The President has on 23 November 2016 concurred with the following resolution on Government Securities, passed by Parliament on 10 November 2016:
[(proc text) \"That this Parliament, in accordance with Article 144(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore and section 11(1) of the Government Securities Act (Chapter 121A of the 2014 Revised Edition), resolves that the Minister for Finance be authorised to borrow, by the issue of Government Securities in Singapore under that Act, a further sum not exceeding Two Hundred Thousand Million Singapore Dollars (S$200,000,000,000), thereby in total a sum not exceeding Six Hundred and Ninety Thousand Million Singapore Dollars (S$690,000,000,000).\" (proc text)]
[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Trade Associations' Roles to Drive Industry Transformation Maps","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"1 Mr Thomas Chua Kee Seng asked\tthe Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) (a) for trade associations which wish to be actively involved to drive the execution of the Industry Transformation Maps, how can they coordinate with the lead Government agencies and be empowered to do so; and (b) for trade associations which want to transform their sectors but do not have an Industry Transformation Map, what specific forms of support can they expect from the Government in the areas of productivity improvement, skills development, innovation and internationalisation.
\tThe Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) (Mr S Iswaran): Madam, I thank the Member for his question and welcome our trade associations and chambers' (TACs') interest to be actively involved in our industry transformation efforts.
Madam, the Government regards our TACs as important partners who are integral to our industry transformation efforts. Industry transformation is a major initiative that requires the commitment of all stakeholders to succeed. In particular, TACs, with their in-depth understanding of the needs and growth opportunities of their respective industries, can support the development of industry-specific strategies. Hence, the Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) are being jointly developed and implemented with industry associations, business chambers, companies as well as unions. And I think the Member would be familiar with that effort.
The 23 ITM sectors, which account for about 80% of our gross domestic product, will be launched by the end of this year. To date, we have launched six ITMs for the retail, hotel, food services, precision engineering, logistics and food manufacturing sectors. Each of these ITMs would be led by one of our economic agencies that include the Economic Development Board, International Enterprise (IE) Singapore, SPRING Singapore and Singapore Tourism Board. The full list of the sectors and the lead agencies is available on the Ministry of Trade and Industry website. The tripartite partners will be actively involved in all aspects of the ITM process, from planning to implementation.
The 23 sectors include industries which are covered by the National Productivity Council and the SkillsFuture Council and also contribute significantly to the economy and employment. However, I want to emphasise that our aim is to enhance productivity, innovation and competitiveness across all sectors. Even in sectors for which we do not yet have an ITM, TACs can play an important role in industry development by focusing on priority areas and tapping on Government schemes for assistance.
For example, the Singapore Food Manufacturers' Association (SFMA) has helped to develop strategies to drive innovation and exports, which are the industry's priorities. SFMA, working together with SPRING, implemented design thinking and product development workshops to help food manufacturers develop globally competitive products. SFMA also worked with IE Singapore to launch an online Singapore shop, \"Tasty Singapore\", on China's top e-commerce platforms like Alibaba's Tmall, to help local companies enter the Chinese market.
TACs have also helped to generate broad-based support for industry initiatives that require scale beyond the efforts of individual companies. For instance, the Container Depot Association (Singapore) (or CDAS) recently launched an electronic Container Trucking System, a common information technology platform, which helped shorten waiting time at the depot and reduced redundant trips for all container logistics companies.
SFMA and CDAS were supported in these efforts by SPRING and IE Singapore through the Local Enterprise and Association Development (LEAD) \tprogramme. LEAD is an important source of support for TACs to enhance their capacity and to help their industries improve productivity, innovate and internationalise, even if there is no ITM. For example, the Print and Media Association of Singapore, for which there is no specific ITM, is tapping on LEAD to build a training academy, develop a machine capacity sharing platform, and support knowledge sharing and research and development collaborations in the industry. Such examples demonstrate the valuable role TACs can play in industry development.
Mdm Speaker, to reiterate, our industry transformation programme is a major initiative that requires the commitment of all stakeholders. We are still in the early stages and much work remains to be done. Our TACs are important partners in this effort and can make valuable contributions. My message to TACs is this: if you have a proposal to address a need to enhance skills, productivity, innovation or internationalisation in your industry, there is no need to wait for an ITM to be launched. Take it up with the Ministry or economic agency with which you have been dealing. There are no wrong doors and our economic agencies will do their best to support your efforts with the relevant programme.
We look forward to working closely with our TACs in this important effort.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Implication of Recent ASEAN-Sino Partnerships","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked\tthe Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) (a) what are the implications of recent significant partnerships, investments and aid which our ASEAN neighbours have been receiving from China, especially in areas that will compete with Singapore's strategic economic engines, such as ports; and (b) what are the Ministry's plans to ensure that our industries and companies stay ahead and continue to grow.
\tThe Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) (Mr S Iswaran): Madam, China's investments in Southeast Asia as part of the \"Belt and Road\" initiative help to meet the region's infrastructure needs and enhance its connectivity.
As a major investor in markets, such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam, and Southeast Asia accounting for close to 25% of our total trade, Singapore welcomes further economic development in our region. We actively engage our neighbours, bilaterally and through the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), to broaden economic cooperation and create opportunities for our businesses. This is complemented by our efforts to promote the free flow of trade and investment through the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), our network of Free Trade Agreements and Investment Guarantee Agreements, and the in-market presence of our economic agencies. Our economic agencies also work with industry partners and trade associations to track regional developments and identify opportunities.
Mdm Speaker, we must expect that competition will continue to increase as our neighbours move up the value chain. This is not something new for Singapore and we will press on with efforts to enhance productivity, innovation and competitiveness. To ensure that our industries and companies remain well-positioned for growth, the Government adopts a range of strategies across sectors. Specifically on ports, which the Member had highlighted, the Ministry of Transport will elaborate later on on our efforts to keep our port competitive by investing in technology and automation to improve productivity and service levels.
Members will also be aware, as I had just elaborated, that we have embarked on a $4.5 billion Industry Transformation Programme. Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) set out a growth and competitiveness plan for each sector, supported by initiatives to raise productivity, develop the right skills for the jobs in the sector now and in the future, drive innovation and promote internationalisation, with the Government playing its role in supporting as an enabler. In doing so, these ITMs take stock of the external trends and domestic concerns affecting each industry, some of which the Member has referred to in his question, in order to provide industry-focused support to companies.
Transforming individual sectors is part of our broader effort to build and sustain a vibrant and resilient economy in the long term. This is also the focus of the Committee on the Future Economy (CFE), to ensure our economy remains competitive and well-positioned for future opportunities. The Committee's report will be issued soon.
Mdm Speaker:\tMr Zaqy Mohamad.
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang):\t Madam, I thank the Minister for the reply. One aspect of the question I asked was about China's investments in ASEAN. Certainly, competition for us is not new in the region. However, what is different is that instead of being local government-led, this time round, there is also added support from an external government as well, and Chinese state-owned enterprises. In a certain sense, the level of competition and most of the industry's concerns would be different. Is there a counter strategy? Would there be tweaks by CFE to look into this new dynamic that recently arose?
\tMr S Iswaran: Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for his supplementary question. I do not propose to go into the CFE's recommendations. Those will come out in due course. I will make this point: in terms of investments and economic development in the region, in an era of globalisation and increasing connectivity, when we are seeing more Chinese companies go abroad, they are not just from China but from other parts of the world as well. We are no stranger to investments from the United States and Europe. We must continue to expect that there will be developments taking place, sometimes in sectors that we deem to be complementary; at other times, maybe where we are in direct competition.
But as I said earlier in my reply, the key point is this: overall, such investments enhance the opportunities set, whether it is to participate in these projects as partners or in terms of overall economic development. Importantly, we must continue our efforts in maintaining our emphasis on competitiveness and ensuring that our industries remain viable in the face of different types of competition that will arise; today, it is this form that the Member has highlighted, but there were others in the past and there will certainly be different forms in the future.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact on Singapore of Construction of Kuala Linggi International Port in Malacca","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked\tthe Minister for Transport (a) what will be the impact of the construction of Malacca's Kuala Linggi International Port on our status as a regional shipping hub; (b) how will this impact our economy; and (c) how can our port services be kept competitive.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Mrs Josephine Teo) (for the Minister for Transport): Mdm Speaker, the expansion of Malacca's Kuala Linggi International Port (KLIP) will reportedly add oil storage and bunkering facilities. The expansion is expected to be completed only within the next decade, so it is still too early to determine the exact impact on Singapore's economy.
Our preliminary assessment, however, is that KLIP's planned oil storage capacity of 1.5 million cubic metres is not big, relative to Singapore's current capacity of 20.5 million cubic metres. In addition, our position as a regional bunkering and oil storage hub is anchored by a strong ecosystem of oil refineries and oil traders and the high volume of ships calling at Singapore for various services.
As for the container handling business, KLIP's expansion does not appear to include any such facilities. The expansion should, therefore, have minimal impact on Singapore's container transhipment port.
Overall, Singapore's attractiveness as a port of call extends beyond the provision of any one service, whether it be bunkering or oil storage, and stems from our ability to offer efficient end-to-end services to shipping companies.
Having said that, Mr Saktiandi's question is a timely reminder that we must not be complacent and must ensure that our port remains competitive. How do we do so?
First, we have been and will continue to invest in technology at the port to better meet the needs of the shipping industry. For example, the new berths at Pasir Panjang Terminal Phases 3 and 4 feature a fully-automated yard crane system, which raises port productivity. In time, the Port of Singapore Authority will integrate this with an automated guided vehicle system, which is currently under trial, to move the containers around the port. Singapore is also the first port in the world to require bunkers to be delivered via a mass flow metering system. This not only enhances operational efficiency, but also strengthens the integrity of our bunkering services.
Second, we listen assiduously to feedback from the shipping companies. The Maritime and Port Authority (MPA) regularly surveys shipping companies on how they view supporting port services in Singapore, such as towage and pilotage services, compared to those at other ports. This enables MPA to systematically identify and address any shortcomings and keep standards high.
Third, we have been investing significantly in manpower. MPA actively partners the industry and institutes of higher learning to grow the pool of skilled maritime professionals. These efforts include the enhancement of training programmes, such as the Certificate of Competency programmes, to develop local seafarers. Recently, there is the introduction of a SkillsFuture Earn and Learn programme for port operations officers.
Finally, we are developing a next-generation port at Tuas. With an annual capacity of up to 65 million twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs), the Tuas terminal is expected to be the largest container terminal in the world, allowing us to achieve greater economies of scale and more efficiently handle the mega ships of the future. The port will also incorporate new automation and technologies to further boost efficiency and productivity.
Mdm Speaker, Singapore's position as a leading and competitive hub port is due in large part to our efforts to aggressively and continually improve port productivity and service levels and to build up a comprehensive port and maritime sector ecosystem. We will closely monitor KLIP and other regional developments and their potential impact on Singapore and take further measures as necessary to retain our competitive edge.
\tMdm Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mdm Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for answering the question. I am glad to hear that the Ministry of Transport and also the port expansion plans have included strategies, going forward, in terms of enhancing competitiveness and taking Linggi into consideration.
My question, following up on the answer is: with regard to commercial considerations, in terms of shipping companies' expansion plans in the future with evolving technologies, if Linggi becomes successful, if the Malacca Gateway project becomes successful, for example, in a scenario such as that, would there be commercial considerations such that shipping companies may actually, like what we have seen from the Johor port moving up towards Linggi as well —
Mdm Speaker:\tMr Saktiandi, do you want to put your question?
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat:\tSo, that is my question. In terms of commercial considerations, has that been taken into consideration?
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Mdm Speaker, in response to Mr Saktiandi's question, I think our working assumption is that the shipping companies are always driven, firstly, by commercial considerations. They are not going to call at our port because of altruism or because they like us. So, the first thing we must do is to ensure that the product that we offer to them, the services that we offer to them, meet their requirements and, in fact, allow them to make a better go of their commercial considerations than if they were to call at other ports. That is the primary consideration.
So, all of the activities and the significant investments that we are making are geared towards ensuring that, commercially, the considerations will tilt the calculations of the shipping companies in favour of Singapore. Therefore, efficiency is of very high priority and also the ability to deliver high quality service in a very consistent and reliable manner. That is also what counts.
Furthermore, I think the shipping companies will also consider if, for example, there are instances where the services have to be curtailed or if they are not up to expectations, what is the recovery plan that the port operator is able to offer. Those are the primary considerations and it is in these areas that we must continue to put our emphasis on, in order to secure our position as a competitive hub port.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Total Road Charges Paid by Singapore Vehicles to Malaysian Authority at Woodlands and Tuas Checkpoints","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked\tthe Minister for Transport (a) what is the estimated amount of road charges (RM20 per vehicle) that Singapore vehicles have been paying to Malaysia since 1 November 2016 based on the number of Singapore vehicles leaving Woodlands and Tuas checkpoints; and (b) whether LTA intends to impose similar charges on foreign vehicles entering Woodlands and Tuas checkpoints in the near future.
\tThe Minister for Transport (Mr Khaw Boon Wan): Madam, we estimate that Malaysia has collected RM13.9 million, or almost RM14 million, in road charges from Singapore vehicles from 1 November to 20 December last year.
We have a long-standing policy of matching any levy, tolls or fees charged by Malaysia for using the road links between Singapore and Malaysia. This is to ensure that Malaysia takes into consideration our response whenever they raise their tolls or introduce a new levy. We will, therefore, match Malaysia's road charge. We will announce details of this matching charge soon.
\tMdm Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.
\tMr Ang Wei Neng (Jurong):\tSince additional charges have been imposed, has the number of Singapore vehicles entering Malaysia reduced significantly over the same period of time over the last year or compared to the previous month?
\tMr Khaw Boon Wan:\tIt is not noticeable, partly because it coincided with the December holiday period. Also the bulk of vehicles using the Causeway are motorcyclists. But regardless of whether it goes up or down, you know our policy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Seizure of Singapore's Terrex Infantry Carrier Vehicles in Hong Kong","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Mr Vikram Nair asked\tthe Minister for Defence (a) whether he can provide an update on the seizure of Singapore's Terrex Infantry Carrier Vehicles in Hong Kong; (b) whether Singapore is likely to get the vehicles back; and (c) if not, whether there are any remedies available to us.
6 Mr Pritam Singh asked\tthe Minister for Defence (a) whether any confidential or secret equipment and information was compromised or potentially disclosed to foreign powers in the course of the Hong Kong Customs' seizure of nine SAF Terrex ACVs and their associated equipment in November 2016; (b) what new steps are in place to prevent a repeat incident of SAF material being inadvertently exposed and/or withheld overseas; and (c) whether the Ministry can provide an update on the discussions with the Hong Kong authorities to return the vehicles and associated equipment.
7 Dr Teo Ho Pin asked\tthe Minister for Defence with regard to the detention of the shipment of nine Terrex Infantry Carrier Vehicles and associated equipment by the HK Customs on 23 November 2016 (a) what steps has the Singapore Government taken to facilitate the return of the vehicles and equipment; and (b) what has been the outcome of the efforts thus far.
8 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked\tthe Minister for Defence (a) whether any of our controlled military equipment has previously been shipped on board container vessels on commercial routes which passed through ports in China like Xiamen; (b) whether the Ministry deems the routing of controlled military items through ports like Xiamen to be of acceptable risk; and (c) whether the Ministry intends to review the current contractual arrangements for the commercial sea carriage of our military equipment between Singapore and foreign ports.
9 Ms Sun Xueling asked\tthe Minister for Defence (a) whether he can provide an update on the seizure of Singapore's Terrex Infantry Carrier Vehicles in Hong Kong; and (b) whether there is a roadmap and timeline for exchanges with the Hong Kong authorities to secure their release.
\tThe Minister for Defence (Dr Ng Eng Hen):\tMdm Speaker, can I request that Question Nos 5 to 9 be taken together?
Mdm Speaker:\tYes, please.
\tDr Ng Eng Hen: Thank you very much. Mdm Speaker, the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) and the Chief of Army have already disclosed the procedures used by the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) for shipping military platforms for overseas training. Let me summarise.
Singapore has limited training areas. Each year, SAF moves over 700 military platforms using commercial carriers to all parts of the world in Asia, Australia, Europe and the United States (US). The SAF's contracts with these shipping companies and agents require them to comply with established protocols and all relevant international and local port rules. But the contracts leave it to the shipping companies to designate routes and ports, because this is their core business. Neither the SAF, Singapore, nor indeed most other countries, operate on the assumption that our cargo will be arbitrarily seized when transiting reputable foreign ports. SAF has followed these procedures for shipping military equipment for over 30 years without any significant incidents.
These commercial arrangements have enabled SAF to ship military equipment safely and economically. It would cost three to four times more and add several hundred million dollars to MINDEF's annual budget to ship all military equipment directly from point-to-point. Neither does the Republic of Singapore Navy (RSN) have transport ships with that scale and capability to ship all this equipment. However, our Landing Ship Tanks (LSTs), currently our largest multi-purpose and transport ships, are due for replacement. We will consider if we need to replace them with ships of larger capacity.
There are some exceptions, albeit rare, when SAF does not use commercial shipping companies, or will apply special considerations if we do, based on security risk assessments. For example, as we did previously, when we shipped advanced weapon and sensor systems or submarines back to Singapore previously, the special measures include chartering whole ships, mandating direct shipments, deploying protection forces or even converting the commercial ship to a State Marine Ensign.
