Budgets?
\tMr S Iswaran: Mr Speaker, I am conscious of the time and I want to make sure I meet the on-time arrival KPI. But let me address the questions very quickly with your indulgence, Sir.
First, is the gap sustainable? As I have pointed out, that is precisely the issue because our costs have been rising and our fares have not been anyway near that rate. There is a fare formula review exercise that is underway. I think we will need to take a hard look at this and that is what the PTC is working on – what exactly is the way forward for us. And this is not just about the sums, but it really comes down to an overall discussion on the compact that we expect. And fare formula and fare adjustments are not just about the current generation because everything we do not pay now, as we discussed in other debates, also has an impact on future generations. So, we need to keep that in mind.
\t
Second, therefore, the implication for Government subsidies? Well, the Government has stepped up and has clearly put in a significant amount – $2 billion, and another $200 million for next year. What we do going forward, will again, be a matter of discussion that we will have to also address in this House as part of our larger policy with respect to public transport.
Finally, can PTVs be made a permanent feature? I suspect that question is best addressed by the Minister for Finance. But I would argue that from our perspective – and I want to reiterate the point – we are committed to making sure fares are affordable, especially for vulnerable commuters. That includes not just in the way we address fare increase adjustments and the discounts for what we can do and, also through the concession passes, but it is also through PTVs.
As Members would have noticed, this year and, also in the previous exercise, there has been a very significant allocation for PTVs – up to the 30th percentile of income-earning households. I think that is a major provision and we will continue to see what else needs to be done in that regard.
I suppose permanent PTVs could be one of the possibilities, but I think that we should just see through this exercise first.
\tMr Speaker: So, there is indeed a cost to everything. The tea break today is 17 minutes, instead of 20 minutes. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, Personal Explanation.
[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":["1 : To ask the Minister for Transport with regard to the 2022 Fare Review Exercise (FRE) (a) what are the factors influencing the Public Transport Council's decision to carry over the 10.6% of the maximum allowable fare adjustment (MAFA) to future FREs; (b) what is the annual funding gap between fares collected and the necessary operating expenses in relation to public transport for the past 10 years and its future outlook; and (c) what is the amount of Government expenditure required to eliminate or \"reset\" all accumulated MAFA to date."],"footNoteQuestions":["19","20","21"],"questionNo":"19-21"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Personal Explanation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to make this clarification.
Yesterday, in my clarification questions posed to Member Sitoh Yih Pin, I had asked if he was saying that, and I quote: \"the Government of 2008, having tapped a lower percentage, actually under saved\". [Please refer to \"Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill\", Official Report, 7 November 2022, Vol 95, Issue No 73, Second Reading Bills section.]
I had indeed misspoken. Rather, I should have asked if, relative to the Government of 2008 which tapped a lower percentage, this Government is now under-saving. This applies, as well, to an analogous statement I had made earlier in my speech.
I would like to make this clarification and correction for the record. Thank you.
Mr Speaker: Thank you. Order. 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":"Carbon Pricing (Amendment) 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 beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
This House has spoken extensively about the urgent need to address climate change. It is the greatest existential challenge to humanity today. Members have endorsed a Motion last year declaring climate change a global emergency and a threat to mankind; and another Motion this year calling on the Government to advance Singapore's inclusive transition towards a low-carbon society, in partnership with corporates, civil society and the community. Both Motions received support from all sides of the House.
The world is already experiencing more extreme weather events, from devastating floods in Pakistan, Thailand, Indonesia and Australia, to the record-breaking droughts and heat waves in Europe, China and Africa. In the absence of more ambitious climate action, the toll on human lives and livelihoods will be massive. By 2050, it is estimated that climate change could lead to 250,000 excess deaths per year worldwide and reduce global annual output by US$23 trillion – the equivalent of wiping out the gross domestic product (GDP) of the United States.
Recent events – the war in Ukraine, ongoing COVID-19 pandemic – have caused economic hardship and energy shortages throughout the world, casting a dark shadow on climate action. We must press on as climate change does not wait for events to be over. Countries are gathering in Egypt for the 27th United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP27, to implement the Paris Agreement goals of capping long-term temperature rise and enhancing climate resilience.
In their latest report released ahead of COP27, the UN Climate Change Secretariat has warned that the world is not on course to meet these targets. Collectively, we must do better to turn the tide and secure a liveable and sustainable future.
Two weeks ago, at the Singapore International Energy Week, Deputy Prime Minister Wong announced that Singapore will raise our ambition to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. We will also revise our medium-term international commitment – our Nationally Determined Contribution, or NDC – to peak our emissions earlier, and reduce our emissions to around 60 million tonnes by 2030.
Singaporeans have shown strong support towards our green transition, as announced by the Deputy Prime Minister. Our stakeholder consultations show that an overwhelming majority of corporates, non-government organisations (NGOs) and citizens believe that addressing climate change is a key priority.
We are making headway in our green transition. We are decarbonising our power sector by increasing solar deployment and harnessing green electricity imports from the region. Our National Hydrogen Strategy was recently unveiled at the Singapore International Energy Week. We are partnering major industry players in the Energy and Chemicals sector to develop needle-moving solutions such as carbon capture and storage. We have enhanced grant support for companies hoping to deploy energy-efficient technologies. We will promote resource circularity in our local industry to further reduce energy consumption and curb emissions. We are greening our public transport operations and expanding the electric vehicle ecosystem. And we are venturing beyond our shores and seeking out opportunities for international collaboration on green technologies and carbon markets, to get to net zero.
We need an effective carbon price to activate carbon mitigation solutions that will help us achieve our net-zero ambition.
The carbon price provides an effective policy to motivate emitters to take action to reduce their emissions. Setting the price at the right level requires careful calibration. Too low a carbon price will not provide sufficient incentive to make the necessary changes to achieve our emissions target. Too high a price will make the change too steep, erode competitiveness and destabilise our corporate sector.
The proposed carbon price was set after carefully balancing the environmental, economic and social needs of our country.
We have considered the availability of cost-effective green technologies and products, the pace of change we need to have and that our private sector can manage, and the support we need to give our companies and people to cushion the impact where necessary. All that with the intention of reaching our net-zero pathway.
Carbon pricing has been implemented in many countries. Close to 70 jurisdictions worldwide have implemented carbon pricing instruments, covering about a quarter of global emissions. Major economies, such as the European Union (EU), are driving global convergence through the imposition of carbon border adjustment mechanisms, intending to place equivalent tariffs on imports from countries with low or no carbon prices.
Members from both sides of the aisle have spoken in support of a higher carbon price on multiple occasions.
At Budget 2022, the Government announced that Singapore will raise the carbon tax and make a decisive move to achieve our net-zero ambition. The Carbon Pricing (Amendment) Bill will give effect to the key changes announced at Budget 2022 and strengthen our carbon pricing regime.
First, the Bill will amend the Third Schedule to the Carbon Pricing Act, or CPA, to adopt the revised carbon tax levels of $25 per tonne for greenhouse gas emissions in 2024 and 2025, and $45 per tonne for greenhouse gas emissions in 2026 and beyond.
We have decided to raise the carbon tax level progressively in phases and with advance notice, to give our businesses time to plan and carry out their low-carbon transition. The progressive increases will set us on a trajectory to reach between $50 to $80 per tonne by 2030.
Second, the Bill will insert new sections 20A to 20G in Part 5 of the CPA to set out the broad parameters of the industry transition framework, which will provide transitory allowances to companies in Emissions-Intensive Trade-Exposed, or EITE, sectors that face intense competition in the global market. We are mindful that our EITE companies will face higher costs than their counterparts in jurisdictions with no or lower effective carbon prices.
These transitory allowances will not offset the entire carbon tax obligation of the EITE companies. It will be limited to only a portion of companies' emissions, help to alleviate near-term competitiveness concerns, and provide a form of support to the companies as they work on reducing emissions and invest in cleaner technologies.
By providing for a transition framework, we minimise the risk of carbon leakage—where companies relocate to another jurisdiction with less stringent climate policies. Similar frameworks have also been implemented in other jurisdictions with carbon pricing regimes, including the EU, South Korea, and California.
Similar to our corporate income tax framework under the Economic Expansion Incentive (Relief from Income Tax) Act 1967, the industry transition framework will be administered by the Minister for Trade and Industry, who can assign relevant functions and powers to an appropriate public body.
To drive our industry towards becoming best-in-class, the amount of allowances awarded to each facility will be determined based on their performance on specified energy efficiency or carbon intensity benchmarks, or their decarbonisation plans. Companies in non-EITE sectors can continue to tap on support from the Government through broad-based schemes such as the Economic Development Board (EDB)'s Resource Efficiency Grant for Emissions and the National Environment Agency (NEA)'s Energy Efficiency Fund.
Third, the Bill will set up the International Carbon Credits framework, or ICC framework, through sections 33A to 33D in Part 5 of the CPA.
The ICCs referred to in the Bill are tradable certificates that represent the reduction or removal of emissions from the atmosphere, generated from projects or programmes outside Singapore. These carbon credits are generated by emissions reduction or removal projects that would not have materialised under a business-as-usual scenario, but are made possible due to financing from carbon markets.
Examples include reforestation projects that sequester more carbon in the atmosphere; or projects that help local communities switch from firewood to cleaner biogas cookstoves, which reduce emissions from current sources.
A robust carbon market which efficiently matches the demand and supply of high-quality carbon credits has multiple benefits. One, carbon-emitting companies gain access to an alternative decarbonisation pathway for hard-to-abate emissions. Two, much-needed finance can be channelled to support emissions reduction or removal projects globally. Three, these projects can bring valuable co-benefits, such as biodiversity conservation and air pollution reduction.
The development of well-functioning carbon markets is, thus, a vital part of global efforts to get to net zero.
With the finalisation of Paris Agreement Article 6 rulebook at COP26, countries can now cooperate through carbon markets to mutually support their respective climate targets and the raising of global climate ambition. As an alternative-energy disadvantaged country with limited domestic mitigation potential, Singapore is keenly exploring these new possibilities.
In recent months, we have signed Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with Indonesia, Morocco, Colombia and Vietnam; and exchanged Letters of Intent with Ghana to affirm our shared commitment towards advancing cooperation and capability building on carbon markets. We will step up our efforts to engage more like-minded partner countries with credible climate targets, both in the region and beyond.
Under the ICC framework, companies will have the option to tap on eligible ICC to fulfil part of their carbon tax liability.
Currently, companies only have one mode of carbon tax payment – by surrendering a corresponding amount of Fixed-Price Carbon Credits (FPCC), as referred to in the Bill, purchased from NEA at the prevailing carbon tax level.
The Bill will amend existing sections 2 and 17 of the CPA respectively. First, to introduce the definition of an ICC, as a certificate representing one tonne of emissions reductions or removals generated from projects and programmes outside Singapore; and two, to allow companies to surrender eligible ICC as a valid alternative mode of carbon tax payment, in addition to FPCC.
The ICC framework will ensure that the ICC surrendered are of high environmental integrity and compliant with Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. The new section 33A will stipulate that all ICC surrendered must adhere to a set of eligibility criteria, which will be prescribed in subsidiary legislation.
We intend for our eligibility criteria to minimally reference the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation, or it is more commonly known as CORSIA standards. These are a set of environmental integrity standards that have been developed and backed by a multilateral process led by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), in consultation with green groups and experts, and are widely regarded as some of the most rigorous in the industry.
As the market for carbon credits is nascent and growing, we will review our eligibility criteria periodically to align with developments.
I should emphasise that while the ICC framework provides a complementary pathway for companies to decarbonise, reducing emissions through domestic abatement efforts will remain our priority.
Hence, the new section 33B will stipulate that the ICC surrendered must be capped at a prescribed facility-level limit. This is currently intended to be set at 5% of taxable emissions and will be prescribed in the subsidiary legislation. This limit is aligned with other comparable jurisdictions with similar climate ambitions, such as South Korea and California, and ensures that the ICC framework does not diminish the impetus for companies to cut emissions. We will continue to review the facility-level limit over time to align with international developments.
The ICC framework parameters apply only to companies that are carbon tax-liable and are surrendering credits to fulfil part of their carbon tax liabilities. They do not apply to the voluntary carbon market, where any company can purchase carbon credits to offset their own carbon footprint voluntarily and as part of their corporate climate targets.
The Bill will also update the list of greenhouse gases to keep pace with the latest global developments and refine carbon tax administration. The list of greenhouse gases and their Global Warming Potential values will be updated in the First and Second Schedules to the CPA, in line with newer standards adopted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The Bill will also amend the Second Schedule to remove nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), as a non-reckonable greenhouse gas. This will bring NF3 emissions within the coverage of the carbon tax. We intend to do so from 2024 onwards. This is aligned with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its Katowice rulebook, which require all parties to include NF3 in the reporting of their national emissions inventory by 2024. The inclusion of NF3 will mainly affect facilities in the Electronics sector, but transitional support will be provided to affected companies through grants and incentives, such as the Resource Efficiency Grant for Emissions and Investment Allowance for Emissions Reduction.
The Bill will also introduce amendments to improve tax administration. To minimise unintended gaps in carbon tax collection when there is a transfer in operational control over a taxable facility, the Bill will amend various sections of the CPA to impose revised registration, reporting and payment obligations. To reduce compliance costs, the deregistration criteria will be expanded to allow companies to apply for deregistration if their facility has ceased operations. In addition, NEA will be empowered to deregister a registered company and facility if the person has wound up, been dissolved, or ceased to exist.
As the carbon tax level is raised from 2024 onwards, the Bill will also prescribe the treatment for the carryover or refund of FPCC purchased at the \"old\" price and increase the thresholds for waivers of small assessments and appeals to the High Court by a commensurate degree, to simplify administration and minimise the regulatory burden on taxable facilities.
Mr Speaker, to conclude, the Carbon Pricing (Amendment) Bill will ensure that our carbon pricing regime remains fit for future; strengthens the impetus for businesses and individuals to reduce their carbon footprint and supports the growth of the green economy; in particular, by contributing to the establishment of high-integrity, internationally credible carbon markets.
It is informed by our principled, balanced approach to carbon pricing and reflects Singapore's unwavering commitment to decisive climate action. With that, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, last year, this House affirmed that climate change is a global emergency. This year, through another Motion by the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Sustainability and the Environment, this House called on the Government to partner businesses and Singaporeans to make Singapore a low-carbon society. Since then, the Government has responded clearly and positively.
There was Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong's announcement last month that Singapore will aim to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Many of us have fought hard to have this ambitious target for many years now and this was a topic I raised repeatedly, and almost annually, in this House.
Sir, in 2018 I said that Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence was my favourite Minister. I am happy to say now that with this latest net zero announcement by him, he remains my favourite Minister.
On a serious note, there is a reason Singapore's net-zero target is such a big deal. Singapore's word is worth its weight in gold, and the world knows it. Today's Bill is a testament to that fact.
This Bill raises carbon tax to the levels announced in this year's Budget. I have always said carbon tax is our best weapon against climate change. The new rates sharpen this weapon and helps Singapore achieve its net-zero emissions goal.
I have three points on how we can continue the push towards a low-carbon society.
My first point is on companies in EITE sectors. These sectors include the energy, chemicals and electronics sectors. This Bill allows the Government to grant allowances to companies in EITE sectors. In its public consultation, the Government said that these allowances are meant to help such companies \"manage the near-term impact on business competitiveness and mitigate the risk of carbon leakage\".
I do understand that we need to remember the trade-offs. We want to push for climate change, but we do not want to push businesses away. But green groups are concerned, and rightly so. Every allowance erodes the coverage of our carbon tax and reduces the urgency to go green. Every allowance weakens the effectiveness of the carbon tax. I have three points to make on this.
First, can Minister share how many companies currently belong to the EITE sector and will pay carbon taxes? In other words, how many companies are currently eligible for these allowances?
Second, given that the allowances are meant to reduce the \"near-term impact\" on business competitiveness, why does the Bill set no end date for such allowances to be granted? How will the Government decide when to stop granting allowances? Will it consider committing to 2030 as the year by which it will stop granting allowances? It seems fair to say that the near term should last no longer than eight years from today.
Third, will the Ministry consider making it a practice to name all companies that receive such allowances from the Government? There is no reason these names should be a secret. They are clearly not a matter of commercial sensitivity and companies that do not receive such allowances will rightly wonder whether the Government is secretly granting allowances to their rivals in the same sector. We must not let our carbon tax regime fall under such a cloud of suspicion.
My second point today is on the coverage of our carbon tax.
Our carbon tax, along with our transport fuel tax, currently covers 90% of our nation's emissions. This is a high proportion, but every percentage counts in the fight against climate change.
At this year's Budget debate, I asked the Government to raise this percentage by lowering the carbon tax threshold to include smaller emitters that are \"reportable facilities\". The Ministry's position is that lowering the threshold would impose significant regulatory burden and cost on companies, without any meaningful increase in coverage.
Can Minister share how compliance costs would increase for a reportable facility to become a taxable facility?
As I mentioned during the debate, operators of these facilities already have to pay the costs of tracking their emissions. So, the only obvious new cost is just the tax itself, and it is precisely my point that they should pay this tax – so that they have an incentive to cut the emissions.
My third and final point today is on publicising carbon tax data.
I previously asked that the Government publish more granular data on the impact of our carbon taxes, such as the trend in emission levels for taxed facilities and the breakdown of revenue by facility type. The Government answered by saying that company- and facility-specific data were confidential information that it could not disclose under our Carbon Pricing Act.
To address this, I suggested that the Government publish a ranking of top emitters without sharing the exact emissions level. This would allow the public to make more informed consumption decisions without compromising business confidentiality. Minister Grace Fu's response was that the Ministry agrees with the need to provide strong impetus for companies to reduce emissions and will continue to study how we can spur this meaningfully.
Can Minister share if it will now consider publishing a ranking of top emitters without the exact emissions level?
In addition, given that companies may now buy international carbon credits instead of paying carbon tax for up to 5% of taxable emissions, will the Ministry also consider publishing data on trends in ICCs used by companies and facilities?
In summary, I hope that we can clarify and limit allowances granted to EITE companies, expand the carbon tax to all reportable facilities and be more transparent with data on top emitters and ICCs.
Sir, we have done a lot in our battle to tackle climate change. Ultimately, we need to remember this quote: \"Climate change is sometimes misunderstood as being about changes in the weather. In reality, it is about changes in our very way of life\".
All of us need to change our mindsets and our lifestyles. All of us have an important part to play. All of us need to work together. I thank all the activists, NGOs, businesses and our public officers for their passion, determination and partnership in this important fight.
In my opening speech for the Climate Change Motion in 2021, I said, \"I live this moment with sadness and optimism. Sadness because we are somehow fighting the same battle that our forefathers fought decades ago. But also, optimism – because we are now much clearer about what we can do. Optimism because Singaporeans, more than ever before, are speaking up and taking action\".
Unfortunately, the sadness continues as each day, we see the effects of climate change right before our very eyes and we feel this change. We see how it may be getting worse and that we are running out of time.
The sadness and, perhaps worry, is fuelled by what UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said just yesterday: \"Greenhouse gas emissions keep growing. Global temperatures keep rising. And our planet is fast approaching tipping points that will make climate chaos irreversible. We are on a highway to climate hell with our foot on the accelerator.\"
But – and it is a big \"but\" – I remain optimistic, and I hope we all do. There is so much progress made, so much more people joining this movement and millions wanting to take action. Let us ride on this wave and this growing movement to ensure that we have a healthy planet to live in. Sir, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Carbon Pricing (Amendment) Bill makes changes to our carbon pricing regime, including taking the major step of hiking the carbon price. As we debate this Bill, I am proud that our Singapore representatives and youth environmental activists are flying our flag in Egypt at the COP27. And their participation reminds us of what is at stake here, why this climate change fight is critical, not only for the world but for Singapore's national interest.
On that note, I would just like to say that I am sure that many Members of the House would agree that all of us owe a profound debt of gratitude to our Singaporean environmental activists who have helped to galvanise public opinion, move the needle and generate very useful ideas for policy debates.
Sir, the Workers’ Party supported the original CPA and we support the thrust of this amendment Bill as well, as will be reiterated by my Workers' Party colleagues who will be speaking on the Bill later. In the past, Workers' Party Members of Parliament have spoken about how there is scope to raise the carbon tax when comparing Singapore with international benchmarks. These are moves in the right direction for Singapore.
Why is that so? What is at stake here? There is no greater challenge facing humanity than that of climate change. Rising temperatures triggered by growing greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions in the atmosphere will lead to freakish weather patterns, rising sea levels, rising incidence of heat-related illness, the loss of biodiversity and many other huge, dangerous, and perhaps, irreversible challenges for Singaporeans and for people around the world.
We must avert what is known in economics as the tragedy of the commons – which, in this context, means the problem created when individual countries pursue their national interest in an uncoordinated fashion at the expense of the global environment, leading to disastrous effects applicable to all countries. The uniqueness and seriousness of the challenge we face here calls on us to show national resolve and unity across the political spectrum.
If nations do their part, there is every reason to believe that the world can contain the danger posed by climate change. We should remember how nations came together in 1987 to bring into being the Montreal Protocol that succeeded in protecting the ozone layer. That precedent should give us hope that we can avert or, at least, substantially mitigate disaster at the edge of the precipice.
Most mainstream economists accept that carbon pricing is probably the most sound and effective approach to controlling emissions of GHGs. Jennifer Morris, research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), puts it this way: \"Rather than regulating exactly where and how emissions should be reduced, carbon pricing gives markets the flexibility to find the cheapest ways to lower emissions.\" The EU, Japan, China, California and a few other US states are already using carbon pricing.
A carbon price, by imposing a tax on large GHG emitters, can potentially result in part of that tax burden being passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. But such inflationary pressures need to be mitigated by two means.
Firstly, good competition policy, which by optimising competition in key industries, tends to reduce the pass-through effect of the tax to end-consumers vis-à-vis what it might have been.
Secondly, social policies that cushion the effects of price rises on the most vulnerable segments of the population and, thus, help to enhance access to opportunities, social mobility and the perception of fairness across all our social groups. This is important, not only because we desire social justice, but also because climate change mitigation measures need to be designed to ensure the broadest possible public support, so that the country will continue to back such measures through thick and thin and across political cycles.
While we support the thrust of this Bill, the Workers' Party has some amendments to suggest. Our amendments, while accepting the principle that the Government can and should create allowances to reduce the carbon tax paid in specific cases, seek to limit the scope and extent of allowances; and to increase transparency and accountability, so as to ensure that the carbon pricing regime is seen to be fair, clear and uniformly applicable to all, which enhances public buy-in, while at the same time, making sure that it is a sufficiently robust nudge to businesses to find the best ways to reduce emissions.
We do agree that allowances are needed for nationally strategic projects that are important for job creation and job defence, as well as to hedge against needless carbon leakage of large EITE facilities. But we believe that the balance point can be struck a little differently between promoting emissions reduction and ensuring robust support for business using economic incentivisation.
The Workers' Party's proposed amendments to this Bill have been filed by my Parliamentary colleague, Sengkang Member of Parliament Ms He Ting Ru, and myself. They stand in the Order Paper Supplement. In our speeches, we shall explain these amendments in detail and address possible objections.
Mr Speaker, Sir, many Singaporeans are conscious of the threat posed by climate change to Singapore and the world. Many Singaporeans want our climate change policies to show ambition and seriousness. This is backed up by the recently released results from an online public consultation exercise run by the National Climate Change Secretariat, or NCCS. Of the 490 responses, 94% of respondents were willing to withstand trade-offs and inconveniences to achieve enhanced climate targets.
Some of the suggestions from respondents, such as pivoting away from emissions-intensive industries and doing more to electrify our commercial fleets and vehicle population, have been subjects taken up by the Workers' Party's Members of Parliament in this House in the past, including Hougang Member of Parliament Mr Dennis Tan and Sengkang Member of Parliament Mr Louis Chua, for example. Before leaving this topic, it should be said that the respondents for this consultation contained a disproportionate percentage of younger people.
Mr Speaker, Sir, beyond noting how public opinion is shifting, we should also note that being green need not be the enemy of economic growth. We can, and must generate good jobs from cleaner and greener economic activities. In fact, most of the large multinational companies, or MNCs, in pollutive industries themselves, seeing the writing on the wall, are trying to show that they are transitioning towards greener practices – like refining biofuels rather than crude oil or using carbon capture and sequestration technology, for example. Our challenge going forward is to find ways to promote a serious pursuit of ambitious climate goals with the pursuit of economic ones in tandem, not to counterpose the one to the other.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I would now like to move on to explain the amendments standing in my name on the Parliamentary Order Paper Supplement for today, starting with the amendments which deal with allowances awarded under the carbon pricing regime.
Sir, the new provisions of this Bill, on the face of it, introduce allowances that go against the \"fair, uniform and transparent price signal\" of the no-exemption carbon tax on large emitters, which Ministers have previously argued are important for carbon tax to be effective. For example, in 2021, the Government said in this House that: \"Our carbon tax framework has been tailored to our context, putting in place a fair, uniform and transparent price signal to incentivise emissions reductions\".
Having said that, the Workers' Party accepts the case for Government allowances vis-à-vis the carbon tax paid by specific entities in principle. Allowances may be justified on two grounds.
Firstly, that of attracting or retaining projects of a strategic nature where such projects are nationally important for job creation, job defence or the dynamism of our economy; as well as to manage the extent of carbon leakage whereby some firms in EITE sectors may transfer investments to countries with less green policies or with no carbon tax. This first rationale also applies to economic incentives awarded by agencies like EDB and Enterprise Singapore, for example.
Secondly, that of creating more of a runway for large entities whose products and prices affect many households to transition to a lower carbon-emitting business model in cases where that is justified.
On this note, I would like to ask the Government to expand on the considerations that will come into play in awarding allowances in more detail, a topic treated briefly in section 20D of the Bill.
However, when we consider the question of allowances, there is a difference between carbon tax allowances and general economic incentives. Economic incentives provide benefits that not all firms enjoy. Carbon tax allowances, on the other hand, mean that all large emitters have to pay the carbon tax, but some large emitters have to pay less when awarded an allowance.
There is a strong case to circumscribe the carbon tax allowances awarded in terms of extent as well as in terms of time. This is for two reasons.
Firstly, this is so as to demonstrate our ambition and seriousness in the face of such a major challenge as climate change; to demonstrate the political will to keep allowances to the bare minimum, so as to generate a strong nudge on business.
Secondly, this is so as to foster confidence among companies themselves that the carbon tax regime and, indeed, our entire business environment, are fair and transparent. This is necessary as the carbon tax is a significant burden applicable to firms and also the wider public. Imposing this burden comes with a responsibility to ensure that the public and business community see that the burden will be imposed fairly; and exceptions made on a very limited, transparent basis with strong reasons given, as opposed to a perception that allowances are awarded to companies close to any future government for one reason or another, for example. Only then will we obtain a wider buy-in to the carbon tax regime from citizens and the business community that we need.
Hence, we have tabled amendments to the broad powers given to the Minister to pick and choose taxable facilities to award non-time-limited allowances to. Creating a more limited allowance regime sends a stronger signal about how we intend to approach the carbon tax and ensures that no government of the day can prop up any large emitter in perpetuity.
At this point, Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps I should add that before these amendments, both mine and Ms He Ting Ru's, can be voted on at the Committee stage later, I understand that we need the President's recommendation as these are tax-related and have fiscal implications. I am not aware if that recommendation is forthcoming at this point. But I shall continue to make the arguments for these amendments —
Mr Speaker: You can talk about it, and we will address it at the Committee stage.
Mr Leon Perera: Okay. Our amendment (3) in the Order Paper Supplement tackles this problem of having non-time-limited allowances that are not really as circumscribed in scope as they could be, by limiting the number of times a taxable facility can receive allowances. Assuming that businesses are able to get allowances when they ask for it, our amendment would mean – to take an example – that a facility can obtain allowances in the following years: 2024, 2025, and, if still deemed necessary after a gap, 2029 and 2030, with 2026, 2027 and 2028 being no allowance years. This still leaves a substantial runway for companies to transform to low-emission processes and sources from now until 2026; and leeway for the Government to apply an allowance in 2029 for particularly large and strategic projects, if deemed necessary.
And I would note at this point that large and strategic projects, facilities, factories and so on, typically have breakeven periods and are invested and set up based on projections that go forward far into the future, sometimes 10 years, sometimes 20 years.
Sir, our amendment (10) limits the extent of allowances to a maximum of 33% of the carbon tax assessed to be payable and not 50% as the wording of the current Bill reads, to our understanding. In other words, our amendment sets up a cap of 33%, because the tax charged must not be less than double the awarded allowance. We believe that lowering the allowance cap makes for a stronger nudge for large emitters to move towards greener business models faster. We believe that our amendment makes for a better balance point between the competing objectives on the table here.
Having said that, I would like to point out that for projects and companies that are deemed to be nationally strategic; or where their business affects the lives of many Singaporeans and they may need more time to transition to greener processes; or we may want to cushion the effects on a wider public, especially vulnerable groups, the Government still has other tools that can be used to address that situation, namely, first of all, other economic incentives that can be applied under other Acts; and secondly, fiscal tools to implement some degree of income redistribution and cushion the effect of higher prices on more vulnerable groups, in a targeted fashion.
Sir, next, I would like to move on, to speak on the amendments which have the effect of creating a public registry of the Government's allowance awards. Our amendments \"ensure the award is listed on a registry that is provided free-of-charge and easily accessible to the public through electronic means, specifying...\" and so on. The information which is required to be included in this public registry that we are proposing, in addition to that referring to the number of emissions years the allowance is applicable to and the methodology for calculating this, include:
\"(c) the registered person of the taxable facility who has received allowances; and
(d) the Minister's reasons for deciding to award the allowances.\".
The current version of the Bill does not require the Minister to disclose allowances or any details on them. Some members of the public raised this issue during consultations and some study groups as well, and in the Ministry's public response after the carbon tax consultation, the Ministry cited commercial sensitivity concerns. The Government has also said it is \"not productive or correct\" to put companies which pay carbon tax under public scrutiny.
It could be argued that such awards should remain confidential because their disclosure could give the competitors of the company receiving the award some information that might give them a competitive advantage in the various actions that they choose to undertake; or which might lead to that company being placed in an unfavourable position when negotiating with stakeholders, such as customers and partners, who may ask for better terms.
It could also be argued that being publicly known as a recipient of such an award may subject the recipient and their employees to some degree of public opprobrium due to the perception of being on the receiving end of some unfair advantage of some kind.
Or it could be argued that disclosure of awards may hinder the Government in applying different kinds of awards to different companies in consideration of what is needed to close the deal in each case, therefore, making the Government operate at a disadvantage in calibrating the award in each case to the bare minimum necessary to serve the national interest.
There could be other considerations here along similar lines.
Companies receiving Government incentives under laws like the Economic Expansion Incentives Act are currently not disclosed, nor, of course, are the amount of the incentives disclosed. Why, then, do we call for the carbon tax awards to be disclosed? And are we calling for the same disclosure for other types of economic incentives? Sir, we are not.
In fact, there are significant differences between carbon tax allowance awards and more general economic incentives for investment.
A carbon tax allowance is a reduction in tax applied to one entity, versus all similar entities which have to pay that tax. Hence, it is a lessening of a burden applied to all in the case of one. An economic incentive, on the other hand, gives additional benefits to one company that all do not receive. The difference between the two scenarios is that in the first case, a new tax being imposed means new costs to all. If one entity has their cost lessened, to obtain general buy-in for the tax among all companies and the public, a certain degree of transparency and public accountability is warranted for the new regime to be seen as fair.
Moreover, given that the carbon tax imposes costs across the whole society and an allowance blunts the effect of that tax to some degree, there is a public interest in knowing who receives such awards, to ensure accountability vis-à-vis the goals of the carbon tax. This helps ensure that any government of the day does not prop up certain companies for an unjustifiably long period of time, or even in perpetuity, for whatever reason. This ensures public support for a costly tax that is meant to be, in the words of the Government spoken in this House in 2021, a \"fair, uniform and transparent price signal\" that advances climate change goals; or, to quote the Government's words again in 2018, to create a carbon tax regime that \"will apply uniformly to all sectors, without exemption. This will maintain a transparent, fair and consistent carbon price across the economy.\"
On a more practical note, not ensuring that transparency is also not a foolproof means of keeping the award information secret. Such information often gets leaked and shared by word of mouth within the community of persons interested in such things and may breed speculation and undermine confidence in the business environment. Sometimes, Government incentive information needs to be disclosed to some degree in public filings in the company's home country.
To address the competitive concerns and the concerns about Government agencies having a legitimate interest in not revealing the amount of the award or the terms of the award given to specific companies in specific cases, our proposal for a public registry does not require information about the quantity of the award to be disclosed. I repeat – it does not require information about the quantity of the award to be disclosed.
Sir, I trust I have explained why the Workers' Party is calling for more transparency in the case of carbon tax allowances but not for an equal level of transparency when it comes to general economic incentives for inward investment.
Sir, amendment (12) deletes the language of line 21 to 24 on page 14 of the Bill which allows the Minister to determine \"in any other manner that the Minister considers appropriate\" ways to incentivise the continued reduction in GHG emissions of the taxable facility.
We propose this deletion so as to eliminate a provision that might allow a Minister to disregard the formula specified in the previous section for the maximum cap for an allowance. That formula should be taken more seriously.
In short, we believe that deleting those lines reduces overly broad executive discretion and strikes a better balance point – between legitimate executive discretion on the one hand and creating a transparent, rules-based system on the other hand.
In conclusion, Sir, there are other amendments that are merely language edits, that are consequential to the substantive amendments that are numbered in the Order Paper Supplement as (3), (4), (7) and (10). I shall not explain them in detail but would be glad to take any questions on those.
Another important set of our amendments will be explained later by Sengkang Member of Parliament Ms He Ting Ru.
Sir, in conclusion, we support the thrust of the Carbon Pricing (Amendment) Bill before the House. We must avoid the tragedy of the commons – as a country and as a species.
However, we have proposed a number of amendments that we feel strengthen the thrust of the Bill, make it better and which will enhance wide public acceptance, as well as better align the provisions and effects of the Bill with the climate change outcomes that we seek. Sir, I beg to move the 12 amendments standing in my name in today's Order Paper Supplement. Thank you.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera, you will address those in the Committee stage. We do not move amendments now. Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I fully support our Government's net-zero ambition and the implementation of measures to achieve our goal, including the carbon taxes. There is no doubt that our determination to not damage our environment further will provide a good future for our children and grandchildren.
Ideally, there should be a level playing field for all on this earth, for every individual, whether one is a big or small economy, a big or small country. We must not forget that we all share the same earth. While we are determined to stick to our environmental protection commitments, we cannot be sure others will do likewise. There remains a possibility that other countries will continue to resort to the easy way out, in order to make themselves more price competitive. This is the reality of the global marketplace.