The Terrex troop carrier vehicles did not fall into this special category. Members have asked if military secrets have been compromised due to the detention of the Terrexes. As MINDEF has stated, the detained Terrexes and other equipment were being used for training and do not contain any sensitive equipment.
Arising from this incident, SAF has reviewed its shipping procedures comprehensively to reduce the risk of SAF equipment being taken hostage en route. Where we think the risk of detention of SAF assets has gone up, whether in Asia or any other part of the world, we will impose extra precautions even if this means incurring higher freight charges. Alternatively, SAF may consider housing that equipment at overseas training sites to avoid shipping them altogether, and procure additional units to meet operational requirements, where necessary.
In the present case, the SAF Terrexes were transiting in Hong Kong, one of the world's busiest and most established transhipment points. They were in transit on board the ship when they were ordered to be off-loaded by the Hong Kong authorities and detained. The legal position is that the SAF Terrexes and other equipment detained in Hong Kong are the property of the Singapore Government. They are protected by sovereign immunity, even though they were being shipped by commercial carriers. This means that they are immune from any measures of constraint abroad. They cannot legally be detained or confiscated by other countries. This principle is well-established under international law, and we are advised by lawyers that it is also the law in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR).
Accordingly, the Singapore Government has asserted our sovereign rights over the SAF Terrexes. We have informed the Hong Kong Government on several occasions over the last two months, both through lawyers and our Consul-General in Hong Kong, that the detained Terrexes and other equipment belong to the Government of Singapore and are, therefore, immune from any measures of constraint. Accordingly, we have requested the Hong Kong authorities to return our property immediately.
Prime Minister Lee has also written to Chief Executive CY Leung of Hong Kong on this matter to reiterate the same message. The Hong Kong authorities have responded that the investigation is ongoing and will take some time to complete and that the Hong Kong government will handle the matter in accordance with their laws.
Singapore welcomes this response. Adherence to the rule of law has been the fundamental basis for peace and stability in the last half century in Asia. It has enabled countries both large and small to build trust and confidence in one another, cooperate and prosper together. These are the very principles incorporated in the Treaty of Amity and Co-operation whose signatories pledge \"to promote regional peace and stability through abiding respect for justice and the rule of law\".
Whether APL, the shipping company in this case, has complied with the rules of Hong Kong port is a matter between APL and the Hong Kong authorities, which should follow the due process of Hong Kong law. That issue between APL and Hong Kong Customs affects neither the legal position of the Terrexes nor the Singapore Government's rights. We, therefore, look forward to the Hong Kong government returning our Terrexes in accordance with international law.
Singapore and Hong Kong have long enjoyed good and friendly relations. We hope the matter will be resolved satisfactorily and our friendly relations will endure.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.
Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang):\tI thank the Minister and I am glad to know that there are no military secrets compromised. Is Singapore also considering commercial claims against the carrier, in the event of any delay or losses that may arise if the Terrexes are not returned or if there are some other delays in the return?
\tDr Ng Eng Hen:\tMadam, we have been advised by our lawyers that there are legal avenues available to MINDEF to claim for damages against shipping carriers and contractors if they have not fulfilled their contractual obligation. So, the answer is yes. In addition, all SAF cargo we ship is insured against losses under some conditions. We have to check if the insurance claims are applicable for this particular incident.
\tMdm Speaker: Mr Low Thia Khiang.
\tMr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied):\t Madam, I noted in the Minister of Defence's reply that SAF would avoid, in the future, our military equipment being taken hostage. I would like to ask some supplementary questions. Firstly, whether or not MINDEF anticipated that such hostage situation could have happened. Secondly, I would like to ask whether or not Hong Kong or China has imposed any conditions for the return of the Terrex vehicles. Thirdly, what would be the loss of potential future earnings for Singapore in this piece of defence technology which even the US is interested in?
\tDr Ng Eng Hen: Let me thank Mr Low for his questions. Not only in the future of losing our equipment, but that has been our prevailing policy. That is why we have, as I said, for that special category, imposed special conditions on ourselves and our commercial shippers and whether it is in the form of port-to-port or converting commercial ships to State Marine Ensign when we brought back our submarines.
But in this particular instance, the Terrexes do not fall into that special category, and we leave it to the carriers to designate the ports. Hong Kong is an international port of repute, and there is no reason to believe that our SAF assets will be seized. Have there been conditions? I have related to Members what the Hong Kong government had responded with. That is, at complete face value, what has happened. They have said that they need time and that they will handle it in accordance with Hong Kong's laws, and we welcome that assurance.
The third question on the cost of the nine Terrexes, it is as listed in the shipping manifest at S$30 million.
Mdm Speaker:\tMr Pritam Singh.
\tDr Ng Eng Hen:\tMdm Speaker, there was another question on loss of earnings from this incident. It is a theoretical question. I find that hard to assess. ST Kinetics or ST Engineering will have to do its work. But whether this increases the notoriety of the platform and, therefore, increases its selling potential or not, who is to say? It is theoretical and I want to defer from answering that question.
Mdm Speaker:\tMr Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): I would like to thank the Minister for Defence for his clarifications. There are two questions. One, does MINDEF consider the details of the Terrexes' armour or any other technical specifications to be classified information?
Second, does the confiscated shipment include any equipment or technology that falls under some export control regime or restrictions to China?
\tDr Ng Eng Hen:\tLet me answer the second part first: no, it does not contain any of that sensitive equipment. The easiest way to answer Mr Singh's question is that you can purchase the Terrexes and associated equipment on the open market. So, they do not contain any sensitive equipment.
\tMdm Speaker: Ms Sun Xueling.
\tMs Sun Xueling (Pasir Ris-Punggol):\tAs the Minister has mentioned, the detention of our Terrexes appears to be contrary to Hong Kong and international law. I would like to enquire: in dealing with the Hong Kong authorities, has MINDEF found the experience to be largely rules-based and process-based? It could be a helpful barometer for how businesses assess Hong Kong's reputation as an international port.
\tDr Ng Eng Hen: We have communicated to the Hong Kong government on a number of occasions, as I have said, at various levels, including the Prime Minister's letter, and I have read to Members their response.
There was one previous case where there were some similarities, and this was a case where the South Korean's equipment was also seized by the Hong Kong authorities. This was in 2010, and it was also an armed personnel carrier, as well as a light tank; and it was returned subsequently to the South Koreans.
Mdm Speaker:\tMr Dennis Tan.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member):\tI thank the Minister for the answer so far. I would like to ask the Minister whether the Hong Kong customs authorities had actually openly stated what was the problem with the import declaration or customs declaration, because I have not quite really seen it in the media so far.
\tDr Ng Eng Hen: The Hong Kong government has responded on the various occasions that we had asserted our sovereign immunity as well as asked for updates that their investigations are ongoing. As I had said in my reply, they have said that they will settle this in accordance with Hong Kong law.
Mdm Speaker:\tMs Chia Yong Yong.
\tMs Chia Yong Yong (Nominated Member):\tThank you, Madam, but my questions have been answered.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"State of Singapore's Relations with China in View of Seizure of Terrex Vehicles","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"10 Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked\tthe Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) what is Singapore's state of relations with China in view of the recent seizure of the SAF's Terrex Infantry Carrier Vehicles in Hong Kong; (b) how can Singapore continue to balance its existing trade and foreign relations interests with strong expectations from China to align with its One China policy and claims over the South China Sea; and (c) what are the Ministry's plans to normalise relations and minimise the impact of China putting more focus on competing economies in the region.
\tThe Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): As the Minister for Defence has already addressed the specific issue of the SAF's Terrex vehicles, I will focus my reply on the second and third part of the Member's question.
The Singapore-China relationship is a long-standing, multifaceted and mutually beneficial one. Since 2013, Singapore has been China's largest foreign investor and China has been Singapore's largest trading partner. Our top leaders meet regularly and there is a constant stream of official visits at all levels from both sides. When Prime Minister Lee met Chinese President Xi Jinping in September last year on the sidelines of the G20 Leaders' Summit in Hangzhou, for which Singapore was invited by China, both our leaders agreed to strengthen our mutually beneficial relationship based on the principles of mutual respect and mutual understanding. And over the years, we have built up a significant reservoir of trust and respect with our Chinese partners and stakeholders.
In international relations, it is natural for countries to want other parties to act entirely in line with their own national interests. As a small state, Singapore will, from time to time, encounter such expectations from other countries, and many of these other countries will be much bigger than Singapore. This is realpolitik. However − and this is important − it is important for us to conduct our foreign policy as a sovereign, independent nation, and not be seen as acting at the behest of any other country. This is essential for our international credibility, standing, relevance and usefulness to our partners and friends.
We must also maintain our emphasis on upholding international law and scrupulously respecting agreements which have been entered into with other countries. This attitude to international law and scrupulously respecting agreements is basic to the rules-based international order that benefits all countries and is especially crucial for our long-term survival and independence as a small state.
Our relations with China, and our interactions with Hong Kong and Taiwan are based strictly on our \"One China\" policy. We have consistently abided by this policy and the understandings reached when we established diplomatic relations with China in 1990, and we will continue to do so.
We are not a party to the disputes in the South China Sea. Our position on the South China Sea has been articulated on many occasions, including by our Prime Minister, and our position reflects Singapore's need for peace and stability in our region, for freedom of navigation and overflight in major trade routes, and respect for international law.
Singapore and the Chinese leaders and officials have continued to interact and we cooperate in many areas of mutual interest. Just last year alone, I made four working trips to China. We remain committed to the three government-to-government projects, namely, the Suzhou Industrial Park, the Tianjin Eco-city and the Chongqing Connectivity Initiative. We continue our engagement with our Chinese partners at multiple levels. We are also engaging China in new areas, such as the Belt and Road initiative, and we are working together to conclude negotiations on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. This partnership encompasses ASEAN, China, India, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand.
We welcome China's growing engagement of our region as this creates new opportunities for mutual growth and prosperity. Singapore's relations with China and our relations with other major powers should not be seen as a zero-sum game. We believe in an interdependence characterised by an open, inclusive regional architecture that promotes collaboration and win-win outcomes. If I were to be allowed to paraphrase President Xi, ideally, we should all be part of a common circle of friends.
\tMdm Speaker: Mr Zaqy Mohamad.
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang): I thank the Minister for his explanation. Firstly, I think that it is good that the Minister has shared the ongoing work that we are doing with China to enhance growth and prosperity among our countries. But I think that for those who have followed the Chinese media, especially the state-linked media, they have also noted the discrepancy in what the government is doing and saying at the same time, versus what the media is also saying about Singapore and portraying Singapore to be. So, how do we handle this bi-dimensional approach that China is taking on its relationship with Singapore?
Secondly, based on feedback from the industry as well as clan associations, we have also noticed that some have complained or fed back that market access has been restricted of late. So, is that true? And is there any direct impact from our strained relations on market access of late?
Lastly, back to the Terrex comment earlier on, I know the Defence Minister covered this. Given that MINDEF has mainly worked with the Hong Kong SAR government, and given our relations with China, and we know that there is a certain amount of influence that China has over Hong Kong, have we opened dialogue with the Chinese government to see whether we could mediate on this at the state level, between Singapore and China?
\tDr Vivian Balakrishnan: I thank the Member for the three relevant supplementary questions. First, on the discourse which you hear in the media, we live in a new media age. The tone of the discourse which you hear on private social media like WhatsApp versus public social media like Facebook, versus even the new media platforms of established government organisations or even state-owned enterprises, will differ in tone and will differ in the positions that are taken.
What I will say, on behalf of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), is that I do not believe in megaphone diplomacy. I do not believe in engaging in a whole lot of invective and in conducting affairs in a way which generates more heat than light.
So, it is important that we maintain communications and engagement at the top level, similarly at the functional level, and also to continue interactions, businesses and people-to-people level. That relates to the Member's second question.
As far as I know, so far at this point in time, there has not been any formal restrictions on market access of Singaporean parties, whether commercial, clan associations or the rest. In fact, I want to encourage that these interactions on the business, commercial, cultural, educational and people-to-people levels should continue. We should insulate these from issues that will come up from time to time. However, if any association or any company has specific concerns, they can always approach me or the Ministry.
The final supplementary question on whether we have opened dialogue with China, the short answer is no, we have not. Let me explain. As far as I am concerned, and I have stated this before, we expect service providers providing services to the Government to comply with all local regulations. In this specific case, I expect APL to have complied with the local regulations.
The other thing that we expect is that the law will take its course. So, in this specific case, we have been informed, in fact, we have been assured by Hong Kong that investigations are ongoing. They need more time. But the important point that it will be handled in accordance with their law is a very important assurance, and one that we welcome because it is best that this matter be handled through the proper legal process. There is no need to politicise it. There is no need to engage in megaphone diplomacy. So, let us have some patience and give this matter time to resolve through an appropriate legal or judicial process.
Mdm Speaker:\tMr Low Thia Khiang.
\tMr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied): Madam, the Minister for Foreign Affairs just said that with respect to this Terrex incident, he expects the law to take its course. Would he agree that if the law is, in fact, being respected, the incident would not have happened in the first place?
The second supplementary question: I would like to ask the Minister what is his interpretation and assessment of a rising China and her behaviour, in relation to the detention of the Terrex vehicles.
Thirdly, I would like to ask the Minister: has China's progress economically and militarily in becoming a superpower made her arrogant and aggressive and to become a big bully?
\tDr Vivian Balakrishnan: I thank Mr Low for the questions. On the first question, I do not want to speculate. Let the investigations be complete and let us see what conclusions Hong Kong arrives at. This is for the question on whether or not APL complied with the regulations that they were supposed to abide by. I do not want to speculate or prejudge the issue.
The second and third questions are really a broader issue, which is, that as China rises, as China gains both economic and military strength, what implications have that on us and the way they conduct international affairs and, indeed, on their relationships with the rest of the world?
The first point I want to make is that Singapore has been a long-term, reliable and consistent friend of China. And I say this not in a facetious way, but I say this because we believe that a rising China, a strong China, one that is deeply engaged with the rest of the world and economically integrated is one that brings enormous benefits. If we look at it from the historical point of view, never before in history have hundreds of millions of people been raised from abject poverty into an opportunity now where they can enjoy the prospect of being in the middle class and consuming at the middle class. This is an enormous achievement of China in the last 70 years.
Secondly, this emergence of China as both a manufacturing, service and consumption hub provides enormous opportunities to the rest of the world. If we look at the way Southeast Asia and even Singapore have progressed over the last 70 years since the end of the Second World War, there were several critical ingredients to this. One is that we had peace and stability. Two, we had international law. Three, we have had reasonably free trade. These have been ingredients for us all to achieve progress and prosperity without war and conflict. So, looked against this light, we must welcome a rising China, a stronger China, an economically more integrated China. And we have to focus on the opportunities whilst at the same time recognising that there will be issues to resolve from time to time.
This is where we have to learn to take things in our stride. We are a tiny city-state. We are a multiracial society and we are located in the centre of Southeast Asia. These circumstances are permanent. What this means ‒ and I said it earlier ‒ is that, from time to time, other countries, big countries, will place expectations, quite frankly, sometimes, they will put pressure on us because they want us to completely align ourselves with their interests. This is where we, sometimes, from time to time, have to courteously, respectfully, differ and remind everyone, big or small, that please let Singapore be Singapore. We may be small but we are an independent, sovereign nation. We have our own permanent interests. We want to maintain our independence and to have as many friends as possible. We cannot be at the beck and call, or act at the behest of any single superpower. Let us be ourselves. And if that means, from time to time, I have to have a difference with you, so be it. But I am not against you; I am completely in support of your rise.
As to our attitude to international law, because of our circumstances and our Independence, the circumstances of our existence in the heart of Southeast Asia, international law and adherence to agreements are absolutely crucial to us. So, again, this is not personal. This is a matter of the way Singapore got its Independence and the way Singapore will continue to remain an independent, viable nation.
Similarly, for free trade. Whether it is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) or any other free trade agreement, the point is this: trade represents three times our gross domestic product. This is a ratio which I think no other country has. And because of that, for us, trade is not a negotiating point; it is not a debating point. Trade is our lifeblood. So, when we go round the world saying, \"Look, we want to lower the barriers for trade because we believe this is a formula that has generated enormous opportunities and wealth for so many of us\", that does not mean that free trade is an unalloyed good. You have to be aware that for each nation that engages in this negotiation, you also have to ensure that you protect the vulnerable groups in our society. Members of the House will also appreciate, in fact, that that is what we have been doing for the last 10 years.
So, we are trying to find that happy balance ‒ that happy balance between free trade and social security, between expanding opportunities and making sure no one gets left behind, between sometimes having to stand up to the big powers to tell them that we will have to have a polite disagreement, but we are still for you and we are not against you. Do not force us to make invidious choices.
So, that is really the strategic backdrop to the decisions that we make, the actions and the words we put. I hope Members in this House and, in fact, I hope all Singaporeans will, therefore, understand. Take this in our stride, remain calm, understand the big picture, do not panic. Most important, do not be divided. Mr Low Thia Khiang, I am glad to say ‒ and I hope Mr Low will agree with me ‒ that this is an issue on which the Workers' Party, in fact, hopefully, all Members of this House, whether from the Opposition, Non-Constituency Members of Parliament or Nominated Members of Parliament, stand with the Government, that this is one of those occasions for us to learn the right lessons, to stand together because, ultimately, foreign policy begins at home. Thank you. [Applause.]
\tMdm Speaker: Ms Chia Yong Yong.
\tMs Chia Yong Yong (Nominated Member): Madam, I would like to thank the Minister for his clarification. I would also like to say that I agree with his assertion of our country's sovereignty.
I would like to seek the Minister's clarification on the last point in answer to the specific third question, which was whether or not we had communicated with China in relation to the seizure of the vehicles. I do understand the Minister's point. But in the light of the comments made by China after the reports of the seizure and particularly comments that we should respect the One China policy and that they have communicated with us and that they have also requested that we abide by Hong Kong's laws, what are the grounds that the Ministry has to assume that China has not influenced Hong Kong's decision to detain the vehicles or in the decision-making process? Could the Minister share that with us and also. If that is the case, then why does the Minister consider those assumptions to be reasonable?
\tDr Vivian Balakrishnan: When I first got to MFA, the first lesson the diplomats told me was \"assume nothing\". So, I do not want to make any assumptions or presumptions. But having said that, I do not want to engage in conspiracy theories either. So, I want to go on face value. Hong Kong has told us they are conducting investigations. They told us that they will handle this in accordance with their laws. Both the Minister for Defence and I stand before you, and I am sure the message will be conveyed to them that we welcome this position, that Hong Kong will handle this according to its laws. I should add that China also has publicly stated that this will be handled according to Hong Kong SAR's laws. So, this is the position which we welcome, and we await a resolution of this matter on that basis.
The Member has raised the other important point, which is on our One China policy. Again, because this is so important, I hope Members will bear with me if I repeat word-for-word what I said earlier. Our relations with China and our interactions with Hong Kong and Taiwan are based strictly on our One China policy. We have consistently abided by this policy and the understandings reached when we established diplomatic relations with China in 1990. This is a long-standing position. We have always abided by it and I am standing here to state that we will continue to do so.
Some of the nuances of what I have said here may not be immediately obvious to everyone listening to this. But let me assure Members that the senior leadership in China, who are au fait with this issue, will understand exactly what I am referring to. So, I beg the indulgence of this House ‒ let us avoid politicising this and let us avoid megaphone diplomacy. Let us give this incident every opportunity to resolve itself in, I hope, an appropriate and sensible way. Thank you.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore's Response to Refugee Situation in Rakhine State in Myanmar","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked\tthe Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) whether he can provide updates on Singapore's role with regard to ASEAN's humanitarian response to support Rohingya refugees in Rakhine state; and (b) whether Singapore will be taking any further measures to help the refugees in light of the unfolding crisis.
12 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked\tthe Minister for Foreign Affairs whether the Ministry has any form of communication with the Myanmar Government that expresses concerns on the humanitarian crisis that is plaguing the people of Rohingya ethnicity in the Rakhine State.
\tThe Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan):\tMdm Speaker, can I take the next two questions, Question Nos 11 and 12, together?
Mdm Speaker:\tYes, please.
\tDr Vivian Balakrishnan: On 19 December 2016, I attended an Association of Southeast Asian Nations' (ASEAN's) Foreign Ministers' informal meeting which was called by Myanmar's State Counsellor and Minister for Foreign Affairs Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to brief all of us on the situation in Rakhine State. The meeting was timely and useful in helping ASEAN member states to better understand the situation and also to understand Myanmar's efforts to address this complex situation.
There was an open, frank and constructive exchange of views amongst all the Ministers present. We discussed how ASEAN can best support the Myanmar government in its efforts to find a viable, long-term and sustainable solution to the problems in Rakhine state. The focus was on making sure that humanitarian aid would reach the communities in need. Following the meeting, the Myanmar government expressed its readiness to grant necessary humanitarian access and to continue to keep ASEAN informed on developments in Rakhine state.
From a Singapore perspective, we have emphasised that every government must ensure the safety and protection of all its people regardless of race or religion, and that all people must enjoy the same basic rights. At the same time, it is also the right and the responsibility of every state to secure its borders and maintain internal security.
Issues of race, language and religion in every country, including Singapore, are always sensitive and complex. Similarly, inter-communal relations in Rakhine state are highly complicated with long historical roots. These issues are not going to be resolved easily or quickly in the short term. Patience, restraint, and time will be required to build up trust among the different stakeholders and communities, foster racial harmony and restore peace and stability for the long term.
We continue to encourage all parties, including the Myanmar government and the international community, to continue working together towards a long-term solution so that affected communities can rebuild their lives. In Singapore, our own local communities initiated a fundraising campaign in December 2016. I am very heartened to note that Singaporeans from across all communities have come forward to contribute more than S$350,000; I think it is closer to S$400,000. The funds that have been raised will be distributed equally to the affected communities in Rakhine state and Aceh. The funds for the Rakhine state will be channelled through Myanmar-based organisations to assist all affected communities, regardless of ethnicity and religion. The President of the Singapore Islamic Scholars and Religious Teachers Association (PERGAS) Ustaz Mohamad Hasbi Bin Hassan had also written to the Prime Minister to offer PERGAS' assistance and the Prime Minister has replied.
This is another occasion in which all Singaporeans can demonstrate compassion and collectively contribute to humanitarian relief efforts.
\tMdm Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Mdm Speaker, I thank the Minister for that reply. There are two clarifications. One, Indonesia recently sent government-to-government humanitarian aid to the Rohingyas in the Rakhine state consisting of 10 freight containers with instant noodles, baby food, wheat, cereals and sarongs. Does the Singapore Government have plans to do a similar thing?
Second, I wanted to also share that I have visited the refugee camps twice. What I saw and the stories I heard were heart-breaking. I know that there are various reasons for this crisis and there is no easy solution, as the Minister has mentioned. But I hope we remember that there are children involved in this, children who are now fatherless, motherless, families who are torn apart. I agree that we cannot accept the refugees here in Singapore, but I hope that the Singapore Government can do more. So, the second clarification was whether we will provide the matching for the funds that have been raised so far for this issue?
\tDr Vivian Balakrishnan: First, let me express our appreciation to the Member Mr Louis Ng who has personally visited these refugee camps. If Members speak to him, I am sure he would be able to attest to you that there are real people, vulnerable people and children, who are victims of circumstances beyond their control. It is important that we exercise collective human compassion to help these people.
On the exact modalities, this is something which we will continue to engage both the Myanmar government as well as the relevant non-government organisations − whether it should be specific items or whether it is best handled in cash. These are issues which I would rather resolve on the ground by people who are actually present and familiar with the situation and familiar with the needs of the people.
We have not made any decision on the matching funds but I would like to inform Members that the ASEAN countries have established a trust fund to support emergency humanitarian and relief efforts in the event of refugee flows within Southeast Asia. The Singapore Government has made an initial contribution of US$200,000 to this trust fund and this trust fund is administered by the ASEAN Secretariat. The other ASEAN countries are also expected to contribute financially.
The larger point is this: the more avenues there are for assistance and for compassion to be applied, people to people, non-governmental organisations and government, the better. The larger point is that you need a political solution. The salutary reminder to us in Singapore is the absolute essential need to maintain harmony regardless of race, language or religion.
\tMdm Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied):\tMdm Speaker, a few days ago, it was announced by the Malaysian counter-terrorism police that they arrested an Indonesian Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) fighter who was off to carry out attacks in Myanmar, allegedly as a result of the atrocities in the Rakhine state. I would like to ask the Minister what is the Ministry's assessment of the security situation in the Rakhine state and its impact on Singapore and Southeast Asia in general, particularly with regard to extremism.
\tDr Vivian Balakrishnan: I do not have specific information on that particular case, nor am I in a position to advise on the security situation in the Rakhine state and whether there are any specific threats that that poses to us. I do not have any specific information. However, I would state, as a general principle, that having any area in Southeast Asia where there is an unresolved, festering conflict, especially one that involves race, language or religion, poses an immediate and urgent threat to the country, but also to Southeast Asia as a whole. So, yes, we do remain concerned.
We hope that we will not end up with areas in Southeast Asia which act as a haven or act as a point where extremism, violence and terrorism can be fomented. That means we also need to resolve this at all levels: support the local authorities in resolving the local issues, ensure humanitarian access flows and also, to ensure that our operation and security agencies exchange necessary information and take the necessary precautions. But I agree with the Member entirely that, if left unchecked or unresolved, this does pose a problem to all of us.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Improve Telecom Network Resilience Given Recent Service Disruptions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Mr Ong Teng Koon asked\tthe Minister for Communications and Information (a) what is the cause of Singtel's broadband Internet service disruption on 3 December 2016; and (b) what can the Ministry do to strengthen and protect critical infrastructure, such as the telecommunication network, from major disruptions.
14 Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked\tthe Minister for Communications and Information (a) what is the Ministry's assessment of the resiliency of Singapore's broadband networks given the service disruptions by our Internet service providers (ISPs) in recent months; (b) how does the network availability of Singapore's ISPs compare internationally; and (c) whether there are measures that the Ministry is planning to improve the resiliency of our networks.
\tThe Minister for Communications and Information (Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim):\tMadam, can I take Question Nos 13 and 14 together?
Mdm Speaker:\tYes, please.
\tAssoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Thank you, Madam. Happy New year to you. Mdm Speaker, I thank Mr Ong Teng Koon and Mr Zaqy Mohamad for their questions. Over the past three months, both Singtel and StarHub have suffered service disruptions. The Infocommunications Media Development Authority (IMDA) is investigating the Singtel disruption on 3 December 2016 and will provide more details soon.
Preliminary findings so far suggest that the disruption was caused by a technical issue that affected SingNet's Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) server. The DHCP server assigns IP addresses to end-users' modems, so that the end-user can connect to the Internet. Unfortunately, SingNet's DHCP server encountered problems assigning IP addresses to its broadband customers' modems. As a result, these customers could not obtain or renew their IP addresses in order to connect to the Internet. IMDA and the Cyber Security Agency (CSA) are also investigating the October 2016 incidents affecting StarHub subscribers. More details will be shared in the Prime Minister's response to another question later.
Apart from determining the cause of the SingNet disruption, IMDA's investigation will also review: (a) whether the incident could have been avoided; (b) whether all necessary actions had been taken by Singtel to restore services expeditiously; and (c) the measures to ensure that such incidents do not happen again.
My Ministry and IMDA take a serious view of all service difficulty incidents, as they inconvenience consumers and businesses. We continuously review measures to enhance the resilience of Singapore's key telecommunication networks and services. For example, IMDA regularly reviews and updates the Telecom Service Resiliency Code. The Code was most recently revised three months ago to strengthen the resilience of our fixed and mobile broadband networks, given how pervasive they are today.
IMDA had also issued a Code of Practice for Telecommunication Infrastructure Resilience Audit − also known as the Mobile Audit Framework − in 2015. This Code of Practice requires mobile operators to conduct regular audits on key aspects of their networks and infrastructure, such as network designs, technical processes, business continuity plans and associated infrastructure and facilities. IMDA has conducted an audit on the mobile operators' networks and has found that they are generally compliant with the audit controls. IMDA will continue to finetune the audit controls to cater for technology developments. IMDA will be issuing a similar Audit Framework for fixed-line networks in 2017.
While direct comparisons are not possible due to differences in methodologies and network designs, our studies show that our networks are generally as resilient as our international counterparts. In fact, few jurisdictions besides Singapore actively track ISPs' network availability and, those that do, typically set a threshold lower than ours. Nevertheless, over the past year, SingNet and StarHub have exceeded IMDA's Quality of Service (QoS) standard of more than 99.9% fixed-line broadband network availability. IMDA will continue to update the QoS framework to ensure that operators continue to provide good quality of service to consumers and business users.
Madam, we cannot completely eliminate service outages, especially with the increasing complexity of technologies and networks. Instead, we expect operators to plan and design resilient networks, and put in place measures to ensure speedy recovery in the event of a disruption. This will minimise inconvenience to end-users should such disruptions occur.
\tMdm Speaker: Mr Ong Teng Koon.
\tMr Ong Teng Koon (Marsiling-Yew Tee):\tMdm Speaker, I thank the Minister for shedding light on this matter of public interest. Will he also assure us that this disruption was not due to any form of cyber attacks and that the Ministry is fully capable of dealing with any form of cyberattacks?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Madam, on the particular incident, we have no reason to believe there was a cyberattack, but we will continue to monitor the situation. As to whether or not we have the ability to deal with cyberattacks in future, we will have to continue to build up our defences. This is something which CSA is committed to and we will work with all the sector leads to ensure that they have put in place programmes, and more importantly, mitigation efforts to deal with any disruption that occur.
\tMdm Speaker: Mr Zaqy Mohamad.
\t
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang): The Minister mentioned about our benchmark are not available against international operators, but within Singapore's context where we are moving towards a smart nation and more connected services, are we still expecting 99.9% as the benchmark or could we be more resilient than that? Certainly, what is also important is the amount of time it takes to get services back to normal. Does the Ministry plan to enhance standards in that respect?
On that earlier clarification on cybersecurity, if I recall the StarHub incident, there were also DDoS attacks where they took over certain devices on the network. I am quite surprised that this could happen on our public networks. What measures could be put in place to ensure that security is not compromised in the future?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Madam, on the incident, as mentioned in my reply, this will be responded to later, when we reach the Parliamentary Question that had been put to the Prime Minister. Certainly, we will continue to monitor the situation.
Attacks, as the Member rightly pointed out, can come from the most innocent of devices, in this case, the Internet of Things devices that happened in America. CSA is on top of the situation. At the end of the day, it is something in which we are mindful where we need everyone within the value chain − the businesses and even consumers like ourselves − to put in place some cyber hygiene practices at home and in our workplaces. We will work closely with the industry and industry associations to ensure that all our businesses understand what needs to be done. We will work with the major operators who provide the service to the small companies so that they understand what needs to be done. So, it is an on-going effort. As the CSA Chief Executive Mr David Koh mentioned, cybersecurity is a team sport. Everybody has to play their part.
On the first question as to whether or not 99.9% is too high, this is something we have just started. We have to continue to monitor the situation. I agree with the Member that the most important thing is how we can resolve the disruption as quickly as possible. We have impressed upon the telecommunications companies and the ISPs that this is something that we want them to put in place quickly and ahead of time. As for the recent incident of Singtel, we are still investigating but we knew that they worked very hard to put in place additional resources so that they can deal with the demands of the customers.
It is very difficult for us to determine ahead what exactly they need to do because the networks are becoming very complex and technology is developing very rapidly. The ability for the engineers and the experts to deal with the situation will depend on the complexity of the situation. But IMDA works closely with them to understand every incident, what we can learn from it and how we can use that as a learning experience to improve the resiliency of our network. That is something we will continue to do.
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad:\tMdm Speaker, just a correction. The Minister mentioned my question about 99.9% being too high and should be lower. It is actually the opposite; I meant it is too low.
\tAssoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim:\tThanks. We will continue to review.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Softer Economy on Employment of Recent Graduates and Older Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked\tthe Minister for Manpower (a) what is the Ministry's projection on unemployment for the first quarter of 2017; (b) what is the average waiting time for local and foreign university graduates to get into the workforce under current circumstances; and (c) how is the softer job market impacting on the older people who are in the workforce.
\tThe Minister for Manpower (Mr Lim Swee Say): Mdm Speaker, the Singapore economy is projected to grow at a modest pace of 1% to 3% this year. The Ministry does not make forecasts of the unemployment rate. Nevertheless, amid current global economic conditions and continued economic restructuring, short-term fluctuations in the unemployment rate are expected.
Based on the annual Graduate Employment Survey coordinated by the Ministry of Education, around nine in 10 graduates from our autonomous universities found jobs within six months from the completion of their final examinations in 2015. This is consistent with the previous three cohorts.
For older residents, both their employment and unemployment rates have moved up. In 2015, over 98% of local employees who wished to continue working were offered re-employment upon reaching the age of 62. This has contributed to an increase in the employment rate of local residents aged 55 to 64 to a high of 67.3% in June 2016. However, the unemployment rate for local residents aged 50 and above has also increased from 2.1% in September 2014 to 2.3% in September 2016, in other words, an increase of 0.2% over a period of two years. There was also a corresponding rise in the long-term unemployment rate by 0.2% from 0.8% to 1% over the same two-year period from September 2014 to September 2016. So, both the unemployment rate and long-term unemployment rate for local residents have gone up by 0.2%.
The Government will continue to provide extra support to encourage the employment of older workers. These include the Special Employment Credit (SEC), which is a wage offset of up to 8% of monthly wages for hiring Singaporean workers aged 55 and above and earning not more than $4,000 a month. An additional wage offset of up to 3% is provided for those aged 65 and above. From 1 July 2017, the re-employment age will also be raised to 67.
Under the Adapt and Grow initiative, we are also providing extra career and employment support to older workers, both the rank-and-file workers and professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs). Out of more than 11,000 workers placed by the Workforce Singapore and the National Trades Union Congress' Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) career centres in the first nine months of 2016, 39% or two out of five successful jobseekers were aged 50 and above. The Ministry of Manpower will continue to work closely with our tripartite partners to extend support to all local jobseekers as we go through this period of economic transition.
\tMdm Speaker: Dr Lim Wee Kiak.