In view of this, how will the Government help EITE sectors, such as the electronics, chemical and energy industries to remain economically competitive? How will the Ministry ensure that jobs are not lost to jurisdictions with less stringent legislation? If this were to happen, the global carbon emissions will not be reduced despite the loss of local jobs and investments. How will the Government get the largest carbon emitters, such as all the energy producers in the world, to take the lead in becoming more green?
I would like to know what the allowances are to incentivise the continued investments in decarbonisation. What are the incentives to develop optimal solutions and technology that will result in no additional cost to achieve net-zero carbon emissions.
Finally, the impact of the carbon taxes will spread to all sectors of our economy. How will the Government minimise the impact on consumers at the receiving ends? How would the Government use the tax revenue to support our residents and the decarbonisation efforts? With that, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, I had previously spoken during the Climate Change Motion debated at the start of the year, about the elegant simplicity of a carbon tax, and its importance as an instrument for addressing the global climate emergency. At the time, I explained why the Workers' Party believes that an emissions price of $15 per tonne – targeted by the existing CPA for 2030 – would be inadequate, and why a tax ranging between $58 and $133 would be more tenable, with $100 a ton being a reasonably close-to-median and scientifically-supported benchmark.
While the Government has declined to come as far as we have advocated, the proposed amendments to the CPA of 2018 provides for increases to the carbon price and carbon tax rate, which the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE) has indicated, will now be in the order of between $50 and $80 per tonne by 2030. While we continue to believe that the appropriate level should be higher, we view this as an important compromise.
My Workers' Party colleagues Leon Perera and He Ting Ru have proposed two sets of amendments to the Bill, which we view as important safeguards to further enhance transparency and grant additional flexibility to businesses in how they satisfy their carbon commitments.
Because I am all about practice and not just theory, I wish to speak about transition issues associated with the practical implementation of a carbon tax; in effect, aspects surrounding the amended Third Schedule of the Bill. The Schedule currently proposes an increase of the carbon tax, from $5 per metric ton of carbon dioxide emissions up till 2023, to $25 in 2024 and 2025, and to $45 from 2026 onward. Presumably, there will be subsequent legislation after 2027 to conform with the stated $50 to $80 target.
I believe that this unnecessarily binds the hands of policymakers to a schedule that could be detrimental to our short-term economic performance.
It is easy to recognise the appeal of a steady increase in the carbon tax: it is gradual, predictable and incremental, thereby affording businesses time and certainty as they adapt to an impending tax increase. But its unyielding nature may also be its undoing.
After all, the increase in carbon taxes to the proposed range is fairly sharp: in just three years, the rate will be one order of magnitude greater than the $5 a tonne currently in place. Such a significant hike may also appear to be ill-timed, with our economy just exiting a relatively recent technical recession in 2020 and currently struggling to manage global pressures from rising inflation.
There is, however, an alternative: allow the carbon tax to vary over time, with the specific rate adapted to the current prevailing state of the economy. Following standard principles of stabilisation policy, such an optimal tax would strike a balance between safeguarding the economy and jobs, while protecting the environment. If the economy is in a recession, God forbid, the tax would be scaled back. In contrast, if the economy is expanding strongly, it should be able to bear a stiffer increase in the carbon tax rate.
Of course, accurately calling the state of the economy in real time is admittedly a challenge. But modern macroeconomics, along with access to big data, has already made substantial progress on this front, and it is now possible to reasonably gauge where we stand in the business cycle. In addition, modern central banks routinely gauge the extent to which the economy has deviated from its steady state. The European Central Bank, for instance, adjusts member states' budget balances to reflect the contemporary state of the economy. I would be shocked if the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) does not have its own in-house team that performs this very exercise.
Using this approach, the tax would adhere to a central rate outlined in the Third Schedule but be up- or down-weighted by the MAS' evaluation of the current state of the economy. For example, if we find ourselves sliding into a recession next year, the $25 rate could drop to $15 or $20, depending on the severity of the contraction, whereas it could rise to $30 or $35 as the economy rebounds.
Does this proposal undermine the case that other taxes, such as the Goods and Services Tax (GST), should not be raised at this point of the cycle? Not quite. If anything, the notion of tax policy being sensitive to the state of the economy is entirely consistent with the argument that an increase in the GST next year is also inappropriate.
The basic principle is that carbon taxes – like all taxes – should be higher when the economy is growing steadily and lower otherwise. But the reason why I had previously argued for a temporary freeze in GST hikes despite the economy presently growing steadily is because other policy levers – in particular, monetary and exchange rate policy, are already acting counter-cyclically. This implies that the role of fiscal policy should be limited to serving as a moderating ballast. Moreover, we should keep in mind that, unlike carbon taxes which applies to only goods and services that involve carbon in their production and hence, has a narrower impact, the GST is a broad-based tax, which affects nearly all supplies of goods and services. The impact that rising carbon taxes would have on the economy would have correspondingly a more limited scope.
This notion is corroborated by the data. A study that examines the macroeconomic implications of a carbon tax in Europe finds that there is no evidence to support the view that such taxes are job or growth killers. Another that explores whether carbon pricing on inflation, finds that it likewise does not.
Incidentally, such a time-varying carbon tax need not apply only to this particular transition period. If the Government subscribes to the general principle that a time-varying carbon tax is attractive, the rate can be adjusted every time the Singapore economy experiences an economic weakness and vice versa.
Beyond the instruments of fiscal policy – for which carbon taxation is a part – the Government can also attempt to realign monetary policy toward favouring green initiatives, too. This means that MAS can assist our transition process in its move toward net zero.
To be clear, MAS is no stranger to green initiatives. The MAS oversaw the inaugural launch of $2.4 billion worth of Green Singapore Government Securities (Green SGS) in August this year.
The MAS chief Ravi Menon has also explained how the MAS is supporting the development of a transition taxonomy – both at home and abroad – and spearheaded a host of other Enterprise Singapore (ESG) initiatives.
That said, the MAS has mostly been engaged in these initiatives as either a convener or a coordinator, under its financial development mandate. My suggestion is that it can affect the transition process even more directly, by embedding green considerations into its day-to-day operations. For example, MAS can target its open market operations toward green bonds. While the amount of tradable green bonds may be limited, consciously including green bonds in its potential portfolio of securities that it buys and sells when it conducts monetary policy, can assist us in this transition process.
Another way that the Government can support the green transition via financial development is to establish an Export Import (EXIM) Bank. This has been a core plank of the Workers' Party manifesto and is premised on the importance of offering financing to pursue internationalisation and digitalisation objectives for, especially, our small and medium enterprises (SMEs). To this, we can now add support for the green transition for SMEs to this list of objectives for a potential EXIM bank.
In an earlier response by then-Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) Minister Lim Hng Kiang's on why the Government did not feel that an EXIM bank was warranted, he stated that existing schemes under International Enterprise Singapore (IE Singapore) were deemed sufficient, without the \"attending financial and implementation risks that setting up an EXIM bank would entail\". While I understand such reservations, it is useful to understand why the Workers' Party, along with, in fact, the MTI's own Economic Strategies Committee have called for such a bank.
Export-import banks, along with export credit agencies, finance cross-border projects that the private sector would otherwise shun. Typically, these are projects that display substantial externalities, which are the costs or benefits that private agents either do not, or cannot, adequately factor into their own private decision-making. Such externalities include the risks of political upheaval, or propensity default on loans, or social benefits. Alternatively, projects may only be profitable at such a large scale that it is impossible for any single lender to achieve this scale.
Green projects, especially in infrastructure, satisfy both criteria, making an EXIM bank ideally positioned to fund them. Existing financing schemes, such as ESG trade loan facilities, credit guarantees, or political risk insurance schemes, do not adequately meet these needs, since they may not garner sufficient financial scale, or entail externalities that simply are not insurable. EXIM banks have also proven their mettle in times of crisis, preventing complete collapses in trade finance markets.
EXIM banks are, therefore, well suited to support green transition objectives. In fact, many green financing needs, such access to green energy sources, or carbon credit exchanges, are already inherently cross-border in nature. Consequently, the trade financing and international financial access portfolios of an EXIM bank could easily be expanded to enfold sustainability objectives. And indeed, the number of other EXIM banks, such as those in China, India, Hungary and Thailand, have successfully rolled out green on-lending facilities.
My Speaker, a carbon tax that better internalises the externalities associated with the use of carbon in our production is undeniably a step in the right direction and one that codifies into law our responsibility to take into account the welfare of future generations and the sustainability of our economic model. For this reason, I support the Bill.
But make no mistake: the transition to a lower-carbon economy and eventually to net zero, will be hard. As challenging as this may be, there is no reason why we should not ease the process as much as we possibly can. Allowing the carbon tax to dynamically adapt to the state of the economy, as well as introducing additional aspects to our monetary and financial policies that ease the transition process, will go a long way toward ensuring buy-in from those affected by the carbon tax.
As difficult as it may be for us today, it is perhaps apt to remind ourselves of why we make the sacrifices we do today. It is aptly summarised by a saying, frequently attributed to the Native American people, that \"we do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we merely borrow it from our children.\"
Mr Speaker: Minister Grace Fu.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Just a clarification, Mr Speaker. I have listened very intently to Assoc Prof Jamus Lim. And I appreciate his suggestion about making carbon tax vary in time, with the economic situation, with GDP or some projections that is short-term. I will address that later on in my Second Reading closing speech.
But there is a big chunk in the middle that talks about EXIM bank, that talks about financing. I would just like to clarify, whether he finds relevance of what he said to the Bill that we are moving today. In what way is MSE, as the Ministry moving this Bill responsible for what you have just said?
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: I thank that the Minister for her question. As I have explained at the beginning of my speech, the bulk of what I am talking about is about a transition process. That is the whole point of why I am interested in speaking about the mechanism for getting to that process, while we are talking about the carbon tax.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Thank you very much.
Mr Speaker: Mr Cheng Hsing Yao.
Mr Cheng Hsing Yao (Nominated Member): Thank you, Speaker, Sir. I would like to declare that in the preparation for this speech, I have sought inputs from private sector consultants in the carbon energy fields. I support the use of carbon pricing as a tool to help us peak carbon emission by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050. I also look forward to the transformative effect it will have on our economy and our environment.
When Singapore says it is going to do something, it will. That is one of our strengths. However, for the transition to net zero, we should maintain some flexibility and adaptability for the pathway to get there and for the final energy supply model.\tEnergy, along with water and food, are vitals that keep Singapore going. Losing security of any one of them can incapacitate us within a very short time. I would like to seek clarification on our strategy to maintain energy security.
It was not too long ago that we courted some of the largest oil and gas companies to invest heavily into our Jurong Island. And Singapore became one of the world's largest petrolchemical hub despite not producing any oil or natural gas. Besides being a significant contributor to our GDP, it also contributed to our energy security.
We managed to secure our access to oil and natural gas through building up a strong petrochemical ecosystem, that is, industry, supply chain and logistics in and around Singapore. One day, green hydrogen could replace oil and natural gas as the primary energy vector. We also need to likewise implement a similar strategy to plug Singapore into the production, supply chain and market mechanism ecosystem of hydrogen. This complex endeavour will require years of planning and execution.
Green hydrogen shows promise, but when will it become ready to replace oil or natural gas is unknown. What happens if hydrogen and other alternatives take much longer to become viable? Meanwhile, how do we balance encouraging the petrochemical sector to transit into a low emission model, against the immediate impact on our economy and energy security?
For decades after our Independence, we have been subjected to frequent threats of having our water supply cut off. Thanks to technological advancement and the foresight of our leaders, we can technically achieve water self-sufficiency through harvesting our NEWater and Desalination National Taps. However, this is only true provided we always have access to energy. Losing energy security also means losing water security.
Direct import of electricity from foreign renewable sources, such as hydropower from Laos and solar power from Australia, may form a significant component of our total energy supply in the future. While the supply source can be diversified, the supply cables will ultimately have to physically pass through the lands and waters of our closest neighbours. The uninterrupted supply of electricity imports may be subjected to geopolitical risks.
Setting aside Government commitments, global investors and MNCs are already leading the way in factoring carbon emission into their business decisions. This will lead to higher demand for renewable energy around the world, including the countries that are exporting or planning to export renewable energy. If the source countries do not have sufficient renewable energy supply to meet their domestic demand, they may impose export limits.
Singapore's power grid's reliability is one of the important factors that helped us advance as a high-value manufacturing base, as well as a technology and financial hub. It is not just having access to power, but having stable, uninterrupted and reliable access to power. How do we manage potential fluctuations of power supply when a significant part is not \"produced\" domestically?
The COVID-19 pandemic showed us that low probability and high impact events do happen. The transition of our energy supply model into a low emission one while promising and exciting, will be met with many unforeseeable and uncontrollable factors. We must also be prepared for the proverbial \"Perfect Storm\". Thus, I would appreciate if the Minister could outline, as we seek to cut our carbon emissions, how our energy supply model will always be secured, resilient and reliable. Notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, as the world gathers for COP27 this month, it is clearer than ever that the need for more action to reduce our carbon emissions is pressing. It is why we are debating amendments to the CPA today.
In April this year, the UN IPCC sounded a warning that we are running out of time to make changes to limit global warming. It concluded that limiting warming to around 1.5 degrees requires global GHG emissions to peak before 2025 – meaning in the next three years – and to drop by 43% by 2030. Even a more conservative target of two degrees warmer still requires global GHG emissions to peak before 2025 at the latest and to be reduced by a quarter by 2030.
While some decarbonising strategies rely heavily on the development of new technologies, we need to continue to pursue other avenues to ensure that we are properly supporting the green transition. These range from – amongst others – consumer education about necessary lifestyle changes, tackling greenwashing, to ensuring that our financing system is set up to properly, and sustainably, support the shift to a climate conscious economy and also to come up with a carbon pricing regime that equitably balances various considerations that come into play.
Indeed, a report fronted by McKinsey Sustainability in January 2022 warned that it is not technology that is the main limiting factor, but it is instead the big shifts in thinking and large-scale financing needed that are far behind schedule. More importantly, precisely because so many of these areas and approaches are relatively new, we must make sure that in our rush to \"do something\" about the problem, we take a moment to evaluate the effects and consequences of our policies. After all, well-intentioned but ultimately inappropriate policies may turn out to be even more costly to unwind when we are further down the path.
This is why we support the move to further refine our carbon tax regime, which is a key prong in a multifaceted approach for our transition to a green economy.
The largest contribution to Singapore's emissions undoubtedly comes from industry. And while it is industry that has been important for our economy, its decarbonisation is crucial, and our policies should be in place to speed progress and to be transparent along the way.
On this note, I, therefore, wish to seek an amendment to the Bill before us, the text of which is contained in the Order Paper Supplement, for the reasons below.
Currently, the Bill allows for facilities to surrender ICCs for up to 5% of their taxable emissions. Clause 33B of the Bill provides an exception where the Minister may \"permit eligible international carbon credits to be surrendered in excess of the prescribed limit in any particular case or class of cases.\" This means that the percentage could be increased to more than 5% if the Minister permits. Allowing facilities to use ICCs for a sizeable portion of their emissions may mean that facilities end up having less incentive to cut down on taxable emissions, as they do not have to pay tax on that portion of emissions.
Many Members in this House have spoken on the regime's allowing the surrendering of up to 5% of their taxable emissions and in particular, my Sengkang colleague, Mr Louis Chua during this year's Committee of Supply (COS), asked about what accountability measures will be put in place to ensure transparency and fair implementation of this regime.
This question is still pertinent today. How will the Minister decide when to lift the prescribed limit? Is there a framework to constrain this decision-making process? I have therefore sought to make the amendments, as listing the decisions of the Minister on a public registry will allow both industry players and civil society to observe the use of ICCs over the years and whether particular facilities are over-reliant on the use of ICCs.
First, the danger of allowing facilities to continuously use ICCs beyond the prescribed limit is that facilities may look to purchase ICCs with low and favourable prices. This could mean that the cost of producing emissions is significantly less than the cost of paying tax on emissions, which creates a disconnect between the purposes of carbon tax and the permitted use of ICCs. Instead of being compelled by the prevailing carbon tax to cut down their emissions, the entity-owning facilities may turn their efforts to purchasing favourable ICCs instead.
The problem is exacerbated by how different ICCs may have different criteria for pricing credits. The value of credits also changes through rounds of trading between entities. The worth of each credit in a different ICC framework, and at different time periods, is different. And the entity-owning facilities can exploit these differences to obtain credits that give them the greatest financial advantage. This defeats the purpose of having a fixed carbon tax that has carefully calibrated increases over the years to discourage emissions and, in particular, to make emissions increasing expensive over time.
Second, having the public registry listing the Minister's decisions will also be a first step in examining whether the use of ICCs indeed fits its purpose of allowing facilities some leeway in producing emissions only in the near to medium term. If facilities continue to surrender ICCs for many years beyond the prescribed limit, this indicates that they may not have found a way to reduce emissions adequately to avoid paying carbon tax excessively.
Third, requiring the Minister to state their reasons for granting permission to surrender ICCs beyond the prescribed limit ensures that we are told the reasons for such decisions upfront, reducing the need for unhelpful speculation or even false rumours to take bed. It can also give comfort that the Minister has indeed carefully considered the issue of the surrender of ICCs and respect of each facility.
Note, too, that I have not, in the amendment, asked for a disclosure of the amount surrendered as we recognise the commercial sensitivities surrounding this information, particularly in the market environment that is that is still finding its feet, so to speak.
Finally, my proposed amendment is also aligned with the Voluntary Carbon Market Integrity Initiative's Claims Code of Practice, which calls for the transparent reporting of information. The Code of Practice states that companies must disclose how carbon credits are used towards their climate targets, including \"whether or not the current credit is associated with corresponding adjustments by the host and/or by a country\".
In addition, I would like to seek clarification on the quality and eligibility of carbon credits. I understand that NEA has signed separate MOUs with Verra and Gold Standard to support Singapore-based companies in using eligible carbon credits issued by Verra and Gold Standard to meet part of their carbon tax obligations in Singapore.
However, there is little further information on the criteria for eligible credits and the ability to verify the carbon-lowering activities of such ICCs is key. Could the Minister let us know when we can expect further details on the prescribed criteria as set out in clause 33A and how are these criteria being formulated?
It is also precisely because the market for ICCs is still new and highly unstandardised that makes it difficult to quantify, and therefore, their use can be controversial. Indeed, academics and environmental groups are concerned that the use of carbon credits could hinder, delay or even displace environmental efforts.
Key aspects of ICCs have not yet been standardised and robust verification mechanisms have not been developed to be applied uniformly across various markets, unlike in the case of commodities, for example, which are traded using industry-specific standardised contracts.
The under-regulation of carbon markets also means that there is a risk for greenwashing, a topic which I will come back to later.
If carbon credits themselves are not rigorously regulated, it may end up hindering emissions reductions by reducing the pressure on regulators and thus, businesses, to aggressively commit to investing in cleaner technologies and to move away from high emissions activities.
There is also concern that there have been consistent over-estimations of emissions reductions in the past. Studies conducted on two of the world's largest offset programmes, which are both administered by the United Nations under the Kyoto Protocol – the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint implementation (JI) – have found approximately 60% to 70% of their offset credits may not represent valid emissions reductions.
Adding to the mix is the difficulty in proving a counterfactual – that is, it is hard to prove that offset programmes made something happen that would not otherwise have happened, regardless of the programme's existence. This is often referred to as \"additionality\".
Yet, in spite all of these, the ICCs continue to have a role to play during the intervening years of our green transition. Limitations of today's technologies mean that hard-to-abate sectors still find it difficult to eliminate emissions. While costs may drop as we continue to work on better and cheaper technology solutions, high-quality ICCs are a way for businesses to plug the gap in the meantime. Our emissions reduction pathway to the 1.5-degree warming target still requires carbon offsets to play a role.
Because of the above reasons, ICCs cannot be the only tool in our market's toolkit to facilitate the green transition. Some of the lessons learnt and concerns from the green and sustainability financial markets are also useful when we look at ICCs. I shall now turn to them.
I note that closer to home, MAS has been making efforts to grow the size of the market here in Singapore and to improve both accessibility to SMEs, and also to maintain an eye on sustainability credentials. Initiatives, such as the Green and Sustainability-Linked Loan Grant Scheme (GSLS) and Project Greenprint aim to do just that, and we have also seen that the local green bond market has grown from S$1 billion five years ago to S$14.4 billion last year. The amount of green loans to has grown from S$2.9 billion in 2018 to S$17 billion last year.
Green financing and the development of robust and large financial markets for green instruments play a very important role to support enterprises and economies towards a decarbonised future. Various financial institutions have been active in developing these markets and various banks have committed to contributing large amounts to sustainable financing and investment by 2030. This is, in itself, a good thing.
Green instruments, like sustainability linked bonds, or SLBs, are ways in which businesses can get access to financing for investment and other activities, which are ostensibly for the purpose of transitioning to more sustainable activities. However, the nature of the market at the moment means that companies, the borrowers, pay experts and consultancies should set appropriate sustainability targets and to evaluate these during the course of the bond, to check whether these targets are being met. Lenders or arrangers, too, would like to be able to announce that they have a large amount of green loans or bonds on their books. In fact, all three parties benefit by being able to tell their involvement in green financing deals. This leaves a question about whether there is sufficient pressure and whether there is enough independent oversight be exercised to lower the risk of greenwashing.
Compounding the problem is that the structure of these green instruments may not have enough negative incentives to make issuers do all they can to meet the sustainability targets set. For sustainability-linked bonds, in particular, the funds are not ring-fenced, making them vulnerable to greenwashing and allows financing to continue to be used by issuers to fund carbon-intensive expenses and projects. More generally, penalties by way of bumps of less than 100 basis points in the amount of increased interest payable is paltry, especially if these are percentages agreed to by the companies themselves, and often represent amounts that are tiny fractions, that work out to be far under 1% of the annual revenue of these issuers.
And while it is true that there are attempts to create standards for sustainability and green targets that issuers and borrowers are expected to meet, such attempts are often voluntary in nature, like the International Capital Market Association (ICMA)'s Green Bond Principles and Sustainability-linked Bond Principles, and they do not address the lack of common disclosure frameworks for each asset class of green instruments and the technical nature of the green or sustainability data points themselves make it open to uncertainty.
Furthermore, taxonomies, like the ASEAN Taxonomy for Sustainable Finance are still works in progress and it is not clear if they will be voluntary or compulsory.
This lack of meaningful standardisation and uncertainty means that green financing is particularly vulnerable to greenwashing. The private nature of green loans, compared with bonds which tend to be public instruments, also makes it difficult for good data to be readily available to understand the picture more clearly.
It is against this backdrop that I believe an EXIM bank can really come into its own. My colleague from Sengkang, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, earlier mentioned how an EXIM bank can play its role in developing green financial markets. I would like to take that one step further by repeating our calls to ask for an EXIM bank to be directly involved in financing green loans and arranging green and sustainability-linked bonds for our enterprises, with a view to using the rich trove of data available from this to either fine-tune existing taxonomies or develop a set of robust and internationally-acceptable set of standards for green financing, which we would then export to the rest of the region and world for wider adoption.
The EXIM bank, having a direct role as a lender or arranger has the added benefit of knowing exactly what the terms of its loans and instruments are. It can also have a special focus on providing financing options for the research of newer and cheaper green technologies, especially those which are more applicable to the specificities of Singapore and the region's energy and industrial needs.
Additionally, the bank would also have access to commercially sensitive information like the exact terms of its covenants, when they are breached or require waivers, and will naturally have harmonisation of disclosure built in. It will also be a natural complement to Project Greenprint's aims of addressing the data challenges of gaps in green and sustainability financial markets.
Coming back to ICCs, many of the principles of what I have just outlined also apply. I believe the above points are the reasons why Singapore has committed to the 5% threshold, and it is also important to note our commitment to \"high-quality\" ICCs.
But given the risks outlined above, I believe we can and should put information out in the public domain, where possible, including the public register for waivers of the threshold for ICCs, which would send a clear signal to emitters that buying their way towards net zero is not an option.
Likewise, we can also ensure that having another effective tool in the box by developing high-quality green financial markets and instruments, which have consistently good standards applied to ensure that the possibility of greenwashing is much reduced. This will go ways to ease the transition to a less carbon intensive world.
Mr Speaker, as some of our fellow Singaporeans represent us to the world at COP27 this week, I hope we support them by putting our money where our mouth is. We must continue to pursue real decarbonisation, in order to ensure that irreversible warming does not become the reality for our planet's future.
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.14 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 2.56 pm until 3.14 pm.
Sitting resumed at 3.14 pm.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Don Wee.
Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir. I declare that I am working with a Singaporean bank, but I do not manage any revenue performance target.
Given that Singapore has committed to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 and many large organisations, like the United Overseas Bank which had committed to net zero last week, how does the Government plan to work with the whole ecosystem of stakeholders to help ensure social and economic progress in tandem with decarbonisation to align with Singapore's net-zero emissions policy? Impacted stakeholders include large emitters, SMEs and consumers. What role does Singapore intend to play on the regional and global stage in maintaining our competitiveness and supporting a just transition?
The step towards progressively higher carbon taxes is a bold move. Within a few years, our carbon tax will be the highest in Asia, placing us amongst leaders in this region for decarbonisation efforts. While doing so will create new opportunities with exciting potential, it has its trade-offs too.
On one hand, we want to strengthen our response to climate change because of our island's own vulnerability. We also aspire to become a carbon services hub in the future, which will attract investments and create job opportunities for Singaporeans.
On the other hand, the trade-offs include rising business costs and the squeeze on the profits of our companies. As an economy with exports constituting more than 170% of our GDP, we risk hurting our international competitiveness with the imposition of such substantial carbon taxes. Our trading partners may turn to competitors which, with lower or no carbon tax, can underprice us.
Higher carbon taxes will certainly drive us towards a greener economy. However, in view of Singapore's constraints, we must take care to set rates and pace the increases such that businesses will have sufficient time to adjust. Hence, I understand and support the Government's decision to provide allowances to large emitters as part of the transition framework.
At the same time that we support the transition of hard-to-abate sectors, we must also ensure that our policies reflect the appropriate level of ambition to maintain Singapore on its decarbonisation pathway. I would like to know how the Government sets the amount of allowance for these large emitters. How many of these large emitters are already complying with these internationally recognised efficiency standards? If they are already complying, are we not subsidising them by providing them with allowance? Will these large emitters be prescribed a timeline to decarbonise? Can the unused allowances be traded in the carbon exchange market?
In addition to the carbon taxes, would the Government consider putting a cap on the amount of GHGs emitted by large emitters, such as the oil and gas industries? Large emitters in Singapore which plan to shrink their carbon tax bills by buying ICCs will be able to do so only if the credits meet Government's prescribed criteria. At minimum, for instance, the credits must be certified by the Verra or Gold Standard.
Can the Government work with Verra and Gold Standard to include local projects in Singapore, or consider the inclusion of Singapore Index on Cities Biodiversity score to generate and offer the carbon credits to emissions-intensive sectors, such as the petrochemical industry, that find it hard to reduce their carbon emissions in the short term? This will stand to benefit both Singapore and the companies that choose to invest in our companies.
Allowing large emitters to buy credits will also help fulfil Singapore's ambition to become a hub for regional carbon credits. By prioritising the reduction efforts of domestic emissions, and then allowing large emitters to buy credits, we create a win-win situation for our climate and our carbon market development. Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] While establishing a just transition, we must also remember that there will be an impact of carbon tax on other stakeholders not earmarked as high emitters, including SMEs and lower-income individuals.
I am heartened that the carbon taxes will be revenue neutral and earmarked to support decarbonisation efforts. Will the Ministry sharing greater detail how this will be done, as the broad tax will trickle down and find its way to everyone of us? For example, will there be an efficiency grants to spur SMEs with their decarbonisation efforts or carbon dividends for the lower-income households?
(In English): Singaporeans and our local companies should embrace the opportunities that come with this green transition. Many companies share Singapore's goal of decarbonising and are aligned with its net-zero vision. Their anchor buyers may also require them to commit to net zero.
Efficiency grants can be extended to more companies and industries to ensure that carbon abatement is an economy-wide project. Tax exemptions could be granted for startups and joint ventures that specialise in emerging green technologies and services. The Government should also continue to incentivise green financing initiatives by financial institutions with even greater focus on transition industries in the SME segment.
The implementation of carbon tax will catalyse our local SMEs' effort to reduce carbon emission as these companies contribute Scope 3 emission to their supply chains. I would like to seek clarification from the Minister on how our SMEs, for example, our local agricultural producers who cannot afford to be certified by second party opinion service providers, participate in this journey? It is really challenging for them as they will have to follow an accounting methodology that requires knowledge and understanding of the types of business activities contributing to carbon emissions calculations.
Fees for auditors to assess the outcomes of the calculations and transition costs are essential. It does require a certain level of rigour and demonstration of that rigour to be able to identify the investments needed to decarbonise and for SMEs to join the net-zero ecosystem.
Can the Government fund the installation of remote sensing and other emerging technologies that bring down the cost of monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV), which underpins the activity of carbon pricing, thus lowering the barrier to entry for these SMEs?
The setting of a carbon tax also allows the opportunity for us to examine complimentary policies which will support our nation's decarbonisation goals through regulation, supporting growth of green opportunities and taking a leadership role in ensuring a just transition for the region whilst maintaining our competitiveness.
Since reducing our carbon footprint is the main objective, carbon taxes must be complemented by more stringent environmental regulation. The point is not to collect a lot of carbon tax. Rather, tight regulations and effective enforcement will deter environmentally harmful behaviours, so that the carbon tax need not do all the heavy lifting. Over time, we will gradually phase out habits, lifestyles, items and systems which are not green.
As the large emitters are already applying their own internal carbon prices and are aligned on decarbonisation, I believe that the carbon tax should not have too much of an impact on Singapore's competitiveness. Although, in the near term, this is a concern because not many countries have a carbon tax to begin with.
To deter carbon leakage, can the Government also explore taxing the carbon content of imported goods? For example, the European Union had unveiled its draft scheme to target imported steel, aluminium, cement, fertiliser and other greenhouse gas-intensive goods produced in countries with weaker climate policies. The rationale is to protect the industries in Singapore, which face high carbon costs and progressively tougher climate regulations at home, against cheaper imports from nations with weak or no emissions regulations.
The aim is to try to get everyone on board in terms of putting a cost on carbon dioxide emissions and level the playing field for international trade. We should ensure that the large emitters in Singapore do not set up shop in neighbouring countries with lax climate policies, which make the goods produced there cheaper. Of course, we are aware that Singapore's competitiveness is not due to tax rates alone, but our entire business ecosystem and high-quality workforce.
During the \"Transition Finance Towards Net Zero Conference\" which was held on 4 October 2022, Senior Minister Tharman mentioned, and I quote, \"we need all instruments of public policy to accelerate action\". I agree with him. We need MAS to incentivise and guide the financial institutions to provide transition finance to these large emitters which will try its best to nullify its GHG emissions. We need ESG to provide more assistance to SMEs so that they know how to measure emissions. And we should look to MAS to lead a regional effort to support a just transition and decarbonisation not just in Singapore, but in the region. Being a frontrunner in adopting sustainable initiatives also means that Singapore companies will be in a better position to help others in ASEAN.
Increasing the carbon tax to $25 per tonne will raise the retail cost of electricity by an amount well within the fluctuations we have been seeing since 2021. The entire ecosystem of players – Government, regulator, companies, financial institutions, SMEs and consumers need to come together to support our net-zero target by 2050. I hope Singaporeans will come together on this issue of greening our economy and focus on the big picture at this inflexion point in our history.
Decarbonisation is a generation-defining business and job opportunity, and our Singaporean companies are well-positioned to lead the way. Notwithstanding the abovementioned, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, the Carbon Pricing (Amendment) Bill is a step in the right direction towards decarbonising our economy. These changes are all the more significant in light of COP27, which is happening right now as we speak, in which I hope and trust that nations around the world will take urgent and decisive action to tackle the existential threat that is climate change.
Before I move on to specifics of the Bill, I would like to recognise the Government for setting a net zero by 2050 target, as opposed to the \"by or around mid-century\" target that was released in Budget 2022 earlier this year. As I shared in my speech on the Environmental Protection and Management (Amendment) Bill last year and reiterated during the Budget debates this year, we need to set bold, ambitious and specific emissions reduction targets that align with the global goal of reaching net zero by 2050.
The IPCC's sixth Assessment Report, or AR6, makes clear that the world faces a frightening future, even if – and that is a big if – the global economy is decarbonised rapidly. Across all scenarios considered by the IPCC, global temperatures will continue to increase until at least the mid-century. In fact, we are now expected to reach this 1.5 degree celsius tipping point 10 years earlier than expected. To limit warming to 1.5 degree celsius with no or limited overshoot, net global CO2 emissions need to fall by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050. Unless immediate, rapid and large-scale action is taken to reduce emissions, the average global temperature is likely to reach or cross the 1.5 degree celsius warming threshold within 20 years.
Moving on to the specifics of the Bill, the key point I wish to make today is the need for transparency, as well as the need for continued, or even stronger climate ambition.
My first point is on the carbon tax. The Bill proposes an increase in carbon pricing from the current $5 a tonne to $45 a tonne from 2026 to 2027. Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong also announced in Budget 2022 that it will be raised to between S$50 and S$80 by 2030. That is roughly US$35 to US$57.
Mr Speaker, I support the more ambitious pricing but believe that there is room to do more. My colleague, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, shared in his speech in February 2021 about the importance of a well-functioning carbon tax system for delivering effective reductions in our nation's carbon footprint. And as highlighted by some participants who took part in MSE's public consultation, whom, I quote, \"were in favour of a more aggressive carbon tax trajectory, citing the higher carbon prices in some other developed countries, the latest scientific recommendations… and the need to sufficiently deter greenhouse gas emissions from growing.\"
As Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong said at the Singapore International Energy Week recently, the carbon tax is an \"important lever to shape responsible behaviour\", so that consumers and businesses internalise the costs of carbon emissions in their consumption and investment decisions.
I fully agree with the Deputy Prime Minister on his comments. But if we look at international benchmarks, the World Bank-supported High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices proposes US$50 to US$100 is needed by 2030, the OECD provides a central estimate of €120, while the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE)'s Grantham Institute suggests a price of US$145. Our proposed US$35 to US$57 by 2030 still sits below or at the very lowest end of these recommendations.
Next, I will touch on the industry transition framework. The Workers' Party believes in the principle of allowances, and this will be important to ease the transition for both carbon emitters and for individual Singaporeans, such as in the context of a higher carbon tax on power prices. This transition framework could mitigate the impact of higher carbon taxes, such as by giving companies in EITE sectors more time to invest in cleaner technologies.