\tDr Lim Wee Kiak (Sembawang): Mdm Speaker, I would like to clarify with the Minister regarding the unemployment rates. On the ground, many of us have seen more residents coming forward to the Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS) seeking help, especially for those who are above 40 years old. If they lose their jobs, it is very hard for them to find a job. Even if they find a job, usually the pay is very much lower than what they had previously. So, there is also this issue about underemployment. Sometimes, after a while, they have no choice but to take up any employment that they can find. I mean they are not choosy but, on the other hand, they do have a family to feed. Our hearts are with them and we want to know how we can help them further.
The other question I want to ask the Minister is regarding the Place and Train and all the placement programmes. We have written letters to the Workforce Development Agency (WDA) and all the agencies, including e2i, to help them. What is the current success rate? When we send a resident over, that is the success rate? How do you track the success rate of e2i as well as WDA in these placement programmes? After they have placed the residents, do you continue to follow up to make sure that there is continued employment?
I have also heard from my residents complaining to me that some employers take them in for a while, just to take advantage of the Government's scheme. Within three months, they say \"You are not suitable.\" The residents are being fired again, and they are back to square one.
\tMr Lim Swee Say: Mdm Speaker, we pay special attention to those jobseekers who need that extra help from Workforce Singapore (WSG) and e2i. Not all jobseekers need our help. For example, last year, we conducted more than 90 job fairs for the employers to offer their job openings to jobseekers. We encourage the jobseekers to walk in on their own so that they do not have to sign up with e2i or WSG. We allow the matching to go on, on its own.
For those jobseekers who are unable to secure jobs through such a platform, that is when they will go to see their Members of Parliament or come to WSG or e2i. What we do is that we track each and every one individually, in terms of when they first contacted us, what kind of services we provide to them, either send them for employability camp or send them for career coaching, skills upgrading or job placement, and so on.
On the whole, out of every three jobseekers coming to us, those who need the extra help, within the same calendar year, we were able to help two-thirds of them, about 65%, to successfully find jobs. There is still the one-third. For example, right now, we have about a few thousand still on our jobseekers' database. We will continue to help them.
There is one group that we pay special attention to, \"the long-term unemployed\". In other words, if they are on our list for six months or longer, we pay special attention to them, whether it is through the Professional Conversion Programme (PCP) or Career Support Programme (CSP).
On the whole, the package of Adapt and Grow initiatives which was strengthened last year has worked well and the outcome has been quite encouraging. As I have mentioned in my reply, successful jobseekers are becoming more inclusive, including the older workers.
That is not to say that we have done everything we can do. In fact, right now, my Ministry, together with the various agencies, including the Ministry of Finance, is looking into what more we can do to further enhance the Adapt and Grow initiatives in the coming years.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Workers who Secure Jobs at Government-supported Job Fairs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"16 Mr Leon Perera asked\tthe Minister for Manpower how many workers have successfully found jobs through Government-supported job fairs each year over the past 10 years.
\tThe Minister for Manpower (Mr Lim Swee Say): Mdm Speaker, to maximise successful job matching, our integrated package of services and programmes include not just job fairs but also career guidance and counselling, job search coaching, employability camps as well as placement programmes, such as the Professional Conversion Programme (PCP), Career Support Programme (CSP) and an enhanced Place-and-Train programme targeted at professionals, managers and executives (P-Max).
In the past 10 years from 2007 to September 2016, the first nine months of last year, Government-funded career services and programmes, including job fairs, operated mainly by the Workforce Development Agency, now Workforce Singapore (WSG), and the National Trades Union Congress-Employment and Employability Institute (e2i), have helped more than 160,000 jobseekers to secure employment. On an annual basis, the number of successful job placement ranges from a high of more than 24,000 in 2009 to a low of about 13,000 in 2008, with an annual average of over 16,000.
In assisting our jobseekers, we make a special effort to help older jobseekers and the long-term unemployed, as I have mentioned earlier, and the outcome has been encouraging. Over the years, the profile of workers placed by our career centres has become more inclusive. The share of professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMET) placements has increased from 10% in 2007, 10 years ago, to 37% in the first nine months of 2016, so from one in 10 to now one in three PMET jobseekers, while the proportion of older workers aged 50 and above has increased from 29% 10 years ago to 39% last year.
What is even more encouraging is that 35% of those who successfully found jobs in the first nine months of 2016 were previously long-term unemployed, which means unemployed for six months or more. As I have mentioned, we pay special attention to them and, as a result, of all the successful jobseekers we served last year, 35% were previously long-term unemployed.
Through continued efforts with our tripartite partners, we will strive to quicken the transformation of industry to create better jobs and, at the same time, quicken the re-development of our workforce to create better skills. We will also keep strengthening our career matching services to minimise missed matches and mismatches in the local market as we go through this period of economic transition.
\tMdm Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
\tMr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. I have just a few supplementary questions. Firstly, does the Minister have the data for the last three years so that we will know the trend for the total number of successful job placements from the totality of all the schemes for the last three years?
Secondly, specifically on the Government-supported job fairs, does the Ministry actually track outcome specifically from that mechanism from the job fairs? A few other questions from that. For these job fairs, is there a mechanism to ensure that employers who participate have a minimum number of jobs that are up for offer before they are actually allowed to participate in these fairs? Those are my supplementary questions.
\tMr Lim Swee Say: Mdm Speaker, the number of job placements over the last three years: in 2014, it was 17,500; 2015, 16,600; and the first nine months of last year, 14,900. Over the last 10 years, the numbers fluctuated up and down. It all depends on how many jobseekers came to us. We do not turn away jobseekers. Jobseekers who need help, they just have to come to us and we will respond accordingly. That is what we do.
Secondly, in terms of job fairs, let me put it this way. Jobseekers coming to us to look for jobs, we will help them in various ways. First, one to one. For every jobseeker, we look at his or her skills profile, career interest, and we look for a suitable job for him. So, a one-to-one matching. In some cases, it is group to group. For example, a company has a retrenchment exercise, 20 workers were retrenched. For the group of 20 workers, we look for a group of employers. We will bring the employers to the company to do a group-to-group matching and try to help the 20 workers to find 20 jobs. In other cases, we go for the \"many to many\" approach. Job fairs are an example where we organise a job fair − typically about 400 jobs per job fair − and the number of jobseekers attending can run into hundreds and thousands. We do not keep track of them.
The reason why we do not keep track of them is because the job fair serves various purposes. In some cases, jobseekers are not looking to work but we want to encourage them. For example, in a community, we want to encourage more of our older residents to take on employment. So, we would bring employers with jobs in the community to the Community Centre to draw them out. As a result, we have residents with no intention to work, but having attended our job fair, they said, \"Oh, I did not know that nearby there are such job openings.\" So, this is the first objective.
The second objective is that we have jobseekers who are not active jobseekers or what we call the passive jobseekers. They have jobs today, they are not in a hurry to get a job. But they would like to know what is available. For example, when we organise a job fair with the hotel industry, many workers from other sectors come to attend and understand better where the hotel sector is heading in case one day they need to move on to this sector. Of course, lastly, those who are looking for jobs.
Because of this, we have not been able to track how many jobseekers have found jobs through job fairs because, at the end of the day, the jobseekers were not served directly by us. On the part of the employers, we leave it to them to compete for the workers.
The bottom line is this: jobseekers who are not able to find jobs through jobs fairs are most welcomed to come to WSG and e2i to register as jobseekers so that we can help them with one-to-one or group-to-group additional services.
Mdm Speaker: Order. End of Question Time.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"International Enterprise Singapore Board (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the International Enterprise Singapore Board Act (Chapter 143B of the 2002 Revised Edition)\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) (Mr S Iswaran); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Presidential Elections (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Presidential Elections Act (Chapter 240A of the 2011 Revised Edition) and to make consequential amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act (Chapter 218 of the 2011 Revised Edition)\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister, Prime Minister's Office (Mr Chan Chun Sing); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Planning (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Planning Act (Chapter 232 of the 1998 Revised Edition)\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister for National Development (Mr Lawrence Wong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Parks and Trees (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Parks and Trees Act (Chapter 216 of the 2006 Revised Edition) and to make related amendments to the National Parks Board Act (Chapter 198A of the 2012 Revised Edition)\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Securities and Futures (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
Mdm Speaker: Minister Ong.
The Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) and Second Minister for Defence (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Mdm Speaker, on behalf of the Minster-in-Charge of the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
In the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis, the Financial Stability Board (FSB), an international organisation comprising policymakers and financial regulators around the world, was established to promote international financial stability. MAS, as a member of FSB has been actively involved in the development of its recommendations.
In 2010, FSB introduced a set of recommendations for its members to implement reporting, central clearing and trading of over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives and to subject OTC derivatives market operators and intermediaries to stronger regulatory oversight.
Arising from the FSB's recommendations, the Securities and Futures Act (SFA) was amended in 2012, as part of this international effort to strengthen the regulation of OTC derivatives markets. The 2012 amendment also drew on our own review in light of Singapore's experience in the crisis and sought to strengthen safeguards for retail investors and enhance MAS' supervision and enforcement powers.
As the amendments are wide-ranging, MAS had indicated then that the reforms to strengthen the regulation of OTC derivatives would be undertaken in two phases for effective implementation. The first phase of reforms undertaken in 2012 requires contract details of OTC derivatives transactions, such as the size, mark-to-market value and maturity, to be reported to licensed trade repositories. This enables MAS to monitor any potential financial stability risks. Later this year, MAS will finalise and implement regulations for the central clearing of widely traded OTC derivatives contracts. Central clearing will mitigate the counterparty credit risks inherent in such trades and limit the effects of systemic contagion.
This Bill implements the remaining aspects of the reforms in OTC derivatives reforms and regulations. MAS also took the opportunity to amend the SFA in three other key areas: first, enhancing regulatory safeguards for retail investors; second, enhancing credibility and transparency of capital markets; and third, strengthening the enforcement regime against market misconduct.
MAS has consulted the industry and the public on the proposed amendments. It has considered all the feedback received and taken them into account as appropriate.
I will now go through the amendments in turn.
Mdm Speaker, let me elaborate first on the amendments relating to OTC derivatives reforms arising from the FSB's recommendations.
The events leading to the collapse of major financial institutions during the Global Financial Crisis exposed significant weaknesses in the structure of OTC derivatives markets, necessitating regulatory reforms. As a leading financial centre and an active member of FSB, it is important that we align to these latest international standards and best practices.
This Bill completes the reforms to further enhance transparency and improve supervisory oversight of our OTC derivatives market operators and intermediaries. The Bill also empowers MAS to require OTC derivatives products that meet prescribed criteria to be traded on organised trading facilities, such as exchanges, instead of OTC.
Internationally, the United States (US) and Japan have commenced their requirements to trade OTC derivatives products on organised trading facilities. Others, like the European Union, Hong Kong and Australia, have yet to do so, despite having the legal frameworks in place. MAS will continue to monitor international developments and market liquidity conditions in determining the timing and scope of implementing the trading requirement in Singapore.
Operators of organised trading facilities for OTC derivatives products will have to be authorised by MAS and must comply with requirements aimed at maintaining fair, orderly and transparent markets. Intermediaries in the OTC derivatives markets will also be subject to regulation to ensure that risks associated with their activities are well-managed.
While the Bill tightens the OTC derivatives regime to better safeguard financial stability, we also need to strike a balance against our objective to promote ease of doing business, innovation and a vibrant financial sector. As part of this effort, this Bill therefore also seeks to streamline existing regulatory regimes for commodity derivatives and exchange-traded derivatives.
Commodity derivatives market operators and intermediaries, which are currently regulated under the Commodity Trading Act administered by International Enterprise (IE) Singapore, will consequently be regulated under SFA. This avoids subjecting them to two regulatory regimes and ensures more efficient regulation. MAS will provide for appropriate transition periods to minimise any industry impact.
MAS will also allow derivatives products to be listed and traded on organised trading facilities without the need for case-by-case approval. They will be required to certify that the contract design satisfies conditions required for fair, orderly and transparent trading. As these conditions will be set out publicly, market operators will clearly know the boundaries within which they can design their products. They will not need to seek MAS' approval.
The streamlined listing process will enable our market operators to innovate and launch new derivatives products to meet market demands. Reducing the time-to-market could also encourage trading of derivatives contracts on organised trading facilities, instead of OTC, without MAS having to specifically require such products for platform trading.
Mdm Speaker, I would now like to turn to the next set of amendments to enhance regulatory safeguards for retail investors.
A primary objective of MAS' regulatory framework for capital markets aims to safeguard the interests of retail investors, who are really the man-in-the-street, putting their savings and nest egg in investment products. We want to ensure these investors have access to adequate information and that intermediaries deal fairly with them. That is why:
First, public offers of securities, such as shares and bonds and investment funds, must be made with a prospectus registered with MAS. The prospectus must contain all material information relating to the investment.
Second, intermediaries, such as brokers, financial advisers and fund managers, must be licensed by MAS and adhere to rules governing their conduct of business with customers in a fair, transparent manner.
In recent years, MAS has observed a number of non-conventional products that are marketed to retail investors as alternate investments. Some of these products display essentially the same characteristics as traditional capital markets products but are deliberately structured to fall out of MAS' regulatory framework.
To enhance investor protection, the Bill provides MAS greater flexibility and powers to bring non-conventional investment products within MAS' regulatory perimeters. This is achieved in the following ways.
First, the Bill empowers MAS to prescribe certain products as debentures. With these powers, MAS intends to prescribe as debentures, buy-back arrangements involving gold, silver and platinum. This is because, in substance, such schemes are similar to collateralised borrowing arrangements. Once classified as a debenture, offers of products with such buy-back arrangements will have to be made with a prospectus registered with MAS. This will provide retail investors better access to information on product features and risks and make more informed investment decisions.
Second, the Bill widens the definition of collective investment schemes (CIS), which must be authorised or recognised by MAS for public offers made available to retail investors. Currently, for a scheme to be regarded as a CIS, both profits and contributions from investors must be pooled. But investment schemes can be structured to sell investors sub-divided interests in physical assets, such as undeveloped land, plantation plots or even units in an apartment block to be run as a hotel. Such schemes have typically been called land-banking, plantation schemes, and condo-tels respectively. By structuring the schemes this way, the pooling element can be avoided, and regulation as a CIS circumvented.
The amended CIS definition will no longer require investors' contributions and profits to be pooled in order for a scheme to be regarded as a CIS. A scheme can be caught as CIS as long as the scheme property is managed as a whole. This recognises the \"collective\" nature of such schemes, since property is still managed as a whole by the scheme manager, to generate profits for the collective interests of scheme investors. Such arrangements, in substance, pose the same risks to investors as traditional CIS, and should be regulated as such. This is the approach adopted in the United Kingdom and Hong Kong.
At the same time, we do not want to extend the regulatory perimeter too far. The amendment will not capture schemes which are predominantly for the consumption of, rather than investment in, property, or where property is managed for the benefit of investors on an individual basis. For example, arrangements where property owners simply use the same operator to help them let out their individual apartment units, will not be considered as a CIS.
I would like to emphasise that all investments carry risk that, ultimately, investors must take responsibility for their financial decisions. Investors need to critically assess investment products and refrain from investing in any product that they do not understand or where the returns sound too good to be true.
The next set of amendments relate to the classification of non-retail investors. There are two main types of non-retail investors under MAS' capital markets regulatory framework.
First, accredited investors (AIs), who are identified based on prescribed wealth or income thresholds; and
Two, institutional investors, who are widely accepted as having a high degree of financial knowledge. Such investors are generally considered better able to protect their own interests, as compared to retail investors. In line with a measured regulatory approach, there are available exemptions from regulatory requirements for those who deal only with non-retail investors.
Currently, individuals qualify as AIs if they have more than $2 million of net personal assets. The Bill tightens the way net personal assets are calculated, such as the net equity of an individual's primary residence can only contribute up to $1 million of the $2 million threshold. The Bill also introduces another avenue for individuals to qualify as AIs if they have more than $1 million of financial assets, net of any related liabilities. With this amendment, individuals whose wealth is concentrated in their primary residence, with few other liquid assets to invest, will be treated as retail investors and will benefit from the range of regulatory safeguards under the SFA when transacting in capital markets products.
MAS also intends to introduce in subsidiary legislation an opt-in regime for the AI class.
So, even if an investor qualifies as an AI, intermediaries cannot automatically treat him as such. Instead, intermediaries will have to inform the investor of the trade-offs involved and get his agreement to be treated as an AI. The investor can choose not to opt-in and remain as a retail investor with greater regulatory safeguards; or he may willingly forego such safeguards in order to more easily access a wider range of niche financial products and services, likely more complex and with higher risk. The choice is ultimately his or hers to make, dependent on his or her own risk profile, investment needs and circumstances.
The Bill also amends the institutional investor class to cover a wider range of entities that are professionally active in the capital markets. These institutions are sophisticated in their investment approach and should, therefore, be accorded minimal safeguards. This includes financial institutions that are regulated by a foreign regulator, foreign central governments and sovereign wealth funds.
On the other hand, statutory bodies, other than prescribed Statutory Boards, such as the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board or even MAS, will no longer be deemed as institutional investors. Many such entities, such as Town Councils and religious bodies, do not always possess the level of financial sophistication to be deemed an institutional investor. They will, by default, be retail investors. But as explained above, they can opt-in as AIs if they meet the criteria, which, for corporations, include having $10 million or more in net assets.
Mdm Speaker, I will now move on to amendments to enhance the credibility and transparency of our capital markets. These changes take into account global best practices recommended by the International Organisation of Securities Commission (IOSCO), the international standard-setting body for securities markets. MAS is an active member of the Commission and has contributed to formulating best practices.
The Bill will introduce a new regulatory framework for financial benchmarks. Financial benchmarks play an important role in the pricing and settlement of financial instruments and contracts. One example is the Singapore Interbank Offer Rate (SIBOR), which is used by various lenders to set interest rates. As it has wide systemic influence, it is critical that the process of setting financial benchmarks is credible and reliable.
Following the uncovering of misconduct in the setting of the London Interbank Offered Rate, IOSCO has developed principles to address vulnerabilities in the benchmark-setting process. Regulatory frameworks for financial benchmarks have been implemented in the United Kingdom and are in the process of being implemented at the European level.
Under the Bill, MAS will be able to designate key financial benchmarks. Once designated, MAS will regulate those who administer these benchmarks as well as those who submit the information required to compute these benchmarks. MAS intends to designate SIBOR and the Swap Offer Rate (SOR). Both are widely referenced by banks to set interest rates for commercial term loans and residential property loans; it is thus important that the setting of these benchmarks be subject to a robust and credible process.
The Bill also introduces criminal sanctions and civil penalties to deter manipulation of financial benchmarks. This will cover manipulative acts that occur in Singapore or are committed in relation to financial benchmarks administered in Singapore, even if the acts are perpetrated overseas.
Next, we will strengthen disclosure requirements for short selling of listed securities. Short selling is the practice of selling securities that one does not own. It enhances the price discovery process by allowing market participants who hold a negative view on the price of a security to express this view. The efficacy of the price discovery process can be improved by making available to all market participants information on the extent of any such short selling in a security.
In line with jurisdictions, such as Australia, Europe and Hong Kong, the Bill introduces disclosure requirements on the level of short-sell orders and short positions in securities listed on an approved exchange in Singapore. The Bill requires market participants to specifically indicate short-sell orders, giving statutory effect to reporting obligations currently imposed through the trading rules of the Singapore Exchange. Those who hold outstanding short positions above a prescribed threshold will also be required to report those short positions to MAS. Aggregated short-sell orders and short positions will be made available to the public, so that they can make more informed investment decisions.
Mdm Speaker, I will now turn to the last category of amendments to strengthen MAS' enforcement powers against market misconduct.
Section 199 of SFA currently prohibits disclosures of statements that are false or misleading in a material aspect and are likely to have an effect on the market price of securities. In the 2012 case of Madhavan Peter vs Public Prosecutor, the Court held that a significant price effect is required for liability to be established against a person with respect to false or misleading statements under section 199. The Bill clarifies that the section 199 prohibition applies regardless of the price effect. Price movements of securities may be affected by other contemporaneous and irrelevant market factors, such as the general market sentiment or market liquidity. As such, MAS' ability to take enforcement action against materially false or misleading disclosures that may wrongly influence persons to trade in the market should not be constrained by the requirement of a significant price effect.
The Bill also introduces a statutory definition of \"persons who commonly invest\", to better reflect market participants who are accustomed to or likely to invest in securities. This term − which is currently not defined in SFA − will be used as the reference point in insider trading cases or assessing whether a particular information is generally available and is likely to have a material price impact by influencing the behaviour of common investors.
In the 2012 case of Lew Chee Fai Kevin vs MAS on insider trading, the Court of Appeal held that \"persons who commonly invest\" are reasonable investors who possess general professional knowledge, but do not include retail investors who trade regularly. The Court also defined \"general professional knowledge\" as having a very high standard of market analysis and trading knowledge. This is not reflective of the average investor in the market. The new statutory definition will strengthen MAS' ability to pursue insider trading cases without having to meet an unrealistically high standard for \"persons who commonly invest\". The Court will be able to take into account the reality that there can be different classes of \"persons who commonly invest\", each with a different level of knowledge and expertise. MAS will issue guidelines on the interpretation of this statutory definition.
Currently, the maximum civil penalty that can be awarded against an individual is capped at three times the benefits gained or losses avoided, subject to a minimum of $50,000. So, where the benefits gained or losses avoided are small, the civil penalty is effectively $50,000 and may not adequately reflect the culpability of the offender or achieve sufficient deterrence. On the other hand, where there is no benefit gained or loss avoided, the civil penalty can be much higher, currently capped at $2 million. So, the two outcomes are not congruent.
The Bill standardises the maximum penalty that can be awarded in all civil penalty cases to the greater of $2 million or three times the amount of benefits gained or losses avoided. This ensures that the civil penalty quantum that can be awarded is commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct and is not unduly limited by the value of the benefit gained or loss avoided by the offender.
The Bill also confers priority on MAS' civil penalty claims over private unsecured claims that accrue subsequently to the contravention of SFA. Such priority will strengthen MAS' ability to resist attempts by third party creditors to divert funds frozen by MAS under the civil penalty regime towards satisfaction of the contravening person's private debts. This is in line with the priority that is accorded to Government claims in other civil proceedings taken by the Government. This also reduces the potential for dissipation of a defendant's assets, which may cause MAS' civil penalty claims to be nothing more than paper judgments.
Mdm Speaker, let me conclude. This Bill introduces significant and timely changes to our capital markets legislation, particularly to strengthen safeguards for retail investors and enhance the transparency and credibility of the securities and derivatives markets. MAS will continue to review its capital markets regulatory framework to ensure that it keeps pace with market developments and international standards and supports the growth of Singapore's economy. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mdm Speaker\t: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mdm Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to declare that I work in a bank.
Mdm Speaker, Singapore has a financial sector that is recognised as one of the world's leading financial centres. From real estate to insurance to banking and more, we offer local and global investors direct access to a plethora of regional and global investment opportunities.
Economic and political stability, robustness of the legal and regulatory framework as well as the reliability and transparency in the way business is conducted also helped to enhance our reputation as a top wealth management and regional derivatives hub. The vibrancy of the financial sector has led to a tremendous growth of the sector and we now have over 200 banks with a presence in Singapore.
The growth of the local and global capital markets has created a lot of wealth in the past decades and this has also given rise to the notion that it may be easy to make money from investments and that the risk of failure is low. It may not be uncommon for beginners to jump into hefty investments based on blind trust for a friend or financial consultant.
I support this amendment Bill, which is quite extensive and probably the biggest change in a long time for SFA. It has changes, first, on the regulatory front, as the Minister mentioned, with reforms needed to strengthen regulation of the OTC markets, and now, exchanges, recommended by FSB and the Group of 20 (G20) will strengthen Singapore's financial sector hub status; second, enhancing regulatory safeguards for retail investors which is quite key; third, enhancing credibility and transparency of capital markets with new regulatory frameworks to instil better governance in the setting of financial benchmarks, such as SIBOR, and transparency in line with international best practices; and fourth, strengthening the enforcement regime against capital market misconduct and deter future offenders.
In particular, this Bill enhances the robustness and transparency of the legal framework which could further protect the interest of investors, especially those who may not be as financially sophisticated as the bankers or financial consultants serving them. This is especially important as investment products have gone beyond plain vanilla to highly complex structures. Investor protection in Singapore is pertinent, given Singapore's standing as a pre-eminent global financial centre, its value-added growth contributions to the Singapore economy and its role as an intermediary for various players in the economy is also important.
It is the responsibility and moral obligation of financial institutions to explain to their clients, especially those who are investing in complex instruments, and ensure that risks are properly understood before making an investment. The market operates like the car windscreen wiper, if I can make an analogy. It can swing to the left and also to the right. So, you can lose money in as much as you can make it. In fact, in certain cases where the clients use leverage, they may even lose more than their initial capital.
Bond investors are often lured with coupons or better interest rates without being explained that higher rates mean higher risk of loss as the quality of the underlying instrument is often poorer. Retail investors may feel that because the persons selling investment products are from the financial industry, they would have better knowledge of the market and are trustworthy. What they fail to appreciate is that these same people are selling the products also because they have to meet their targets and their key performance indicators. Conflicts of interests may also not be properly disclosed to investors and this may prevent investors from making informed decisions.
A retail investor may be told not to worry about the corporation issuing the bond because their parent company is a big company with a good track record. What investors do not understand is that the bond may not be issued by the parent company but a subsidiary which is a separate corporate entity altogether and which may have limited assets.
Another point is the investors may be told that the bond may have this and that rating from one of the bond rating agencies, for example, Fitch, Moody's or Standard and Poor's. But many of them may not actually understand or are able to truly explain what these ratings mean. In today's market, we must remember the phrase: \"nothing is too big to fail\".
Another bug-bear is the use of financial jargons which may impress the retail investor that you are someone knowledgeable but, at the same time, confuse the investor. The investors may find themselves persuaded into buying products when the risks are not fully explained. Look at how the fall in oil prices impacted on the oil and gas industry, resulting in a series of bond defaults. Disclaimer clauses and additional contractual obligations, often neglected or discretely mentioned amidst a wall of incomprehensible financial terms, may be skimmed over and never explained.
On the other hand, in Hong Kong, it will eventually be mandatory to enforce a suitability clause in all applicable client agreements. It would be a good idea to have something similar here, as this should help prevent banks from hiding behind disclaimer clauses, while enhancing the level of protection for all retail investors, including AIs.
I am glad that the Bill enhances regulatory safeguards for retail investors by extending regulatory safeguards to retail investors in two types of non-conventional investment products that share features of capital market products such as the buy-back arrangements involving gold, silver or platinum and collectively managed investment schemes, such as land-banking. We have seen how some of our residents who face losses investing in some of these schemes.
Next, I am pleased to note that the Bill seeks to tighten the qualification to be an approved investor. It is welcomed that the individual's primary residence can only contribute up to S$1 million of the current S$2 million net personal assets. In fact, if I may suggest, MAS should perhaps not allow the primary residence of the investor to be used to contribute to the net personal assets to meet the S$2 million threshold. A family can one day find themselves having to sell their home if they are not careful in investing on the basis of using their primary residence to pledge against any open positions.
Additionally, in light of inflation, a higher threshold than S$2 million net worth should be established. In the US, although the qualifying net worth is US$1 million for an individual to be an AI, levels of consumer protection are higher due to the fact that litigation and regulatory activism are prolific in the US. By contrast, in Singapore, this is not in our culture.
Regardless, wealth should not be the sole major indicator here, as being rich in asset does not necessarily mean good financial knowledge. To better increase protection, the threshold for attaining Approved Investor status should be raised based on his or her experience and expertise. According to the European Union laws, a retail client, in order to gain status as an \"elective\" professional client, must satisfy at least two of the following requirements:
(a) he/she has carried out trade transactions, in significant size, at least €50,000, on the relevant market at an average frequency of 10 per quarter over the previous four quarters;
(b) the size of financial instrument portfolio, defined as including cash deposits and financial instruments, exceeds €500,000; and
(c) he/she works or has worked in the financial sector for at least one year in a professional position which requires knowledge of the transactions or services envisaged.
So, I hope the Government will consider placing greater emphasis on the importance of knowledge in investing, rather than just personal assets. We can create any number of laws and restrictions but, ultimately, nothing empowers a customer more than possessing knowledge.
Next, I would like to point out some potential gaps. In the case of joint accounts, when one party is a non-AI, he or she can opt out of protection measures available to retail investors. While it may be common in the wealth management industry where only one joint account holder is an AI, for example, a millionaire father with a joint banking account with his son who is still in university, we cannot over regulate to not permit non-AIs from being joint account holders. It may be prudent to add a requirement that mandates banks to primarily deal with the party who is the AI, if the investment products sold are not permitted to be sold to retail investors.
Additionally, for accounts opened in the name of a private investment company or trust, where there is more than one beneficial owner, all beneficial owners need to qualify as an accredited investor. This may not be reflective of how potential private banking clients operate their accounts. It is proposed that the laws should be revised to ensure consistency so that beneficial owners of such structures, such as trust or private investment company accounts who may not be AIs are placed on the same footing as those who choose to invest as joint account holders.
It is almost always to the bank's benefit to deal with AIs over retail investors. My concern is that some bankers may not be properly incentivised to accurately determine a customer's net assets. For example, a careless banker may \"overestimate\" a potential client's net assets so as to \"upgrade\" him to an AI. Lessons from the recent 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) money laundering scandal should be a stark reminder that self-regulation by banks may not be completely effective in some areas. So, having a third party to do the assessment may be fairer and more transparent. In the case of Australia and New Zealand, an independent accountant has to certify the net assets of the client.
As a global financial centre with many non-Singaporean clients, in order to uphold our good reputation, the Government has a duty to look out for the interests of our overseas investors. So, it is important to make clear that all protection for local investors should apply to all overseas investors as well. Conversely, the interests of Singaporeans must also not be neglected in a bid to cater to the foreign financial entities.
Last, but not least, the timing and implementation period of the changes in the Securities and Futures Bill would be critical. With the potential of some level of deregulation coming out of the US under the Trump administration, it may be essential to communicate the main broad objectives of this amendment to the public and financial institutions, as it signals a move towards slightly tighter regulation which can be interpreted as onerous. As a result, the impact of the amendments on the value-added growth of the financial sector should also be examined. I would also urge MAS to have a meaningful implementation period for the changes as it is very hard and expensive for the banks to get clients certified and new systems to be set up to track products.
Overall, the changes, particularly its elements of investor protection, including that for commodity-related products, as well as enforcement action, are highly lauded and should ensure a more resilient, transparent and stable financial sector.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Speaker, the Securities and Futures (Amendment) Bill seeks to update and broaden regulations that apply to the trading of capital market products, the operation of approved exchanges, the disclosure requirements for certain types of trades and so on. On the whole, these changes are positive and, in fact, overdue. While I do not oppose the Bill, I would like to seek clarifications on some aspects of the Bill and make some comments on gaps that remain unaddressed.
Madam, it is crucial that our business ecosystem for the trading of securities, derivatives, fixed income and other financial products achieve several things. We must be seen to be progressive and advanced, taking into consideration global best practices and leading edge developments in technology and business models. This is, of course, necessary to attract investments and create jobs in our financial services industry. It is also necessary to broaden investment options for Singaporeans. At the same time, our ecosystem must be seen to be fair and transparent. We should never allow it to be seen as a rigged game, which insiders can exploit for unfair advantages over the smaller players or retail investors. To allow this, is to risk weakening the viability of our financial services industry and, indeed, our social fabric.
We have seen in other countries how there can be a public backlash against traders and market-movers who can make personal incomes of up to $100 million a year or more, seemingly, by not creating anything of value to society. So, we need to get the balance right. Too much regulation, and we risk strangling business, investment job creation and wealth creation. Too little regulation, and we risk feeding the perception that the markets are a rigged game. The right balance is smart regulations.
I would like to speak on two areas: firstly, on our capabilities and safeguards for the enforcement of these and other financial services industry regulations; and secondly, I have some queries on the changes to the \"accredited investor\" definition, which I fear is insufficiently prescriptive.
Complex regulations are only as good as the regulator's ability to enforce those regulations, lest they become, in Shakespeare's words, \"rules more honoured in the breach than the observance\". Insider trading is a good example of this. Insider trading crimes are difficult to prove in Court and require strong expertise and capabilities on the part of investigators and prosecutors. Given this widening of the scope of our securities and futures regulation that this Bill embodies, I would like to ask the Ministry what steps are being taken to beef up the enforcement capabilities of MAS and other agencies to proactively enforce adherence to these new rules.
Of course, no regulator and no policing regime can be perfect, but what measures are being put in place to ensure a reasonably robust regime for detecting possible breaches, investigating them and, where warranted, bringing them to the Courts? It took several years for the authorities to bring charges, in the case of the penny stocks saga. This episode, which saw share prices see-saw, has unnerved retail investors.
In my grassroots work, I met a retired resident who lived in a 3-room flat, who had invested small amounts of his money in the local stock market. Referring to the penny stocks incident and the time it took to resolve, he was very concerned that insufficient enforcement would lead to retail investors like him losing money to rich market-movers, who may or may not be breaking the law.
I recently filed a Parliamentary Question on this and Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam replied that the resources that Singapore has devoted to investigating market misconduct offences are commensurate with the capitalisation and number of listed companies in our securities market, and comparable with other developed markets, such as Hong Kong and Australia. However, numbers were not cited for the level of investment that we put into enforcement, either in terms of budget or staffing. Specifically, I would like to ask a few questions.
Firstly, will resources be expanded to cope with the expanded scope of the legislation and how will this be done?
Secondly, are the numbers of civil penalty actions and prosecutions under this Act, which were cited in the Deputy Prime Minister's reply to my Parliamentary Question, commensurate with what is seen in other developed cities with a large stock exchange, like London, New York, Hong Kong, Chicago and Frankfurt, for example?
Thirdly, does MAS monitor the ratio between the number of incoming leads for possible breaches of the Act on the one hand, from suspicious transaction reports, electronic meta-data analysis, public feedback and so on, and the number of staff analysing those leads, on the other hand? Is this ratio commensurate with what we see in other enforcement agencies, like the British Serious Fraud Office or the American Securities and Exchange Commission, for instance? The reason I ask this is that good systems for generating intelligence will be useless if the staff who have to sieve through the data are overwhelmed.
Lastly, on this subject, I would like to pose a question about the robustness of our enforcement regime that is broader. What steps are being taken to prevent conflicts of interest between the regulator and the industry? And specifically, are there rules in place to control the ease with which Government employees with financial industry oversight responsibilities can join financial institutions immediately after they leave Government service? Are there rules in place which require such employees to exercise a cooling-off period, before they can join industries that they used to help regulate?