Yet, we must ensure that we do not give out a free meal to polluters. The introduction of allowances goes against the spirit of the Government's previous commitment to apply the carbon tax uniformly to all sectors, including energy-intensive and trade-exposed sectors, without exemption. This is why we are proposing that the Government publicly disclose which facilities are receiving allowances, and for which emission years.
I recognise that the Government is proud of the achievements of our energy and chemicals industry, with Singapore ranking as one of the top 10 global chemicals export hubs and one of the top five refinery export hubs. However, such a framework could be seen by some that the Government is overly protective of these industries in the face of the existential threat of climate change and with many of these very same companies keen to decarbonise themselves! Shell and BP, for example, have set net-zero commitments by 2050.
Finally, I wish to speak about the use of ICCs. While ICCs hold significant promise, current markets are still highly unstandardised. The Government seems to acknowledge this by allowing companies to offset up to 5% of taxable emissions via ICCs in this Bill.
However, clause 33B of the Bill currently provides an exception where the Minister may \"permit eligible international carbon credits to be surrendered in excess of the prescribed limit in any particular case or class of cases\". This effectively gives the Minister unlimited legal power to decide the use of ICCs. How will the Minister decide when to lift the prescribed limit? Is there a framework to constrain this decision-making process?
Earlier this year, during the MSE COS debates, I asked about accountability measures to ensure transparency and fair implementation in the use of \"high-quality international carbon credits\". In the spirit of transparency and accountability, my Sengkang colleague Ms He Ting Ru has filed an amendment to clause 29 for public disclosure of Ministerial decisions to permit registered persons of taxable facilities to surrender eligible ICCs in excess of the prescribed limit.
Before I conclude, Mr Speaker, I would like to touch on the recent US Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). I shared in my previous speech about how in 1961, Shell built an oil refinery on Pulau Bukom, and this became one of the largest refinery complexes globally and sparked the start of Singapore's pursuit of the petrochemicals industry. In the same way, clean energy and green finance can be our next growth sector. The US appears to be leading the way with its recent IRA, which directs significant funding for climate efforts through a mix of tax incentives, grants and loan guarantees, and is set to be funded by prescription drug pricing reform and a 15% corporate minimum tax among others.
Over US$400 billion in spending over the next 10 years will be on climate and energy initiatives, but more importantly, the multiplier effect of this from both the public and private sector would mean significantly higher investments into a new growth area. This could have far-reaching effects across industries and supply chains, with companies likely needing to rethink and recalibrate their strategies to not miss out on the opportunities arising from the energy transition.
We need to change the narrative from one of risk mitigation and protection for the industries of the past, to opportunity capture and setting the stage for future growth.
Mr Speaker, the question surrounding net zero in Singapore now is no longer when, but how. Our pathway to net zero must be transparent, fair and inclusive. As highlighted in public consultations, Singaporeans want to participate in meaningful discourse over our collective future. This can only be achieved if data related to our emissions – and emitters – is made more accessible and available.
The increased ambition in our Carbon Pricing Bill today is welcome, but as climate scientists have repeatedly warned, we are running out of time. Based on the IPCC's AR6, the global carbon budget to stay below the 1.5 degree celsius warming threshold could be used up in less than eight years from now.
It is also concerning that while we have a net zero by 2050 target, which is contingent on technological advances, the economic viability of low-carbon technologies and effective international collaborations in areas such as carbon credits and renewable energy imports, it appears that our near-term emissions are still expected to continue accelerating. While the reduction in 2030 target emissions of 60 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent from 65 million tonnes is definitely welcomed, does it mean that we will still reach 65 million tonnes of CO2 or higher ahead of previous forecasts, even as we set a lower 2030 emissions target?
I recognise from the Minister's reply to the Parliamentary Question earlier today that we are expected to peak emission sometime between 2025 to 2028, but would that also mean that we are on the higher emissions path in the near term, and are in fact producing even more CO2 than what we previously projected?
At COP27, nations around the world are being urged to cut emissions by 45% by 2030, compared to 2010 levels. We cannot, in good conscience, continue to release even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere against this backdrop. Let us be that bright green spark and show the world that even in spite of our constraints, Singapore can, and must, strive to do more for the climate.
Mr Speaker: Ms Janet Ang.
Ms Janet Ang (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to join in the debate on the amendment of the Carbon Tax Bill. According to the World Bank, \"A carbon tax reflecting the social cost of carbon is viewed as an essential policy tool to limit carbon emissions\". The increase in carbon prices in Singapore – from S$5 per tonne of CO2, to the proposed $25 per tonne of CO2 from 2024 to 2025; and then to $45 per tonne of CO2 from 2026 to 2027, with a further step up to a target range of S$50 to 80 per tonne of CO2 by 2030 – sends a strong signal for large emitters as well as all other companies in Singapore at large to mitigate their emissions, at least, to be line with Singapore's carbon reduction goals.
All of Singapore needs to support Government to do the right thing, and the right thing to do is to price carbon meaningfully so as to motivate decarbonisation and reduction of CO2 emission.
While the world seems to have come around at COP26 with collective strong intentions to mitigate climate change, the policies and actions taken across countries differ widely. This leads to the challenge of carbon leakage where companies shift their operations to jurisdictions where there are less stringent rules and taxes on carbon emissions.
At this time, Singapore remains the only country in Southeast Asia with a carbon pricing regime in place and with our carbon price at levels being debated today, we will potentially face the risk of carbon leakage and Singapore's competitiveness will be impacted. This is especially so as the large emitters are key contributors to Singapore's GDP and Singapore's position as an important node in the global value chain of those industries and their ecosystems.
In my speech this afternoon, I would like to tackle three aspects related to the carbon tax: (a) the transition framework; (b) the ICC framework; and (c)\tthe implementation plan for the rest of Singapore.
First, the transition framework. As part of the Bill amendment, there will be a transition framework to support companies to move to low-carbon operations. Most of the companies in the affected industries, large emitters especially, are already working on decarbonisation and many have pledged to get to net zero by 2050 or thereabout. Many of these companies, being MNCs, probably have already applied a shadow carbon price or an internal carbon price for their own projects and, therefore, understand and support the need for a meaningful carbon tax in Singapore in order to motivate industry to reduce emission.
Notwithstanding industry's understanding and support, I would like to table the following issues for the MSE's consideration.
Let me first touch on emission allowances. Industry players believe that there is a need for a differentiated emission allowance, both in terms of amount and timing, taking into account the specific industry and organisation's decarbonisation plans to achieve low-carbon operations. There is a thinking that carbon tax pricing should be based on the principle that it is pegged close to the abatement cost, so as to motivate the industry to implement abatement without losing competitiveness.
Next, the industry hopes that the transition framework will consider technology allowances, since countries and industries are all relying on future technologies such as carbon capture and utilisation and storage (CCUS), green hydrogen or nuclear just to name a few. These technologies are immature and are still in development. With current technologies, there will still be remnants of carbon remaining and the tax amount can be significant. I am given to believe that current technology is at best 90% efficient, and power and natural gas are still required for burn abatement. Industry believes that this carbon should be \"forgiven\" or returned as allowances for the industry to invest into technology development to achieve zero carbon. Maybe the allowances might even be pooled together to accelerate the development of the future technologies at a macro level.
The third issue concerns indirect carbon tax from electricity. Singapore power rate is amongst the highest across countries. The proposed carbon tax potentially increases power rates further, and industry has no control over it. Companies think that they should not be penalised from the lack of green energy in Singapore. Current plans have Singapore importing four gigawatts of low-carbon electricity only by 2035. Industry hopes that further allowance be factored into the transition framework while Singapore is building its green energy infrastructure, and carbon tax resulting from the lack of green energy, should not pass through to industry during this period.
Another side-point is to protect local industrial competitiveness. Jurisdictions like the EU will be introducing carbon border adjustment mechanisms (CBAM) in 2023 to be operational by 2026. What does this mean for Singapore? Will we be advocating similar CBAMs with our trading partners and ASEAN?
The next topic is the ICC framework. I believe that real emission reduction should be pursued before carbon credits can be used. The Government's effort to manage and control carbon credit to ensure quality of the carbon credit to be used to offset carbon tax is applaudable. I believe there is an opportunity for the Singapore Carbon Credit Registry to help to govern and ensure good quality carbon credit for the world, perhaps, by providing a list of accepted ICCs, providing a clear criteria and assessment for qualified projects.
That said, I do have some questions which I hope MSE can clarify.
What are the Government's plans to enhance the population's understanding of the opportunities and pitfalls of using carbon credits to meet the net-zero emissions target by 2050 and carbon tax obligations under the CPA, especially for carbon credits sourced from nature-based carbon projects that may have far-reaching implications for the climate, biodiversity and local communities?
Earlier on, I had filed a Parliamentary Question about the efforts undertaken to ensure the credibility of carbon products to be traded through Singapore and to reduce Singapore's exposure to the risks of carbon trading. Can the Ministry share an update of how this is progressing?
Of the more than 20 countries that Singapore has begun exploring carbon credit agreements with, what is the portfolio of carbon projects the Government is focusing on to diversify and safeguard our carbon credit security?
What are the carbon offset criteria that companies can use to offset their carbon tax liabilities, and will the use of such carbon credits affect the amount of emissions that Singapore reports to the UNFCCC?
Industry advocates for the Government to consider prescribing an appropriate limit for ICC, or FPCC, that can be used to offset carbon tax. From the Budget announcement, companies will have the option to use eligible ICCs in lieu of paying carbon tax for up to 5% of their taxable emissions from 2024 onwards. The industry feels that this 5% of taxable emission is rather insufficient. A company with high abatement solution will achieve maximum 90% emission reduction limited by the existing technology. For such a company, only 5% of the remaining 10% can be offset using carbon credit. What are the reasons as to why the Government is not allowing for a higher than 5% of a company's taxable emissions to be paid for with qualified ICCs?
The third point is an implementation plan to the rest of Singapore. To further cascade the change of behaviours to one of a low-carbon economy, especially with Singapore's updated climate ambitions, what is the Government's implementation plan for carbon tax for companies beyond the large emitters? Does the Government plan to incentivise individuals to reduce our individual carbon footprint? I have to confess that I am still living in 24 degree celsius air-conditioning.
Let me start to wrap up. Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, in a post-Budget 2022 panel discussion, said, \"It is with a combination of these different tools – taxes, incentives and standards – that Singapore can achieve its net-zero ambitions. Moving early will, in fact, give Singapore a first-mover advantage to seize the opportunities that will arise from the new green economy.\"
We would have all read in the news that during Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's recent visit to Australia, Singapore signed a trailblazing Green Economy Agreement with Australia. I understand that several other jurisdictions are also exploring to do the same with us. This is indeed testimony of first-mover advantage.
Carbon tax is the necessary price to pay in order to get serious decarbonisation actions and CO2 emission reduction underway. At the same time, however, carbon tax is an evolving issue globally and we need to be able to be agile and adaptable, in order to respond to global trends.
It is, therefore, unwise to be over-prescriptive in our laws at this stage and it is also in my opinion unwise to have to share everything – all details and full disclosure. I think we have to draw a line between being transparent and getting everyone to be accountable versus showing everything, because that is going to not be practical in the first place; and secondly, there is companies' competitiveness at stake.
I am encouraged to see that a sensible, practical transition framework is built into the amendment Bill for allowances to balance our competitiveness, even as we green our way forward with the two sets of targeted policies, regulations, fiscal incentives and taxes, as is the subject of our debate today.
It is imperative that we do not throw the baby out with the bath water. Our competitiveness cannot be taken for granted as our economy and jobs are dependent on our attractiveness as a location for investments.
Climate change is the crisis of the same scale as COVID-19, even as it is different. For me, I would liken climate change to be as if we are the frog in the water in a pot over a slow, simmering flame. It has been cooking for a long time and act together now we must, to jump out of that pot.
I am confident that Singapore can emerge very well just as we did from COVID-19 and just as our pioneers did after separation from Malaysia, because our people, our businesses and our Government work hand-in-hand in our unique tripartite relationship to seize the first-mover advantage to transition to a green economy. Notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Carbon Tax (Amendment) Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Mark Chay.
Mr Mark Chay (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I would like to applaud the steps that Singapore is taking to build a greener future and it is especially commendable in today's context that private enterprises, such as Surbana Jurong and Keppel Corporation are implementing policies with sustainability as one of the top agendas.
The proposed amendments to the CPA are a positive step in the right direction and I stand in support of the Bill. I would, however, like to clarify the following points.
The carbon price is proposed to increase five times to $25 per tonne of emissions by 2024 and $45 by 2026. According to the World Bank's State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2022, this would mean that Singapore would lead Asia in carbon prices. I would like to ask what this would mean to companies that are eligible to be taxed, in terms of Singapore's competitiveness as a destination to set up operations.
In addition, with the significant increases in carbon tax, I would like to ask the Minister what the plans are for these additional revenues. One suggestion would be to allocate some of these to research and development (R&D) programmes related to green energy and sustainability, or education programmes to prepare companies for carbon tax reporting. I understand that there are programmes already in place to incentivise and support environmental sustainability. I would like to ask the Minister what the take-up rate of these grants are and how we can increase the utilisation of such grants.
I am also concerned about how the increase in carbon prices will impact the daily living costs in Singapore and what are the Government's plans to ensure that energy prices remain stable. I recognise that there are opportunities for Singapore to pivot importing renewable energy from nearby countries; however, this would increase the reliance from overseas sources and affect our energy security.
Lastly, Mr Speaker, I would like to reiterate my firm support of the Bill. It reinforces Singapore's commitment to a net-zero emissions country by 2050 and forces us to find solutions to demonstrate competitiveness in a low-carbon future.
Mr Speaker: Mr Xie Yao Quan.
Mr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is quite apt that after a long debate yesterday on the GST increase – whether it is necessary, and whether it is the right timing to do this next year and in 2024 – we are debating today about a higher carbon tax, from 2024 onwards.
Just as we need a higher GST to help fund the healthcare needs of a population that is ageing surely and quickly with every passing day, we need a right price signal for carbon across the whole of our economy and our society, in a world that is heading quickly towards temperatures that are 1.5 to 2 degree celsius above pre-industrial levels, a world in which extreme weather has become more and more real for more and more people.
Climate change is an existential threat, so we need the right price signal for carbon in Singapore urgently to drive the necessary changes in behaviour, by both individual consumers and businesses and producers.
Singapore introduced the carbon tax in 2019 at a nominal $5 per tonne of CO2 emission to help the whole of our society transit and adjust. Three years on, there is an urgent need to do more, to ensure that \"the price is right\" – that the price signal for carbon is right. Yet, this could not have come at a more challenging time.
In what Senior Minister Tharman has described as a \"perfect long storm\", climate change is converging with other structural fragilities, like rising interest rates and inflation. And the need to bear a higher but right cost of carbon – now – is competing with very real concerns about costs of living, concerns that are immediate and real.
Of course, in the medium term, by the end of a few years, we hope that individuals' consumption patterns would have changed and businesses would be well on their way to transit to low-carbon business models and practices, and the cost impact of carbon to both individuals and businesses and across the whole economy would have reached a new equilibrium, plateau, or even come down.
But there is no avoiding that we are raising carbon tax soon in the eye of this \"perfect long storm\" and a cost impact – higher costs – now and in the near term is almost unavoidable, coinciding with a period in which costs of living are sharply rising.
Electricity prices will go up because of the higher price of carbon. Public transport costs will likely go up too.
So, I like to ask and seek clarification on how does the Government plan to help Singaporeans cope with and adjust to this new normal of low carbon? How do we cushion the impact – and for which groups – yet maintain the integrity of the price signal of carbon across the whole of society and bring all segments in our society along in this journey towards a low-carbon future?
It is heartening to hear the Government's commitment to use part of the carbon tax revenues to help Singaporeans cushion the impact, by way of, for example, more utilities rebates and public transport vouchers (PTVs), but can the Government share more of its thinking about how it plans to deploy this, for whom, how much and what would be its guiding principles and key considerations as it moves ahead in this direction?
Beyond the impact on costs of living, another very real concern of a higher carbon tax is the potential impact on Singapore's economic competitiveness, especially for traditionally emission-intensive trade-exposed industries.
Singapore was the first to introduce a carbon tax in the region. And in very short order, Singapore will have the highest carbon tax in the region. How do we make sure we remain competitive in the region and that whole industries, like petrochemicals and electronics, do not lift and shift out of Singapore?
How do we ensure that Singaporeans can continue to look forward to good jobs in these industries in a low-carbon future? Can the Government share more details about how it plans to work with industry to build new capabilities, and indeed, turn this strategic challenge into new and exciting opportunities for Singapore and Singaporeans?
Indeed, traditionally, emission-intensive industries can, and must, become a part of our future green economy.
And while the competition may be regional, markets for these emission-intensive trade-exposed industries are, in fact, global. And these markets will lead and define the demand for low-carbon products and services in the future.
And so, we have an opportunity in Singapore to build future green capabilities for the world, position Singapore as a global hub to leapfrog the status quo and help the world produce green products and services.
How might we better communicate this vision to all Singaporeans and make all of us part of this journey to turn the carbon constraint into exciting opportunities, and to turn the low-carbon challenge into a whole new world of possibilities in the next chapter of our Singapore Story, just as we have done for water, gas and land, in the Singapore Story thus far.
Sir, before I conclude, I would also just like to make a quick response to Member Mr Louis Chua's suggestion just now, if I heard him correctly, he was suggesting a US$100 carbon tax. I would just like to ask if he has considered the impact of this proposal on both cost of living and economic competitiveness, as so many of our Members have raised.
Sir, in summary, notwithstanding the concerns about cost of living and economic competitiveness, this Bill raises the curtain on exciting opportunities and possibilities for Singapore, and I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis: I like to thank the Member Mr Xie for his question. In terms of the carbon tax rates, I quoted a series of various numbers – by the World Bank, the OECD and various sources, and I think that is also consistent with what some of the feedback that was provided through the MSE consultations. There are views that based on the existing level of carbon taxes that we have proposed, it is actually on the low end of both the scientific recommendations as well as what is proposed by some of these other organisations in their studies.
More importantly, I do recognise and agree with the Member's point in terms of supporting households in this transition and this is something which we have spoken about in the earlier debates as well. In particular, when it comes to supporting households, we have talked about, for example, reducing the impact of higher carbon taxes on households, such as via a green dividend and a green fund. These are mechanisms which can be potentially put in place on top of the various utilities rebates which the Government has also put forth.
Mr Speaker: Ms Poh Li San.
Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Lawrence Wong announced at the recent Singapore International Energy Week, ahead of the ongoing COP27 climate talks in Egypt, that Singapore will step up our Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) targets.
Instead of peaking at 65 million tonnes CO2 in 2030, Singapore will step up our efforts to peak earlier and reduce carbon emissions to 60 million tonnes CO2 in 2030. And instead of just halving our long-term carbon emissions to 33 million tonnes CO2, we will aim for a stretched target of net-zero carbon in 2050.
This is a bold announcement, given Singapore's alternative energy disadvantaged position and our absolute dependence on the imported LNG for 95% of our country's electricity generation.
However, as a responsible member of the international community committed to fight the climate emergency, Singapore's strategic commitment to achieve net zero by 2050 is a necessary undertaking.
What does Singapore have to do differently in order to meet the net-zero goal? In the long term, we will have to scale-up the use of emerging technologies in low-carbon hydrogen, carbon capture utilisation and storage and maybe, light nuclear energy production.
In the medium term, we will have to purchase clean electricity imports and step-up utilisation of solar energy, to progressively decarbonise the power sector.
In the short term, we will have to aggressively abate carbon emissions in our economy. Therefore, the carbon tax is an important price signal and also an instrument to nudge industries, to internalise the cost of carbon emissions into their business costs and to adopt low-carbon business practices.
The Government is cognisant of the cost burden of the carbon tax on businesses and the consequential impact on cost of living that will be passed onto the consumers. Hence, only facilities that produces more than 25,000 kilotonne CO2 emissions annually, will be subjected to the carbon tax.
Also, the carbon tax will be implemented in a progressive manner. It will be increased from $5 per tonne CO2 emissions to $25 next year, and to $45 in 2026. Even the long-term carbon tax of $50 to $80 expected in 2030, will still be considered comparable to the tax rates in other jurisdictions, for example in Europe, where carbon taxes can go beyond $100 per tonne CO2 emissions.
In general, the business community here is appreciative that the introduction of carbon tax has been gradual, so that there is sufficient response time to prepare for this transition.
And I am heartened to learn from the Minister that the revenue collected from carbon taxes are not meant for the purposes of deriving additional Government revenue. Instead, the collection will be ploughed back to support decarbonisation efforts and transition to a green economy.
However, perhaps more could be done to enable this green transition, to help the industries and to achieve better decarbonisation results. I would like to ask the Minister what is the projected revenue from carbon taxes that will be collected annually over the next 10 years? What are the additional decarbonisation programmes, incentives and subsidies that would be implemented to help industries, especially SMEs and large local enterprises (LLEs), transit into the green economy? What is the budget that is set aside for these programmes and incentives?
In Singapore, 40% of our national carbon emissions come from the power sector while another 45% is attributed to the industries. Together with the transport sector – which contributes 14% of carbon emissions – these are the three key sectors that account for almost all of Singapore's carbon emissions.
Clearly, the increase in carbon taxes in 2023 will add greater cost pressures to industries that are already facing the triple whammy of the COVID-19 pandemic, higher energy costs and GST increase next year.
Hence, I agree that the transition framework is a prudent strategy to help the EITE sectors ride out this cost increase wave, so that they can remain competitive against rivals in other jurisdictions that have nil or lower carbon taxes.
Indeed, it will require a fine balance and sound judgement to use the carbon tax as a stick for some industries while for other companies, the carbon tax can be waived to help them with transition. As outlined in section 20D and 20E of the amended Bill, discretionary powers are vested with the Minister for Trade and Industry and appointed public bodies to assess each company's decarbonisation plans and determine if they are eligible for carbon tax exemption.
On this note, may I ask the Minister if an impact analysis of carbon taxes on the overall business costs of affected companies has been carried out, in particular, for our SMEs and LLEs? Also, how much transition time will companies in the EITE sectors be given before they are subjected to the full-blown effect of the carbon tax increase?
For companies outside the EITE sectors, given that Singapore's transition to cleaner green energy may only materialise well beyond 2030, how will companies, whose carbon emissions result mainly from the brownout electricity needed for their operations, be assisted in the next decade?
These companies may be paying both higher electricity tariffs due to the current energy crisis as well as increased carbon taxes for the carbon emissions generated. Otherwise, they may have to purchase renewable energies through private purchase agreements in order to meet carbon targets. Does MTI know the number of companies that will be in such a predicament and how can they be assisted in the energy transition?
Also, as carbon emissions accounting and ESG standards are still not fully harmonised, are there adequate well-qualified consultants in the market to help companies, especially the SMEs and LLEs, to account for their carbon emissions footprint, to advise them on the sustainability strategies and to project the corresponding carbon taxes? Will these consultants need to be accredited by the Ministry? If so, will there be guidelines on consultancy fees chargeable to prevent companies from being subjected to paying yet another hefty layer of cost?
I hope the Minister can shed some light on these implementation considerations so that businesses and their sustainability officers can have a clearer idea as they plan for next year's financial budget and dedicate resources for their decarbonisation plans.
Mr Speaker, just like how charitable tax deductions can help reduce one's tax bills, carbon credits can also help a company reduce carbon taxes. Carbon credits provide a decarbonisation pathway for hard-to-abate sectors and represent an opportunity to support emissions reductions globally.
However, under the ICC framework, only up to 5% of the carbon emissions is eligible for ICC surrender. Moreover, only high-quality ICCs that are compliant with Article 6 of the Paris Agreement under the UNFCCC and fulfill the ICAO CORSIA standards as the minimum standards, will be considered eligible for surrender.
I understand that the rationale is to set a high bar, so as to prevent greenwashing and also to ensure that industries prioritise carbon emissions reduction as the main pathway for decarbonisation.
However, there will be three issues to consider. Firstly, for such high-quality ICCs to become meaningful carbon offsets options for companies, the price points must be comparable with the carbon taxes of $20 per tonne CO2, starting in 2023, and eventually, trending towards being $50 to $80 by 2030. According to the Bloomberg market analysis, under tighter regulations, carbon credit prices may rise 30 times by 2029 to $224 per tonne CO2 before tapering to $120 in 2050. Should such high prices prevail, then ICCs would become irrelevant for businesses as an alternative to paying carbon tax.
Secondly, if only 5% of taxable emissions are eligible for ICC surrender, will there be adequate critical mass to support a vibrant carbon trading market in Singapore and meet our aspirations to develop Singapore as a carbon services and trading hub?
Singapore is well-placed to be a leading carbon services and trading hub. Singapore's robust legislative framework and position as an established professional services, trading and financial hub, will put us in a good position to support the development of an internationally trusted carbon services and trading ecosystem in Asia. To jumpstart this carbon trading hub, there should also be substantial domestic demand for carbon credits. Hence, I hope the Minister would consider increasing the limit beyond 5% of taxable emissions in the longer term.
Thirdly, there are currently only two international exchanges in Singapore trading voluntary carbon credits, namely AirCarbon Exchange (ACX), established in 2019, and Climate Impact X (CIX), established in May 2021. The primary concern is that carbon credits are still not sufficiently reliable in quality because of multiple certification standards and processes. How will the ICC framework help these carbon credit exchanges ensure that the quality and consistency of carbon credits traded comply with global standards? How will the ICC help to further develop the domestic carbon credits market?
To this end, I hope the Minister will clarify the impact of the ICC framework on the future of carbon credit exchanges and our plans to develop Singapore as a leading carbon services and trading hub.
Mr Speaker, given the urgency of the global climate crisis, the carbon tax is a necessary evil in the short- and medium-term to steer industries towards carbon emissions abatement. However, the long-term energy strategy to reach net-zero goals will be much more challenging.
Alongside the revised NDC to achieve net zero by 2050, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong also announced the National Hydrogen Strategy. A lot of effort and resources will be needed for research and technology, as well as for new storage and distribution infrastructure, amongst others.
Unfortunately, Singapore just does not have sufficient renewable energy. To overcome the twin-wicked problems of climate crisis and energy crisis, we will have to leverage technological breakthroughs and succeed in delivering hydrogen solutions, in order to address our long-term energy needs.
Hence, I hope that part of the revenue collected from carbon tax will be channelled to fund the National Hydrogen Strategy. That way, the carbon taxes collected will play a meaningful role to help Singapore achieve a much more sustainable and a secured energy solution portfolio that is needed to achieve net-zero emissions. Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding my queries, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Low Yen Ling.
The Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Low Yen Ling): Mr Speaker, I thank all the Members for their support of the Bill.
Earlier, Minister Grace Fu has highlighted the urgent need for the world to address climate change. Singapore is firmly committed to doing our part in the global effort to reduce GHGs emissions. And to meet our climate commitments, we have put in place a robust suite of measures to spur and support our companies to decarbonise.
The carbon tax forms a key part of this effort. It prices carbon to guide investment decisions by companies and spurs company to reduce their emissions, while giving them the flexibility to do so in a way that makes the most economic sense.
As climate action gains greater urgency globally, the transition towards lower carbon and carbon neutral operations will increasingly become a pre-requisite for consumers, for investors. Hence, it is in the company's commercial interest to decarbonise and, in the same way, it is also critical for Singapore to transit to a low-carbon economy to maintain our long-term economic competitiveness, to remain an attractive investment and business destination as reminded by Ms Janet Ang, Mr Xie Yao Quan and many other Members during their very passionate speeches earlier, and to ensure good jobs for Singaporeans and good jobs created here in Singapore.
We have sought public and the industry feedback on the draft Carbon Pricing (Amendment) Bill. The majority of the respondents acknowledged the role of an appropriate price signal for carbon in order to enable the low-carbon transition.
For example, some respondents will favour a more aggressive carbon tax trajectory, given the latest recommendations by the IPCC for stronger actions to reach the Paris Agreement goals and the urgency to reduce rising greenhouse gas emissions.
On the other hand, some companies are concerned that the higher carbon tax will add to cost pressures, especially for the export-oriented companies that have to compete with those from jurisdictions with lower or no effective carbon price.
Apart from the public consultation and since the announcement of the changes to carbon tax earlier this year, we have been engaging businesses that will be directly impacted by the increase. We appreciate their feedback that they recognise the need for an appropriate carbon price, but they are also concerned about the impact of higher carbon taxes on their operating costs and competitiveness.
We hear and we understand their need for time to make the necessary investments and changes to transit towards greener operations. This is especially so for companies that depend on low-carbon technologies which are still under development, such as CCUS, like low-carbon hydrogen that some of the Members talked about – Ms Poh Li San, Mr Cheng Hsing Yao and Mr Xie Yao Quan.
I want to assure the House that in designing the carbon tax framework, we have taken into consideration all these varying views and feedback. And I want to assure the House that we will continue engaging companies on their sustainability journey, including our SMEs and LLEs. Let me now respond to the points raised by Members on the impact of the carbon tax on businesses and how the Government is committed to actively supporting our companies as they adjust to the revised carbon tax regime.
Firstly, I wish to highlight that under the carbon tax regime, only facilities that directly emit at least 25,000 tonnes of CO2-equivalent of GHGs annually will be subject to the carbon tax. In this way, the carbon tax is targeted to apply to the key nodes of emissions in our economy. It will cover about 80% of our total carbon emissions. Businesses that are large emitters, for example in the energy and chemical sectors, will be directly impacted by the carbon tax.
We recognise the challenges that companies face, especially amid other increasingly tough operating conditions. The impact of the revised carbon tax regime will be especially pronounced for companies in the EITE sectors, such as the chemicals as well as the semiconductor sectors.
Ms Janet Ang, and also Mr Xie Yao Quan – during their speeches, reminded us that these companies compete globally and face competition from counterparts in jurisdictions which have lower or, in fact, no carbon prices. In addition, many jurisdictions with carbon prices offer generous allowances and support to companies in EITE sectors to protect their business competitiveness. The allowances provided could cover as high as 100% of the companies' emissions in some of these countries.
It is with these factors in mind that the Government decided to announce the changes to our carbon tax rates ahead of time. We have spelt out the rates for up to 2027 and provided a range for up to 2030. This demonstrates our commitment to work closely with the industries to make the green transition as smooth as possible and by providing companies with advance notice, we hope it will facilitate their business decisions and plans for decarbonisation.
During her passionate speech, Ms Janet Ang reminded us that many EITE companies have placed significant and substantial investments in Singapore that continue to provide good jobs and secured jobs for Singaporeans and contribute to our economic growth. The sustainability journey is one that we walk together – and we seek to smoothen the transition path for companies – by providing the necessary support for their decarbonisation while maintaining Singapore's competitive edge.
Hence, we will introduce a transition framework which will provide eligible companies with transitory allowances for a portion of their emissions.
Members Mr Don Wee and Mr Leon Perera have asked if the transition framework will erode the price signal for companies to decarbonise and if the framework should be tightened. Let me reassure Members that the transition framework will not give a \"free pass\" to the companies. Singapore has committed to enhancing our 2030 NDCs to reduce our emissions to around 60 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent in 2030 and that is after peaking emissions earlier and to achieve net zero by year 2050.
This means that the Singapore Government is accountable to these international climate commitments, and hence, we will ensure that the transition framework will effectively, robustly drive companies to decarbonise. To address Mr Don Wee's concern, we will work with companies, including the large emitters, to ensure they have decarbonisation plans aligned with Singapore's net-zero commitment.
We are mindful that the transition allowances provided will not run counter to our long-term goals. I want to ensure and emphasise that the amount of allowances provided will only be for a portion of the companies' emissions. This will be determined based on internationally recognised efficiency benchmarks where available or based on the facilities' decarbonisation plans.
This means that any emissions above the allowances will still be taxed at the prevailing carbon tax rate. In time, when appropriate, the Government will also release aggregated information on the number of allowances provided, but I think Members have also raised, and they understand, that we will need to bear in mind considerations, such as whether such disclosures inadvertently divulge commercially sensitive information.
To address Mr Don Wee's query, the allowances are only provided for the carbon tax and are not tradable. In addition, the allowances will also be reviewed regularly against how the companies have fared against the efficiency benchmarks where available or based on their decarbonisation plans.
Earlier in their speeches, Mr Cheng Hsing Yao and Ms Janet Ang spoke about the need to ensure that we are not being too prescriptive. We agree with them. We need to ensure that the framework retains some flexibility, adaptability to ensure that as we transit into a low-carbon future, Singapore remains a compelling and attractive business and investment location here, so that we can create good jobs, including new green jobs for Singaporeans.
We will also take into consideration international developments as well as technological developments of decarbonisation technologies, including CCUS, low-carbon hydrogen, much like how Ms Janet Ang spoke about the need to consider the state of technology development in determining the allowances. So, I can assure her that we will keep our eyes and ears very close on the global development, not just the efficiency standards, but also low-carbon technology developments.
Furthermore, only existing investments and commitments will be eligible for transitory allowances. Many of these investments were made amidst a different operating context and would require time for them to transit, for them to make the necessary investment to ease into lower carbon operations.
Without transitory support, there will be a significant near-term impact on their competitiveness. So, the transitionary support would especially help companies that have made large capital investments in Singapore, and have contributed to our economic story and the growth of jobs here in Singapore.
The transition framework will also help to mitigate the risk of carbon leakage – a risk that many Members spoke about in their speeches – so that we avoid companies shifting operations to other jurisdictions with lower or no effective carbon prices. Members reminded us that today, as we debate this Bill, Singapore is the only country within Southeast Asia to implement a carbon price regime. So, we want to make sure we mitigate any risks of carbon leakage because such an outcome would actually lead to loss of jobs and loss of economic value in Singapore, with no overall global reduction in emissions, if there is carbon leakage.
Mr Louis Ng, in his earlier speech, and Ms Poh Li San asked about the period of transition that will be provided to companies in the EITE sectors. I want to assure them that we will calibrate the duration of the transition framework based on international standards, developments and technological developments or decarbonisation techniques. We are aware that the carbon prices in other jurisdictions are not static – some may continue to maintain very low and, in some cases, no carbon prices for certain sectors at all, while others may raise carbon prices more aggressively. We are keeping a very close eye on that.
We also recognise that companies will need time to transition to low-carbon operations. The Government will consider all these factors when calibrating the transition framework. We will also inform companies in advance of the changes to facilitate business planning.
Mr Leon Perera earlier proposed that the allowances be awarded only to facilities that have received allowances for no more than one of the four preceding emissions' years. I want to share with him that companies had shared with us during the consultation that they need time to develop and implement new technologies to decarbonise and transform their operations. This effort could take a couple of years. Hence, restricting allowances in the manner suggested will not provide the support that is needed by the companies, nor meet the intended objective of the transition framework.