In other countries, this matter has been a subject of some debate. The concern fuelling such debates is easy to see. If a tendency takes root whereby regulators often leave their Civil Service jobs to take up positions in the industries they used to regulate, sometimes with the expressed responsibility to manage communications with the Government, there is the possibility that serving regulators may be at risk of industry capture. What this means is that the regulators may tend to keep one eye on the interests of the industry that they are regulating, knowing that they may one day, sooner or later, join the employer of that industry.
For example – and this example does not relate to the financial services industry or indeed to regulation per se, but the principle is the same – on 9 December 2016, US President-elect Donald Trump floated the idea that US military procurement officials should be banned for life from ever joining defence contractors.
Next, I would like to query the changes made to the definition of an AI. With the passage of this Bill, the wealth criteria for an individual to qualify as an AI will be tightened, such that the net equity of the individual's primary residence can only contribute up to S$1 million of the current S$2 million net personal assets threshold.
Alternatively, individuals will be able to qualify as an AI if they have S$1 million of financial assets, net of any related liabilities. Individuals whose wealth is concentrated in their primary residence and have little liquid assets otherwise, will no longer qualify as AIs. The aim of this change seems to be to ensure that AIs have at least S$1 million in liquid assets, that is, financial assets net of the property they reside in, which is a reasonable intent, and one that I agree with.
I would like to ask a few questions about how these definitions will be operationalised so as to best realise this intent. Firstly, does the S$1 million financial asset threshold include the value of insurance policies? If so, how is this value calculated? By virtue of total premiums paid, maturity value of the policy or some other criteria?
Secondly, should mark-to-market prices be used to determine the value of the property as well as the value of the more liquid assets? At the moment, some banks depend on investors' self-declaration in form filling. Will financial service institutions (FSIs) be required to ascertain mark-to-market prices for the properties and financial assets that the investors declare? If so, this may saddle FSIs with higher compliance costs, costs which may get passed on to their customers to some extent. But in any case, it would be important and useful for the position to be clarified so that FSIs are held to the same standard and are consistent in their practices.
Thirdly, the S$1 million threshold presumably includes bond holdings, but some bonds may be illiquid in practical terms, because it is either extremely difficult or impossible to sell such bonds to the secondary markets, for example, the bonds of companies undergoing some debt restructuring exercise or companies that are undergoing liquidation. Are illiquid bonds included in the definition of \"financial assets\" or should we differentiate between illiquid and liquid bonds to be considered within the S$1 million financial asset threshold?
As these questions demonstrate, it may be necessary for MAS to be more prescriptive about how these legislative changes to the definition of an AI will, in practice, be operationalised.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Thomas Chua.
Mr Thomas Chua Kee Seng (Nominated Member): Madam, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, I support the Securities and Futures (Amendment) Bill, mainly for two reasons.
Firstly, the amendment to the Securities and Futures Bill safeguards the investors' interests. Recently, I read a newspaper article in Lianhe Wanbao, and the headline is, \"Sleepless Nights for elderly couple who lose $30,000\". An elderly retired couple attended an investment talk and forked out $10,000 to buy bonds. The other party promised they would get back their principal plus 10% interest within a year. However, when the bond matured, they did not get their principal back. This elderly couple has been suffering from insomnia because they would also lose their further investment of $20,000 in bonds which are about to mature.
This is by no means an isolated case, as there are many other similar stories. There are so many types of financial products in the market now and many seniors hope to retire comfortably using these avenues of wealth management, but not all investors are savvy enough or equipped with the necessary knowledge to evaluate the risks and the merits of a financial product. The sales executives tend to be glib and persuasive and those with no investment experience can be easily misled.
Based on the current legislation, investors' risk category is defined according to their financial assets, including the value of their properties. For instance, some investors may have financial assets of $2 million, but this is mainly in property, with very little in cash. Once the investment fails, practically everything is wiped out, bringing their quality of life under jeopardy. Amending the Bill would define more clearly the conditions for retail investors and institutional investors; only part of the property value can be included as part of their personal assets. This would bring up the threshold for the retail investors and safeguard their interests.
The second reason is that the amendment of the Bill would widen the scope of governance and ensure that transactions are properly regulated. In recent years, some \"non-conventional investment products\" have become increasingly popular, like precious metals, red wine, land banking and so on. Prior to the amendment, with the exception of collective investments, these non-conventional investment products do not come under the purview of MAS. In order to avoid coming under MAS regulation, some market players have become very creative and restructured their products. Once the amendments are enacted, all investment products would come under the purview of MAS. This is a very good move.
However, besides these two points, I still have some reservations. Overly strict controls may make the financial markets stagnate. A prosperous and lively market has to have some element of risk. How could the Government achieve a balance between the two? For example, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) always encounter problems of financing. There is a new financing method called crowdfunding, which could provide capital for SMEs and startup companies.
Earlier on, MAS has already issued new guidelines to improve access to these new platforms, enabling SMEs and startups to raise capital more easily. After amending the Securities and Futures Act, this could hamper such new funding channels. Hence, I hope that when the Government decides to stipulate related legislation in the future, it could strike a balance between maintaining an active market and strengthening governance. An over-regulated system could produce the \"hairy-crab effect\" of constraining the markets. The desire to achieve a balance between financial innovation and effective governance is a tall order and a real test of management wisdom.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, I applaud the amendments proposed in this Bill as it contributes to a higher level of transparency and enhanced protection for retail investors. That said, I would like to seek a few clarifications.
Firstly, with the rapid ascent of technology, the financial industry has witnessed a transformation in the development and delivery of financial products. Today, a retail investor can access and trade various financial products, such as stocks, bonds, futures and options, through voice or electronic trading.
However, this ease of access and the wide range of financial products could bring about unintended consequences, especially for retail investors. Recently, there has been a sharp rise in scams involving online trading in binary options, with more than 30 reports of such scams lodged to date, as of 14 December, and investors losing more than S$1 million to unregulated binary options trading platforms. The complexities of such derivative products may not be fully understood by a retail investor who lacks access to professional advisory services.
While an investor with the privilege of a private banker's advisory may be well-hedged against such risks, I remain concerned for retail investors. We must always strengthen our regulatory framework to ensure the average retail investor is protected, as they remain exposed to an increasing range of investible products, in particular, financial derivatives.
Asymmetrical information generally contributes to false triggers and leads to costly investment decisions. As such, educating retail investors should and must always remain a key focus of financial market regulation. Can the Minister share how the Ministry intends to do this?
Secondly, excessive short selling distorts the fundamental function of a financial market, which is the signalling effect of price. By requiring market participants to declare their short-selling positions, as prescribed in clause 74, it will go a long way to ensure responsible trading. Most importantly, it would deter excessive short selling by syndicates at the expense of retail participants.
Thirdly, I am heartened to read about the stiffer penalties for people who flout disclosure requirements. However, will the Ministry consider imposing a two-year trading ban instead of just fines, for those who fail to meet disclosure requirements, or those who present information which gravely affects the movement of prices, thereby distorting efficient trading activities? What is at stake here is the credibility of our financial markets, something which should not be taken for granted.
Madam, the relevant bodies should continue to ensure that Singapore's capital markets keep pace with key developments and standards in the international market.
But in this pursuit, we should also ensure that retail investors understand the complicated risks involved in the various classes of investment products and the penalties of misconduct. That said, Madam, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mdm Speaker: Ms Foo Mee Har.
Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Mdm Speaker, first, I wish to declare my interest as the Chief Executive Officer of the Wealth Management Institute. I speak in support of the Bill.
The Securities and Futures (Amendment) Bill introduces extensive changes and keeps standards in Singapore on par with international capital markets and best practices and ensures our capital markets regulatory framework keeps pace with market developments.
It is important that we strengthen regulation of OTC derivatives markets in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis. The proposed amendments are in line with the recommendations made by FSB and the G20.
Madam, I welcome the long-awaited amendments aimed at enhancing the credibility and transparency of capital markets, including better governance in the setting of financial benchmarks, strengthening MAS' ability to take enforcement action against market misconduct and strengthening safeguards for retail investors.
Malpractice in the market can be very damaging. Members of this House may recall when news broke of the extent of the LIBOR fixing in 2012, that scandal sent shock waves around the world. As many as 20 big banks were named in various investigations or lawsuits alleging that LIBOR was rigged. To many, the pervasive misconduct amongst traders felt like \"daylight robbery\", and served to further corrode what little remained of public trust in banks and those who run them. Their manipulation of the LIBOR rate impacted the man-in-the-street as well as corporations around the world, because it affected what was paid for loans and earned for savings. It is estimated to involve up to US$800 trillion worth of financial instruments, ranging from complex interest rate derivatives to simple mortgages.
Singapore has not been immune to financial malpractice. In 2013, MAS punished 20 banks and revealed that 133 traders had tried to manipulate three interest rate and foreign exchange benchmarks. The revelation affected trust and confidence in Singapore's financial institutions.
There was widespread public outrage at the extent of bankers' misconduct, the flawed benchmark setting mechanisms that provided ample room for manipulation, and how the perpetrators got away with punishments that appeared light in comparison to the severity of their crimes.
I therefore support the new regulatory framework proposed to instil better governance in the setting of financial benchmarks and transparency in the listed securities markets. My question to the Minister is whether the proposed enforcement regime is punitive enough to guard against capital market misconduct, to deter future offenders and to regain investor confidence. Would the Minister also illustrate how the proposed criminal and civil penalties for capital market misconduct compare to those implemented in other international financial markets?
Madam, in light of the millions of dollars that banks and their traders stand to gain from manipulation, I am concerned about the adequacy of capping the maximum civil penalty quantum to the greater of $2 million, or three times the amount of benefits gained or losses avoided. I urge the authorities to arm ourselves with a sufficiently \"big stick\" to weed out temptations to manipulate and use the full extent of the law to punish offenders.
Madam, I also welcome the enhanced regulatory safeguards for retail investors provided under this Bill. I was saddened by the heart-breaking experience of many Singaporeans, including several of my residents, who have lost their life savings in unregulated buy-back arrangements involving instruments, such as gold.
I am comforted that MAS is now extending the regulatory safeguards to investors in two types of unconventional investment products. These include debentures involving buy-back arrangements involving gold, silver and platinum as well as CIS, such as land-banking.
Madam, whilst I understand regulations cannot cover every type of investment instrument, I do wish that the law had covered these products sooner, so that many Singaporean families could have avoided becoming hurt. Many people wondered why it took so long to bring these products under MAS' oversight. As the investment landscape evolves and the new \"creative\" financial instruments emerge to prey on unsuspecting investors, I urge the authorities to prioritise regulatory oversight in order to protect retail investors. Many consumers are particularly vulnerable in the current environment of low returns; they may be easily tempted by products that promise higher yields to make their hard-earned savings work harder.
Of course, individual investors must also protect themselves by doing their own homework, being responsible for their own investment decisions, and managing their financial assets in a manner appropriate to their stage in life. In the world of investments, there is no free lunch. Much more can be done to promote financial education in a systematic way, making financial literacy pervasive in our community and strengthening our immunity against mis-selling and fraud. This is especially key to helping our fast-ageing population preserve precious savings that provide the safety net they need in their retirement.
Madam, I commend MAS for the slew of regulatory changes that it put in place recently, with the aim of improving access to products and capital whilst strengthening disclosure and accountability. However, this aim must be balanced with the equally important goal of keeping Singapore competitive as a world-class financial centre. There is much concern in the industry about the overwhelming number and rate of regulatory changes taking place, just when the financial industry is facing significant headwinds of lower growth and squeezed margins. Some players actually feel that their very survival is being threatened by escalating compliance costs as a result of the heavier regulatory burden. There is a sense that jobs are being threatened, as are employment prospects of Singaporeans in this sector.
With this in mind, I am concerned about the timing to amend rules around AIs. Whilst I agree with the intent of these proposed changes, which will enable high net worth individuals to benefit from the full range of safeguards for retail investors, I am worried about the capacity of banks to take action with yet another set of new regulations.
Madam, many relationship managers and their banks are already struggling to cope with the increased paperwork and operating procedures required to comply with the new rules implemented earlier. These include enhanced anti-money laundering measures as well as common reporting standards. The changes proposed for the AI framework would involve private banks going through the extensive exercise of re-segmenting their business, reviewing every client account, with client calls to do more reviews. For offshore clients, the exercise could prove challenging, given access to information on clients' liability is limited in Singapore. Similarly, categorisation of joint accounts as AI can be complex, with varying degrees of sophistication amongst accounts holders.
So, the avalanche of regulatory changes is also distracting banks from serving their clients. In the midst of a challenging business environment, they should instead be focusing their efforts on innovation and providing better service, enabled by smarter but not more regulation. Would the Minister please elaborate on what drives the priority of implementation of new rules?
In conclusion, I believe the proposed amendments to improve market conduct are in line with standards set in other leading financial centres. However, we must be careful to take a balanced approach to regulation, so as not to stymie growth and impact Singapore's competitiveness. Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Henry Kwek.
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Nee Soon): Mdm Speaker, I would like to declare that I am a part-owner in a firm that trades in equities and forex. Mdm Speaker, the amendments to the Securities and Futures Act are a timely refresh to our regulations. Therefore, I rise in support of the Bill. I would like to talk about three broad issues today: (a) protecting the jobs in our sector; (b) promoting truth in lending and investing; and (c) promoting financial literacy.
First, let me talk about protecting our jobs in the financial industry. The amendments put forward today strengthens our role as a trusted financial centre. However, echoing what my colleague Ms Foo Mee Har said, our industry is facing many challenges: (a) our wholesale banking is undergoing restructuring; (b) our private banking sector is grappling with complex regulations, especially arising from anti-money laundering requirements; and (c) our mainstream financial industry, as a whole, is being disrupted by financial technology. These challenges have a direct and immediate impact on our people's job security. As such, it is important that we keep both our regulations and the implementation of our regulations, flexible.
For a while after the Global Financial Crisis, there is a broad consensus on the regulatory direction. However, uncertainty in the direction has increased recently. After Brexit, it is unclear what the United Kingdom's (UK's) financial centre's role will be for the world and for the European Union. Logically, UK regulations could change as her role evolves. So, there is some uncertainty there. After the US presidential election, it is unclear whether the Dobb-Frank Act still speaks for the future of US regulations.
In short, as the trajectory of global regulations is increasingly unclear, we must be wise in the direction and pace of evolution of our own regulations. We must not front-run the regulations of the world's leading financial centres, or we will be holding our industry back from serving the needs of Asia and beyond. As such, it would be helpful if MAS can provide a perspective on:
Firstly, what is MAS' perspective on the evolution of US regulations, especially with regard to the Dobb-Frank Act? How do we see the UK's role as a financial centre and the UK's financial regulations evolve? Does the UK's changing role represent opportunities or challenges for Singapore?
Secondly, what is MAS' view on aligning our regulations to those of the US and UK? How do we factor in the conditions of emerging Asia, as well as the key markets that we serve, to ensure our industry stays competitive, so that we can protect our people's jobs? Can MAS provide specific examples of this?
Lastly, for the new framework on AIs, can MAS assure our industry that there will be adequate implementation safeguards to ensure that our industry, like what Ms Foo Mee Far has said, has room to adjust?
Next, I would like to talk about promoting truth in lending and investing. The financial industry is both complex and competitive. This creates some undesirable outcomes. For example, lending cost is advertised differently for different products. It is calculated differently for: (a) housing loans compared to car loans, (b) car loans compared to credit card loans; and (c) credit card loans compared to hire-purchase financing. Processing fees and penalty costs for these different products vary considerably, too. Because of all these, consumers have difficulty understanding the true cost of their spending decisions. For decisions like buying a house or a vehicle, a miscalculation could be a big financial impact.
To protect consumers, I call on MAS to mandate a simple and unified way of explaining interest rates and lending cost. Perhaps, MAS can study international best practices, including from the US' \"Truth in Lending\" Act. This Act requires the lenders to provide important pieces of information, such as the annual percentage rate (APR), the term of the loan, and the total cost for the borrowers. Can MAS share what it considers as the best formula to calculate interest rates, be it annual percentage rate (APR), effective interest rate (EIR) or nominal rates, and lending cost, which also includes fees and penalties, to our consumers? Would MAS also consider gradually aligning our companies towards communicating interest rates and lending cost, in a simple and unified way?
Related to truth in lending is transparency and straightforward information on other financial products, such as investments and insurance that the majority of Singaporeans use. By \"majority\", I refer to non-AIs, who may not have detailed financial information. Compared to lending products, it is even harder to provide clarity on such products. But I hope that MAS can push forward, even if complexity limits us to taking small steps.
Specifically, perhaps MAS can consider gradually getting our financial industry to adopt a common language, as well as a straightforward and concise approach, to explaining financial products. We could, perhaps, pay more attention on how the industry explains: (a) returns; (b) price of product; (c) processing fees and penalties; (d) risks; and (e) duration of product coverage.
Finally, I believe now is the time to promote financial literacy to Singaporeans at large. As I talk to many Singaporeans across differing age and income groups about financial security, a common theme emerges.
(a) For the past few decades, many Singaporeans are assured of a steady career and income progression, as well as rising housing values. These provide both financial security and retirement adequacy.
(b) With the increasingly uncertain world, the financial cushion that Singaporeans are used to may not be there for all.