Mr Leon Perera also proposed that the awards of allowances, includes information such as reasons for awarding the allowances, be listed on a public registry. Earlier on, Ms Janet Ang shared that doing this might be unwise. Members will appreciate that doing so may reveal commercially sensitive information about a facility's scale of operations, revenue and so on, and over time really erode Singapore's competitiveness as a business and investment location and then at the end of the day, it will affect our ability to create good jobs for Singaporeans. Earlier, I said that the Government will, in time, release aggregated information on the amount of allowances provided. I have also explained the reasons and the basis for awarding the allowances earlier.
Mr Don Wee earlier also asked if Singapore is considering a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). A CBAM proposes a carbon tariff on carbon-intensive imports to stem carbon leakage to countries without a carbon price. We currently have no plans to introduce a CBAM because as a small market, putting in place tariff barriers would disadvantage our own companies and have a limited impact on stemming carbon leakage. Having said that, we will continue to monitor the global developments on CBAM and calibrate our position accordingly.
Mr Cheng Hsing Yao and Mr Mark Chay spoke about the need to ensure energy security, resilience and to preserve optionality as Singapore moves towards our net-zero emissions. I fully agree with them because energy security is always at the top of our minds even as we seek to decarbonise our grid. For example, as we scale up electricity imports, we will put in place sufficient backup generation capacity to ensure a continuous supply, even in the event of disruptions. Many Members also spoke about how we recently announced our National Hydrogen Strategy.
Indeed, like what Mr Cheng Hsing Yao, Ms Poh Li San and other Members have said, hydrogen can complement and diversify our power mix alongside with solar, alongside with imported electricity as well as other potential low-carbon energy sources. In importing hydrogen, like other energy sources, we will adopt a diversified portfolio to ensure energy security and to ensure energy resilience.
We are pressing ahead with the development of such low-carbon alternatives, which will provide more options for businesses and consumers seeking to purchase renewable energy. But even so, and especially in the interim, I think Members will agree with us that both businesses and consumers – and in fact – all of us must play a part and improve energy efficiency and optimise and reduce energy consumption.
Ms Poh Li San, Mr Xie Yao Quan, Ms Janet Ang and Mr Mark Chay asked about the support for companies that are paying higher electricity prices either due to the current energy situation, or indirectly, due to the carbon tax. We understand the challenges that our businesses are facing. We recognise that the companies will be affected by the indirect impact of the carbon tax, through electricity prices.
Earlier on, Second Minister Tan See Leng addressed many of these energy Parliamentary Questions and shared with the House that as Singapore imports more than 90% of our energy needs, we cannot be fully insulated from developments, including volatilities in the global energy market. This is why we have adopted a calibrated approach of right-pricing electricity to help encourage prudent use of electricity.
At the same time, we will continue to support our businesses and SMEs to make more sustainable business decisions. For instance, we have schemes to help our companies like our SMEs improve their energy efficiency, which will, in turn, reduce their energy costs as well as the impact of the carbon tax. These include the Resource Efficiency Grant for Emissions (REG(E)) administered by EDB as well as the Energy Efficiency Fund (E2F) administered by NEA.
Let me just cite two projects very quickly. One project under the REG(E) scheme supported the replacement of a facility's existing chiller system with a more energy-efficient one, achieving energy savings of more than 3,600MWh. What does this mean? This is equivalent to an abatement of over 1,700 tonnes of carbon emissions annually. This is one REG(E) project and we want to encourage our companies to come on board the various schemes, whether it is the REG(E) or E2F, or the more recently rolled out Energy Efficiency Grant (EEG).
To Mr Mark Chay's query, we also periodically review these schemes to assess if updates and refinements are needed. We want to make sure they are relevant and accessible to our SMEs. For example, the E2F was just enhanced about six months ago in April this year. What did we do? We raised the grant support cap for the adoption of energy-efficient technologies, from what used to be 50%, we raised it to 70% of the qualifying costs. NEA has also recently simplified the grant application as well as the disbursement process for the standard retrofit projects. So, this makes it easier for SMEs and companies to apply and to benefit from the E2F.
Let me give Members another quick example to show that even micro enterprises and smaller SMEs can come on board. This example is of a local company that has benefited from the E2F. The company's name is Kawarin Enterprise Pte Ltd. This is a local steel manufacturing company. With the support from the Energy Efficiency Fund, Kawarin upgraded their old air compressors to more energy-efficient models. Members may ask what the benefits are. This has allowed Kawarin Enterprise Pte Ltd to enjoy annual cost savings of more than S$30,000 and abated about 48 tonnes of carbon annually. This is just one E2F project. So, I hope that Members of the House will help us to share this information and allow more SMEs and local companies to benefit from all this array of programmes that we have availed to them.
I want to assure the House that the Government will continue to monitor overall costs for businesses, which could be driven by many factors. We have discussed about that besides the carbon tax, and MTI and the economic agencies stand ready to provide more assistance when needed.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government remains fully committed to working with our industries on their decarbonisation journey to become more sustainable and more competitive in a low-carbon economy. Because by working in partnership and taking the necessary bold steps today, we can chart Singapore's transformation towards a greener and more sustainable future together. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Minister Grace Fu.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Mr Speaker, I thank Members for their support and constructive views on this Bill. I am heartened that all Members agree that the revised carbon tax regime set out in the Bill is a decisive step in climate action.
The revised carbon tax levels will incentivise energy and carbon efficiency in all sectors and tilt the scales in favour of additional decarbonisation solutions, such as CCUS and low-carbon hydrogen. They have been calibrated to enable the pace of transformation needed to achieve our net-zero ambition, while allowing businesses to stay economically competitive as they embark on their low-carbon transition. Our approach provides certainty by giving advance notice to companies and announcing the rates ahead of time.
I will respond to Members' questions on the issues raised, under three broad themes.
First, the environment. How do we maintain a strong impetus, ensuring that the allowances granted under the transition framework do not blunt the purpose of the carbon price and that the ICC regime is robust?
Minister of State Low Yen Ling has addressed Members' questions on the transition framework and industry support schemes. I will speak about the ICC regime shortly.
Second, the economy. Members spoke on the need to maintain our economic competitiveness amidst the transition to a low-carbon economy, which Minister of State Low Yen Ling has spoken on. Many Members have also highlighted how this new carbon tax regime can create new growth opportunities. How can we support a vibrant carbon services ecosystem in Singapore which can create good, green jobs for Singaporeans?
Third, the society. As we update the carbon tax regime, how do we deliver an inclusive transition towards a low-carbon society?
Let me address these issues in turn.
First, on the environment. As Ms Janet Ang has highlighted, we must ensure that the carbon credits surrendered, or \"offset\", are of high environmental integrity. Ms He Ting Ru brought up the same point.
Our ICC framework will be underpinned by a set of robust criteria, which will, minimally, be aligned to the CORSIA standards which have been endorsed internationally. CORSIA standards are amongst the most rigorous in carbon markets worldwide and they include criteria, such as additionality and permanence – issues that Ms He Ting Ru has mentioned. \"Additionality\" means that emission reductions must be \"above business as usual\" levels. Permanence requires emission reductions to be durable and irreversible.
Furthermore, we will ensure alignment with international rules, such as Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. One such requirement is \"no double counting\". Double counting occurs when an eligible ICC accrues to both Singapore and the host country producing this ICC. To prevent this ICC from being double counted, the host country must authorise a corresponding adjustment, to \"give up\" the emissions reduction to Singapore. These are standards which must be mutually agreed upon when we conclude carbon credits collaboration with partner countries.
We will publish a whitelist of ICCs that are acceptable, which will highlight the eligible host countries, carbon crediting programmes and methodologies. This will provide more clarity to companies and to the public on what our eligibility criteria entail. By placing emphasis on the quality of eligible ICC surrendered, we ensure that companies exercise care and due diligence in sourcing high-quality ICC responsibly and avoid the associated pitfalls, as Ms Janet Ang and Ms He Ting Ru have highlighted.
On the carbon credits registry, later this week, NEA will be calling a tender for the development of the International Carbon Credits Registry, or ICC Registry. When ready, the registry will serve as a record-keeping system to track and account for the usage of ICC by carbon tax-liable companies to offset their taxable emissions.
The ICC registry will be an integral part of our ICC framework.
In developing and implementing our ICC framework, we have been and will continue to work closely with industry players, green groups and other key stakeholders.
Sir, I have explained quite extensively how we developed our ICC framework with high standards – CORSIA, additionality, permanence, Paris Agreement Article 6, no double-counting, registry and so on. There is also a parallel work stream that is going on on the voluntary market side. So, MAS, the Singapore Exchange (SGX), for example, are hard at work to contribute to credible and robust taxonomies. This is a very nascent area and I think many parties, many different organisations, different sectors, are working very quickly to get alignment and harmonisation of standards. Singapore must be there in order to have the first-mover advantage that Ms Janet Ang has talked about.
In this way, we hope that by having the ICC as a foundation, the voluntary markets can take guidance and also benefit from the carbon services competencies that we will help develop in Singapore. So, although this Bill does not address the voluntary carbon market, which I will talk about later on, I hope that my explanation on what we are doing on ICC will help address some of the concerns over greenwashing.
Second, on the economy and creating growth opportunities, specifically, how the Government will unlock supply of ICC and support the growth of the carbon services and trading ecosystem in Singapore.
I agree with Ms Janet Ang on the importance of diversifying our sources of credit supply, including our source countries and the types of carbon credit projects. I spoke earlier about our Government-to-Government engagements, which are progressing well. We will advance talks with like-minded countries to establish implementation agreements and bilateral frameworks to guide interested parties to procure and trade in high-quality credits.
At the technical level, we are working closely with key players in the carbon services and trading ecosystem to develop the ICC framework. In July, NEA signed MOUs with leading carbon crediting programmes, namely, Verra and Gold Standard, which, together, account for over 70% of global carbon credit issuances. With these MOUs in place, companies will be able to acquire eligible ICC from projects registered with these programmes and surrender them to offset part of their carbon tax liabilities.
Our intent is for the ICC framework to catalyse local demand in carbon markets and support our vision of establishing Singapore as a carbon services and trading hub. Carbon services are a promising potential growth area for Singapore that can create good, green jobs for Singaporeans, while contributing to the global agenda on climate change. Growth in carbon markets will drive demand for jobs related to low-carbon project development, financing, consultancy and measurement, reporting and verification, or MRV.
Singapore is well-placed to leverage these opportunities. One notable example is the Climate Action Data Trust, or CAD Trust, which will be officially launched next month as a global market infrastructure supported by the World Bank, the International Emissions Trading Association and the Singapore Government. The CAD Trust will be anchored in Singapore to provide an open-source system to link and harmonise information about carbon credits and projects across registries globally. This initiative will drive market transparency, strengthen trust and advance global climate action. And Singapore, I think, is well-placed because we have developed trust and confidence with investors over decades, and we will maintain this confidence and high-level integrity in this new area that we go into as well. The CAD Trust will join a thriving ecosystem of over 70 organisations in Singapore, providing carbon services to the region and beyond.
Ms Janet Ang asked if the Government plans to ensure the credibility of voluntary carbon trading activities in Singapore and manage related risks. Other Members also asked about the development of voluntary carbon trading activities. I would like to clarify again that the ICC framework does not apply to the voluntary carbon market. It is not envisaged for this Bill to address that.
Our approach is to build up a vibrant carbon services ecosystem and provide the space for leading international and corporate initiatives to shape the voluntary marketplace. These include the Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative and the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market, which develop guidelines that promote the trading of voluntary carbon credits with high environmental integrity. As companies' use of voluntary carbon credits evolves, we will continue to study whether there is a need to adopt a more prescriptive approach.
Ms Poh Li San and Ms Janet Ang raised concerns that setting the facility-level limit for the use of ICCs at 5% might be too low, considering the current limitations in technologies that can achieve emissions reduction at scale and the need to support a vibrant carbon market. As mentioned earlier, we are starting with 5% as the facility-level limit to prioritise domestic abatement efforts. Are we right? Does it have to be 5%? Can it be 8%? Can it be 3%? Nobody knows. We are in a new area. So, what we will do is to start at 5% as the limit that we think that we can manage and then, as the market develops, we will see how it goes and we will make changes along the way.
So, I would just like to say to Members that in this phase, let us not be too prescriptive. Let us have an effective system that can help us grow from a very nascent stage to something that we can be proud of. If we start putting too many rules, it may make the scheme ineffective even if it can be the most transparent in the world. We will review the facility-level limit over time and align with international best practices, as carbon markets develop.
This brings me to Ms He Ting Ru's proposed amendment pertaining to instances where the prescribed facility-level limit is lifted. We are not able to support this proposed amendment, as it involves the publication of identifiable information relating to the registered business facility and breaches the confidentiality of carbon tax data which companies are accorded under the CPA.
I hope that I have explained sufficiently how our overall framework supports transactions of high environmental standards and that there are sufficient safeguards in terms of the registry, in terms of standards that will allow a nascent system to grow.
I understand that Ms He Ting Ru has suggested that perhaps we can have disclosure without financial details. But imagine if we are in a situation where we are discussing with companies on what type of ICC they are going to engage in and if a company has something that is groundbreaking, that requires significant ICC to justify the investment, but the system up there says that \"Look, anything above 5% – disclosure, disclosure – even though details are not there, your names will be flashed on the papers\". Do you think there will be more companies stepping forward or there will be fewer companies stepping forward?
So, we have to be quite practical at this stage, feel our way through and then, if we find that 5% is, indeed, not sufficient, Members can be assured that I will come back to this Chamber to ask for this level to be increased because we are all in the same boat, we want the same thing, which is a well-functioning carbon credit system that has environmental integrity.
I will now address the final group of issues which deal with balancing the interests of all stakeholders as we manage a fair and inclusive transition.
Ms Janet Ang and Mr Louis Ng asked about the Government's plan for the carbon tax to be imposed on more emitters, beyond the large emitters.
The current carbon tax threshold of 25,000 tonnes ensures that the carbon price is efficiently applied at key nodes of the economy and maximises coverage while it minimises – I would say optimises – the administrative burden on businesses. This covers around 80% of Singapore's emissions, one of the most comprehensive in the world. Coupled with our existing taxes on transport fuels, which are not subjected to carbon tax – we have separate taxes on fuels – we are achieving around 90% coverage. We are one of the world's highest.
Mr Louis Ng asked how compliance costs would increase if the next tier of facilities – that is, the reportable facilities – were taxed as well. Such facilities would have to incur not just the cost of reporting or the cost of paying taxes. They will have to get their reported emissions verified because, once you have to pay tax, we will need you to have it checked by experts, by auditors, and this will be a cost burden for a company, perhaps with a much lower carbon tax. So, it will be disproportionate to the carbon tax payable. Furthermore, as reportable facilities contribute only about 1% of Singapore's emissions, it would add little to the already high coverage of 80%.
I thank Mr Louis Ng and Mr Leon Perera for their suggestions on publishing carbon tax data, including those proposed as amendments to the Bill. Public disclosure of data needs to be contextualised, so that it can be interpreted fairly and meaningfully.
Our large emitters have products and production processes that are often heterogenous, specialised and proprietary. Publishing the emissions or ranking of top emitters without providing context of the business and the nature or the size of its operation may not be helpful in understanding how well a company is doing in mitigating its emissions.
Two refineries, same products altogether, both getting the same kind of allowances, is that definitely fair? What if I tell you that one refinery is actually adopting very, very carbon-inefficient processes, the other one is way ahead? Without background information, without understanding its processes, you cannot just look at two numbers and say, \"This is fair\" or \"this is not fair\" and \"Why are you all giving this?\"
There must be a workable system and I think, as Minister of State Low Yen Ling has explained, companies have to be benchmarked, they will have to produce their decarbonisation plans so that we can support them on a multi-year decarbonisation journey.
For accountability to their stakeholders, we encourage all companies to size, analyse and publish their environmental impact to explain how they are managing emissions-related risks, in relation to their commitment to decarbonisation. Companies listed locally are already subjected to SGX requirements to do so, as in many jurisdictions globally. Nonetheless, we will study possible ways to better facilitate environmental impact disclosure in a manner that respects commercial sensitivity.
We appreciate the concerns from Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Mr Xie Yao Quan, Mr Mark Chay and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim that the revised carbon tax levels will lead to higher costs amidst rising inflationary pressures.
Members of both sides of the House recognise that the effectiveness of a carbon tax to drive decarbonisation depends on the price level and have spoken in support of a raise in the carbon tax. We all agree that $5 is not right. So, we need to move.
And global warming does not pause because of inflation. So, rather than holding back our plans, the Government has been and will continue to provide support in a targeted manner to affected businesses and households as part of our longstanding commitment to an inclusive low-carbon transition. And this is where I listened very carefully to Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, and I have difficulty accepting his recommendations on implementation.
First, he has acknowledged that he has actually asked for a higher carbon tax range. He quoted, if I am not wrong, $80 to $133 as a range and with $100 as a useful midpoint or benchmark for our carbon tax level. So, this $80 to $133 is significantly higher than what we have stated, which is $50 to $80.
So, I am glad that the Workers' Party is supporting an even higher carbon tax range. As the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment, you are my best champion along with me.
Second, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim went on to say that this is not a very good time, like many of the Members as well, because we have inflation, we have energy shortages. So, perhaps, instead of giving a fixed number that may bind the hands of policymakers of the future, he has suggested that the carbon tax adhere to a central rate but with a variable component that varies over time according to conditions of the economy. In other hands, scale back when the economy is in recession, raise when the economy is strong. I will have much difficulty in implementation. As much as Assoc Prof Jamus Lim has suggested this as a way to ease implementation, I would find it hard to implement.
First of all, I would like Assoc Prof Jamus Lim to give me a three-year projection of what the economic conditions will be and then what that variation would be.
Secondly, he said that MAS would be able to project that. Nobody can project what has happened. We have all seen how exogenous factors have affected our economic conditions. Who had expected COVID-19? Who has thought about the Ukraine war? So, what do we do? We go out to the market, stand in the Chamber here and say, \"By the way, we are going to raise carbon tax. But we cannot be really sure. It is somewhere around $80 to $133 per tonne. But, you know, there is some middle number and then you can move around a bit.\"
How can companies make plans like that? When you want them to invest in a plant that is energy-efficient, that captures carbon or uses green hydrogen, you have to tell them what is likely going to be the prevailing carbon tax so that when they do a multi-year calculation, as Member Leon Perera has stated that is what companies would do, sometimes even up to 10, 20 years, they need to have certainty. Otherwise, they will not be able to price in the effect of a higher carbon price. Otherwise, it will be unfair to companies who have invested in hydrogen and then turn around and find that there are no takers because the carbon price differential is missing. The Government said that it was going to do it, but because of the economic situation, is now not doing. So, we find it very hard to accept his suggestion.
Also, he has suggested that maybe we should push back the tax. We are suggesting that we raise the carbon tax in 2024 and that leaves us six years to 2030. So, if you are going to push back one, two years until the recession is completely over – which I really do not know when that is going to be – that means that it leaves us with about four years to raise it from $5 to $100 per tonne. Is that better or not for companies? So, with humility, I would say that I find it hard to accept his suggestion for implementation.
Ms Poh Li San and Mr Don Wee have pointed out that the Government does not expect to derive additional revenue from the upcoming revisions to the carbon tax and that is correct. The carbon tax revenue will be used to accelerate decarbonisation efforts and Singapore's inclusive transition to a green economy.
Minister of State Low Yen Ling has spoken about how the Government is supporting our industry along their decarbonisation journey,
In addition to energy efficiency support measures for businesses, Mr Mark Chay will be pleased to note that we have earmarked funds under the Research, Innovation and Enterprise 2025 (RIE2025) plan for the research, development and demonstration of low-carbon technologies that can drive deeper decarbonisation.
We will cushion the impact on our households.
So, while I cannot accept Assoc Prof Jamus Lim's suggestion, we will have to, from time to time, evaluate our carbon tax. Maybe we have it too high, maybe we have it too low, maybe we can move faster, maybe there are already technologies out there that can make carbon capture cost-effective. We will have to change, but we need to give companies sufficient notice. And in a year when business is bad, or utilities' costs are high like what we are experiencing now, you can be assured that the Government will have very targeted measures that are relevant for that time and the same with households.
Just for Members' information, $25 per tonne, is really our next step – from $5 to $25 in 2024. We have not even raised carbon tax yet. So, none of the higher utilities costs today is attributable to carbon tax – it is only to come in 2024. At $25 per tonne, the rise in carbon tax would translate to an estimated increase of about $4 per month in the utilities bill for an average 4-room Housing and Development Board (HDB) household.
When the carbon tax was first introduced in 2019, U-Save rebates were provided to offer transitional support to help affected households adjust. We have been and will continue to support households with U-Save rebates.
As Members would know, I think in the last six to 12 months, we have been supporting our households because of inflation, because of higher utilities costs. And it is no secret that we support households in 4-room flats for up to five months of utilities bills.
And just to put things into context again, carbon tax as it stands now, for a year, every year, we are collecting to the grand tune of $200 million. That is all – $200 million. So, it is not enough to affect the costs of goods. Other effects, other inflationary pressures are coming in because of other factors.
And just the utilities bills support, the U-Save rebates that I mentioned that go to households, cost the Government $580 million for FY2022.
This is to give you a measure of the scale that we are talking about. We are prepared to support households even way above what we are collecting, whether it is GST or whether it is carbon tax.
Members have the assurance that while we have fixed the carbon tax according to a schedule to give companies certainty, we will always be mindful about the needs of companies, the needs of households, the needs of society when the increase is implemented.
We are also reviewing ongoing schemes, such as the Climate Friendly Households Programme, to encourage more households to mitigate the long-term cost impact by making the switch to energy-efficient appliances and water-saving fittings. So, if Members have residents who fit the criteria who want to reduce their utilities bills by switching to more energy-efficient appliances, please step forward, please ask them to apply to NEA.
Mr Speaker, the Carbon Pricing Bill was first introduced in this House in 2018 as a key step in readying our economy and strengthening our competitiveness as the world transitions to a low-carbon future. Since then, we have accelerated our sustainability journey and stepped up our climate ambition. As Ms Poh Li San noted, achieving net zero by 2050 will be a daunting, but necessary undertaking.
With our enhanced climate targets, our carbon pricing regime must evolve in tandem. As Members have noted in today's debate, our carbon tax regime must strike a fine balance between three imperatives: the environment, our economy and our society.
To reach our ambition of net-zero emissions by 2050, we must drive decarbonisation while ensuring that ICCs are sourced from projects of high environmental integrity. And here again, I would like to thank all Members who have spoken in support of a higher carbon tax rate, and particularly, I note Workers' Party's position. All Workers' Party Members – Ms He Ting Ru, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, Mr Leon Perera and Mr Louis Chua – supported the need for carbon tax and want an even higher carbon tax. They think that we are still too low at $50 to $80 per tonne.
So, we have considered all that. As the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment, I would really want to raise it as high as possible. So, I would say that you really are along with me on this journey. But we have to take into consideration the next point, which is really the economy.
So, we note your suggestions. We have announced the carbon tax and we have repeatedly been telling companies that these are the levels that are going to come. In the last 12 months. We will stick with these, but we will take your suggestions into consideration.
And as we make the transition to a low-carbon economy, we must keep an eye on our economic competitiveness, so that Singapore remains an attractive investment and business destination and generates green growth opportunities and good jobs for Singaporeans. We must strive to deliver an inclusive transition for our society, spur action across the whole of society and catalyse partnerships across the people, public and private sectors.
The proposed changes, as set out in this Bill, have been carefully considered in close consultation with the industry and the public. Taken together, they will enable the next lap of our green transition and lay the building blocks for Singapore as an economically competitive global sustainability hub.
With an effective carbon price as the cornerstone of our climate mitigation efforts, the Government will continue to push the envelope on all fronts, to secure a climate resilient and sustainable future for Singapore. I call on all Members of the House to give your support to this Bill. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera: I thank the Minister for her round-up speech. And, like the Minister, I would also emphasise that there is agreement from Members of both the ruling party and the Opposition on the need for us to hike the carbon price and on the broad thrusts of this Bill. I just have a few clarifications on the points that the Minister mentioned in relation to some of the amendments that we have filed.
Firstly, on the limitations on time for the allowance regime, the changes that we have proposed, I do take the point made by Minister of State Low Yen Ling that the Government has set a more ambitious target overall in aggregate for carbon emissions to achieve a certain target by 2030, and that puts pressure on the Government to curb and curtail allowances.
Nevertheless, having a more ambitious aggregate target may still allow either this Government or some future Government, in theory, in principle, to prop up a company with a fairly generous level of allowances in perpetuity, for a long time, and to do so in a manner that is not transparent. Were that to happen, were that possibility to be left open in the legislation, that possibility would undermine wider public acceptance of a much-needed carbon price hike, and perhaps, acceptance within the business community itself. If I am a company that is a large emitter, I would want to know that there is a certain amount of transparency about which entities are being given allowances.
So, I would like to pose this clarification, which is that, is the Government open to having some kind of legislative mechanism that would limit the allowances, in terms of time, to prevent this possibility of a company in perpetuity getting allowances up to the maximum that is referred to in the point of reference. That is my first clarification.
The second clarification is, would the Government acknowledge that, notwithstanding the changes that we have suggested to the allowance regime, the Government possesses other tools through other laws, other powers that allow it to apply economic incentives in cases where it may really be necessary to prevent disinvestment for job creation, job defence. And that would allow us to have a carbon pricing regime where the curtailment on the allowance regime is a bit clearer and the transparency level is a bit better, but at the same time, we are still able to retain and win these strategically important projects. That is my second clarification.
My third clarification is, in terms of the public registry that we have suggested. I want to stress again that we are not calling for the amounts of allowances to be disclosed or the amounts of ICCs being used to be disclosed. But I would like to ask again whether the Government would consider that a public registry may actually strengthen confidence in the regime buy-in to a new carbon price hike, which does impose significant burdens on companies and on households, and would impose a certain amount of public accountability, for the public to know that these are the entities that are getting allowances and we are able to see that these entities are doing their best or they are contributing back to the country, they are making progress towards lowering their emissions and so on. Would the Government acknowledge that there are some benefits to that transparency?
And my last clarification is, if the Government does not wish to have this public register, I believe both Minister of State Low Yen Ling and Minister Grace Fu referred to the Government is studying, publishing some kind of aggregate data in the future. Would the Government be open to publishing the number of allowances that have been awarded, just in aggregate, and the extent of emissions that are covered by allowances in aggregate, in the future, if they do not want this public registry proposal?
Ms Low Yen Ling: Mr Speaker, I want to thank the Member Mr Leon Perera for his clarifications. I want to assure him, and also the House, that even as we put in place the transition framework to support the EITE companies to transit to low-carbon future, I want to assure him that we maintain the impetus for them to decarbonise as quickly as possible. In fact, we want to catalyse the process for them to do so. And certainly, as we roll out the transition framework, it will not give any companies a free pass.
I just want to reiterate again. The Singapore Government just updated our 2030 NDC commitment. And Members said that, as far as Singapore is concerned, people know that when we say we will do it, we will achieve it. In fact, we will put in place interim milestones to make sure we get there by 2030 and by 2050. And so, the Singapore Government is certainly accountable to this international climate commitment. That is why the transition framework that we put in place is meant to ensure that the EITE companies are able to catalyse their decarbonisation journey.
I want to assure him that even as we avail the allowance, it is really only for a portion of the emissions. It is given based on internationally recognised efficiency standards, where available, as well as the individual facilities' decarbonisation plans. All these plans, I can assure you, will be scrutinised and there will be checks and balances within the relevant authority and within the Ministry, and in fact, across Ministries, because as far as climate change is concerned, we have an Inter-Ministerial Committee on Climate Change (IMCCC). So, there are checks and balances, there is accountability, there is transparency.
I shared with the House earlier in my speech, in time, where appropriate, the Government will certainly release aggregated information on the amount of allowances provided. But I urge everyone to have a care. And I think Ms Janet Ang and many Members reminded us that at this very nascent stage, as we are creating this, to make sure that we are well-placed to capture the green opportunities, not just for SMEs, but also for Singaporean workers, our youths, our mid-career hires, and so on. We want to make sure that we do not overly constrain our ability to respond to the emerging market opportunities and the trends as well. So, we need to bear in mind whether such disclosures may inadvertently divulge commercially sensitive information now.
Mr Speaker, I want to share some numbers very quickly. We talked about some of these sectors and Ms Janet Ang reminded us that the EITE companies have poured in significant, in fact, billions of dollars of investment in Singapore over the decades, creating very good jobs for Singaporeans. These EITE companies are key investors and are global leaders that collectively contribute about S$21 billion in value-add and employ about 29,000 workers here in Singapore. Not just that, not just economic value-add, not just jobs, but they also form an important ecosystem for our local SMEs as their suppliers, as their business partners.
So, these are really what is at stake. To make sure that we take a very calibrated approach as we put in place a transition framework, as we catalyse their transition to a low-carbon future, we want to make sure that we do not inadvertently diminish our competitiveness as a business and investment location, thereby hurting our ability to create good jobs for people in Singapore.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: I would like to add on to Minister of State Low Yen Ling's reply. We are an accountable Government and we are prepared to be accountable to the people. We are accountable with our results.
So, you are going to look at our commitments in 2030, our year-to-year carbon emissions and hold us accountable.
I think the line of questioning that the Member has taken, seems to suggest that we have something to hide and we need to hide some incentives somewhere else. There is really no need. What we want is to make sure that our public officers have the ability to engage companies confidently, keeping in mind their obligation to maintain commercial confidentiality for the simple reasons that the companies may be competitors themselves. Secondly, we may have competitors outside Singapore.
So, like many of these discussions, like many of these plans, we want to respect each other's requirements, so we have taken the stand that we will keep individual disclosure confidential.
Ultimately, you look at our Budget, every year – have we overspent? Do we have items that are not accounted for? Do we have schemes that cannot be explained to people? I think our track record speaks for itself. We will stand in this House again, year after year, to justify to you how we have been doing on our Green Plan and our carbon emissions.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Thank you, Speaker. Just two clarifications to Minister Grace Fu. The first has to do with the notion of whether we are indeed calling for a higher rate. And the median I suggested was $100 a tonne. It is true, certainly, that in the long run, we seek for something of that nature for good reason, as I had explained. It was the mid-point of what is scientifically credible and defensible.
That said, I think it is important to distinguish between the appropriate level versus the manner by which we get to that level – the glide path, if you will. The analogy is to think about how one might choose to target one's weight loss journey. First, you choose a target weight. Let us say, I really wish to be 65 kilogrammes.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, what is your clarification?
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Yes, so, the clarification then is whether the Ministry sees or does not see the merits of separating these two decisions – about the appropriate level of the carbon tax versus the glide path to get there.
My second clarification has to do with something that she said about how businesses cannot operate without certainty, when we do not know what the carbon tax is going to be. I am befuddled. Even now, the Government routinely alters levers of policy such as the interest rate when there is uncertainty on a year-to-year basis, about the level of interest rates, yet businesses continue to invest. Put it another way, let us say the Ministry telegraphed that it was originally going for —
Mr Speaker: Again, what is the clarification?
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: I am getting there, Sir. So, originally the Ministry telegraphed the $25 a tonne rate next year. And we entered into a recession. Would she believe that businesses would then be very upset if we said that we would scale this $25 a tonne back to something lower, to eventually raise it subsequently?
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Mr Speaker, Assoc Prof Lim started his speech earlier saying that we have the theory right, but we need to get the implementation right. So, I would like to maybe ask him for his suggestion of how the Government should be positioning the carbon tax in his way. What will be the target – it is $100, so, if it is long run, which year? Is it 2030 still?
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Just to be clear, the Government has not also committed to a $50 a tonne —
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Oh, we have – $50 to $80 is our range. So, what is your range?
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: It was well stated: $58 to $133, with the mid-point being $100.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Okay. So, your range is higher than the Government, is it correct?
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: The lower bound is lower than the Government's upper bound.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Our range is $50 to $80; your range is $58 to $133.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Yes, the lower bound that I gave you is lower than the Government's upper bound.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Alright, okay. Can you please try to tell me, if you are the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment, how would you glide to this number? How would you glide? We are at the end of 2022. You are going to go out and say, \"Company, this is the new glide path.\" How would you describe your glide path?
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: That was the content of my speech. I suggested that we could do it incrementally, the way that the Ministry has suggested. But I also suggested that we could allow the specific level to adjust upward and downward, according to economic conditions.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: So, are you then saying that we can go out to the world, and say, \"Sorry, I have made the 2030 NDC on the basis of certain economic conditions. And now that the economic conditions are bad, there is a war out there, there is high inflation in energy costs, my NDCs do not count because I need to glide further out\"?
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: No, but I think I was clear that the adjustments upwards and downwards are the same way that business cycles go upward and downward. So, you would have it lower in a given year, because of economic conditions. But when things pick up, you would raise it back so that you met the original targets.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: So, you are suggesting a very variable carbon tax rate, ends with $58 to $133, but without knowing how it is going to get there. Not even knowing what 2024 is going to be.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: I think you would set a target, but be able to adapt to economic conditions. The same way the interest rates are —
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Are you going to say what is your target rate for 2024?
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: As I said, it is not complicated. You set the target —
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: What is that rate? What is the number?
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: We can go with the Government's proposed number. Say, start with $25, as I said in my speech.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Okay, so in 2025, are you going to stay with $25 as well?
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: We would have to look at economic conditions.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: So, I would like to repeat —
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that when a Member asks a question, the other Member sits down; question is answered, vice versa. There is some decorum between both parties.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: I apologise for that. I will sit down. Okay. Can you please tell me, describe to me your carbon tax glide path in numbers. Because I am a business, I need to know. Can you please tell me, with some certainty, what is that variable portion – even if you say $25 for two years to come, $45 I am not too sure, but what will be the variation?
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: So, I am happy to clarify. Again, we are not opposed to the original path. So, for the next year and the subsequent year, we are comfortable with going with that $25 that was originally there. But I am pushing for the flexibility to adjust it upward or downward just to take into account of the fact that economic conditions may alter. The same way we do for interest rates.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Mr Speaker, this is not a fiscal policy. This is a policy to change our energy mix and our energy use. So, whether there is going to be an economic downturn or not, this is a change that we all need to make. And Members have spoken so passionately about the need to address the tragedy of the commons, climate change that is confronting us. So, are we going to delay it further? No. The answer is we all need to change.
If there is an economic problem, if there is an interest rate problem, of course we have to deal with it. We have to deal with it in other ways.
But the signal to the companies must be that this is a path that the Government is going ahead with. We will have to make investments with these numbers in mind, bearing in mind that our investments in the petrochemical industry or in the power generation industry are multi-year. So, if we have targets, carbon tax rates that cannot be even certain for the next four, five, six years, how can they make long-term projections?