(c) At the same time, while some Singaporeans are well-informed, wise and prudent in their financial decisions, some are not.
(d) And good income or academic qualifications do not always equate to financial prudence or literacy.
The upcoming changes to our CPF system are excellent and form an important pillar to helping Singaporeans save for retirement. However, I feel that now is the time for us to systematically promote financial literacy. This will empower our people to be financially savvy and prudent in uncertain times. Specifically, I have three suggestions.
One, could we explore the mandatory teaching of financial literacy in our tertiary educational institutes? If our schools are focused on preparing Singaporeans for the future, then teaching them how to guard and manage their finances is surely an important guarantee for their future.
Two, during National Service, there are the occasional down time in between training. As such, when there is time between training, can the Ministry of Defence consider working with voluntary groups like MoneySENSE to teach basic financial literacy to our young men who are sacrificing so much to serve our country?
Three, can we provide ample opportunities to attend courses on financial literacy under SkillsFuture?
Mdm Speaker, in conclusion, while we debate on our Securities and Futures Bill today, it is important to go beyond the specific provisions being amended to broaden our discussions to: (a) what is the right regulatory balance that protects our jobs? (b) how could we best promote truth in lending and investing; and (c) how can we best inform our people to make sound financial decisions? I look forward to the response from MAS and I stand in full support of the Bill.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Ong Teng Koon.
Mr Ong Teng Koon (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. The proposed amendments to the Securities and Futures Act are an important step towards strengthening Singapore's position as a global financial centre and protecting our citizens' hard-earned savings.
I would, first, like to thank our colleagues at the Ministry of Finance for putting together numerous consultation papers which culminated in this very important Bill. This Bill builds on the amendment Bill of 2012. At that time, I had spoken in support of the Ministry's move to impose a principles-based approach to the regulation of OTC derivatives.
Today, I would like to focus on measures to protect investors and, in particular, retail investors, like the many uncles and aunties who are just trying to have a comfortable retirement.
In this low interest rate environment, they are trying their best to make their money work for them. But they often lack the financial knowledge to determine if a product is right for them. We still remember the heart-breaking stories of the many retirees who lost their entire life's savings during the Minibond debacle. It is, therefore, heartening to see that measures to enhance the regulatory safeguards for retail investors are a central component of the amendments.
The amendment seeks to expand the scope of regulatory oversight to non-conventional investment products and this is critical. Flip open the Straits Times today and you will see so many new, fangled investment schemes purporting high returns and low risk. Some deals seem too good to be true and, indeed, they are, or they are nothing but scams designed to separate the ordinary investor from his money.
I understand that risk is an inseparable part of the investment process, that higher returns necessarily involve higher risks. We cannot and should not insulate investors from market risks because that is the natural order of things. We must, however, seek to protect them from fraudulent scams.
I am concerned that the policeman is always chasing, but never catching, a shape-shifting thief. The profit incentive strongly motivates financial innovation − new products, both good and bad, are being created all the time. Backward-looking regulation can only prevent a recurrence of the previous crisis, but not to prevent the next one. It is telling that elements of this Bill, similar to many Bills around the world, are still reacting to the Global Financial Crisis of 2008, a full nine years ago. What do we need to put in place to prevent the next crisis, the next scandal, and the next hit to the retirement finances of our loved ones?
In my humble opinion, a successful regulatory regime should have the following components. One, eyes and ears: multiple channels that make it easy for the public to report suspicious activities, lodge complaints or become whistle-blowers. Two, brains: a team of highly qualified experts who can quickly assess the risk profile and complexity of any new products, and flag potential risks. Three, teeth: the power to act swiftly to blacklist or shut down any activity that is proven to be fraudulent or deemed to be highly dangerous. And fourth, helping hands: tools that help retail investors make the right decisions.
Let me first elaborate on eyes and ears. Financial products can now be distributed through multiple channels, not all of them visible to the authorities. To counter this, we should enlist the help of the public to flag any suspicious offerings. The goal is to make this as simple and as painless as possible, to encourage people to highlight any products where malfeasance may be suspected. While this may create false positives, it is more important here to avoid the converse problem of false negatives resulting in significant losses for investors.
Brains. Regulating new financial products is a challenging task. On one side, you have some of the smartest people in the world who are so incentivised to create new products and very complicated products to make as much money as possible for themselves. On the other hand, you have overburdened regulators trying to stay on top of new innovations over multiple asset classes. One solution could be to create a committee that convenes to assess the complaints and determine if new structures and products are fraudulent. This should be staffed by industry experts drawn from leading financial institutions, who would be called upon on a regular basis.
Teeth. The regulator must have \"bite\". This means empowering them to make immediate and decisive action, including blacklisting or even shutting down entire asset classes. It could also define which investor types are allowed to invest in a particular asset class. Again, there might be \"false positives\" where the asset class ultimately proves to be legitimate, but the focus should be on protecting retail investors.
Putting these three angles together, I propose to introduce a structure whereby the committee considers suspicious offerings highlighted by the public. And if the expert panel judges that there is reason to believe that it is fraudulent, that it does not pass muster, then the committee puts it on a blacklist. The burden then falls on the issuer to prove that it is innocent by undergoing the full suite of regulatory due diligence. All further activities in this issue must cease and all monies collected since must be held in escrow until regulators are satisfied. The committee acts as a \"rapid response force\" to flag suspicious activities, giving the regulators more time to respond to it fully. Speed is of the essence here as we must stop fraudulent offerings before too many people get affected.
My final point relates to helping hands. Ultimately, individual investors need to take responsibility for their own actions. But given the asymmetry of information, they need help to decide. A classification scheme that indicates the likelihood of capital loss and the size of losses as well as the technical complexity of the product, would help retail investors avoid unsuitable products. In one of the consultation papers, there was mention of this complexity versus risk framework which personally I thought was a good idea. The only challenge was that it required a high degree of technical expertise to execute well. This would require additional regulatory resources, which I would like to encourage and support.
Madam, in conclusion, engaging and competing with the market to make a successful investment is an honourable pursuit. But that is often not what is happening. There are many unprincipled, immoral people whose sole expertise is to scam money from the general public, exploiting ignorance and asymmetry of information. I take great umbrage at these people for giving the finance industry a bad name. I am pleased that this amendment takes a significant step towards addressing this scourge. With that, I support the Bill, Madam.
Mdm Speaker: Minister Ong Ye Kung.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank all the Members who have spoken on the Bill and their support for its introduction. I will start with answering some of the specific queries, followed by the broader considerations.
First, on enforcement. Ms Foo Mee Har asked about how our proposed criminal and civil penalties for capital market misconduct offences compare internationally and whether our penalties are sufficient to deter market misconduct and maintain investor confidence. Mr Louis Ng, too, asked if fines are a sufficient punishment and whether we should impose, say, a trading ban.
I agree with Ms Foo that the authorities should have a sufficiently big stick for deterrence. MAS can pursue a wide range of enforcement actions, including penalties and criminal sanctions. The quantum of civil penalties that MAS can pursue and the maximum criminal imprisonment term for market misconduct offences are comparable with other major financial centres.
Under the Bill, if the offender made substantial profits as a result of his misconduct, MAS is able to now disgorge the offender of his ill-gotten benefits. As MAS is able to claim a maximum penalty up to three times the benefits, this will provide a sufficiently punitive stick for his misconduct. And even if the benefits gained or losses avoided are not substantial, the Court can still award a civil penalty of up to $2 million.
But we all know that the key deterrent of any crime is the custodial sentence. The criminal penalty for market misconduct offences, which include the new offence of financial benchmarks manipulation in this Bill, is imprisonment of up to seven years. This is comparable with the UK, also seven years; Hong Kong and Australia, 10 years.
In addition, if the offender is a regulated person, MAS also has the powers to issue a prohibition order on him to ban him from the industry for a specified period of time. So, what Mr Louis Ng has suggested can be done. MAS can issue the prohibition order independently and separately from any criminal prosecution or civil penalty action proceedings.
It is also important to remember that legally prescribed penalties are one side of the equation. To achieve a real deterrent effect, statutory penalties have to be complemented by swift and strong enforcement action. That leads me to a point raised by Mr Leon Perera on the adequacy of resources in terms of enforcement.
We did the comparison before. And as the Member has noted in an earlier written reply, our resources are comparable to major regimes around the world. Having said that, last year, in 2016, MAS set up a dedicated enforcement unit. This will take on criminal powers of investigation and joint investigation of market misconduct offences, together with the Commercial Affairs Department. It has also set up a civilian unit to monitor unusual trading activities, all with sufficient resources, including forensic and civilian analysts. Unfortunately, I would not be able to provide the Member with the exact number of officers because that should be confidential so that offenders do not start thinking and making calculations.
On the AI regime, I want to first assure Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr Henry Kwek that our regime is also comparable internationally. Specifically in relation to the thresholds for individuals based on their wealth, the thresholds in various regimes, excluding primary residence and expressed in Singapore dollars, are as follows: in the US, it is $1.4 million; the UK, $0.8 million; Hong Kong, $1.5 million. We are effectively at $1 million.
Mr Saktiandi asked if we could use knowledge as a criterion for defining AI instead. As he pointed out, investors who have more wealth may not necessarily be better informed or require less regulatory protection than retail investors. Likewise, someone who has certain knowledge, such as having made certain investment transactions or worked in the financial industry for some time, also may not necessarily be sophisticated investors when it comes to their own money. The truth is that all criteria are never perfect − we are all finding proxies and the best possible proxies. But the use of wealth or income thresholds, while not perfect, is a fairly objective proxy for financial sophistication and is also widely used by other regulators around the world.
What is more pertinent is that now, we are introducing an opt-in regime. With that, the specific AI-eligibility thresholds become much less critical. In a similar vein, Mr Leon Perera asked several questions on what are the detailed calculations of the threshold. To answer his question, it does include insurance and life policies; it does include all bonds, liquid or not. But ultimately, because it is now an opt-in regime, the specifics of the thresholds are no longer so critical because the right is on the investor, whether you want to stay as a retail investor or you opt in to be accredited an AI.
To Mr Saktiandi's point on requiring third party certification of an investor's assets to assess AI-eligibility, financial institutions (FIs) currently must, and will continue to be expected to, conduct proper due diligence and maintain proper records of the basis of an investor's classification as an AI. MAS supervises the FIs closely to ensure that they do so, but we do not prescribe the specific processes.
Mr Saktiandi raised a fairly convoluted point that we allow all corporates or trusts to be AIs, so long as at least one shareholder or trust beneficiary is an AI, and similar to a flexibility which will be given to joint accounts. MAS has considered this carefully but we decided against it. The flexibility which will be given to joint accounts where at least one account holder is an AI is on the condition that every account holder opts in to be an AI, and only in respect of investment transactions made out of that joint account. However, unlike joint accounts, corporates and trusts are distinct legal persons, and shareholders and beneficiaries behind them do not enjoy that right to opt in. Hence, corporates and trusts should only be treated as AIs if they are AI-eligible in their own right, or all shareholders or beneficiaries are AIs.
I would like to assure Ms Foo Mee Har that MAS is mindful of the operational concerns of the industry in adjusting to the revised AI regime, particularly for those with a large number of existing AI clients. In response to industry's concerns − and this came about because of our consultation effort − the industry raised concerns on the potential impact to their business. MAS will apply an opt-out approach for existing AI clients. So, the default for existing AI clients is to remain as AIs if they continue to meet the AI-eligibility criteria. FIs would only need to notify them of their right to opt out of the AI status, and the implications of their choices.
As what Ms Foo said, the industry should focus on providing better services and value to its customers. However, this need not be at odds with the enhancements to the AI regime. The new definition of AI is a sharper one and will accord protection to investors who need them the most. The opt-in mechanism raises awareness of their own investment needs and a better understanding of the nature of their relationship with their financial service provider. These are really the key reasons behind the changes to the AI scheme, a sharper protection, and is important for the long-term competitiveness of the industry and sophistication of the market.
Let me now move to the regulation of non-conventional investment products. I want to also assure Mr Thomas Chua that the proposed changes in this Bill will not affect crowdfunding of projects and startups. In June last year, MAS had introduced measures to make it easier for startups to raise funds from investors through securities-based crowdfunding. Startups can continue to conduct small fund-raising exercises of up to $5 million within 12 months without having to issue a prospectus.
Ms Foo Mee Har cautioned that new \"creative\" instruments will emerge to prey on unsuspecting investors. Mr Ong Teng Koon suggested setting up a committee to assess new structures or products that come onto the market.
I wish to highlight that there are existing channels through which MAS and other enforcement agencies receive information on such suspicious investments. These come from a wide range of sources, including members of the public, the financial industry and other regulatory and enforcement agencies, local as well as overseas. Where information received suggests a breach of laws, the relevant experts within the authorities will investigate and take appropriate action. It actually operates in similar ways as the committee suggested by Mr Ong Teng Koon. But the function is operationally sited, as opposed to becoming a staffed committee. This, we think, can ensure greater responsiveness.
However, thorough investigations can take time. To warn consumers early that they are dealing with entities that are not licensed by MAS, MAS publishes an Investors Alert List (IAL). The IAL contains a list of entities that may have been wrongly perceived by the public to be licensed by MAS. Consumers are encouraged to exercise caution when dealing with such entities as they will not be able to rely on regulatory safeguards under SFA. The list is not exhaustive and is updated based, in part, on public feedback and complaints received by MAS.
What is different about Mr Ong Teng Koon's suggestion of a committee is a \"guilty until proven innocent\" approach. However, as highlighted by several Members of this House, this can be seen as draconian, and we must be mindful that an overly-regulated environment could stifle legitimate business and innovation. We should avoid inadvertently subjecting all forms of economic activities, involving consumers handing over monies to a third party in anticipation of a return, to financial regulation. We see them, such as in purchasing of wine or art; we do not want to inadvertently catch them all.
Also, in practice, the distinction between a legitimate product with a more speculative business model or strategy and a fraudulent one sometimes may not be that clear-cut. A legitimate product, due to unexpected market conditions or turn of events, or even poor investment decisions, may not be able to deliver its claims. Prejudging whether a new product is fraudulent is not straightforward.
Let me now move on to capital market regulatory safeguards.
Mr Henry Kwek suggested improving disclosures for loans and investment products so that consumers can easily understand and compare the features. Specifically on Mr Kwek's question as to the best way to calculate interest rates, I would like to highlight that for residential property loans and credit card facilities, EIR is used in Singapore. Fees and charges are included in the calculation of EIRs.
But I agree that we can certainly do more to simplify and standardise disclosures for investment products. As Mr Henry Kwek has rightly pointed out, the challenge is to do so in a way that adequately reflects the different investment risks and communicates the complex features, such as the payoffs under different scenarios and, yet, in a manner that investors can understand.
MAS has introduced guidelines for a Product Highlights Sheet (PHS) for offers of securities made with a prospectus. PHS is a simplified disclosure document that highlights salient features and risks of an investment product, including information on the type of investor that the product is suitable for, and fees and charges, in a clear and concise manner. To encourage the industry to draft disclosures in a clear and comprehensive manner, MAS has also introduced guidelines on good drafting practices for prospectuses. Plain language is encouraged, and legal, financial or technical jargon that may not be easily understood by lay persons should be avoided.
Mr Saktiandi has suggested adopting the approach in Hong Kong, which requires FIs selling investment products to ensure the suitability of the products sold to investors. Disclaimers included in the client investment agreements that circumvent these obligations are void and cannot be used to defend against allegations of mis-selling.
While we do not have this clause in Singapore, other similar safeguards are in place. Financial advisers are under a legal obligation to ensure that products recommended to investors are suitable for them. For complex investment products, such as derivatives, FIs are required to assess if the investor has the relevant investment knowledge or experience before selling them to the investor.
But the law can only go so far. MAS expects FIs to deal with all investors fairly. A fair dealing culture is key. The industry must do what is right, instead of focusing only on doing what is required under the law. MAS will continue to work with the industry to improve such a culture.
Let me now touch on the broader consideration of this Bill, which is what Ms Foo Mee Har, Mr Henry Kwek, Mr Leon Perera, Mr Thomas Chua and Mr Saktiandi Supaat have all emphasised − how to strike a balance between regulations, development of our capital markets and promoting Singapore's competitiveness and innovativeness as a financial hub.
As an international financial centre, we align our regulations to global standards or best practices where appropriate, but we will do so after careful consideration of our local market characteristics. MAS will go above international standards where necessary or refrain from certain measures which we regard as less relevant in our context.
The implementation of OTC derivatives reform is actually a good example of how we balance such competing objectives. We deliberately took a calibrated approach, in two phases, and for the first phase, focused on trade reporting and central clearing obligations because these have the biggest systemic implications. Even for trade reporting, we did not take a \"Big Bang\" approach, but start with larger FIs, such as banks, and for larger asset classes, such as interest rate derivatives, first. For clearing, it is a similar progressive implementation approach. Later this year, MAS will require large players, that is, banks with above $20 billion notional value of OTC derivatives, to have their widely-traded US-dollar and Singapore-dollar interest rate derivatives to be centrally cleared.
So, Mr Henry Kwek is right to point out that we should monitor what is happening in the US and UK on the financial regulatory landscape. Events are still unfolding. It would be premature to say which direction regulatory evolution will go. We will be mindful that the regulatory pendulum does swing, and we do what is right, both as a key member of the international financial community and also ready for our local market.