I find it very difficult for companies to do that, I find it very difficult for financiers, for banks to also do that.
And here, I think I am receiving slightly mixed messages. The message is, \"We want to fly the environmental flag. We want to be sustainable. We want to be able to address our constituents who want us to be as green as possible\". But when it comes to the hard decision of making changes, of making companies change and invest in renewables, reduce efficiency, reduce utilities, reduce water, circular economy, reduce waste – \"Hang on, I think there is an economic condition and, therefore, we change\".
So, we have to decide for ourselves. Is the carbon tax something that we need to do and if we need to do it, do we need certainty? If we need certainty, how do we address conditions that we do not foresee? If we have a COVID-19 again – touch wood, hope that we will never have it – but if we have a COVID-19, or we have a major recession; of course, we will have to think about ways to cushion it. But that does not mean that we are turning back to fossil again. That is the message that we have been telling all the large emitters in the world at COP27. Even though there is an energy crisis out there, please do not turn your eyes away from the problem.
So, I hope that Members will support what we are doing, understand that we are not blind to concerns, accept that we need to give clarity to companies to invest, to change, to adopt a way of low-carbon production that we cannot delay anymore, even as we are confronting some major challenges out there. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
Ms He Ting Ru: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a clarification for the Minister. If I am not wrong, the Minister said earlier that our proposed registry would breach confidentiality protections afforded under the carbon pricing regime.
May I ask for further details about the specific provisions or maybe the law that they would breach? Or was she saying that there is a risk of some deduction being made to allow people to make inferences, bearing in mind again that we are not asking for details about the amount surrendered in excess of the 5%, which is the currently proposed threshold?
And if she is saying that the Government is unable to support the registry, what safeguards are there to make sure that there is better accountability for the ICCs surrender regime? It is important for us to get this balance right, so that it does not end up making it look like entities can buy their way out of the decarbonisation process, even when that really is not the case under the regime?
Also, just to follow on from my colleague, Mr Perera's point earlier, can we have a bit more details about what aggregate data will be published to address concerns that were previously mentioned?
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Mr Speaker, I believe that I have addressed Ms He's clarification questions earlier in my speech, that it is really not in our interest at this point in time. Hold us accountable eventually for our overall performance on carbon abatement and carbon mitigation, but let us run an effective, flexible, nimble system, so that we can really catch the wind and be as effective as we can in developing a new green economy.
Mr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
Ms He Ting Ru: Sorry, just to clarify. Is the Minister saying that the confidentiality provisions that will be breached are specific legal provisions that would be breached? Sorry, if I missed that point.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: I believe the Fourth Schedule of the CPA restricts disclosure to specified public officers.
Mr Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay? Mr Louis Ng? Was there an arm that was raised? No? Okay.
[(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]
[(proc text) Clauses 1 to 12 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
Clause 13 –
The Chairman: There are 12 amendments standing in the name of Mr Leon Perera, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The Minister for Finance has signified that the President's recommendation under Article 59(2) of the Constitution is required for amendments (1) to (3)* and (8) to (12)**.
[(proc text) *The amendments read as follow: (proc text)]
[(proc text) (1) In page 13, line 15: to leave out \"and\". (proc text)]
[(proc text) (2) In page 13, line 20: to leave out the full-stop, and insert \"; and\". (proc text)]
[(proc text) (3) In page 13, after line 20: to insert — (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"(c) the taxable facility has been awarded allowances in no more than one of the preceding four emissions years.\". (proc text)]
[(proc text) **The amendments read as follow: (proc text)]
[(proc text) (8) In page 14, line 14: to leave out the em-dash. (proc text)]
[(proc text) (9) In page 14, line 15: to leave out \"(i)\". (proc text)]
[(proc text) (10) In page 14, line 19: after \"less than\", to insert \"double\". (proc text)]
[(proc text) (11) In page 14, line 20: to leave out \"; or\", and insert a full-stop. (proc text)]
[(proc text) (12) In page 14: to leave out lines 21 to 24. (proc text)]
The Chairman: Do these amendments have the recommendation of the President?
The Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah): No, Sir.
The Chairman: As the President’s recommendation is not forthcoming for amendments (1) to (3) and (8) to (12) standing in Mr Leon Perera's name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement, these amendments cannot be moved.
Amendments (4) to (7). Mr Perera, please proceed to move these amendments together.
Mr Leon Perera: Mr Chairman, Sir, on a point of order, may I pose some questions to the hon Minister, the Leader of the House, on the process surrounding how the President was approached and how the recommendation was sought? May I do that at this stage?
The Chairman: Yes, would you like to explain?
Mr Leon Perera: Specifically, what I would like to ask is when was the concurrence of the President sought for my amendments? And is it correct to say that the advice of the President was sought, but at the same time, the advice could only be given from the Office of the President based on the advice of the relevant Minister or the advice of the Cabinet?
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Chairman, Sir, the specific amendments in question that Mr Leon Perera has asked me about, are the amendments in his Notice of Amendments, for clause 13, amendments (1) to (3) and amendments (8) to (12), in the Order Paper Supplement.
Article 59(2) of the Constitution provides that the recommendation of the President is required for a Bill or an amendment that makes provision, whether directly or indirectly, for one of the stated financial matters. Those financial matters would include, for example, increasing or reducing taxes.
When a Bill has such fiscal implications, or when an amendment to a Bill has such fiscal implications, the President's recommendation is required. That is provided for under Standing Order 67(1), which provides that it is the duty of the Minister for Finance to inform the Speaker before moving amendments to a Bill, whether the recommendation of the President is required by law. This has been done. It was done by way of notification to Parliament, which was circulated by way of Notice Paper No 1522 to all Members. So, Members would have received that.
Which means that all Members, including Mr Leon Perera and the Workers' Party would be aware that the President's recommendation is necessary.
Just in terms of timing, though, I need to remind Members that the Notice of Amendments actually came in two clear days before the Sitting, which means on Wednesday. So, it came in on Wednesday evening. And that means, on Thursday and Friday, the Government had to look at the amendments and assess to see whether or not such amendments had any fiscal implications. It was not, I should add, notified to us by the Workers' Party, who had prepared the amendments, that it would have fiscal implications – which one would actually expect you to do, knowing that the President's recommendation is to be signified. So, we had to check that through and that took some time.
Then, Mr Leon Perera's next question really is whether the President's recommendation was sought, and if so, when and so on.
I must say I do find that when you give the Government less than 48 hours' notice, and not to mention the fact that there was no follow-up on the part of the Workers' Party even to find out whether anything would be done in this respect, I have to say that I find that it was somewhat — let us put it this way: you gave less than 48 hours and somebody had to do the running for you.
But in any event, the President's recommendation is not given for the Member's amendments. This is because the Government has assessed that the amendments in question – that is amendments (1) to (3) and (8) to (12) – could not be supported on the merits. We determined that they could not be supported for the reasons explained earlier by my colleagues, in the Second Reading debate.
And as the amendments could not be supported, they were not put forward to the President for the President's recommendation.
This is perfectly in order as the Constitutional requirement, for the President's recommendation to be sought for amendments with financial implications, is a procedure that safeguards the Government's financial initiative. The President would act in accordance with the Government's advice in giving, or not giving, the required recommendation.
It is not unique to us. It is a long-established feature of Westminster parliaments that the government of the day has the sole right and responsibility to initiate financial legislation. The Government may, therefore, also take the decision not to put forward amendments with financial implications for the recommendation.
The Chairman: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera: Mr Chairman, can I just give a brief response to Minister Indranee Rajah's points on procedure?
The Chairman: We are not having a debate on this issue. If you have any clarifications, you can pose that. Otherwise, I suggest you move on to amendments (4) to (7), please?
Mr Leon Perera: Mr Chairman, Sir, can I briefly respond to Minister Indranee Rajah on her observations about the process of filing? Not to reopen the substantive debate, but just to respond to one or two of her observations.
The Chairman: Keep it short.
Mr Leon Perera: Yes. So, Ms He Ting Ru and I filed the amendments with the Clerk of Parliament on Monday. I do understand the point the Minister is making that the Notice was sent out to all Members of Parliament on the Wednesday. But I just want to make the point that we did file the amendments that we planned to move on the Monday.
I do also want to make the observation that we received the notification that the President's recommendation was necessary on the Saturday at about 1.00 pm. So, we worked on it from that point on. Anyway, those are just some brief observations.
Mr Chairman, Sir, I would like to move amendments (4) to (7)* standing in the Order Paper Supplement in my name. I beg to move those amendments.
[(proc text) *The amendments read as follows: (proc text)]
[(proc text) (4) In page 13, line 26: to leave out \"specify\", and insert \"ensure the award is listed on a registry that is provided free-of-charge and easily accessible to the public through electronic means, specifying\". (proc text)]
[(proc text) (5) In page 13, line 28: to leave out \"and\". (proc text)]
[(proc text) (6) In page 13, line 30: to leave out the full-stop, and insert a semi-colon. (proc text)]
[(proc text) (7) In page 13, after line 30: to insert — (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"(c) the registered person of the taxable facility who has received allowances; and (proc text)]
[(proc text) (d) the Minister's reasons for deciding to award the allowances.\". (proc text)]
The Chairman: Leader.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Sorry, Mr Chairman, just a very quick response and not to belabour the matter. I understand that the Member may have put in the amendments earlier.
All I am saying is that it would be helpful, even though the Standing Orders have a specific procedural requirement of time, that you can, of your own volition, also notify the Government ahead of time so that it would actually give us a little bit more time. So, that is all I am saying, in terms of just a matter of adequate time and preparation.
In this case, we had taken a decision and looked at it, and decided not to put forward the recommendation. But I would just like to remind Members that one does not go to the President with less than 48 hours and say, \"Here it is, please make a decision.\" If something was put forward, the President would have to consider it and it would take some time. But in this case, as the Government, having taken the decision, had made the decision not to put it forward for the reasons stated.
The Chairman: Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Pritam Singh: Just to respond to the Leader of the House, thank you for the clarification.
There was no intention to give the Government very little time to respond. I think this is a novel process insofar as at least my time in the House is concerned. I do not think such an amendment has come up. I think the intention was to make sure we filed on time as per the Standing Order, which we did. And thereafter, on the Saturday, after Mr Perera received the note from the Clerk of Parliament, I think he followed up with the Clerk of Parliament with a list of questions as to procedure and so forth.
So, there was no intention to try and give the Government very little time to respond or anything of that sort. I just thought I ought to put that on the record.
The Chairman: Leader.
Ms Indranee Rajah: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his clarification. Thank you.
The Chairman: The question is as proposed by the Member.
[(proc text) Question put, and amendment negatived. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Clauses 14 to 28 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
Clause 29 –
The Chairman: Clause 29, Ms He Ting Ru.
Ms He Ting Ru: Sir, I beg to move amendments* to clause 29 standing in my name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.
[(proc text) *The amendments read as follows: (proc text)]
[(proc text) In page 25, after line 10: to insert — (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"(3) Where the Minister permits eligible international carbon credits to be surrendered in excess of the prescribed limit pursuant to subsection (2), the decision shall be listed on a registry that is provided free-of-charge and easily accessible to the public through electronic means. The register shall contain information that includes information relating to the registered person, the emissions year where the registered person was permitted to exceed the prescribed limit for international carbon credit usage, and the Minister's reason for deciding to lift the prescribed limit.\". (proc text)]
[(proc text) Consequential amendment: (proc text)]
[(proc text) In page 25, line 11: to re-number subsection (3) as subsection (4). (proc text)]
The Chairman: The question is as proposed by the Member.
[(proc text) Question put, and amendment negatived. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Clauses 30 to 43 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Online Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"Mr Speaker: Minister for Communications and Information.
The Minister for Communications and Information (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Sir, a study conducted by the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) in June this year found that almost 80% of Singapore residents are concerned with online harms. In stark contrast, when we ask people how they feel about walking the streets of Singapore alone at night, 97% said that they would be comfortable to do so. There is obviously a sizeable gap between how safe Singaporeans feel online and offline.
Today, most of us remain connected online throughout the day. Online services have become the key conduits through which we communicate and consume content. Because of this, the prevalence of harmful online content on these services can have negative serious consequences on the physical, emotional and mental well-being of society.
The Bill we are debating today is not the first law introduced to secure our online space. The Government has, over the years, introduced targeted laws to deal with specific types of harmful online content and behaviour, including:
(a) Falsehoods, which are dealt with under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act, or POFMA.
(b) Foreign interference, which is addressed under the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act, or FICA.
(c) Online harassment, such as cyberbullying, which is dealt with under the Protection from Harassment Act, or POHA. POHA was also recently updated in 2019 to cover doxxing.
Our laws have served to protect many Singaporeans. POFMA was integral to Singapore's response to COVID-19, allowing the Government to address the deluge of misinformation which made COVID-19 not just a pandemic, but an \"info-demic\".
Recently, The Straits Times reported a record high number of protection orders filed and granted in 2021 under POHA, more than double the number in previous years. Lawyers attributed the spike in applications to media attention on the issue of harassment. The application process has also been enhanced with the opening of the Protection from Harassment Court.
However, there are still gaps that need to be addressed. One growing concern is content encouraging suicide and self-harm. Just two months ago, an investigation in the United Kingdom (UK) concluded that 14-year-old Molly Russell took her own life after being exposed to thousands of self-harm and suicide related posts in the months leading up to her death. Many of these posts portrayed suicide as an inevitable consequence of depression.
There have also been reports of users' accidental deaths while attempting to mimic videos of impossible physical stunts. Unknown to some victims, these reckless acts and dangerous challenges had been heavily edited.
Our children, who may lack the capacity or maturity to deal with certain types of content are particularly vulnerable when exposed to inappropriate content and unwanted social interaction online. In June this year, MCI conducted a study which asked respondents what online content they felt children needed to be most protected from. The top three were sexual content, cyberbullying and violent content.
In a dialogue with youths held by MCI and the National Youth Council last year, participants indicated that the top three online harms they and their peers faced included being insulted online, impersonated by someone else and receiving unwanted contact from another person.
If such harmful content existed only on websites, the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) would be able to deal with them under the existing Broadcasting Act. But today, users are much more likely to consume content from the feeds of social media services, where such harmful content can be pushed via algorithms, and spread quickly through our social connections.
Just two weeks ago, Meta announced that Facebook recorded nearly 2 billion daily users, while Instagram recorded 2 billion active monthly users. TikTok has been downloaded over 3.5 billion times worldwide since its launch, while YouTube recorded 30 billion daily views on \"YouTube Shorts\".
As the Internet evolves, so must our laws. In the book \"Tools and Weapons\" co-authored by Microsoft's President Brad Smith and Carol Ann Browne, the backwardness of some cybersecurity measures was likened to \"digging trenches to defend against missiles\".
In the same way, we must recognise that online content can inflict serious damage on our people and communities, if our laws fall short. We must have the ability to deal with harmful online content accessible to Singapore users, regardless of where the content is hosted or initiated.
The entities controlling the biggest and most popular online communication services (OCSs) or platforms accessible in Singapore all operate outside of Singapore and fall outside the legal remit of the Broadcasting Act today. To ensure that Singapore users of these services and platforms can be kept safe, we must be able to take appropriate action on these entities, as long as they provide content accessible by Singapore users.
We are not alone in thinking this way. There is a growing consensus that rules must be put in place to prevent harms in the online world, just as in the physical world. Calls for online services to take greater responsibility in ensuring safety on their platforms have also led to jurisdictions such as the UK, the European Union (EU), Germany and Australia to introduce or propose new online safety laws.
Mr Speaker, I seek your permission to distribute handouts to the Members, which summarise online safety laws enacted or under consideration in these jurisdictions.
Mr Speaker: Please proceed. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members.]
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, the Singapore public, like many other societies, is concerned over the potential damage caused by harmful online content and expects social media services to take greater responsibility to protect their users.
In July and August this year, MCI conducted a public consultation and series of engagements on our proposals to combat harmful online content and received more than 600 responses. Respondents expressed the desire for safety features to manage their exposure to certain types of content.
Similarly, MCI's June 2022 study, found that nine in 10 respondents felt that such measures would protect users from harmful online content to at least a moderate extent. Parents, in particular, were concerned over viral social media content which featured dangerous pranks and challenges, harmful advertising, cyberbullying and explicit sexual content. Some suggested keeping younger users in mind when developing safety features, including tailoring content moderation thresholds and ensuring young users can easily report inappropriate content.
In a separate poll conducted earlier this year by the Sunlight Alliance for Action, Singaporeans ranked reporting systems and laws to tackle online harms as the top two measures that would facilitate help-seeking.
I will now explain our approach to enhancing online safety for Singapore users and Members will find that there are similarities to the practices elsewhere, examples of which I have circulated.
The first is to tackle the problems in an accretive manner. Rather than take a \"Big Bang\" approach which some countries are attempting and have an all-encompassing law, let us design our laws in a considered and calibrated manner.
[Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair]
Second, as far as possible, be outcome driven instead of being overly prescriptive. In today's context, we are dealing with a vast volume of user-generated content. Rather than chasing individual pieces of content, we must ensure that systems and processes to regulate the content are put in place and maintained by the platforms. Instead of prescribing how these systems and processes are set up, we should specify the outcomes they ought to achieve.
The third, and perhaps, most important of all, is to recognise that laws are not a silver bullet. The Government will need to work with partners, including our citizens, to tackle harmful content and enhance the safety of users online.
Today's online content service providers are different from traditional local broadcasters and require a different regulatory approach. In fact, each type of service is different. \"Social media services\" are not the same as \"over-the-top media services\", which also operate differently from \"game distribution services\".
The Bill allows us to adopt this accretive approach by building on existing laws to introduce new ones; so that over time, our foundations for digital safety become stronger. If passed by Parliament, this Bill will create a new part in the Broadcasting Act to regulate \"online communication service\", which are electronic services that enable users to access or communicate content via the Internet.
The regulations will only apply to specified types of \"online communication service\", which are listed in a Schedule under the Broadcasting Act.
For now, we will only specify one type of OCS in the Schedule and that is \"social media services\". Under the Bill, a social media service is defined as an electronic service, whose sole or primary purpose is to enable online interaction or linking between two or more users, including enabling users to share content for social purposes; and which allows users to communicate content on the service.
Why have we chosen to regulate social media services as a matter of priority? Well, because three in five users or thereabout from MCI's June 2022 survey experienced harmful content online using social media platforms. This is the highest proportion compared to other platforms, such as e-commerce sites, search engines and news sites.
Given the voluminous user-generated content in today's evolving online space, it is not efficient to regulate individual pieces of content.
IMDA will instead focus on system-wide measures which are more effective at scale.
Under sections 45K and 45L of the proposed Bill, IMDA will be able to designate OCSs with significant reach or impact in Singapore, and require them, via the Codes of Practice, to put in place measures to keep Singapore users safe.
This approach is similar to how we go about regulating fire safety. Building owners, occupiers and qualified persons must adhere to the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF)'s Fire Code, which requires them to put in place systems and processes to maintain high fire safety standards, to keep their occupants safe.
Likewise, OCSs must have in place systems and processes to minimise Singapore users' exposure to, and mitigate the impact of, harmful content on their platforms. IMDA will impose these requirements on designated OCSs via Codes of Practice. By stating in the Codes the outcomes which regulated services must meet, IMDA aims to provide sufficient clarity on what the services must do to protect users, whilst allowing some flexibility for them to adjust their approaches.
We can also expect IMDA to update the Codes from time to time. This will allow us to be agile and responsive to technologies as they evolve.
But before introducing new requirements, IMDA will consult and work collaboratively with service providers to assess the most suitable approaches to strengthening safety on their platforms.
Under the Bill, IMDA does not have unfettered ability to issue new Codes. The new section 45L sets out that IMDA can issue Codes for the following purposes:
First, to ensure services have systems or processes in place to address harmful content.
Second, to provide practical guidance or certainty in respect of what content should be covered.
Third, to set out the procedures that service providers must follow when audits are carried out.
Fourth, to require services to collaborate with approved researchers to understand systemic risks relating to the service.
Earlier, I explained that we will apply our new laws to social media services as the first type of OCS. Let us now turn to the Code that designated social media services with significant reach or impact in Singapore must comply with.
In October, IMDA issued a draft copy of the \"Code of Practice for Online Safety\". This draft Code comes after an extensive study of international online safety legislation as well as proposals and engagements with major social media services in Singapore, including Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, Twitter and HardwareZone.
The social media services consulted were receptive to the proposals laid out in the draft Code and the Bill. They support the Government's commitment to find innovative and effective solutions to combat harmful online content and recognise the need to improve online safety.
The designated social media services will be expected to meet the key outcomes as follows:
First, minimise Singapore users' exposure to harmful content and empower users with tools to manage their own safety. The social media services must also take additional steps to minimise children's exposure to inappropriate content and provide tools allowing children or their parents to manage their safety.
Second, make available an easy-to-use mechanism for Singapore users to report harmful content and unwanted interactions.
Third, provide transparency on the effectiveness of their measures in protecting Singapore users from harmful content. Designated social media services must provide information that reflect Singapore users' experience on their services. This will allow users to make informed decisions about how they use the service.
If the Bill is passed, IMDA will further consult relevant social media services, before finalising the Code for issuance.
We believe that the Code of Practice for Online Safety will reduce users' exposure to harmful online content, but it will not eliminate them completely. Part of the reason is that these social media services tend to operate globally, drawing in users and content from around the world. Their safety measures are not tuned to reflect an in-depth understanding of Singapore's local context or our racial and religious sensitivities.
Members may recall that in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, supermarkets were purportedly running out of toilet paper. A social media post surfaced, suggesting that people use the Bible and the Quran as toilet paper. This post was religiously very offensive and denigrated two religions in Singapore. However, it was not moderated nor removed by the platform concerned. IMDA had to step in to engage the platform and the platform eventually disabled access to the post.
There may also be egregious content on non-designated social media services, which are not subject to the Code of Practice for Online Safety. In May last year, a poll published on a social media service sexualised local female Islamic teachers, asked users to rank them and further promoted sexual violence against them. The post went viral and the modest reach of this particular service received a sudden big boost. It not only caused great distress to the individuals involved, but also unsettled many others in the community.
These issues are like fires that occur, even as the Fire Code has prevented most fires. In such instances, we must have firefighters who are properly equipped to act quickly, so as to minimise, if not prevent, serious injury and damage.
If Parliament agrees, the new section 45H proposed by this Bill will allow IMDA to act as an \"online firefighter\", to direct any social media service to disable Singapore users' access to egregious content and stop the egregious content from being transmitted to Singapore users via other channels or accounts.
IMDA has, in fact, performed this role for some time now, working with social media services behind the scenes to deal with egregious content. As Singapore's media regulator, IMDA also has significant experience in assessing content across the different media platforms and making decisions to protect the community.
Under this Bill, IMDA will be better equipped to ensure Singapore users are protected from egregious content online. But IMDA will not have carte blanche to issue directions. Its powers will be limited in scope.
First, IMDA will not be able to issue directions in respect of private communications. Those will remain private.
Second, directions can only be issued for certain categories of egregious content relating to user safety.
The new section 45D proposed by the Bill defines \"egregious content\" to include content advocating terrorism, suicide and self-harm, violence including sexual violence, child sexual exploitation, content posing public health risk and content likely to undermine racial and religious harmony. These categories will be set out in law.
When dealing with content that requires the expertise of other agencies, IMDA will consult them accordingly. As an example, when assessing content pertaining to public health measures and risk, IMDA will consult the Ministry of Health (MOH) and its experts.
The new section 45M proposed in the Bill requires designated services to take all reasonably practicable steps to comply with an applicable Code of Practice.
If they do not, IMDA can take regulatory action under the proposed section 45N to issue (a) a financial penalty; or (b) a rectification direction requiring the service to remedy the failure to comply with the Code of Practice. Non-compliance with a rectification direction will be a criminal offence, punishable with a fine. For egregious content, non-compliance with a direction by IMDA will also be a criminal offence, punishable by a fine.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, I said right at the beginning that laws are necessary but success alone in ensuring our citizens' safety cannot just depend on the laws. Respondents of MCI's public consultation and engagements agreed with this view. They wanted the Government to mandate stronger measures and social media services to do more to reduce harmful online content. At the same time, they emphasised that all of us, as users of social media services, have an individual responsibility to protect ourselves.
During one of our engagements, Mr Mark Joel Premraj, a parent, shared his perspective on how parents also play a key role in educating their children on inappropriate content online, including how to encourage them to flag the inappropriate content they come across.
Besides establishing a robust regulatory toolkit, the Government has taken active steps to nurture a well-informed and discerning public. Efforts to educate the public include the National Library Board's S.U.R.E. programme. It equips the public to think critically, be responsible producers and consumers of information, and stay safe and well online. Since its launch in 2013, S.U.R.E. has conducted over 6 million physical and digital engagements.
In addition, the Ministry of Education (MOE)'s refreshed Character and Citizenship Education curriculum has a stronger focus on Cyber Wellness education, where students learn to be safe, respectful and responsible users of cyberspace, and to be a positive peer influence.
In support of the Digital for Life movement, launched in February last year, community partners have also spearheaded initiatives which helped over 270,000 Singaporeans enrich their lives through digital technologies.
For example, TOUCH Community Services has partnered Meta to conduct the Digitally Ready Families programme, where low-income families learn digital life skills and cyber wellness tips. Another Digital for Life partner is \"Kids PlaySafer\". Created and run by Ms Sandra Low, a mother of an 11-year-old and 9-year-old, \"Kids PlaySafer\" has conducted talks on digital literacy and cyber safety to help parents manage their children's digital needs.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, may I continue in Mandarin, please.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Yes, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Deputy Speaker, for many people, technology is indistinguishable from magic that greatly improves our lives and brings about greater convenience. However, for the parents of 14-year-old British girl, Molly Russell, social media became the dark spell that took away the life of their daughter. Badly affected by the thousands of contents about self-harm and suicide, young Molly ended her short life.
Besides content about self-harm, there are many other types of harmful online content including those that promote violence, sexual abuse or enmity between races. If we allow such content to flood our cyberspace, many people, especially our young, would be adversely affected; and the social cohesion that we built preciously over the years may also be at risk.
That said, there is no law that can shield us totally from harmful content. Therefore, as the Government strengthens the law, our hope is that as parents, we can encourage our children to tell us whenever they encounter problems online, so that we can support them. Our hope is for social media platforms to innovate and come up with newer technologies to protect users, beyond just fulfilling their obligations.
All of us also hope that while civil organisations and individuals strengthen their own awareness of such content, they can also empower vulnerable groups to counter such content.
Only then, can we move forward as one.
(In English): Mdm Deputy Speaker, let me conclude. When the author Arthur C Clarke published \"2001: A Space Odyssey\", one of the lines in the book became famous and quoted many times over. It says, \"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic\".
Mdm Deputy Speaker, magic happens as we speak. Without disturbing Parliamentary proceedings, Members can compare notes instantaneously, in fact, I saw some of you do so. And conduct research on the fly either directly by instructing the colleagues outside the Chamber or just looking at the QR code that I distributed.
Gone are the days where we might rush home to catch a favourite television programme. So much content is available online anytime, anywhere.
But not all of this content is good. To ensure that safety is upheld for Singapore users, we need OCSs to be held accountable. Equally, we need the support of everyone in the community to keep each other safe online. I appeal to Members to support this Bill so that we can together improve online safety. I beg to move. [Applause.]
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Ms Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the Online Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill.
When social media first emerged, many people saw it as an unadulterated good thing – a new frontier, separate from the real world, offering freedom of speech without ill consequences. Indeed, the founders of many social media companies had good intentions – to connect users from around the world; to give them personal control to express what they desire and exchange ideas; to be free of oppression; to come together and do good for themselves and their societies.
Years passed, and alas, we know that the reality is far from the ideal. We have seen how extremism gets propagated online, inspiring and triggering acts of terrorism in parts of the world. We have seen how young lives were lost to dark and depressing content, and irrational online movements such as the \"Blackout challenge\". We have seen how hate speeches, in the name of free speech, get disseminated and cause great divisions within society.
These are worrying trends that we see around the world and countries, including those that uphold democracy and free speech, are facing the same challenges. Singapore, too, is not spared. As a society, we must respond to curb its ills and protect the vulnerable, while allowing the widest possible.
So, our legislation must evolve to better protect our people from harmful online content, especially minors who are more susceptible and vulnerable. In this, Singapore is not alone in passing such a legislation. Australia and Germany are some of the first few countries to have done so, and others are either doing the same, or thinking of doing the same.
The Online Safety (Miscellaneous Amendment) Bill builds on some of our existing laws to further recognise that happenings online can have a real impact in the physical world and actions must be taken to address issues concerning the safety and well-being of our people. The Bill also represents a shift in some ways. Firstly, protecting users is no longer just the responsibility of the Government or the individual users themselves, but also the OCS providers, who will now be explicitly required to implement tangible measures or face legal consequences for failing to do so. Secondly, giving teeth to our agencies to compel these OCS providers to act on harmful and egregious content, even if these service providers are not situated on our shores.
On the Internet, all types of information, the good and the bad, are readily accessible and can be proliferated widely almost instantaneously, thereby extending the harm it can bring onto innocent people. In instances of bullying, the Internet magnifies the effects. And, in other instances, the widespread egregious content could mislead and cause harm to the innocent. Thus, I believe that most, if not all, will agree on the importance of protecting those who are vulnerable online.
Nonetheless, I have the following questions to ask about the Bill.
Firstly, I think it is quite clear that the Ministry is taking a whitelist approach to applying the Codes of Practice. Therefore, I would like to ask: how does the Ministry determine which OCS providers make it into the whitelist? What criteria or parameters do the Ministry consider?
Second, I note that private messages will not be covered in this Bill. I suppose the Ministry is trying to strike a balance between offering sufficient protection whilst not being overly intrusive. However, there could be instances where objectionable content gets shared through private messaging channels. Moreover, in the context of Australia where its online safety act was passed just last year and came into effect earlier this year, private messaging is included. Could the Ministry explain the considerations made when deciding what to cover and what not to cover? Perhaps, the Ministry could also share the lessons learnt or the observations made of other jurisdictions where similar legislation was passed before us.
Thirdly, while the Ministry has a broad list of what constitutes egregious content, such as content that advocates or instructs on suicide, self-harm, violence, child sexual exploitation, public health risk, racial and religious disharmony and terrorism, who and how will this assessment and decision be made on what actually crosses the threshold to qualify as egregious?
While I applaud the Online Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill for being a timely one, I would also like to know: how frequent does the Ministry intend to review the Bill? As we know, technological advancement and disruptions happen at accelerating speeds. Along with it comes new issues and operational challenges that the Bill today may not be adequate in addressing.
For example, with the rise of the metaverse and the increasing number of young people immersing in it, our legislation and protection mechanisms must catch up quickly. In May this year, it was reported on various news sites, such as the BBC and The Business Insider, that a researcher's avatar was sexually assaulted on a metaverse platform called the Horizon World. The researcher from a non-profit advocacy group SumOfUs entered the particular metaverse and, within an hour, her avatar was raped in the virtual space. As she wore her Virtual Reality (VR) equipment during that episode, her controller vibrated when the male avatar strangers touched her, resulting in a physical sensation consequential of what she was experiencing online. The incident left her feeling \"disoriented\". It was a clear instance of how the virtual and physical world boundaries have blurred and how online happenings can cause real harm.
Apparently, that was not an isolated incident, as there were other reports of similar sexual assaults, homophobic and racial slurs, as well as gun violence on Horizon World. Though these reports were specific to Meta's metaverse platform, it is not difficult to imagine similar incidents happening on other metaverse platforms, especially if the different metaverse universes start to connect with one another.
Therefore, how will the Bill, in its current form, be able to protect users from such online harms?
In addition, as we look to a possible future of Web 3.0, where data and control become decentralised, going just after a couple of OCS providers operating in the Web 2.0 world may not be effective enough. Hence, we will need to ensure that our legislation and enforcement capabilities are updated in a timely manner, so that while we do not want to be over-prescriptive, we are also not too big a step behind these technological developments.
Therefore, I hope the Ministry can also share more about what is being done to continually engage industry players and community stakeholders so that our legislation and Codes of Practice not only have teeth but will bite where it matters. With that, I support the Bill.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mdm Deputy Speaker, the Online Safety Bill before us seeks to tackle harmful content on online services like Facebook, YouTube and TikTok, which are accessible to users in Singapore. I support the Bill, given the online harms that people in Singapore have been subject to on social media and on the Internet, and the growing need to protect our people, especially the young, from these harms.
However, I have some clarifications to seek on the Bill which I hope the Minister will address before we vote on the Bill.
Access to digital communication devices is not optional in this day and age, even for younger children. For example, if a 10-year-old child were to take public transport on his own to and from school, his parents would want him to be able to contact them in case of an emergency or to track his location. In most cases, this can only be done using a mobile phone or smart watch. However, it will be unwise to give that same 10-year-old unfiltered access to the Internet on his phone.
Currently, parents can install a parental control app on their child's phone. This app will allow parents to restrict content, approve apps, set screen times and filter harmful content. It can also locate the child using GPS.
I set this up for my son some time back. However, even with all my professional technical knowledge, it took me quite a bit of time and research to figure out which was the most suitable software to use and how to configure it. I wonder how many parents have tried to set up parental control software for their children. For those who have not, they should be aware that their children and teens essentially have unfiltered access to the Internet and all the harms that come with it. These parents can only regulate their children's Internet access by looking over their shoulders. This is a suboptimal solution, given the asymmetry of technical knowledge between most parents and their children. Most children nowadays can run rings around their parents when it comes to configuring settings on their mobile phones.
Also, for such content filtering to work for young people, age verification is needed. The Code of Practice for Online Safety for Designated Social Media Services proposed by the Ministry states that social media services must have additional measures to protect children, including minimising children's exposure to inappropriate content and ensuring that their account settings are age-appropriate by default.
However, the Code of Practice does not prescribe how this age verification should be implemented. Indeed, attempts at imposing age verification have previously failed in the United Kingdom's implementation of the Digital Economy Act of 2017, in part because of privacy concerns. Online age verification providers could collect excessive personally identifiable information and process it for other purposes in violation of privacy laws.
Separately, a young user can circumvent age restrictions by declaring his age to be 18 when, in fact, he is only 12. Can I ask the Minister: how will content providers be required to perform age verification checks in practice?
Some Internet service providers do provide parental control tools which block harmful content before they come through the fibre. However, they require a separate subscription that entails an additional cost each month. Many parents are not even aware of this service. They will have to take the effort to log in to their broadband provider's website and subscribe to this service. This additional friction will deter many parents from signing up, leaving young children vulnerable to accessing harmful content without their parents' knowledge.
It would be better for Internet service providers to block harmful content at the network level by default, rather than expect parents to set up complicated filtering software on their children's devices. This remote filtering should be activated by default for all new mobile and broadband subscriptions and offered for free for all subscribers. This will ensure that even children of less tech-savvy parents will be protected by default. Adults who need full access to the Internet should be able to opt out of the filtering service without any charge.
I am glad to note that under the Code of Practice, content that may encourage young users to engage in dangerous acts will be considered harmful content and be subject to additional safeguards for young users. Examples of these include the \"Skull-breaker Challenge\" where two people trick a friend standing in between them to take a vertical jump, then kick their legs from under them as they are in the air, making them fall backwards and potentially injure their head and back. People sometimes do not properly assess the risk associated with an activity. They may have seen others perform it without incident in a YouTube video and may be tempted to experiment themselves.
Ultimately, we cannot completely insulate young people from all dangerous, harmful and silly online content. The best protection is for parents and teachers to educate their children and students of the potentially harmful content that may be accessed online and the consequences of indulging in them. The Media Literacy Council could also directly push out educational materials on the platforms that young people access, like TikTok and Telegram. This should be an ongoing process, not a one-time effort, because harmful content is constantly evolving, and new trends are always emerging.
Under this Bill, failure to comply with the directions from IMDA could be an offence punishable by a fine on conviction. Can the Minister clarify if this fine will apply to only the company or also the individual officers within the company responsible for ensuring compliance? Given the financial might of social media companies, they might have no problem paying even a huge fine.
The Code of Practice will require social media services to submit annual reports to IMDA to reflect Singapore users' experiences on the service, including the actions that they have taken on user reports.
I would like to propose that social media services also be required to submit quarterly reports, listing the type of content that has been flagged by users. This is so that IMDA can be kept apprised of trends in harmful online content and behaviours.
Section B of the Code of Practice requires that users of OCSs must be able to report harmful content or unwanted interactions to the platform providers through an \"effective, transparent and easy to use mechanism\" and social media services are expected to take action on these user reports in a \"timely manner\".
This leaves open lots of room for interpretation. In contrast, Australia's Online Safety Act requires platforms to provide a clear and easily accessible complaints system for end-users to submit complaints or requests to remove certain material and the platforms must respond to the complainant within 48 hours, failing which the end-user may contact the eSafety Commissioner, who has the power to investigate the complaint. I would like to propose that Singapore's Code of Practice include these specific requirements and timelines.
Another potential area of harm to young people is online gaming, which can be both addictive and cause social problems. Can the Minister share to what extent this Bill and the Code of Practice will regulate online gaming?
I note that the Bill covers cyberbullying content that is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to the targeted person. Will the non-consensual sharing of intimate images be covered in this Bill? There have been cases, recently, of disgruntled ex-lovers sharing such images, which, most certainly, will cause alarm and distress to the victim.
Next, I would like to seek clarifications from the Minister regarding the protection of Singaporeans' democratic rights in this Bill. Some respondents to the public consultation sought assurance that the proposed measures would not affect user privacy or freedom of expression.
The Bill gives wide-ranging powers to IMDA to issue directions to social media companies to remove harmful content if it deems it so. Can the Minister elaborate on what safeguards will be in place to ensure that such powers are not abused? Will there be channels for independent appeal or judicial review?
The UK's Online Safety Bill specifically includes protections to safeguard pluralism and ensure Internet users can continue to engage in robust debate online. For example, section 29 of the latest draft of the UK's Online Safety Bill requires content providers to \"have regard to the importance of protecting the rights of users and interested persons to freedom of expression within the law\", when deciding on safety measures and policies.
Section 15 of the UK Bill also requires social media services to put in place clear policies to protect \"content of democratic importance\", such as user-submitted comments supporting or opposing particular political parties or policies, and to enforce this consistently across all content moderation. The UK Bill also requires that platforms must not discriminate against different political viewpoints.
The UK's draft legislation has also been designed to safeguard access to journalistic content. News publishers' content will be exempted from social media platforms' new online safety regulations. Because of this, social media platforms will not be incentivised to remove news publishers' content, as a result of a fear of sanction from the regulator.
Are there such provisions in Singapore's Online Safety Bill? If not, will the Government study the Online Safety Bills of other countries, including the UK and Australia, and include democratic protections in the Code of Practice and subsidiary legislation?
Will Singapore have the equivalent of an eSafety Commissioner like Australia does? Who will this eSafety Commissioner be, and will he or she be empowered to make directions independent of the Government?
Australia's Online Safety Act itself was controversial in part because of the huge amount of discretion and power it puts in the hands of the Minister for Communications and the eSafety Commissioner to determine what are community expectations. How will Singapore's Bill safeguard democratic freedoms while protecting the young from online harms?
I note that some electronic services are excluded from this Bill. Examples of these are SMS and MMS services. Can I confirm with the Minister that other private messaging platforms like WhatsApp, Telegram and Signal are also excluded from this Bill? For the avoidance of doubt, I am not advocating for these services to be included in this Bill, as they are primarily used for private communication between individuals. Much of the communication is end-to-end encrypted, which means even the platforms do not have access to the data exchanged by their users. I would have strong privacy concerns if this encryption were to be broken for the sake of enhancing online safety. Madam, I look forward to the Minister's responses.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill. Digital technology has permeated our lives. It has a deep impact on how we learn, how we do business and how we interact with one another. However, because of the cloak of anonymity, the online world rears its ugly head through online harms.
Maintaining safety online is not just the responsibility of the individual or the Government but all stakeholders involved. In this regard, many felt that stricter enforcement of relevant laws can be effective to combat or reduce online harms. Many also felt that technology companies and platforms must lead the way in tackling this issue, alongside the Government and us fellow Singaporeans.
It is, thus, timely that we have this Bill to further help us safeguard Singaporeans against online harms.
Last week, my firm organised its annual thought leadership platform, the Dentons Rodyk Dialogue 2022, themed \"Building a Safe and Inclusive Digital World Together: Vision and Transformation\". During the keynote speech, Minister Josephine Teo explained Singapore's approach in regulation towards digital safety and inclusion by ensuring what she described as the \"3As\".
Firstly, accretive – building each step or measure one after the other in a calibrated approach. Second, agglomerate – pulling in partners and groups in our collective endeavour. Third, agile – being able to adapt through different emerging technology or disruptions.
To borrow from bonds credit rating parlance, that to me, is a triple-A rated approach – sound and sensible.
In dealing with online harms, it is important to take a calibrated and multi-stakeholder approach while keeping a close eye on emerging technologies, such as Web 3.0 and the metaverse. Although Bill is focused on platform and service providers, there is also a need to focus on the users, particularly, the victims of online harms.
In June 2021, I started an initiative called Defence Guild SG, a collaborative group of lawyers providing pro bono assistance to victims of online abuse or harms. We now have over 20 lawyers who volunteer pro bono to assist or advise victims who face sexual harassment or online harms. The bulk of the cases they face are time-sensitive given the viral nature of the harmful online content, but most importantly, they are emotionally draining and usually, it is time- and cost-consuming for victims to seek redress.
Following this initiative, together with other People's Action Party (PAP) Members of Parliament, like Ms Hany Soh and Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin, we spearheaded the formation of resource toolkit to combat online harms at the PAP Women's Wing International Women's Day celebration in March this year. And in September this year, with the help of pro bono lawyers, social workers and counsellors, we ran a workshop for close to 70 activists across various PAP branches on the practical walkthrough of the resource toolkit. This is to support residents during Meet-the-People sessions or any of our other activities.
Notwithstanding all of the efforts, according to a recent survey, almost 57% do not know what are the legal redress or help that they can get when faced with online harms personally. Hence, raising awareness and empowerment is a continuing endeavour.
In this regard, I have three suggestions: first, to provide legal pro bono advice under the Legal Aid Bureau for individuals facing online harms, much like what Defence Guild SG is doing for victims currently; second, to standardise the ease of reporting of online harms across all platforms; third, to seek platform and broadcasting service providers to be included in public awareness campaigns on eradicating online harms. In Malay please, Mdm Deputy Speaker.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In June 2021, I started an initiative called Defence Guild SG.
This was in the wake of a harassment incident towards 17 local religious teachers, who became victims of a lewd online survey. This issue raised awareness among many within our community about the threat of online harms.
Over 20 lawyers from different races and religions, comprising of veteran and young lawyers from the Lawyers@M³ network, joined forces to provide legal advice to victims of online harassment.
Most of the cases they dealt with are sensitive in nature and many within our community are unaware of the type of help available as well as their own rights. However, this protection could not have come about without the partnership of those from the Government, individuals and technology companies or online service providers. Therefore, this Bill places responsibility in the hands of service providers, to block online content that may cause harm, such as extremist content, violence and those that negatively impact our multiracial and multi-religious society.
I, therefore, support this Bill.
(In English): I now move away from the individual and on to the service providers, the focus of this Bill.
I have several clarifications: firstly, I would like to clarify on the definitions used in the Bill; the second set of clarifications relate to the mechanism of the takedown and defence available; and lastly, I have some clarifications and suggestions in relation to the Code of Practice proposed.
First, on the definitions. In determining whether a broadcasting service is private or domestic, the new section 2(3) of the Broadcasting Act gave regard to certain factors, and I will touch on two of them.
Firstly, on the number of individuals in Singapore who are able to access the content. The clause itself does not state, for guidance, the actual number as a threshold. In this regard, may I ask what would the threshold be? Should it be a percentage of entire users of the service who are in Singapore? Some clarity in this regard would be helpful.
Secondly, on the restrictions on who may access the content. Would content on accounts which are accessible through friends or restricted followers, be considered \"private or domestic nature\"?
Next, in respect of the new clause 45D which sets out the definition of \"egregious content\", I have a few questions.
First, what is meant by content that \"advocates or instructs\"? Would the Ministry consider content to be harmful by looking objectively at its impact on our society, even though the content itself may not provide a clear set of instructions or advocate a certain position?
Second, on resources, may I ask who will be the enforcement agency for this? And would there be a dedicated team to regulate such behaviour? And if so, how are we sufficiently resourced for this?
For example, in Australia, the Department of Home Affairs has a dedicated team to find content on social media sites that promote hate, incite violence, or points to terrorist propaganda. The team has a budget of around AUD$3 million. It is a resource-intensive endeavour, and if we rely on self-reporting by individuals or self-regulation by providers, there may be many instances of online harms that fall through the crack.
Thirdly, I note that certain categories of harms are expressly stated in the Bill. May I ask what about issues relating to drug abuse or any other activities that are illegal or against our social norms – would these be considered harmful content as well? May I suggest that certain discretion be given to include any future definition of harmful content.
My next clarifications are on the mechanism. I welcome the takedown or disabling order under clause 45H and the blocking order under clause 45I. In particular, the new clause 45E makes it an offence of not stopping egregious content on an OCS.
There is also a defence available to service providers in not complying with the order, if it was not reasonably practicable to do more than what was in fact done, or if there was no better practicable means than what was in fact used.
However, may I ask what is meant by \"reasonably practicable\"? Would the costs or expenses involved in complying with such order be a relevant factor?
Likewise, what about actual or consequential loss that the party may suffer when complying with such duty? I would suggest that such costs, expenses and losses are not relevant factors. This is because economic losses or ramifications should not be placed on equal importance footing with online harms that have debilitating and irreversible effects on our society and individuals. Nevertheless, I would welcome Minister's clarifications in this regard.
Next, in relation to the immunity given to service providers against criminal or civil liability when complying with the orders – under clause 45J. Would this apply to civil liability brought by parties from outside the jurisdiction as well? I understand and fully appreciate that our laws may not have extraterritorial effect in this respect.
I am fully aware that the current Bill, as proposed, was done after extensive consultation with service providers and platforms and that they are supportive of such proposals. Other jurisdictions have also passed similar legislation to safeguard against online harms. Perhaps the Ministry can also explore reciprocal immunity provisions with other like-minded jurisdictions in the future. This would help harmonise and set an international standard for compliance of cross-border directions in the future.
My next clarification is in relation to clause 45H(1)(d) on the period of takedown notice. Can we consider a fixed period? For example, Germany's similar law provides for a 24-hour requirement for takedown. This reflects the imminent risk of such online harms. If there is a standard fixed period by legislation, it will lead to a reasonable expectation or standard within the industry for compliance and sufficient company internal compliance processes can be put in place to meet with such expectations. Alternatively, perhaps, Minister can clarify what is the estimated period that is envisaged for a typical direction or order?
Lastly, may I clarify what is meant by clause 45H(2)(b), that a requirement \"must not require the doing of anything with respect to the provision of an online communication service to the whole or part of any area in Singapore\"? Perhaps, can Minister provide an example for this?
Finally, Mdm Deputy Speaker, in relation to the Code of Practice, I welcome such Code of Practice. I understand that the a Code of Practice can be revised or amended pursuant to a process to be followed, which allows for future flexibility and adaptability.
My question is, given the fluidity and dynamic nature of our digital ecosystem, would the Code be able to keep up with the changes brought upon by the rapid changes in technology?
I note that there is a process before a change in Code can be made, as envisaged at clause 45L. However, how long would that take? Perhaps, if I may suggest the formation of a council to formulate and update the Code regularly to keep up with technology trends? Such Council can comprise of service providers, regulators, important law enforcement or community stakeholders.
In conclusion and most importantly, digital safety is the responsibility of everyone. Notwithstanding the above clarifications, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Mdm Deputy Speaker, the Online Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill marks a step in the right direction to create some regime for enforcement of basic standards of protection and decency against acts of online harm. I support the thrust of the Bill and stand in agreement with the arguments made by my Parliamentary colleague, Aljunied Member of Parliament, Mr Gerald Giam.
In particular, I strongly support Mr Giam's call on the Government to provide clear and unequivocal assurances that this law will not be used to curtail the exercise of legitimate free speech that touches on the public acts of public figures and that is not of a vicious and personal nature. I hope the Government can provide such assurances during the Parliamentary debate, to be recorded in the Hansard. Members will recall how the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) was used by the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) to take action against an individual, the legitimacy of which was disputed in a subsequent ruling of the Court of Appeals.
Madam, my speech will focus on the topic of online bullying, particularly as it pertains to children and of the harms of loot boxes and other gambling-like elements in electronic games. Before I address these two topics, let me make some general suggestions and clarifications on the approach taken in this Bill, where more clarity is, perhaps, needed.
Madam, under the proposed Bill, there are two key parts to the regulatory approach. Firstly, requiring OCSs with significant reach or impact to comply with Code(s) of Practice; and secondly, dealing with egregious content on an OCS that is accessible by Singapore users, by enabling IMDA to issue directions to deal with such content.
In addition to such measures and perhaps embedded in the Codes of Practice, I wonder if there could be a system where users of OCSs can first report content on the platform that is egregious and/or seriously harassing, to the OCS itself. If the OCS fails to take action within a stipulated time frame, say seven days, then there could be a mechanism whereby the complainant can raise this issue to the IMDA and ask the IMDA to issue the appropriate directions in relation to such content.
This draws on the Australia's Cyberbullying Scheme. One of its features is that a person may make a complaint to eSafety about cyberbullying material that targets an Australian child and this acts as a safety net, because they must have first reported the material to the relevant online service provider before taking the step. In addition, if the OCS fails to investigate or take action about that content reported by a user within the stipulated time frame, there could be penalties for the OCS.
While there are already reporting platforms or tools on most, if not all, of the OCSs, such a requirement embedded in a Code of Practice would create some legal pressure on the OCS to further investigate and act on user notifications or reports of egregious content in a timely manner.
Next, section 45D defines \"egregious content\". While this section does contain some specific definitions of egregious content, there could be other types of egregious content where more specificity would be welcome, as my colleague Mr Giam and other Members alluded to.
In particular, I think that the definition of egregious content given here in the Bill does not adequately deal with the following two categories: firstly, revenge porn or unwanted sharing of intimate images; and secondly, cyberbullying.
But at paragraph 4 of the First Reading speech, the June 2022 survey by MCI found that, \"Sexual content, cyberbullying and violent content were the top three types of content that respondents felt the young needed to be protected from most\". And I was actually not referring to the speech, but to the statement from MCI.
It would seem that the proposed Bill might not address the first two concerns in a sufficiently specific manner. In Canada, there is an offence of sharing intimate images without consent. I hope the subsidiary legislation can be more specific about these two types of egregious content.
Next, Madam, I note that at paragraph 8 of the Ministry's statement. it is stated that \"The Codes of Practice may require Regulated Online Communication Services (ROCS) providers to put in place measures on their services to mitigate the risks of danger to Singapore users from exposure to harmful content and provide accountability to their users on such measures.\"
I would like to ask the Government how this accountability will come about. Will the Government commit to public consultations when new Codes of Practice are issued? This is hinted at in section 45L(2), but it is not a requirement. I hope that, given the evolving nature of online harms, as well as the need to balance privacy and free speech concerns, that a proper consultation process will be the norm in future before new Codes of Practice are issued.
Next, Madam, part 9(d) of the same statement refers to how ROCS providers should collaborate or cooperate with the conduct of research studies by experts approved by IMDA. Such research would allow IMDA to understand the nature and level of the systemic risks in the ROCS, and the evolution and severity of such risks.
Madam, I support this provision. It is a very positive move for MCI to formally refer to the use of research in this manner, since this area of online harms is a rapidly evolving space and since more research needs to be done on the effects of certain online activities, particularly on children.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, I will now move to talking about online bullying of children. Madam, this is a serious issue in Singapore. A 2019 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) study found that 26% of Singaporean students reported being bullied at least a few times a month, compared to an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average of 23%. This is not a small number by any means.
Madam, this subject is somewhat personal to me, as there were short periods of time in both my children's primary school life when they were bullied by friends. It is traumatic for the child and can leave lasting psychological scars. But it is also hard on the parents, arousing feelings of concern, frustrations and yet, helplessness. Why do I say helplessness? Because sometimes, the parents feels that they cannot address the problem with a sledgehammer, by coming down hard on the bullies, who are themselves children and may not fully understand what they are doing.
The effects of cyberbullying can be deadly. In America, a girl called Megan Meier committed suicide three weeks before her 14th birthday and her suicide was attributed to cyberbullying on the social networking site MySpace. I think the Minister had referred to this example as well. Her classmate's mother had created a fake MySpace account, pretending to be a teenage boy, Josh. \"Josh\" messaged Megan on AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) saying something very hurtful. Megan killed herself shortly after.
Madam, page 9 of the Bill excludes certain services from the scope of the Bill, including SMSes and, in part (e), \"an electronic service where the only user-generated content enabled by that service is communication between two or more end-users that is of a private or domestic nature.\" This would imply that the law excludes bullying that takes place among a group of children, where one or more children bullies one child on a chat group, on say the victim's Instagram page.
Madam, children are a group where cyberbullying can have a very serious effect, given their lack of maturity and lack of life experiences in accessing resources that could help them. A large-scale National Institute of Health study in the United States (US) found that \"the child participants who experienced cyberbullying were more than four times as likely to report thoughts of suicide and attempts as those who did not.\" I think this subject of youth mental health, in the context of social media, has been the subject of much public discussion and much research and rightly so, as many experts are tending towards a view that there is a connection between the very extensive social media usage that we are seeing among young people, and the kinds of mental health issues that are coming to the fore.
Madam, how to deal with this very difficult question – and I confess that I do not have a legislative magic bullet to suggest here. I am not advocating for law enforcement agencies to police private conversations in a way that compromises privacy, could itself be subject to executive over-reach and could corrode our children's capacity to spontaneously interact with one another as well as learn social lessons thereby.
I would suggest that for now, the problem can be addressed through education and would like to call on MOE and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to explore this. There are helplines for young victims of bullying, including cyberbullying, such as Tinkle Friend by the Singapore Children's Society, which does good work and deserves support from all of us.
I am also aware that cyberbullying is addressed in the current curriculum relating to cyber wellness in schools. However, how effective has this been? I would urge the Government to conduct further research into this area and study innovative programmes that have worked around the world.
In particular, we need targeted education in primary and secondary schools that helps students to recognise that as bystanders, they have an important responsibility to step in and stop bullying, or at least to not cooperate and to flag out potential issues to teachers or others in authority positions.
Encouragingly, the PISA study I cited earlier found that 94% of Singaporean students agreed that it is a good thing to help students who cannot defend themselves. But does this translate to bystanders pushing back when bullying actually happens online? This needs to be studied. The role of bystanders here is crucial.
For this kind of education to work better, I am wondering if we can enlist students who have stood up to bullying, either as victims or bystanders, to be anti-bullying ambassadors who give talks in schools as to what they experienced, what they did, how they coped and also, when and how to bring the authorities in, as opposed to necessarily escalating every single situation to people in authority.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Order.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of a Sitting","subTitle":"Business Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mdm Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order No 2(5)(d), I propose to extend the time of this day's Sitting beyond the moment of interruption for a period of up to 30 minutes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Online Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"Mr Leon Perera: And perhaps video clips and other communications material can be rolled out to a mass audience featuring such anti-bullying ambassadors.
Next, Madam, let me move onto the subject of loot boxes and other gambling-like elements in electronic games. Madam, I have asked several Parliamentary Questions about this subject. The most recent was in 2019 which elicited the reply that the Remote Gambling Act (RGA) would apply to loot boxes, only if the loot thus obtained could potentially be converted into real world money. To quote from that 2019 reply, \"Given the randomness of the prizes in loot boxes, they are a game of chance. However, whether the loot boxes are considered a form of gambling under the RGA, depends on whether there are in-game facilities that allow players to convert game credits or any in-game items, for example, weapons and skills, to real-world money or merchandises.\"
I also spoke about this subject in the 2020 MHA Committee of Supply (COS) debate, pointing out that loot boxes, a consumable virtual item used to redeem a randomised selection of further virtual items, are increasingly seen, in some quarters, as a form of gambling. I highlighted that from a study by academics at the University of York, there is some evidence linking loot boxes to problem gambling.
Belgium has banned loot boxes purchased using real money. The UK National Health Services (NHS) have also called for the industry to ban loot boxes. Its mental health director Claire Murdoch warned that these were in danger of \"setting kids up for addiction.\"
Since my 2020 speech in this House, fresh research has strengthened the evidence of a causative link between loot boxes and problem gambling. A report produced by researchers at the universities of Plymouth and Wolverhampton in UK, as reported by the BBC in April 2021, found that loot boxes \"are structurally and psychologically akin to gambling.\"
According to the study in the UK, \"Of the 93% of children who play video games, up to 40% opened loot boxes. Twelve out of 13 studies on the topic have established 'unambiguous' connections to problem gambling behaviour…The big spenders – the crucial 5% for the industry – can spend more than £70 or £100 a month on the boxes\", the report said.
A report from the Norwegian Consumer Council from May 2022 suggests that some of these in-game gambling-like elements \"contribute to a sense of anticipation and reward and are presumably designed to trigger dopamine releases that keep the player opening packs.\"
Madam, my concern is that, aside from young children spending money in something that is potentially of little benefit, there is the risk that our young children playing these games, or perhaps a significant minority of them craving that dopamine hit, could experience changes in their brain chemistry that would render them more susceptible to problem gambling as adults. The studies I cited shows that there is some evidence to support this.
Madam, problem gambling is a serious social problem. While it affects a small percentage of the population directly, the financial losses and social harm they generate can easily affect their family members and loved ones.
I am glad to note that the Gambling Regulatory Authority announced in August this year that it is looking at loot boxes. I hope that stronger action will be taken against such elements in games, beyond just a dollar cap.
To be sure, electronic games can nurture positive traits, such as strategic thinking, information processing and mental agility. But the elements in some games which suggest that players can pay to play, but with randomised results, could well result in mental habituation and attraction towards gambling later in life.
If the Government will not ban such elements outright, as I hope it will, I hope, at the very least, that it would mandate warning labels on games that would draw parents' attention to the potential links to problem gambling. That would serve as a nudge to game developers to remove such elements from their games. I hope that such measures can be incorporated into the subsidiary legislation for this Bill or to another Act.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Deputy Speaker, one of the greatest challenges for safety in the online universe is anonymity. Users need not disclose their true identities and profiles. Rogues, under this dark cover, send out harmful content. The proposals to require OCSs with significant reach to comply with the new Code of Practice will go some way to reduce Singapore users' exposure to such materials.
I have a clarification regarding the term \"Singapore users\". Does this apply to all users who register, or have accounts set up in Singapore, or base their Internet Protocol (IP) addresses in Singapore at the point of registration? In addition, do the restrictions apply at point of access subsequently, namely their IP addresses?
Another query is about Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) which are increasingly popular with users. With VPNs, how would the Ministry ensure that Singapore users would not be exposed to harmful content?
Next, would the Ministry elaborate on the definition of harmful content within the Singapore context and legal perspective? In dealing with OCSs with global reach, there may be some differences between desirable and undesirable, Eastern and Western values. Even what most of us agree on protecting children from, such as violence, cyberbullying and sexual content, have grey areas, especially for teenagers. I hope the Ministry can share its perspective on this.
Finally, a point about companies' management, culture and environment, as we hear about in the recent developments at Twitter. Twitter staff's ability to prevent misinformation and hate messages has been greatly reduced. In such situations, how would the Ministry ensure that we are able to enforce the controls on such platforms? With that, I support the Bill.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Deputy Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment of Debate","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move that, \"That the debate be now adjourned.\"
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the debate be now adjourned.\" – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad]. (proc text)]
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Resumption of debate, what day?
Mr Zaqy Mohamad: Tomorrow, Madam.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: So be it.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to 12.00 pm tomorrow.\" – [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":"Building Harmonious Communities through Responsible Use of Common Spaces in Public Housing Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"
The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mdm Deputy Speaker, community spaces are incorporated into the design of our Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates to enable residents and visitors to interact and bond socially. These areas are open to the public so that everyone can enjoy them. In some of the newer estates, beautiful sky gardens with gorgeous views are built to the delight of all. It is the hope of the Government that our people will be able to spend time with their families, loved ones, neighbours and friends in these pockets of nature in the midst of our public housing estates and build cohesive communities.
Unfortunately, not all users of these painstakingly-built sky gardens take care of these spaces nor consider the well-being of residents who live in the blocks where the gardens are located. Unlike beaches and public parks, the sky gardens are literally built onto the residents' blocks, where inconsiderate and irresponsible usage have a direct impact on the people living there.
Residents have been putting up with the inconvenience and nuisance caused by visitors to the sky gardens who behave in an inconsiderate manner. These troubles are especially pronounced during the weekends, eve of festive seasons and public holidays. My residents are well aware that these are public gardens, but they are extremely inconvenienced by the chaos, noise and the rubbish that the crowds would bring. There were occasions when the wait time for lifts is very long because many non-residents are using the lifts to visit the sky gardens and the carpark lots are also taken up.
Residents sometimes have to endure dirty lifts, overflowing dustbins, littering, illegal smoking and loud partying in common areas. On weekends, visitors go to these gardens late at night too and their noise also disturb residents trying to sleep. In the morning, the cleaners are confronted with cigarette butts and alcohol bottles that are carelessly littered all over the sky gardens. I would like to highlight that these are all additional costs being borne by the Town Councils.
My volunteers patrol the sky gardens at night after 10 pm to remind visitors to leave the sky gardens as residents need to have their rest.
However, my volunteers have been doing this for over two years. They are exhausted. Expecting them to patrol these gardens daily is not only time-consuming but unsustainable. The issues are no longer happening on a daily basis with the reopening of borders and lifting of restrictions on the gathering of people, but such problems are still observed during weekends and on festive occasions.
Over the last few years, we have tried so many measures to minimise the disamenities, together with HDB, Town Council, Residents' Committees, the National Environment Agency (NEA) and other Government agencies. We have even involved the Police. Our current measures are insufficient and not working. I hope we can move on and try new measures.
My residents and I are mindful that these are public spaces. But public access is not a licence to abuse the space, or behave inconsiderately and irresponsibly. The current state of affairs is hardly building cohesive communities. Residents are stressed by the many strangers loitering around their dwelling units and creating disamenities.
In contrast, the situation at another popular HDB rooftop terrace at Pinnacle @ Duxton is much more orderly. Non-residents need to register and pay a $6 fee to access the 50th storey rooftop via a turnstile gantry. Visitor numbers are limited to 200 per day. During the earlier days of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Pinnacle @ Duxton rooftop was closed to visitors.
I earnestly appeal for similar preventive measures to ensure the orderly management of public access to all other HDB sky gardens all over Singapore. Residents are not against public access. They just want measures to enable them to live normally and peacefully, which most HDB residents do everywhere. The welfare of these residents matters. The current system is not allowing this, and we have to implement measures to ensure security and crowd control to reduce disamenities.
HDB sky gardens are here to stay, and we will expect to see more of such beautiful features in future developments. But the need to share these public spaces in a responsible manner is equally important as well. I hope we can all work together towards a more sustainable set of solutions together.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Sim Ann.
The Senior Minister of State for National Development (Ms Sim Ann): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank Ms Joan Pereira for passionately voicing the concerns of her residents and sharing her views on how we can better manage common spaces in public housing estates.
HDB estates are designed to be open and inclusive and to foster community bonding. In line with this philosophy, HDB estates are not gated and remain accessible not just to residents but also members of the public. We also design community gardens, void decks and other community spaces in our estates to foster interactions. Such spaces are, as a matter of policy, kept open and accessible to all. It is one of the distinctive differences between public and private housing.
In the past decade, sky gardens have been introduced to newer estates. They function as a refuge floor for fire protection in residential blocks above 40 storeys and provide skyrise greenery. Sky gardens may include additional facilities, such as fitness corners and sheltered seating areas for people to exercise together, chit chat or gather as a community. While they are located above ground, they are, in essence, similar to other common spaces in public housing estates.
I understand the Member's concerns about how some members of the public have been treating the sky gardens as an attraction. From a policy perspective, HDB cannot treat sky gardens as exclusive enclosed spaces. At the same time, we acknowledge that sky gardens are not identical in nature to the ground-level open parks and green spaces that we see in many HDB estates. Because of their elevation and the views that they command, sky gardens might attract visitors who would not go out of their way to visit ground-level HDB parks. And because sky gardens can only be accessed via lifts, visitors will end up sharing these lifts with residents. This is different from ground-level HDB parks that often have multiple points of access. Thus, if the sky gardens attract an unusual volume of visitors during peak times, even residents who do not use the sky gardens regularly might feel inconvenienced by crowding in lifts or at the lift lobbies.
What we are able to do is to assist the Town Councils and the local grassroots in signalling to visitors that sky gardens, while open in nature, are residential amenities and not domestic tourist attractions. Visitors should not forget that residents live very near the sky gardens, and/or behave in an inconsiderate and irresponsible manner, such as making loud noises, smoking or littering. We do not condone this.
Therefore, HDB has been actively working with Town Councils and various Government agencies to implement measures targeted at addressing these disamenities that bring inconvenience and stress to residents. In 2016, a task force was established to manage crowds at the respective sky gardens on the eve of festivities. HDB is a member of this task force, focused at SkyVille and SkyTerrace, along with the Residents' Committee, Tanjong Pagar Town Council, Singapore Police Force (SPF), as well as NEA.
To address residents' feedback following the larger-than-expected turnout observed at SkyVille on New Year's Eve 2020, the task force ramped up its surveillance and regulation of the sky gardens by stepping up its patrols, especially on Friday and Saturday nights. This is on top of increased SPF patrols and NEA's own patrols targeted at smoking and littering offences. More signages and CCTV cameras were installed as well.
HDB had also conducted special joint operations with the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), NEA and Dawson Residents' Committee, to address feedback on the non-compliance of COVID-19 safe management measures (SMMs) at the sky gardens.
From September to November 2021, the team issued advisories to members of the public on the proper wearing of masks, observing safe distancing and keeping to group size limits. For more serious breaches, HDB issued Notices of Composition (NOC) to offenders.
These operations have been effective. Overall, members of the public complied with the SMMs after receiving the advisories. Apart from the isolated incidents, the sky gardens were relatively quiet, with no breaches of group size limits and no serious or deliberate non-compliance of SMMs observed. Crowds also reduced steadily, from about 80 at its peak to 30 towards the end of November 2021.
On New Year's Eve 2021, the sky gardens at SkyVille were closed from 10 pm. The task force observed minimal crowds and SMMs were not breached. Groups readily dispersed and left the premises upon being advised by the task force. Since then, the sky gardens have been closed nightly, with no access permitted after 10 pm. Notices have been placed around the sky gardens with the help of Tanjong Pagar Town Council.
Since New Year's Eve 2020, HDB's on-site inspections have shown that the number of visitors to the sky gardens has declined significantly and large gatherings are uncommon, with users generally cleaning up after themselves and behaving in an orderly manner. Thus far, HDB has not received any recent feedback from residents pertaining to disamenities on sky gardens.
Even though the situation on the ground appears to have stabilised, we agree with the need for constant surveillance and vigilance, through the use of signages and CCTV cameras to warn visitors and deter errant behaviour.
Similar to the sky garden at SkyVille, all skyrise gardens and terraces in other HDB projects remain open to all. The Member raised the case of Pinnacle @ Duxton, where access to its 50th storey sky bridge is chargeable and gated for non-residents. The Pinnacle @ Duxton was an exception. It was assessed at the project design stage then, that there was a need to limit access to its sky bridges in view of various factors, such as the development's central location, its iconic status as the tallest HDB residential building in Singapore, as well as the novelty of the panoramic city views on offer.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, as far as possible, we would want to preserve the open, inclusive and shared nature of HDB estates. During my visit to one of these sky gardens, I was heartened to hear Ms Pereira explain that her residents are not asking for or expecting zero visitors to the sky gardens. What they want is for the disamenities to be managed and for daily living not to be disrupted.
This is a reasonable expectation and, in fact, similar to resident expectations of how ground-level HDB parks are managed. Ground-level HDB parks might also attract littering, loitering or noisy congregations from time to time, but these issues are, by and large, addressable through the advice and action on the part of agencies.
HDB will continue to work with the Member and agencies, such as Town Councils and NEA to monitor the situation and take action to minimise any disamenities. In particular, we appreciate the efforts expended by the Member and her ground volunteers. We will also take in her feedback and study new ways to design sky gardens better in the future, to pre-empt disamenities, while keeping them open and inclusive.
Notwithstanding the improvement seen on New Year's Eve 2021 and throughout 2022, I understand the Member is concerned about whether the crowding seen on New Year's Eve 2020 will recur. I will be glad to join her again in monitoring the sky gardens under her charge during the upcoming year-end festive period.
I thank Ms Joan Pereira again for the opportunity to respond to her ideas and set out the Ministry if National Development (MND)'s and HDB's approach to this topic. Creating a quality living environment requires everyone to play their part. I hope that as a society, we can be considerate and kind to one another, and make our HDB estates an icon of gracious, inclusive and harmonious living.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Ms Pereira, as we have some time, do you want to seek any clarification on the Senior Minister of State's reply? No? Okay.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 7.21 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":"Matter Raised On Adjournment Motion","questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Pegging Cost-of-Living Support to Numbers in Households","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"22 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Ministry will consider conducting a review on the support measures for cost-of-living relief to be based on the number of family members in each household, so that the larger low- and middle-income families, especially those with members below 21 years, are not disadvantaged.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Government uses a combination of schemes to meet the diverse needs of different families and circumstances. Various criteria are used to determine eligibility depending on the target beneficiaries. Some schemes, like cash payouts, are based on individual income eligibility. Other schemes, like the Community Development Council (CDC) vouchers, are given on a household basis.
Several of our social support measures do take into account family sizes, and especially cater to those with children. For example, to address cost-of-living concerns this year, every Singaporean aged below 21 years old would have received a one-off $200 top-up to their Child Development Account (CDA), Edusave account or Post-Secondary Education Account (PSEA). The Ministry of Education (MOE) will also be increasing its support for students from lower-income households, including through enhancing the bursary quanta for pre-university and Institute of Technical Education (ITE) students, as well as revising the income eligibility criteria for MOE financial assistance schemes.
More broadly, the Government provides support for the education and healthcare needs of all Singaporeans. Our education and healthcare subsidies are given on an individual basis, so larger families will correspondingly receive more help. We constantly monitor the affordability of our services and adjust our subsidies and fee regulations where necessary. For instance, to ensure affordability of childcare services, we will be lowering childcare fee caps in all Government-supported preschools from next year onwards.
The CDCs, community organisations and grassroots advisers complement Government schemes by providing additional support to families in needs based on local needs.
The Government will continue to review the criteria used for our social support schemes, including short-term measures to address cost-of-living concerns, to ensure that assistance is appropriately targeted at those with greater needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Oversight of Practice where Foreign Countries Purchase Advertising or Produce Content for Local Consumption in Mainstream and Alternative Media","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"24 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Communications and Information whether there is any Government oversight over foreign countries purchasing advertising or producing content for local consumption in mainstream and alternative media, including having articles pertaining to their countries, which are unrelated to the promotion of tourism.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Foreign countries are allowed to advertise or produce media content pertaining to their countries for local consumption, for topics such as the promotion of tourism or education. However, our local media should not be used by foreign countries as platforms to promote their political agenda or to influence our domestic affairs. Matters of governance and domestic politics are for Singaporeans alone to decide. Hence, we have in place a number of legislative safeguards to mitigate the risk of foreign influence across various media platforms.
For local newspapers, the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (NPPA) prohibits SPH Media Trust from receiving funding from foreign sources for any purpose, without prior approval from the Minister. Funds for purposes other than bona fide commercial ones are prohibited.
For Free-to-Air TV and Radio, the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA)'s TV and Radio Advertising and Sponsorship Code prohibits advertisements or sponsored programmes which are directed towards any political end.
For online content, under the Broadcasting (Class Licence) Notification, IMDA can require Internet Content Providers (ICPs) that engage in the propagation, promotion or discussion of political issues relating to Singapore to be registered, and to undertake to not receive foreign funding except subscription and advertising revenue for bona fide commercial purposes.
The Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) has a Code of Practice for Transparency of Online Political Advertisements. Under this Code of Practice, prescribed internet intermediaries, including certain social media platforms, must ensure that online political advertisements communicated in Singapore carry disclosure notices to inform end-users of the person(s) or organisation(s) that requested to place, or paid, for the political advertisements.
The Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act (FICA) also provides the Government with the powers to issue directions to deal with online content or accounts that are part of a hostile information campaign, such as by preventing such content from being viewed in Singapore.
Our local media play the important role of reporting news and opinions objectively and have a special responsibility to Singapore and Singaporeans. They are aware of this responsibility and are expected to do their utmost to guard against any attempts at foreign influence.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Upstream Preventive Strategies to Counter Misperceptions of Vaping","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will plan, and implement, social intervention and upstream preventive strategies through the Health Promotion Board and social service agencies to counter misconceptions that vaping is perceived as a sign of maturity and healthier than smoking.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: This response will also address the Question for Oral Answer filed by Mr Yip Hon Weng1 for a Sitting on or after 28 November 2022 and written questions filed by Mr Desmond Choo and Mr Shawn Huang for the Sittings on 20 October 2022 and 7 November 2022, respectively.
Currently, there is no direct prevalence data on the use of vaporisers as these are illegal products and reliable self-reported data is difficult to obtain. The number of offenders caught for purchase, use or possession of vaporisers in 2022 is 3,691, up to September 2022, as compared to 4,697 in 2021. About one-fifth of these offenders were under-18.
The Health Sciences Authority (HSA) monitors and gathers intelligence on illicit sales of e-cigarettes via social media and messaging platforms, and regularly carries out operations targeting sales of e-cigarettes on online platforms. The HSA also collaborates with platforms such as Instagram, Facebook and Carousell to remove postings on the illegal sales of such products. In 2020 and 2021, 3,573 and 6,940 postings have been removed respectively. And in 2022, up to September 2022, 3,923 postings have been removed. In year 2021 and 2022, up to September, 32 and 25 online e-vaporiser peddlers have been prosecuted respectively. Concurrently, the illegal importation of e-cigarettes is monitored at Singapore's borders and intercepted as necessary to prevent entry of these e-cigarettes into the local market.
There is already a dedicated reporting channel for members of the public who have information on the illegal import, distribution, sale or offer for sale of prohibited tobacco products. They can submit an online form at go.gov.sg/reporttobaccooffences. Alternatively, they can contact HSA's Tobacco Regulation Branch at 6684 2036 or 6684 2037 during office hours.
The enforcement activities are also complemented by public education efforts to deter the public from vaping. HSA engages the media to remind the public that the sale, use, possession for sale, importation or distribution of electronic vaporisers are strictly prohibited in Singapore and strongly advises the public against engaging in such activities. A digital campaign on staying vape-free will be rolled out in early 2023 to raise awareness on the negative health effects of vaping and to address misconceptions.
We share the concern about vaping amongst minors. The Ministry of Health (MOH) works closely with the Ministry of Education (MOE) to raise awareness among children and youths about the harms of vaping and encourage them to lead a nicotine-free lifestyle. Schools take a serious view of vaping and school-based disciplinary action is also taken for students caught using or possessing e-cigarettes and other types of vaporisers, including suspension or caning for boys. We will work with education institutions and schools to step up efforts to control access of vaporisers and its accessories to minors and the young.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : To ask the Minister for Health (a) how many companies have been prosecuted for the illegal sale of e-cigarettes on online platforms; and (b) whether dedicated reporting channels can be set up for the public to report illegal sales of e-cigarettes on online platforms."],"footNoteQuestions":["25"],"questionNo":"25"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adequacy of Rare Disease Fund in Supporting Applicants","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"26 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Health (a) how many applications has the Rare Disease Fund (RDF) received since April 2021; (b) what is the RDF's ratio of applicants to grants; and (c) whether the RDF has available funds to support new applicants at the current time.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Rare Disease Fund (RDF) operates as an endowed fund to ensure that beneficiaries can be supported for life, as rare disease patients generally require high-cost medicines on a lifelong basis. The RDF Committee which oversees the fund adopts a 'listing' approach, which means that a medicine can only be listed for support after it assesses that the medicine is able to meaningfully extend life expectancy and improve patient's quality of life.
Currently, the RDF has listed seven medicines for five conditions. The support is reviewed annually for each beneficiary, to factor in changes in their clinical condition and financial situation. Since April 2021, the RDF has received applications from six patients, all of whom are currently supported by the fund. There are sufficient funds to support these patients.
We recognise that there are other rare disease patients requiring non-listed medications, which the RDF currently does not support. Medicines for rare disease patients can exceed $200,000 per patient annually, with varying efficacies, and our healthcare financing system is not designed to support such high-cost treatments. Instead, society and the Government collectively support the financial needs of Singapore citizens with rare diseases through the RDF, with the Government providing $3 of matching grant for every dollar of donation. We have also seen how some patients are able to obtain support from the community through crowdsourcing or other charity funds, which is heartening.
There remains the broader question as to whether the Government should support treatments regardless of their cost, particularly if the efficacy is uncertain. This is a position that needs to be carefully reviewed and must not be taken lightly. For now, we will continue to monitor the situation and work towards expanding the scope of RDF treatments that can be supported. We also encourage members of the public to support the RDF with donations so that more medicines and conditions can be listed, and more patients can be supported.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Utilisation Rate and Effectiveness of Designated Smoking Points in Reducing Second-hand Smoke","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment with regard to the number of Designated Smoking Points (DSPs) currently available (a) what has been their utilisation rate and effectiveness in reducing second-hand smoke to non-smokers; and (b) whether the Government will consider supporting and funding more DSPs at more locations including housing estates.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Designated Smoking Points (DSPs) are community-led initiatives in our heartlands. My Ministry does not monitor the number and utilisation rates of DSPs. DSPs may be used by smokers within their immediate vicinity, but their effectiveness in influencing individual smoking behaviour and in reducing the impact of second-hand tobacco smoke on non-smokers would need to be studied further.
DSPs help to confine second-hand tobacco smoke to areas that can be more easily avoided by the public. However, the proliferation of DSPs needs to be carefully considered and balanced against the risk of inadvertently normalising smoking, especially among youths, and exacerbating the public's exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke if DSPs are not appropriately sited.
While we do not currently have any plans to set up or fund DSPs, we remain open to exploring practicable solutions to reduce public exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke. The National Environment Agency (NEA) will also continue to support community groups interested in setting up DSPs by providing advice and guidelines on setting up DSPs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Speed Limiters for Lorries Ferrying Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"28 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether an update can be provided on when speed limiters will be required to be installed on lorries ferrying workers; and (b) what can be done to expedite the roll-out.
Mr K Shanmugam: On 9 March 2022, the Ministry of Transport (MOT) announced that the Government would mandate lorries with Maximum Laden Weight (MLW) between 3,500 kilogrammes and 12,000 kilogrammes to be fitted with speed management devices or speed limiters.
Since then, the Traffic Police has been working with industry stakeholders to evaluate the cost and effectiveness of the different types of speed limiter. In gist, while we want to ensure that speed limiters are accurate and not easy to tamper with, we are also mindful of the cost impact on vehicle owners, many of whom are small business owners. To that end, the Traffic Police are studying various models that use different technologies, as well as overseas experiences.
In addition, the Traffic Police are developing the implementation plan. This includes ensuring that the market will have sufficient capacity to meet the estimated demand of speed limiters, and sufficient number of authorised agents to install and inspect the devices. This is to ensure that vehicle owners can have the speed limiters installed quickly and minimise downtimes for their vehicles.
We aim to complete the evaluation of speed limiters and finalise the implementation plan by early next year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Details of Discussions on Australia-Asia Power Link's Sun Cable Project","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"29 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether there are ongoing discussions relating to the Australia-Asia Power Link's Sun Cable project to supply power to Singapore outside of the Request for Proposal programme under the Energy Market Authority; (b) if so, whether details on these discussions can be shared; and (c) whether there are any plans for the Government to invest in the project.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: To decarbonise our power sector, the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) announced in October 2021 that Singapore will import four gigawatts of low-carbon electricity by 2035 through Requests for Proposals (RFPs).
Sun Cable has submitted a proposal for discussion with with the Energy Market Authority (EMA) under the RFP process to export 1.75 gigawatts1 of electricity from a solar and battery farm in Australia's Northern Territory to Singapore via a 4,200-kilometre2 subsea cable. All discussions are taken under the RFP framework. As the proposal is still being assessed, we are not able to share any further details.
Separately, Singapore and Australia have been working closely to advance cross-border electricity trade. The Singapore-Australia Green Economy Agreement signed on 18 October 2022 facilitates the development of frameworks to support cross-border electricity trading and enhance regional energy connectivity.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : On 26 October 2022, The Straits Times reported that Sun Cable's chief commercial officer, Mr Mitesh Patel, said the supply would total 1.75 gigawatts of power.","2 : On 23 September 2021, Sun Cable issued a media release stating that the project will feature an approximately 4,200-kilometre long subsea High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) cable system from Darwin to Singapore."],"footNoteQuestions":["29"],"questionNo":"29"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Lao PDR-Thailand-Malaysia-Singapore Power Integration Project","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the flow of electricity from Lao PDR to Singapore under the Lao PDR-Thailand-Malaysia-Singapore Power Integration Project (LTMS-PIP) has remained stable; (b) whether an update can be provided on the amount of electricity imported to Singapore since 23 June 2022; (c) whether there are plans or discussions to expand the amount of energy imported under the LTMS-PIP; and (d) whether there are plans for the energy under the LTMS-PIP to be exported out of Singapore.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Since the Lao PDR-Thailand-Malaysia-Singapore Power Integration Project (LTMS-PIP) commenced on 23 June 2022 until 31 October 2022, more than 170,000 megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity had been imported to Singapore from Lao PDR.
The flow of electricity has been stable. The LTMS-PIP shows that it is economically and technically feasible for electricity to be traded across long distances, and that it can be mutually beneficial for countries in our region to collaborate on cross-border electricity trading. The LTMS-PIP will accelerate our collective efforts towards the realisation of the ASEAN Power Grid (APG), and will serve as the pathfinder towards enhanced interconnectivity, energy security and sustainability in our region.
At the third LTMS Ministerial Meeting held on 15 September 2022, Ministers from the four countries issued a joint statement that welcomed further discussions on enhancements and future plans to support multilateral power trade.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effect of Geopolitical Conflicts, High Inflation and Threat of Global Recession on Singapore Green Plan 2030","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"33 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the war in Ukraine, intensifying competition between the United States and China, high global inflation and the threat of global recession have affected the Singapore Green Plan 2030.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Over the last year, geopolitical tensions including the ongoing war in Ukraine have disrupted the supplies of essential items, including energy. This is compounded by extreme weather patterns, such as heatwaves and droughts that have disrupted the energy markets. Globally, the energy crisis has provided stronger impetus for countries to diversify their energy sources with renewables.
Likewise for Singapore, we are accelerating the deployment of solar energy and sourcing for renewable electricity from the region under the Singapore Green Plan 2030. Investments in clean technologies and enhancements to infrastructure will help us to bolster our energy security and mitigate the impact of climate change.
We remain committed to implementing the Green Plan initiatives and are currently making good progress. For instance, we have increased the installed solar capacity from 125 megawatt-peak in 2016 to 670 megawatt-peak in Q1 2022. We are on track to meet our 2030 targets of two gigawatt-peak of installed solar capacity. Electric vehicle (EV) adoption is also growing robustly, with electric car registrations for the first nine months of 2022 exceeding 10% of all new car registrations. Almost half of our new car registrations in 2022 so far are cleaner-energy vehicles, which include hybrids.
Global inflation has cause prices of capital goods to rise, including those needed for green transition. We will monitor its impact and work with the industry closely to find solutions.
The Green Plan is a living plan and will continue to evolve, as we engage a diverse range of stakeholders and take into account technological developments and new solutions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Progress on Plan to Legislate Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Guidelines","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"34 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Manpower whether he can provide a status update on the proposed enshrinement of the guidelines of the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment into legislation given its announcement at the 2021 National Day Rally, including an update on (a) whether the Committee has completed its work and made recommendations; (b) whether the Government has accepted the Committee's recommendations; and (c) when is the Government planning to introduce the Bill in Parliament.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness is currently still deliberating the scope, requirements, procedures and remedies of the new legislation.
As part of its work, the Committee is consulting various groups to get views from workers, employers, the HR community and non-governmental organisations (NGOs).
The Committee is expected to complete its deliberations in a few months, and we will then be able to share more information. There will be an opportunity for public comment. The Government will then study and respond to the recommendations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Penalties for Animal Abuse Offences under Animals and Birds Act","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether an update can be provided on the review of the penalties for animal cruelty and abuse offences under the Animals and Birds Act; and (b) when will the review be completed.
Mr Desmond Lee: We are reviewing the Animals and Birds Act to strengthen our safeguards on animal health and welfare, as well as public health and safety. This will include the review of penalties under the Act, to ensure that they remain effective in deterring acts of animal cruelty and abuse.
As part of our review, we will consult the public and relevant stakeholders, such as veterinarians, animal-related businesses and animal welfare groups on our proposals. 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":"Rest Period for Workers Designated to Drive Their Colleagues","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how will the Ministry enforce the requirement that employers are required to provide a rest period of at least 30 minutes to workers designated to drive their colleagues when such workers have been working onsite for at least six hours; (b) what are the penalties for employers who fail to provide such rest; and (c) what constitutes a rest period.
Dr Tan See Leng: Details of the mandated rest period for dual role drivers, together with other inter-agency measures to enhance the safe transport of workers in lorry decks, were recently announced by the Ministry of Transport (MOT)'s Senior Minister of State Amy Khor on 19 October. This included the Ministry of Manpower (MOM)'s plans to enhance its regulations by 1 January 2023.
MOM will check for compliance on the provision of the rest period as part of our workplace safety and health inspections and accident investigations, such as through interviewing workers and drivers at the worksites. MOM will also work with the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and Traffic Police to conduct checks on lorries with workers in rear decks on the road.
Employers who fail to comply will be subjected to a financial penalty not exceeding $20,000 under the Workplace Safety and Health Act for failure to provide a rest period for dual role drivers. Dual role drivers can approach MOM or the Migrant Workers Centre via their hotline numbers, if they are not being provided with the mandated rest period. MOM will investigate the matter while keeping their identities and information strictly confidential.
The 30-minute rest period refers to a protected period during which the dual role driver must not be performing any work-related tasks. The rest period is meant for him or her to rest, both physically and mentally.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Sale of Counterfeit Healthcare Products in Online Marketplaces","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"39 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Health (a) over the past five years, how many complaints have been received regarding the sale of counterfeit healthcare products on online marketplaces; (b) what are the avenues of recourse for consumers who have been duped into buying these counterfeit products; and (c) whether any enforcement action can be taken against either the online platform or the seller for the sale of counterfeit healthcare products.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Over the past five years, the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) received an average of about three complaints per year on the online sale of counterfeit health products. Anyone caught selling counterfeit health products online can be fined up to $100,000 and/or jailed for up to three years. Buyers of counterfeit health products can also seek recourse by lodging a complaint with the Consumer Association of Singapore (CASE) or taking a civil legal action against the seller in the Small Claims Tribunals or Singapore Courts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"First-time Buyers No Longer Able to Purchase New HDB Flats under New Loan-to-Value Limit and Other Parameters in Recent Property Cooling Measures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"40 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for National Development that in view of the new measures to cool the property market, what is the estimated number of first-time HDB flat buyers in 2022 who were able to purchase a flat under the previous stress test rate and Loan-to-Value limit but who will no longer be able to do so under the new measures.
Mr Desmond Lee: In September 2022, the Government introduced an interest rate floor of 3% per annum for the Housing and Development Board (HDB) to compute the eligible housing loan amount for flat buyers taking a HDB loan, and lowered the Loan-to-Value (LTV) limit for HDB housing loans from 85% to 80%. These two measures are implemented to protect Singaporeans by encouraging prudent borrowing amidst the rising interest rate environment.
Flat buyers' housing budget and ability to purchase a flat depends on various factors, such as their eligibility for the Central Provident Fund (CPF) housing grants and their CPF and cash savings, and not just the maximum loan amount they are eligible for.
Most flat buyers will not be affected by the introduction of the interest rate floor as they do not take up the maximum housing loan amount. As an illustration, about eight in 10 flat buyers in 2021 would not have been affected by the change in the interest rate floor and lower LTV limit. In addition, first-time buyers, especially lower-income households, will generally be less affected by the lower LTV limit. First-timer flat buyers can enjoy the Enhanced CPF Housing Grant of up to $80,000, in addition to the generous subsidies in the new flat price, or total grants of up to $160,000 if they choose to buy a resale flat. They can use the grants, as well as their CPF and cash savings, to pay for their flat purchase, before taking up a housing loan.
These measures are necessary as property loans are long-term commitments and often a household's largest liability. The higher floor rates and lower LTV limit ensure that today's borrowers take loans that reflect the likelihood of rising interest rates and avoid overstretching themselves.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Designated Areas for Delivery Riders at Buildings and Malls","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"42 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for National Development whether the scope of the Building and Construction Authority's Accessibility Fund can be extended to encourage more buildings and malls to construct a safe and conducive designated area for delivery riders to collect and drop off their deliveries.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Building and Construction Authority (BCA)'s Accessibility Fund encourages private building owners to make their buildings more accessible and inclusive for different user groups, such as persons with disability and seniors, by providing funding support as they undertake voluntary upgrading work. It co-funds up to 80% of the construction cost of basic accessibility features, such as ramps, lifts and accessible toilets, and up to 60% of the construction cost of Universal Design features, including elderly-friendly and family-friendly facilities.
The Accessibility Fund is not intended to promote commercial activities, such as the delivery of goods.
Instead, to facilitate deliveries, the Land Transport Authority (LTA)'s Code of Practice on Vehicle Parking Provisions encourages building owners to allow despatch drivers to use existing loading/unloading bays. Agencies are working with industry stakeholders to address parking challenges for delivery riders and develop best practices to facilitate safe and efficient delivery pick-ups at commercial malls.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Warnings from Law Enforcement Agencies and Acquittals in Criminal Cases on Migrant Workers' Ability to Work in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"43 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Manpower whether migrant workers who have received warnings from law enforcement agencies or have been acquitted in criminal cases are automatically barred from working in Singapore.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) puts the law and order of Singapore first and foremost. This must prevail over the interest of the foreign work pass holder to remain in Singapore. While foreign work pass holders who have received warnings from law enforcement agencies or have been acquitted in criminal cases are not automatically barred from working in Singapore, MOM would have to consider the circumstances and seriousness of his actions that resulted in a warning, or acquittal for the foreign work pass holder, when making its decision.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Utilisation of Open Space Car Parks in HDB Estates and Conversion of Those Underused to Communal Areas","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"44 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry is reviewing the utilisation rate of open space car parks in HDB estates; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider partially converting those with lower utilisation to communal initiatives, like wellness and care facilities for seniors.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) monitors the utilisation rate of HDB car parks to ensure that there is a good balance between providing season parking lots for residents and having sufficient capacity for short-term or visitor parking. Parking utilisation rates vary across car parks as these are dependent on various factors, such as the flat mix, profile of residents and the number of visitors to the estate.
For car parks where parking utilisation is lower, HDB will consider repurposing them for other uses, subject to factors, such as technical feasibility, proximity to residential blocks, configuration of the car park, impact to the traffic circulation and an assessment of the potential disamenities to residents. Following such studies, HDB has converted the upper levels of some Multi-Story Car Parks (MSCPs) for urban farming and social communal facilities.
Should the Member have any specific car park in mind, she can surface a request to HDB for consideration.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Vacancies at Healthcare Institutions Created by Employees Returning to Aviation Sector","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"46 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry will consider making permanent the role of Care Ambassadors in our healthcare institutions that was previously filled by aviation crew from the Singapore Airlines Group; (b) whether the 900 or so vacancies left by the departure of these crew members has been filled and, if so, how has the Ministry facilitated the filling of these vacancies; and (c) if not, why not.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: This response will also address the question filed by Mr Louis Ng which is scheduled for the Sitting on 9 November 2022. [Please refer to \"Government Expenditure in Support of Hospitals' Care Ambassador Positions Filled by Aviation Flight Crew\", Official Report, 9 November 2022, Vol 95, Issue 75, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
Aviation crews were temporarily redeployed to augment healthcare manpower as Care Ambassadors amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government had supported up to 90% of the salaries of the redeployed aviation crew at about $16 million in total. This was funded through the Jobs Support Scheme, Aviation Workforce Retention Grant and direct funding from the Ministry of Health (MOH).
To leverage their experience in service excellence, a unique combination of tasks was put together for the Care Ambassadors. Hence, the Care Ambassadors took up tasks in administration, service operations and support care, such as assisting patients with activities of daily living.
The Care Ambassadors provided a short-term manpower boost to allow our nurses and other healthcare staff to focus on more complex clinical and care-related work at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. We greatly appreciate the 900-aviation crew who stepped forward at various points in time across the past two years to support our healthcare workers. We are happy that most of them have since returned to resume their careers in the aviation sector.
It is worthwhile making these roles permanent through job redesign. In fact, the admin and support care tasks performed by the aviation crew are performed by existing healthcare staff, such as Patient Service Associates and Patient Care Assistants, but there is a limit to how many we can recruit. MOH is thus working with the public healthcare institutions to further redesign healthcare support roles, including blending clinical support, administrative and operations responsibilities on a more permanent basis.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Funding of Tree Pruning Works Aimed at Modifying Habitats of Wild Birds","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"47 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for National Development how are works undertaken by Town Councils in HDB estates to prune trees with a view to reducing or modifying the habitats of wild birds at the request of NParks, which bears the responsibility for the management of wild bird populations, funded.
Mr Desmond Lee: Town Councils are responsible for managing the common property within the Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates, including the maintenance of greenery. To support Town Councils on their greenery management efforts, the National Parks Board (NParks) shares best practices and guidelines with them. This includes advice on how to reduce bird-related disamenities to residents, by pruning trees to discourage roosting, or planting species that are less attractive to birds such as mynas and crows.
To meet such operational responsibilities, TCs can make use of their operating fund. NParks will continue to support TCs with advice on their greenery maintenance efforts. We will also continue to mitigate pest bird-related issues through our community- and science-based approach, which comprises measures such as food source reduction, public education on the negative impact of illegal bird-feeding and enforcement against such acts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Contamination Rate of Recyclable Waste After Adoption of New Blue Recycling Bins","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"49 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) apart from improving the productivity and efficiency of recyclable items collected, whether NEA has conducted any studies to understand if the contamination rate of recyclable waste has indeed been reduced with the adoption of the new side-loader truck blue recycling bins; and (b) whether NEA will consider increasing the collection frequency of recyclables from the blue recycling bins in HDB estates and private landed properties.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Since April 2020, the frequency of recyclables collection for the regular 660-litre recycling bins at the Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates has been increased from one time to at least three times weekly. Side-loading recycling bins with about three times the usual capacity have also been introduced in estates where space allows, with a collection frequency of once a week due to its larger capacity. Recyclables are collected from private landed properties on a weekly basis. We are working with the Public Waste Collectors to deploy resources to collect recyclables more frequently from locations with a higher recycling rate.
The introduction of the side-loading recycling bins was meant to increase bin capacity and improve manpower productivity rather than to reduce contamination rates. We continue to face challenges with the contamination of the recyclables collected in both the regular 660-litre recycling bins and the side-loading recycling bins. Items containing food or liquid waste are sometimes disposed of in recycling bins. Non-recyclable items, such as soft toys and clothing, are also sometimes found in recycling bins. The National Environment Agency (NEA) launched the Recycle Right Campaign and introduced user-friendly educational content to encourage the community to cultivate the right recycling habits. I encourage everyone to do their part and recycle right.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Randomised Balloting Process for HDB BTO Flats for First-time Applicants","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"50 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for National Development (a) how is the ballot process for first-time applicants of a HDB BTO flat randomised; and (b) how does the ballot algorithm factor in the various parameters of household status, ethnic integration quota and all other priority schemes.
Mr Desmond Lee: To ensure that the shortlisting of eligible Build-To-Order (BTO) flat applicants is impartially and efficiently done, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) uses computerised balloting.
Firstly, the computer ballot randomly shortlists BTO applicants who qualify for priority schemes that do not differentiate between first-timers (FTs) and second-timers (STs). Such priority schemes include the Third Child Priority Scheme and the Tenants' Priority Scheme.
Secondly, the computer ballot randomly shortlists BTO applicants who qualify for priority schemes that differentiate between FTs and STs. Priority schemes that apply to FTs include the Parenthood Priority Scheme, while priority schemes that apply to STs include the Assistance Scheme for STs (Divorced/ Widowed Parents). Priority schemes that apply to both FTs and STs, but have differing quotas for FTs and STs, include the Married Child Priority Scheme.
Lastly, the computer ballot randomly shortlists the rest of the BTO applicants according to the remaining allocation quotas available for FTs and STs. The computer ballot also adheres to the Ethnic Integration Policy quotas throughout the process of shortlisting BTO applicants to be queued within the flat supply. BTO applicants shortlisted within the flat supply are subject to a random assignment of queue positions for flat selection.
Every computer ballot is subjected to rigorous audits before and after the shortlisting process by both internal and external auditors. These include audits on the ballot algorithms and verification of the ballot results.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Projects Funded under Singapore Food Story R&D Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment since the launch of the Singapore Food Story R&D Programme in 2019 (a) what are some of the tangible outcomes from the research and development projects funded thus far; and (b) amongst the funded projects, which aspects of nutritional needs are likely to be better fulfilled for our food security with further research and development.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The first grant call for the Singapore Food Story Research & Development (R&D) Programme was awarded in 2021. The approved projects are being implemented and will take a few years for measurable outcomes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Dispute Resolution Platforms for Tenancies Signed before Set-up of Fair Tenancy Industry Committee's Code of Conduct for Retail Leases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"52 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) in instances whereby tenancy agreements are signed prior to the setting up of the Fair Tenancy Industry Committee's Code of Conduct for Leasing of Retail Premises in Singapore, what avenues for advice and assistance are available for small businesses concerned about unfair tenancy terms being invoked against them, especially when these terms are invoked unexpectedly and potentially causing their business to shut down; and (b) what dispute resolution platforms exist for such instances.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Code of Conduct for Leasing of Retail Premises in Singapore was introduced by the Fair Tenancy Pro Tem Committee in March 2021 to enable fairer and more balanced retail lease negotiations.
The Code cannot be applied retroactively to existing contracts. Tenants who think that their lease agreements contain unfair terms may wish to seek recourse through mediation and other legal channels. We encourage landlords to act fairly towards their tenants.
Going forward, the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) will introduce legislation to make compliance with the Code mandatory for new and renewed qualifying retail leases. This will include a dispute resolution framework involving mediation and adjudication services for complaints of non-compliance. Ahead of the legislation, the Code is presently adopted voluntarily by all Government landlords and nine major private landlords.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Take-up of Buy Now Pay Later Services among Those Aged 21 and Below","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Prime Minister (a) whether MAS has data on how prevalent is the use of Buy Now Pay Later (BNPL) services among those aged below 21 years old in the past three years; (b) whether there have been cases thus far of such youths being unable to repay their debts incurred via BNPL services; and (c) what have the consequences been in these cases.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): Buy Now Pay Later (BNPL) service providers do not, as a market practice, open accounts for users under 18 years of age. As for BNPL users aged 18 to 21, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) does not have customer and default data.
The existing features of BNPL schemes limit the extent of debt accumulation and the impact of a default for all users, including those below 21 years old. The BNPL Code launched by the industry earlier this month stipulates several measures to achieve this. Users will not be allowed more than $2,000 in outstanding payments unless an additional credit assessment is performed. They will not be allowed further transactions once they miss a payment. Late payment fees are capped, and outstanding amounts will not be subject to compound interest. BNPL service providers have committed to not initiate bankruptcy proceedings against users and consider extending assistance to users who face financial difficulties, by working out mutually acceptable repayment arrangements.
MAS will monitor the industry's implementation of the safeguards set out in the BNPL Code and continue to work with the industry to mitigate the risk of consumer over-indebtedness.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Investigation into Impact on Singaporeans from Global WhatsApp Outage","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"55 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) whether the Ministry monitors and keeps track of how many Singaporeans are affected by the global WhatsApp outage on 25 October 2022; and (b) whether IMDA is investigating the cause of the disruption and considering what prevention measures can be implemented.
Mrs Josephine Teo: This response to Ms Hany Soh's question will also address a related question filed by Mr Murali Pillai1 for a Sitting on or after 9 November 2022.
Users of the messaging platform, WhatsApp, faced issues in sending and receiving messages on 25 October 2022. The outage lasted over an hour and affected users not only in Singapore, but globally across Africa, Asia and Europe. WhatsApp's parent company, Meta, said that the outage was a result of a technical error and has since restored WhatsApp's services.
Singapore does not regulate Internet-based messaging platforms, such as WhatsApp, for quality of service and resilience. These platforms operate in the global market and users in Singapore have access to multiple alternative platforms, as well as to traditional voice calls and SMS services. Businesses would also, as part of good business continuity practice, have multiple avenues of communication with customers. The availability of alternatives would mitigate the impact of the loss of any one service.
The Ministry of Communication and Information (MCI) and Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) will continue to monitor global developments as the digital landscape evolves. If, and when necessary, we will review our policies and regulations to balance our policy objectives of promoting economic growth, preserving social stability and protecting public security in the digital domain.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : To ask the Minister for Communications and Information having regard to the ubiquity of Internet-based instant messaging and calling systems in Singapore and the WhatsApp global outage on 25 October 2022 which affected thousands of local consumers, whether IMDA intends to regulate platforms offering such services at a significant scale to ensure that they adhere to reasonable service standards."],"footNoteQuestions":["55"],"questionNo":"55"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Changes in Average Loan-to-Value Ratio and Percentage of Mortgage Loans Used for Owner-occupied versus Investment Properties since 2008","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"56 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Prime Minister (a) since the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, what have been the changes in the (i) average Loan-To-Value (LTV) ratio and (ii) percentage of mortgage loans being used to finance owner-occupied properties as against investment properties; and (b) in comparison to these changes, what is the Government's current assessment of the risk to a higher LTV ratio through the downside to residential property valuations.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): The average Loan-to-Value (LTV) ratio1 has moderated in recent years, with property values significantly exceeding their loan values. The available data shows that the average LTV ratio increased from 44% to a peak of 54% between 2011 and 2017, before steadily declining to 44% again as of Q2 2022.
The share of mortgage loans for financing owner-occupied properties increased from 74% in 2008 to 79% in 2022. Correspondingly, the share of mortgages for financing investment properties fell from 26% to 21% over the same period.
The low LTV ratio provides financial institutions (FIs) and existing borrowers with a good buffer against falling property valuations. However, with interest rates rising and increased uncertainty on global growth prospects, I urge households to exercise prudence and ensure that they are able to service their debts when taking on long-term financial commitments, including property purchases. To mitigate such risks, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has tightened credit rules over the past year to curtail the loan amount that new borrowers can take out, including a lower Total Debt Servicing Ratio (TDSR) threshold.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : This refers to LTV ratios averaged across outstanding mortgage loans granted by financial institutions."],"footNoteQuestions":["56"],"questionNo":"56"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Persons who Missed Deadline to Re-register for New NRICs due to COVID-19 Pandemic","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"58 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) upon the commencement of the COVID-19 pandemic, how many Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents born before, in or after 1962 missed the one-year deadline to re-register for their new NRICs, thereby forfeiting the option to pay the subsidised fee of $10 or $50 respectively; and (b) whether a one-off extension of time may be provided to these persons having regard to the effect of the pandemic on them.
Mr K Shanmugam: It is compulsory for Singapore Citizens (SCs) and Permanent Residents (PRs) born in or after 1962 to re-register for a new National Registration Identity Card (NRIC) within one year upon turning ages 30 and 55. These compulsory re-registrants will receive a notification letter from the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) to remind them to re-register within a year. Re-registrants are eligible for a subsidised fee of $10 for SCs and $50 for PRs for the issuance of their new NRIC. NRIC holders who re-register beyond the one-year period will be asked for the reason for their late re-registration. However, the subsidised fee will still be extended to them. From January 2020 to December 2021, approximately 9% of compulsory re-registrants missed the one-year deadline to re-register for their new NRIC.
For SCs and PRs born before 1 January 1962, NRIC re-registration is optional. They will receive the notification letter from ICA to notify them that they have the option to re-register within one year at the subsidised fee of $10 for SCs and $50 for PRs. If they miss the one-year window, a higher re-registration fee of $60 will apply. ICA will assess appeals for the subsidised fee on a case-by-case basis. From January 2020 to December 2021, approximately 72% of optional re-registrants did not re-register for their new NRIC.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Free Trade Agreement with Most Trade Benefits and Minimised Imported Costs and Inflationary Pressures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"59 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Trade and Industry which free trade agreement that Singapore has entered into has (i) achieved the most trade benefits so far and (ii) minimised imported costs and inflationary pressures more ably and effectively.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Singapore currently has a network of 27 Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). They have helped our companies access global markets by lowering tariff and non-tariff barriers for Singapore's goods, reducing restrictions for our services sectors and enhancing protection for investments.
It is not meaningful to compare FTAs in terms of which agreement delivered the most benefits, as the extent and types of trade we have with each trading partner are unique and different. Moreover, the FTAs do not have the same coverage and are also entered into at different times.
When new trade partners join our FTA network, the value of our existing FTAs increases as the benefits will apply to a larger market. Singapore's attractiveness as a trade and investment hub will also be enhanced.
From 2016 to 2021, our total tariff savings from FTAs almost doubled from S$700 million to S$1.3 billion. Over the same period, domestic exports to our FTA partners grew by 26%, from S$190 billion to S$239 billion. From 2016 to 2020, our stock of direct investments in our FTA partners also increased by about 26% from S$611 billion to S$772 billion.
In addition to tariff savings, improved efficiency from trade facilitation through FTAs has helped reduce business costs and import costs for goods and services exported from and imported into Singapore. Apart from FTAs, we are continuing to diversify the sources of our daily necessities through trade with our FTA partners. Maintaining a strong Singapore dollar is also helping to dampen imported inflation. In addition, the Government has rolled out a series of support packages and measures to help households and businesses cope with higher prices during this challenging period, with more support for those with greater needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Last Review on Bottom-end of Marginal Resident Personal Income Tax Rates and Need to Increase Tax-free Threshold","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) when was the last review conducted on the bottom-end of marginal resident personal income tax rates; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider the need to increase the tax-free threshold for the first $20,000 of chargeable income to reflect inflation over time.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Under our personal income tax (PIT) regime, the first $20,000 of a tax resident individual's chargeable income is not taxed. Chargeable income refers to taxable income after netting off tax deductions and PIT reliefs.
This $20,000 threshold, together with our progressive tax rates, tax reliefs and tax rebate, results in half the workers in Singapore not needing to pay any PIT currently. Among the individuals who do pay PIT, 80% of them have an effective tax rate of less than 4%. The top 10% of our PIT-paying taxpayers pay the vast majority of PIT collected each year.
The Government has been reviewing our taxes and transfers system periodically. We will continue to do so to ensure that our PIT regime remains competitive, fiscally resilient and progressive.
To mitigate the impact of inflation on Singaporeans, especially those with greater needs, the Singapore Government has provided direct support measures, such as the recently announced one-off Cost-of-Living Special Payment and additional Community Development Council Vouchers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Development of SAF Digital and Intelligence Service","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Defence (a) whether he can provide an update on the development of the SAF Digital and Intelligence Service (DIS); and (b) how DIS is fortifying Singapore's digital intelligence capability to help fight against cyber military warfare and protect our country amidst cross-jurisdictional cyberthreats.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: The establishment of the Digital and Intelligence Service (DIS) represents another milestone in Singapore Armed Forces (SAF)'s continuing transformation, to better protect Singapore against evolving and emerging security threats. In particular, from many recent examples including the war in Ukraine, it is clear that the nature of aggression against another country by state and non-state actors has changed, and can involve multiple fronts on air, land, sea and digital domains. Termed “hybrid operations”, these acts of aggression can take place even in peacetime.
In this context, the DIS complements the existing services of Army, Navy and Air Force to jointly and comprehensively protect Singapore's sovereignty and interests. However, some missions will be predominantly undertaken by the DIS, namely, to provide accurate, relevant and timely early warning and operational intelligence, ensure the connectivity of the SAF to operate as a networked force, Cyber and Electronic defence of the SAF's electronic networks and systems and strengthen the psychological resilience of soldiers and the SAF.
Nationally, the DIS will also work with other Governmental agencies to provide digital and cyber defence for Singapore.
The DIS was officially inaugurated by the President on 28 October 2022. Senior leaders of the DIS, led by the Chief of DIS, have been appointed. Organisational structures, manpower and capabilities are now being streamlined and built up to be able to meet their mission outcomes. Specifically, operational commands have been stood up. To raise, train and sustain their digital and intelligence workforce, recruitment and development efforts are being expanded and enhanced. A Digital Ops-Tech Centre and Digital Ranges are being built to enhance capabilities through better training and simulation facilities. The DIS is expected to double its size by 2030.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enhancing ScamShield with Improved Anti-scam Measures and Accessibility to Vulnerable Groups","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the ScamShield mobile app is still relevant since telcos will be required to implement anti-scam filters; (b) whether ScamShield will be enhanced to improve anti-scam measures; (c) how will the Government increase the download rate of ScamShield among vulnerable groups; and (d) whether grants will be offered to businesses using SMS sender IDs and who have financial hardship to offset costs for registering with the Singapore SMS Sender ID Registry.
Mr K Shanmugam: The ScamShield mobile application was launched as part of the Government's multi-pronged approach to identify and block scam calls and SMSes. The iOS and Android versions were launched in November 2020 and September 2022 respectively. As of October 2022, about 6.5 million SMSes had been flagged to users as potential scams and about 12,900 unique scam-tainted phone numbers have been blacklisted and blocked by ScamShield.
Telecommunication companies have started implementing additional anti-scam filters for their networks. These filters scan for patterns and malicious URL hyperlinks to identify and block scam SMSes.
Nonetheless, ScamShield remains useful. It is an additional layer of defence. ScamShield also provides additional protection by blocking calls from blacklisted numbers. In addition, ScamShield has a reporting function to allow users to alert the authorities about the scam messages and calls they receive.
The National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) and Open Government Products are studying ways to enhance ScamShield. One area they are studying is to make it easier for users to report potential scams.
The Police work closely with stakeholders to encourage the download of ScamShield. For example, the Police regularly share crime information, including scam prevention advice, with Residents' Committees and grassroots volunteers, so that in turn, they can engage their residents about scams via their own outreach platforms. Senior citizens are encouraged to download ScamShield during these sessions. Volunteer Crime Prevention Ambassadors from the NCPC also share about ScamShield with residents, including senior citizens, during their engagements. Additionally, the Police have been pushing out publicity on the ScamShield application at various platforms, such as MRT stations and bus stops.
The Singapore SMS Sender ID Registry (SSIR) was introduced in March 2022 to further strengthen our defences against scam SMSes. The SSIR works with SMS aggregators to block messages attempting to spoof the Sender IDs of organisations which have registered with the SSIR.
From 31 January 2023, the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) will transition from a voluntary to mandatory SSIR regime. All organisations which wish to use Sender IDs will be required to register their IDs with the SSIR. This transition will take place over six months, after which, all unregistered SMS Sender IDs will be blocked.
Businesses are encouraged to register their Sender IDs with the SSIR as soon as possible. To ensure that registration with the SSIR remains affordable for smaller organisations, IMDA has adjusted registration fees, from $1,000 for one bundle of up to 10 Sender IDs, to $200 for each Sender ID. This will reduce costs for smaller businesses, which typically use only one or two Sender IDs. More details are available at https://sgnic.sg/smsregistry/overview.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mandating Use of Fire-rated Glass for Windows of High-rise Buildings and HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether HDB can consider using fire-rated glass for windows of high-rise HDB flats, to prevent glass shatter from height in the event of fire.
5 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether fire-rated glass can be mandated for use in the windows of high-rise buildings or HDB flats, to prevent glass shatter from height in the event of fire.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Fire Code regulates the fire rating of glass when it is used for building features that compartmentalise spaces to prevent fire spread, for example, glass doors and interior glass partitions.
On the other hand, windows are generally not building features that compartmentalise spaces, nor have they been a safety risk during fires. Fire incident sites are usually cordoned off, so that any glass debris would not hurt the public and there have not been related injuries based on Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF)'s records. Hence, the Fire Code does not mandate the use of fire-rated glass for windows of high-rise buildings, including Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impounding Passports of Ex-inmates Released from Prison","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether law enforcement agencies are empowered to impound the passports of ex-inmates who have been released from prison; (b) if so, pursuant to which laws and under what circumstances; and (c) what are the factors which will be considered when such a person applies to law enforcement agencies for the release of his or her passport.
Mr K Shanmugam: Law enforcement agencies (LEA) may impound the passport of individuals to facilitate investigations if there are reasonable grounds to believe the individual has committed an offence. This is pursuant to section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
An individual's passport may also be impounded as a condition of bail or personal bond, pursuant to section 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
LEAs also have the powers to impound passports for the purposes of recovery of duties or taxes owed pursuant to provisions under relevant Acts, such as the Stamp Duties Act, Income Tax Act and the Goods and Services Tax Act.
The conditions above apply regardless of whether an individual was previously incarcerated.
LEAs will consider applications for the release of an impounded passport on a case-by-case basis.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mean and Median Time between Arrest for Capital Offence and Access to Counsel Given","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Home Affairs for each of the past five years, what is the mean and median time that has elapsed between a person being arrested for a capital offence and being given access to counsel.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Home Team does not track data relating to the time between a person's arrest and when he/she is given access to counsel.
The Constitution ensures that accused persons have right of access to counsel. The Courts have upheld that this access to counsel must be granted after a \"reasonable time\". What constitutes \"reasonable\" depends on the individual facts of each case, balancing the accused's right to legal representation, and the public interest in ensuring thorough and objective investigations. We have to give our law enforcement agencies reasonable time to obtain evidence and get to the truth.
At the same time, we have put in place measures to safeguard the interests of accused persons.
We have implemented video recording of interviews (VRI) for certain categories of crime, to strengthen the robustness of investigations and statement taking. VRI provides an objective account of the interview and allows the Courts to factor in the interviewee's demeanour when determining the weight to be accorded to the interviewee's statement.
We have also set up the Public Defender's Office, to render criminal legal aid to eligible persons charged with non-capital criminal offences but are unable to afford legal representation. This complements the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS), run by the Law Society, and the Legal Assistance Scheme for Capital Offences (LASCO) run by the Supreme Court.
Ultimately, our criminal justice system is designed to enable us to get to the truth, in the interests of society. Arrested persons should tell the truth in their statements, regardless of whether they have had access to counsel, and we expect that their counsel will advise them to tell the truth. Likewise, the law enforcement agencies will fairly and objectively investigate the case, including exculpating the arrested persons if the investigations do not bear out the grounds of arrest.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Staff Turnover Rate amongst White-collar Crime Investigation Officers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the staff turnover rate amongst white-collar crime investigation officers (IOs) in the Singapore Police Force, including the Commercial Affairs Department, in the past five years; (b) of the rate, what is the split attributable to IOs resigning and retiring respectively; and (c) what percentage of retired IOs are re-employed to continue investigating white collar crime cases for the same period.
Mr K Shanmugam: The average turnover rate of white-collar crime Investigation Officers (IOs) in the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) over the past five years was 6%. Of these, 94% resigned from service, while 6% were retiring officers, half of whom were re-employed with the CAD.
The Police invests heavily in the training and development of these IOs. They are sent for specialised training conducted by the Home Team School of Criminal Investigation (HTSCI) to deepen capabilities to address complex cases. They also have the opportunity to go on external postings to gain exposure and may be sponsored for professional accreditation. The skills and experience of the IOs are highly sought after in the financial sector.
To attract and retain the IOs, the compensation package is regularly reviewed to remain market competitive. In the recently completed review, officers in the Home Affairs Uniformed Services (HUS) and the Commercial Affairs Scheme will receive a salary adjustment of between 3% and 10% with effect from 1 January 2023. At the same time, the Police constantly looks at ways to enable the IOs to better manage their heavy caseload, like the introduction of the Digital Forensic Kiosk, which allows officers to efficiently retrieve and analyse information in the mobile digital devices of persons under investigation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Bringing Forward Decision to Increase Home Team Officers' Retirement Age to 58 by 2030","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Home Affairs having regard to the manpower crunch that the Home Team faces, whether the decision to increase the Home Team officers' retirement age to 58 by 2030 may be brought forward and adjusted accordingly.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Home Affairs Uniformed Services (HUS) officers' retirement age was raised from 55 to 56 on 1 July 2021. It will be raised progressively to 58 by 2030.
This phased approach is to manage the impact on future hiring, the availability of posts and organisational renewal. Because of the nature of the work and the deep training required, our uniformed services have a pure-build workforce model, and most officers remain in service until retirement. A steady inflow and outflow of manpower is needed each year to meet operational demands and to build a sustainable pipeline of leaders and specialists. Raising the retirement age progressively allows the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to manage smoothly the changes to the manpower flow, to avoid bottlenecks at various levels of the organisation. Where necessary for operational needs, MHA will offer re-employment to officers who meet eligibility criteria, which includes physical fitness.
Recognising that manpower is a constraint, MHA had started to transform our concept of operations since 2015. We have invested heavily in technology to enhance our operational effectiveness and productivity. For example, the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) has been using video analytics to pick up abnormal behaviour in prison cells. The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) has increased the usage of automated clearance facilities by travellers. The Smart Fire Station in Punggol uses sensors and automation to help with manpower management, operational response and decision making. Artificial intelligence (AI) is applied to help Police officers analyse the high volumes of footage from the Singapore Police Force (SPF)'s camera network.
In addition, MHA has rallied community and industry stakeholders to help us deliver our mission.
That said, technology and community partnership can mitigate the manpower pressures only to some extent, and we will still need an appropriately-sized force to be able to continue keeping Singapore safe and secure.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Share of Violent Offences Committed by Juveniles and Gang-related from 2000 to 2020","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Home Affairs from 2000 to 2020, what are the statistics for the share of violent offences that are (i) committed by juveniles and (ii) gang-related.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Police define violent offences as the commission of: (i) rioting-related offences under sections 146 to 148 of the Penal Code; and (ii) serious hurt offences under section 323A and sections 324 to 326 of the Penal Code.
Table 1 shows the statistics for 2009 to 2021. The number of violent offences has been on a general decline since 2009. The percentage of violent offences committed by juveniles has fallen, although it rose in 2021 as compared to recent years. The percentage of violent offences that were gang-related has hovered around 15% to 25%.
The profile of persons involved in the commission of violent offences was not tracked prior to 2009.
11 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Home Affairs for the years 2010, 2015 and 2020 to 2022 (to date), what is the average number of fines that are issued each year for the failure to wear seat belts in the (i) front seat and (ii) rear passenger seats of motor vehicles.
Mr K Shanmugam: For 2010, 2015, and 2020 to 2022 until 30 September 2022, there was an average of about 2,639 fines, which were composition sums offered by the Traffic Police, and fines imposed by the Court, issued per year for the offence of failing to wear seat belts. We do not track if the persons were seated at the front or the rear of the vehicle.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Avoid Technical Recession and Help for Companies in High Interest Rate and Inflationary Environment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in light of the drop in Singapore's purchasing managers' index from August to September 2022 (a) what measures will the Ministry put in place to avoid a technical recession; and (b) how is the Government helping Singapore companies in a high interest rate and inflationary environment.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Weakening growth around the world amidst protracted supply disruptions and synchronised monetary policy tightening have led to a decline in Singapore's manufacturing Purchasing Managers' Index, or PMI, since May 2022. Similarly, growth in manufacturing output, as proxied by the Industrial Production Index (IPI), has slowed in recent months.
Notwithstanding the slowdown in the manufacturing sector, advance estimates show that the Singapore economy grew by 4.4% on a year-on-year basis in the third quarter of 2022, extending the 4.5% growth in the previous quarter. Growth was supported in part by the recovery in tourism-related and consumer-facing sectors. While growth is projected to slow in the fourth quarter of the year due to weaker external demand, the economy remains on track to grow by 3% to 4% for 2022 as a whole. For 2023, growth is likely to slow further in tandem with the global economy.
Singapore is an open economy. If major markets experience protracted or sharp slowdowns, we may not be able to avoid a recession. The Government will support our companies to better withstand the storm and emerge stronger. For example, to alleviate businesses' cashflow constraints, we have increased the maximum loan quanta of the Enterprise Financing Scheme (EFS)-Working Capital Loan and EFS-Trade Loan to $500,000 and $10 million respectively, up from $300,000 and $5 million respectively.
We have also stepped up our efforts to raise productivity, build capabilities and transform our businesses to seize new opportunities. This is the only sustainable way for businesses to maintain a competitive edge in the global economy. Over the next four years, the Government has set aside $600 million to scale up the Productivity Solutions Grant to support more than 100,000 projects. We also enhanced the SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit of up to $10,000 per company to embark on both workforce and enterprise transformation in tandem. Companies requiring more customised help can continue to tap on the Enterprise Development Grant, as well as other grants offered by our economic agencies for purposes like training and resource efficiency.
We will also press on with our Manufacturing 2030 journey to position Singapore as a global business, innovation, and talent hub for advanced manufacturing. This is done through a three-pronged strategy. First, to attract frontier investments, we are strengthening our ecosystem to make Singapore the top choice for investors. Second, we are supporting promising local enterprises to adopt Industry 4.0 technologies, pursue internationalisation and embrace innovation. Third, we are strengthening the pipeline of skilled local talent, by partnering employers to develop structured career progression pathways, working with our Institutes of Higher Learning on skills development, and supporting the skills upgrading of older workers.
We hope that companies will take full advantage of these schemes to strengthen themselves, transform their business, upskill their workers and stay competitive.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ways to Meet Greenhouse Gas Emissions Targets While Continuing as International Financial and Economic Hub","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Trade and Industry how does Singapore intend to meet its greenhouse gas emissions targets while continuing to be an international financial and economic hub.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: This question was addressed in the reply to Questions Nos 32 and 33 on the Order Paper for 7 November 2022. [Please refer to \"Support for Development of Green Local Firms and Uptake of Enterprise Sustainability Programme\", Official Report, 7 November 2022, Vol 95, Issue 73, 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":"Singapore's Target to Peak Emissions at 65 MtCO2e","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment given the revised National Determined Contribution 2030 (a) whether Singapore is still anticipating peak emissions at 65 MtCO2e; and (b) when is the peak expected to take place.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: This question has been addressed in my reply to Prof Koh Lian Pin for Question No 1 for Oral Answer on the Order Paper for 8 November 2022.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Allowing More Students with Moderate-to-severe Hearing Loss to Learn Alongside Those With No Hearing Loss","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Education whether a larger number of students with moderate-to-severe hearing loss can learn alongside students who do not have hearing loss to promote an inclusive educational learning environment.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: As at May 2022, over 90% of students diagnosed by hospitals to have hearing loss, including those with moderate-to-severe hearing loss, are enrolled in our mainstream schools and learn alongside their peers.
The students' learning in mainstream schools is enabled by Frequency Modulation systems provided by the Ministry of Education (MOE) where needed. Students may also receive itinerant school-based educational support services provided by The Singapore Association for the Deaf to help them adapt to and access learning better.
Students may also learn alongside their peers in designated mainstream schools, which are resourced with staff trained to support them. Students who use the oracy approach can attend St Anthony's Canossian Secondary School or Outram Secondary School. Students who use Singapore Sign Language (SgSL) can attend the MOE Kindergarten @ Mayflower Primary School (MK@MF), Mayflower Primary School and Beatty Secondary School where they learn SgSL, as well as English Language and are supported by teachers and instructors who use SgSL.
A small number of students who require additional support are enrolled in Special Education schools, either at Lighthouse School, or at Canossian School, where students take most of their lessons together with peers at Canossa Catholic Primary School.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Streaming of Students in Uplifting Pupils in Life and Inspiring Families' Taskforce Programme at PSLE","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Education (a) for each year in the past three years, what percentage of students in the Uplifting Pupils in Life and Inspiring Families Taskforce programme are streamed into (i) Normal (Technical) (ii) Normal (Academic) and (iii) Express standards following their PSLE; and (b) if this data is not available, whether the Ministry intends to collect it.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: UPLIFT (Uplifting Pupils in Life and Inspiring Families Taskforce) is a multi-agency initiative led by the Ministry of Education (MOE) to enhance upstream wraparound support for underperforming students from disadvantaged backgrounds.
The UPLIFT Community Network programme was piloted from 2020 and has expanded to cover about 900 students in 2022. This includes 45 Primary 6 students who took their Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) in 2020 and 2021. While 85% took at least one Foundation subject, 11% qualified for the Express Course, 20% for the Normal Academic course, 63% for the Normal Technical course and 6% repeated Primary 6.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Median and Average Monthly Income of Single Unwed Parents in Past Four Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in the past four years, what has been the annual median and average monthly income of single unwed parents (i) below 35 years old (ii) between 35 and 36 years old and (iii) 36 years old and above, respectively.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The average monthly income for citizen mothers with non-marital births, which we have computed by dividing annual income from work by 12, has increased over the years. For those below 35 years old, it rose from $1,800 in 2017 to $2,500 in 2020. For those aged 35 and older, it rose from $5,600 in 2017 to $5,900 in 2020. Similarly, the median for those below 35 years old rose from $600 in 2017 to $700 in 2020, whereas for those 35 years old and above, it remains at $3,400. The data for 2021 is not yet available.
Incomes for those below 35 years old is lower as they also include young mothers who may work in part-time jobs, or only for a few months of the year. Wage information for the single age band of 35 to 36 years is not available due to small population size.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Total Arrears Owed by Patients in Restructured Hospitals Each Year Since 2011","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Health in each year since 2011 (a) what is the total arrears owed by patients in restructured hospitals; (b) what is the amount of arrears that has been written off as bad debt; and (c) what is the percentage of patients who default on their bills.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Between 2018 and 2021, the annual net new arrears incurred by patients and write-offs at the restructured hospitals were around 2.5% and 0.8% of total bills issued respectively. About $50 million to $70 million of bad debts were written off every year, mainly incurred by patients with financial difficulties. Data prior to 2018 is not readily available.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Projected Increases in Hospital Beds at Private and Public Hospitals in Next Five and 10 Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the projected increases in the number of hospital beds at private and public hospitals in the next five and 10 years respectively; and (b) how do these projections compare to the changes in the number of hospital beds at private and public hospitals five and 10 years ago.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: This question has been addressed in my reply to Question Nos 2 to 10 for Oral Answer on the Order Paper for 8 November 2022.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proportion of HDB Resale and BTO Flat Transactions by Singaporeans and PRs from 2010","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for National Development in each year from 2010 to 2022, what is the proportion of HDB resale and BTO flat transactions where (i) all applicants are Singapore Citizens (ii) at least one applicant is a Permanent Resident and (iii) all applicants are Permanent Residents respectively.
Mr Desmond Lee: Public housing in Singapore primarily caters to the housing needs of Singaporeans. Subsidised Build-To-Order (BTO) flats can only be purchased by households with at least one Singapore Citizen (SC). This means that the main applicant must be an SC and his/her co-applicants, if any, must be SCs or Singapore Permanent Residents (SPRs). This extends to first-timer households applying for a Central Provident Fund (CPF) Housing Grant when purchasing a resale flat. SPR households are allowed to purchase resale flats without housing grants, but they must have been SPRs for at least three years.
In each of the last ten years, between 2011 and 2021:
(a)\tBetween 84% and 90% of all BTO flats booked were by households where all applicants were SCs. The remainder of between 10% and 16% of the BTO flats were booked by households with SCs and SPRs.
(b)\tBetween 65% and 83% of the resale flats bought were by households where all applicants were SCs, and the percentage generally increased across the years. The remainder of between 17% and 35% of the resale flats bought were by households where at least one applicant was an SPR. The share of resale flats bought by SPR households fell from about 27% in 2011 to 7% in 2021. This could be attributed to the implementation of the condition in 2013 that SPR households are required to wait three years from the date of obtaining SPR status before they can purchase a resale flat.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Help for Senior Citizens to Apply for BTO Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for National Development how HDB is helping senior citizens apply for BTO flats as second-timers so as to find a flat more suitable to their needs.
22 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for National Development how HDB is helping senior citizens who do not have the financial means to afford resale flats, to secure a BTO flat.
23 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for National Development for seniors aged 65 and above who applied for 2-room flexi flats in HDB's Build-To-Order and Sale of Balance Flats exercises in 2022 (a) what percentage of these seniors are applying for HDB flats for a second time or more; and (b) how many of them have been unable to secure a flat for their right-sizing needs.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) offers various housing options to cater to seniors' needs and has measures in place to ensure that public housing remains affordable and accessible to seniors.
Eligible seniors aged 55 and older can purchase a 2-room Flexi flat on a short-lease from HDB, regardless of the number of housing subsidies they have enjoyed previously. In each Build-To-Order (BTO) project with 2-room Flexi flats, at least 40% or 100 units of such flats, whichever is higher, is set aside for seniors. In addition, of these flats, half are set aside for eligible seniors who wish to buy a 2-room Flexi flat to age-in-place or live near their parents or married child under the Senior Priority Scheme.
In 2022, about 6,500 seniors aged 55 and older applied for 2-room Flexi flats in HDB's BTO and Sale of Balance Flats (SBF) exercises. Among them, about 5,200, or around 80%, had taken one or more housing subsidies before. About 2,000, or around 30%, were unsuccessful in their flat applications, with the majority of such applicants applying for a flat in the SBF exercises, where there is limited supply and high demand. Seniors are encouraged to consider applying to BTO projects with lower application rates for a better chance of securing a flat.
For seniors who wish to live in the same precinct as their married child for mutual care and support, HDB offers the Multi-Generation Priority Scheme, which sets aside up to 15% of 2-room Flexi or 3-room flats for eligible seniors. HDB also offers 3Gen flats to facilitate multi-generation living under one roof, and Community Care Apartments (CCA) that integrate housing with care services to support seniors to age-in-place. We will be launching our second CCA pilot at Queenstown in the upcoming November sales exercise.
For seniors looking to right-size, HDB provides the Silver Housing Bonus of up to $30,000 in cash, or the deferment of downpayment until key collection. HDB also holds frequent public outreach programmes to raise awareness of the various options and schemes available for seniors.
Seniors who require further assistance may approach HDB.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"HDB Flats Purchased in Last Five Years by Those Previously Residing in Private Properties","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many HDB flats purchased in each of the last five years are made by those who were previously residing in private properties; (b) what is the average price of these transactions; and (c) for those who paid cash-over-valuation (COV), what has been the average COV paid.
Mr Desmond Lee: In the last five years from 2017 to 2021, the proportion of resale flats in each year bought by buyers who were private property owners was about 7% to 11% of the total resale transactions registered. This includes those who had sold their private property up to 15 months before their resale flat application. As mentioned in the combined reply to Mr Alex Yam Ziming, Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin and Mr Saktiandi Supaat for the 20 October 2022 Sitting, this number has doubled in 2021 and the first three quarters of 2022, as compared to 2019 and 2020.
The median resale prices for transactions in 2017 to 2021 that involved buyers who were private property owners are tabulated below. The median cash-over-valuation (COV) for such buyers who paid a COV over the last five years ranged from $14,800 to $30,000.
25 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for National Development for each year since 2012 (a) what is the average waiting time for applicants of HDB rental flats under the Public Rental Scheme by ethnic group; (b) what is the breakdown of HDB rental flat residents by ethnic group; and (c) what is the percentage of HDB rental flat blocks where the ethnic limits at the block level have been reached.
Mr Desmond Lee: The current average waiting time for a public rental flat is about seven months for Chinese applicants, eight months for Malay applicants and seven months for Indian/Other applicants. This is comparable to the waiting time in 2012 at six months, eight months and seven months for the respective ethnic groups.
Currently, of about 51,900 public rental tenants, 51% are Chinese, 35% are Malays and 14% are Indian/Others. In 2012, of about 47,900 public rental tenants, 61% were Chinese, 27% were Malay and 13% were Indian/Others.
Currently, about 70% of the Housing and Development Board (HDB)'s public rental blocks have reached the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) block limit for at least one ethnic group, compared to about 60% in 2012. Where needed, HDB exercises administrative flexibility within reasonable bounds to allocate public rental flats to low-income households who have no other housing options and avoid prolonging the waiting time for them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Complaints Received on Residential Rental Discrimination by Age or Race","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry collects data on the number of complaints received on residential rental discrimination by age or race; (b) if so, what has been the annual number for the last five years; and (c) what are the avenues of recourse for Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans when they encounter rental discrimination.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) does not collect and monitor data on complaints received on residential rental discrimination by age or race, as the rental of residential properties in the open market is a private agreement between the property owner and the tenant. HDB is not a party to the tenancy agreement signed between the landlord and the tenant.
Members of the public can lodge a complaint with the Council for Estate Agencies (CEA) if they come across any potentially offensive or discriminatory advertisements by property agents. CEA's regulatory guidelines require property agents to be sensitive to the multiracial, multi-religious and multicultural nature of Singapore's society. Property agents who fail to comply with these guidelines can be issued a written warning or be subjected to disciplinary action, which may result in financial penalties, suspension or revocation of their licence or registration. Should there be disputes between the flat owners and tenants, the party can seek legal recourse with their own solicitor.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rent Increase Affecting HDB Public Rental Scheme Households","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many HDB Public Rental Scheme households have had a rent increase from 2020 to 2021; (b) how does this number compare with the five years preceding 2020; (c) what has been the lowest, highest and average rent increase in the past five years; (d) whether there is a formula for deriving the increase in relation to changes in tenants' incomes; and (e) since 2012, how many households who progressed from rental housing to home ownership reverted to the Scheme and what is the average length of time in between.
Mr Desmond Lee: In 2021, about 6% of the rental households that renewed their tenancy experienced a rent increase. In the preceding five years – that is, 2016 to 2020 – the corresponding figure was 15%.
From 2017 to 2021, among the households that experienced rent increases, 85% experienced a rent increase of $200 or less. The range of rent increase is from $5 to around $1,000. There were a handful of households that were charged market rents as their financial situation had improved significantly, and they were assessed to be able to afford other housing options but remained in rental housing on an exceptional basis.
Rents are only reviewed during tenancy renewal, once every two to three years. Tenants will not experience any rent increases during their tenancy term, even if their incomes increase. On the other hand, tenants may request for a rent reduction at any time, if their incomes decrease during the tenancy term.
At tenancy renewal, the rent payable is assessed based on a progressively tiered rent structure. Rents may increase only when household incomes cross certain income thresholds and these income thresholds are several hundred dollars apart. Before increasing rents, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) will consider other factors, such as household size, and will ensure that any rent increase is significantly lower than the income increase.
From 2012 to 2021, 38 rental households that moved on to home ownership subsequently moved back into public rental housing, after an average of six years. Over the same period, a total of 7,500 rental households moved on to home ownership.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Development and Land Reclamation Works on and around Pedra Branca","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether he can provide an update on (i) the development and land reclamation work on and around Pedra Branca and (ii) the estimated total cost of these works; and (b) what benefits these works are expected to bring to Singapore.
Mr Desmond Lee: The development and land reclamation works at Pedra Branca, which commenced in September 2021, are for infrastructural upgrades to enable our maritime security agencies to safely and effectively detect and respond to incidents, and carry out search and rescue operations in the area. This will strengthen Singapore's ability to contribute to maritime safety and security in the area as a responsible member of the international community. The works are also needed to improve the safety and conditions for our personnel deployed at Pedra Branca, who perform critical roles in safeguarding maritime safety and security.
The total cost of the works is being reviewed in light of prevailing cost norms.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Requests to Waive Non-citizen Quota for Renting Out HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for National Development in each of the last five years (a) how many requests to waive the non-citizen quota for renting out HDB flats are received; (b) how many of such requests are granted; and (c) which town has the highest number of requests.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Non-Citizen (NC) quota for renting out of flats was implemented to prevent the formation of foreigner enclaves and to maintain the Singaporean character of our Housing and Development Board (HDB) heartlands.
Over the last five years, HDB received an average of around 500 appeals for the waiver of NC quota annually. These appeals were received from across all HDB towns. Requests for waiver of the NC quota are considered on a case-by-case basis, and around one in five of the appeals received were acceded to.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Outcome of Retirement and Re-employment Disputes Amicably Resolved through Mediation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Manpower from 2016 to 2021, of the 90% of retirement and re-employment disputes that are amicably resolved through a mediation process, what is the number of cases broken down by those that (i) led to re-employment of the individuals concerned (ii) led to their transfer to another employer (iii) received the Employment Assistance Payment and (iv) subsequently withdrew their appeal.
Dr Tan See Leng: From 2016 to 2021, 60% of the retirement and re-employment disputes that were amicably resolved through the mediation process received monetary compensation. These included the Employment Assistance Payment or other forms of ex-gratia or goodwill payments. Ten percent were resolved without monetary compensation and typically involved employers providing the employee with a service testimonial. For the remainder 30% of the cases, the employees withdrew their appeals. There may be cases in which an employer separately offered the employee a job in their company or another company, but we do not track such arrangements.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":5257,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Don Wee","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20221108/vernacular-8 Nov 2022 - Mr Don Wee - Carbon Pricing (Amdt) Bill.pdf","fileName":"8 Nov 2022 - Mr Don Wee - Carbon Pricing (Amdt) Bill.pdf"},{"vernacularID":5258,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mrs Josephine Teo","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20221108/vernacular-8 Nov 2022 - Minister Josephine Teo - Online Safety (Misc Amdt) Bill.pdf","fileName":"8 Nov 2022 - Minister Josephine Teo - Online Safety (Misc Amdt) Bill.pdf"},{"vernacularID":5259,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20221108/vernacular-8 Nov 2022 - Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim - Online Safety (Misc Amdt) Bill.pdf","fileName":"8 Nov 2022 - Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim - Online Safety (Misc Amdt) Bill.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}