The fact is that whatever reforms or policy reviews we do now, not just for financial services, in fact, for many other policy areas, we have to strike this judicious balance between safeguarding the interests of the public and encouraging innovation and dynamism.
And we must expect to hear different and sometimes opposing voices. For example, just this Bill alone, Mr Saktiandi has suggested further tightening of the AI regime ‒ maybe raise the $2 million threshold. Ms Foo questioned, however, the need to implement this at this point in time. Mr Ong Teng Koon asked for tighter regulations on non-conventional products and a \"guilty until proven innocent\" regime; Mr Thomas Chua, on the other hand, cautioned against stifling innovation. So, we hear this all the time and we have to strike that judicious balance.
Mr Leon Perera also talked about this balance and smart regulations, and then went on to cite the example of President-Elect Trump's suggestion to ban the moving of civil servants into the financial industry. We must, first, be clear that while the President-Elect has spoken about it, there has been no ban in the US on such movements. If you look at the key appointments of the Trump administration, several are, in fact, from the industry.
I think Mr Leon Perera also asked if MAS imposes garden leave and cooling-off periods. We have. It ranges from three months to 12 months, depending on the seniority as well as the functional role of the officer. But conflict of interests does exist and we all know that. Ultimately, it is also an issue of integrity. Given the reputation of MAS, the conduct of our officers and our track record, I do not think there is any suggestion that our system is currently inadequate. So, we will continue to do these ‒ impose a garden leave but allow a movement of talent from industry to Government, to any other sectors. In that way, when we have regulation and policy reviews, there is greater understanding all round. With integrity, this is a fundamental basis to prevent conflict of interests.
Finally, what can really make balancing these trade-offs much easier is to have investors who will only part with their monies if they understand what is the level of risks they are taking and whether it is commensurate with the returns that are being promised. And that means financial literacy.
As Ms Foo Mee Har, Mr Henry Kwek and Mr Louis Ng have rightly pointed out, financial education efforts are, therefore, of utmost importance, and will be a key priority of MAS.
Through MoneySENSE, the national financial education programme, we have continued to step up on such efforts systematically. MoneySENSE provides financial education to different segments of society, through mainstream media, public roadshows and seminars. It also adopts a collaborative approach where the Government, financial industry and the wider community work together in outreach efforts. Let me highlight some of these efforts.
First, MoneySENSE organises regular seminars on a wide range of investment and financial planning topics. One popular series is the My Money Seminar which is organised with the Association of Banks in Singapore and the Securities Association of Singapore. These are for the general public and are conducted in both English and Mandarin.
Second, MoneySENSE also has nation-wide educational campaigns that are conducted across multiple platforms, media channels and delivered in different languages to maximise outreach. One example is the \"I Save and Invest for Our Future\" campaign last year, which encouraged Singaporeans to take a life-cycle approach to investing and highlighted the benefits of saving and investing from young. The campaign also educated consumers on simple, low-cost investment products, such as the Singapore Savings Bonds and exchange-traded funds.
Third, MoneySENSE also works closely with the Singapore Polytechnic's Institute for Financial Literacy (IFL) in developing and conducting free financial literacy talks and workshops delivered at the workplace and community level. There are also modules on investment-focused topics, such as \"Fundamentals of Share Investing\" and \"Understanding Bonds\". Since its setup in 2012, IFL has worked with more than 500 employers and organisations and reached out to over 100,000 participants.
Fourth, MoneySENSE recognises the need to better empower consumers to avoid falling prey to \"get-rich-quick\" schemes, and publishes consumer alerts on its website to warn consumers of unregulated products and schemes, and the key questions they should be asking as well as the red flags they should be looking out for when considering such investments or trading opportunities. MoneySENSE and MAS also provide a number of resources on their websites, such as the MAS Financial Institutions Directory and the Investor Alert List. Some of the unregulated binary options trading platforms Mr Louis Ng had mentioned are listed on MAS' Investors Alert List.
I thank Mr Henry Kwek for his useful suggestions of ways in which financial education efforts can be further enhanced and become more integrated and structured, from our youth's formal education years, throughout their lifetime and, potentially, even through SkillsFuture initiatives. There are existing programmes for our tertiary students and uniformed Servicemen to educate them on such matters and we will take his suggestions into account as we beef up MoneySENSE.
Mdm Speaker, in summary, this Bill reflects MAS' balanced approach to regulation in three key areas.
First, maintaining Singapore's reputation as a trusted and stable financial centre while ensuring ease of doing business and supporting financial sector innovation and growth.
Second, enhancing safeguards for investors while managing costs and impact of regulation on the financial industry and legitimate businesses.
Third, empowering consumers to take responsibility for their investment decisions through disclosures and fair dealing rules, supported by strong financial education efforts.
Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. ‒ [Mr Ong Ye Kung]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee. (proc text)]
[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]
The Chairman: The citation year \"2016\" will be changed to \"2017\" as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.
[(proc text) Clauses 1 to 212 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
Mdm Speaker: Order. Before we proceed, I propose to take the break now. I think we sat for a long time. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 5.10 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.47 pm until 5.10 pm.
Sitting resumed at 5.10 pm
[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Retirement and Re-employment (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
Mdm Speaker: Minister Lim Swee Say.
The Minister for Manpower (Mr Lim Swee Say): Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
In 2012, we enacted the Retirement and Re-employment Act (RRA) for our older employees to work beyond the retirement age of 62. Under this Act, employers have to offer re-employment to eligible employees up to the age of 65. If the employer is unable to do so, he has to offer an Employment Assistance Payment (EAP) to the employees to tide them over the period when they are looking for alternative employment.
One key feature of re-employment is that it need not be for the same job or on the same terms. Both the employer and the employee can consult each other and work out mutually agreeable arrangements. Both parties have the flexibility to make changes to the existing job arrangements to suit their needs. Re-employment, therefore, balances the objectives of providing opportunities for employees to work longer on the one hand, while maintaining some flexibility for the employers on the other.
This approach has worked well. The introduction of re-employment in 2012, coupled with the efforts from the tripartite partners to encourage age-friendly workplaces, has made a positive impact on the employment of older Singaporeans.
In 2015, over 98% of private sector local employees who wished to continue working at the age of 62 were offered re-employment. Ninety-eight percent of those who accepted re-employment in the same job also did not experience any cut in their basic wages.
Five years on from 2012, which is 2017 now, Singapore's workforce continues to age. Over the last decade, the proportion of residents aged 60 and above in our labour force has increased from 5.5% in 2006 to 12% in 2015. As we live longer, we can expect this proportion to continue to grow.
Madam, the introduction of the re-employment age of 65 in 2012 was but a first step. The intention to raise the re-employment age to 67 was already announced in 2012. Since then, after extensive consultation and negotiation, the tripartite partners have agreed that we are now ready to take this next step. This Bill makes three key changes to the Retirement and Re-employment Act. First, the re-employment age will be raised from 65 to 67. Second, we will introduce a new option to allow re-employment by another employer. Third, we will remove the existing option of employers to cut wages of employees at age 60.
Madam, I will now elaborate on these three key changes in the Bill. The first key change is that the re-employment age will be raised from 65 to 67 with effect from 1 July 2017. Eligible employees, who are locals with at least satisfactory work performance and who are medically fit, should be offered re-employment until age 67.
The new re-employment age of 67 will apply to those who turn 65 on or after 1 July 2017; in other words, those born on or after 1 July 1952. This is what the tripartite partners agreed to after extensive consultations.
To encourage employers to re-employ employees beyond the re-employment age, which is 65 today, the Government currently provides a 3% additional wage offset. This scheme, the Additional Special Employment Credit (SEC) scheme, benefits about 120,000 Singaporean employees aged 65 and above every year. This is on top of the SEC of up to 8% for employing Singaporeans aged 55 and above.
This additional wage offset will expire on 1 July 2017. The Government is studying the need and manner to further extend it to encourage voluntary re-employment for two groups of Singaporean employees. First, those aged below 67 but not covered by the new re-employment age of 67. Second, those beyond the new re-employment age of 67. We are aware that older employees and their employers need clarity on the future of the scheme. A decision will be taken well ahead of the expiration of the current scheme.
The second key change is to allow eligible employees to be re-employed by another employer to increase options for both the employers and the employees. Madam, we have received feedback from employers who are unable to find suitable jobs in their own companies for their workers. Some of these employers would like to help their older employees secure re-employment with another employer. However, today's law does not allow them to transfer their re-employment obligations to another employer.
So, from 1 July 2017, the law will allow an employer, who is unable to offer a suitable position in his own organisation, to transfer his re-employment obligations to another employer. This change will benefit all three parties. The original employer will be deemed as having fulfilled his re-employment obligations. The employee will have more opportunities to be re-employed and will enjoy re-employment protection under the second employer. The second employer will likewise benefit from hiring an employee with experience.
There will be safeguards put in place to protect these employees. The employee has to agree to the re-employment terms with the second employer, and the second employer has to agree to take over all applicable obligations and re-employment obligations for this employee. If either condition is not met, the original employer still has to fulfil his re-employment obligations. This means that the original employer still has to offer EAP if he cannot find a job for the older employee in his own company.
To prepare employers and employees for these changes, we have worked with the tripartite partners to revise the Tripartite Guidelines on the Re-employment of Older Employees. In particular, we added a new section on re-employment by a new employer to provide guidance on this new option. My Ministry will be issuing the revised Guidelines later today. This will take effect on 1 July 2017. Employers and employees who require more information may direct their queries to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), the Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF) or the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC).
Madam, the third key change is to remove an existing employer option to cut employees' wages at age 60. In 1999, this option was introduced to help employers with seniority-based wage systems to manage their wage costs when the retirement age was raised from 60 to 62.
Since then, with the restructuring and reshaping of Singapore's economy, tripartite efforts have been successful in moving employers away from seniority-based wage systems. In 2011, 98.5% of companies with employees aged 60 and over did not reduce the wages of employees at age 60. Hence, the tripartite partners have agreed to remove this option for employers with effect from 1 July 2017.
Madam, the tripartite partners have had extensive consultations on how to build on the existing re-employment model to enhance job opportunities for older employees while balancing the need for flexibility for employers. This Bill is the result of tripartite efforts over the last few years to strike this delicate balance.
We recognise that there are older employees in all sectors and occupations, with different circumstances and needs, therefore, not all of which can be addressed by this Bill. We will, therefore, continue to work closely with our tripartite partners to continue to enhance employment opportunities for older workers and to build age-friendly workplaces in Singapore. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mdm Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill which will extend the re-employment age from the current 65 to 67 from 1 July this year. Besides this extension, two other key amendments will be effected. First is the repeal of section 5 of the current Act which effectively means abolishing the provision which had allowed employers to reduce up to 10% of salary once an employee reaches the age of 60. Second, an employer who finds suitable employment for an employee, who is supposed to be re-employed, with another employer is considered to have fulfilled his obligation under the Bill.
The extension of the re-employment age is a welcome move by our unions, union leaders, union members and workers as this is what the Labour Movement has been lobbying for. This issue is of urgency and importance, especially with our ageing populace, as it will provide our workers who are keen and able to continue working the opportunity to be re-employed until the age of 67.
I applaud the tripartite partners for their untiring efforts in reviewing and improving the current Act. This set of amendments and the upcoming tripartite guidelines were arrived at through heavy discussions and robust negotiations and will benefit all employees, whether low-wage workers or professionals, managers and executives (PMEs). Although this deck of amendments is a positive step forward, how it is executed and rolled out is vital. I ask that the respective tripartite partners play their part to ensure its success.
On the part of employers, with our tight labour market and stagnating employment growth, employers play the most important role in having not just fair but progressive practices in the hiring of the not-so-young workers, especially the re-employment of workers. In my regular ground engagements with workers, especially PMEs, I still hear of instances where workers are confronted with ageism. Although not rampant and good work has been done by the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices (TAFEP), I believe we can do more to not just minimise but eradicate all forms of ageism.
Employers must actively invest in re-thinking how best to re-deploy their mature workers to fully leverage their expertise. It is also imperative for employers to re-design the job and/or workplace to make the job easier, safer and smarter for our ageing workforce. This can be achieved by embracing disruption, technology and innovation through recreating jobs and building up a quality workforce so as to increase productivity and achieve inclusive quality growth.
Second, on the part of the Government. The Government has funded and rolled out a series of initiatives and funding, such as WorkPro, SEC and additional credits to support the hiring of mature and older workers. I urge the Government to continue these schemes and funding, especially those that are due to expire and even enhance them, bearing in mind we are confronted with a silver tsunami.
I have previously raised in this House for the increase of EAP and I am glad that we will be seeing a positive adjustment in this respect. EAP has to be regularly reviewed upwards to keep pace with rising median wages. EAP amounts and abuse must be closely watched and not become an easy tool or a backdoor exploited by employers as an easy way out to absolve themselves of their obligation to re-employ.
I urge MOM to also pay a close watch on any cases of abuse or indiscriminate utilisation of the new provision where employers can transfer the re-employment obligation to another employer and discharge themselves of responsibility. This is especially so when the terms, conditions, environment and nature of work in the new job may vastly differ from what they had been previously employed for.
Third, workers and unions. Workers, too, must play their part by preparing for re-employment and have to continue to do their part to stay ready, relevant and resilient: ready with new skills, relevant to the new jobs and also resilient to new changes.
Mdm Speaker, I support the amendments but we need to rethink re-employment. We must move away from re-employment for the sake of statutory compliance to people development, productivity growth and taking active steps to change stereotypical perceptions on age, talent, productivity and compensation in every organisation. I want to make a special call for our tripartite partners to work closely together to ensure the spirit and intent of these amendments are executed well and thoroughly so as to achieve their desired outcomes.
More importantly, society plays the most crucial role in how we, as one community and one country, view and treat older workers and embrace an ageing population. Not just acknowledging and accommodating the ageing workforce but proactively accepting and appreciating every worker regardless of age! Mindsets of our tripartite partners as well as society need to change. With that, I support the Bill.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Speaker, the Retirement and Re-employment Bill seeks to amend the existing law to raise the re-employment age up to 67 years and to repeal the section which allows employers to reduce the salaries of older workers once they reach 60, among other things.
My colleague, Assoc Prof Daniel Goh, will speak more broadly about this Bill. I would like to confine my comments to one aspect of the employment of older persons which this Bill does not seem to sufficiently address and which is a gap in our current framework of law, regulation and norms in the labour market and, that is, how can we reduce instances of employers legally terminating employees but in a covert way as a result of ageist prejudice.
I would like to ask: if an employee who does not have a mandatory retirement age specified in her employment contract has her employment terminated by the employer, with notice period paid, for the reason that she has reached retirement age, will the provisions of the Bill apply? The language of clause 4, Part I, suggests that this is the case since it states that notwithstanding any law, contract of service or collective agreement, the retirement age should not be less than 62 years and up to 67 years, as prescribed by the Minister. Section 4, Part II, of the existing Act also says that no employer shall dismiss on the ground of age any employee who is below 62 years of age or the prescribed minimum retirement age.
However, this makes it all the more likely that an employer who is terminating an employee for reasons of ageism will not tell this to the employee or leave any paper trail as to the grounds for the termination. There are two scenarios I would like to highlight here. The first is that of an employer who does not wish to offer re-employment on grounds of performance, which is allowed under the Bill, and the second is that of an employer who terminates an employee with notice on ageist grounds because they have become too old but does not state this reason or leave any evidence of this being the reason.
Let me first discuss the first scenario. It would seem to be an escape clause for the employer who wants to invoke the retirement age against the reluctant employee and not offer her re-employment. Clause 4 states that \"where an employer does not intend to re-employ an employee past the retirement age because the employee does not either have satisfactory work performance or is not medically fit, the employer must give the employee written notice as far as is reasonably practicable before termination.\"
Section 8 of the current Act provides some remedies, which is, for the employee to write in to MOM and let MOM decide if they have been unfairly dismissed or denied re-employment. Take, for example, their performance was satisfactory or if the reasonable notice was not provided. I would like to ask what safeguards are in place to ensure that an employee in such a situation will get assistance in presenting her case and that the burden of proof will actually lie with the employer.
To be realistic, if an employer does not offer re-employment on grounds of performance, it may be hard for many employees to defend themselves to MOM, particularly if the company does not practise a system of regular performance reviews with documentary proof of the same, which is the case with many small and medium enterprises (SMEs).
The second scenario I would like to discuss is even more likely and, hence, even more worrying. What if an employer decides to terminate an employee just before she hits the age of 62 or even earlier, on the grounds of ageist prejudice, without invoking the reason of retirement at all, or without invoking the reason of age at all, but simply because they have decided that they can hire someone younger and more cheaply?
There may be safeguards against employers doing this in the case of companies that have collective bargaining employment contracts. But most employees do not fall into this category. For most employees, there is no need for an employer to wait for the retirement age or re-employment age. Legally, they can terminate an employee with notice at any time. In other words, they can involuntarily retire their employees as and when they feel they have become too old.
For most employees, there is no protection against such termination with notice or reasons of ageist prejudice unless it is very easy to prove that. This is because the law does not require the employer to state the reason nor is it easily challenged at MOM if the termination is a legal employment contract termination with notice period paid.
To be sure, I am not arguing that employers should have the ability to terminate with notice eliminated. Employers need to be able to eliminate unnecessary positions as a last resort so as to protect the survival of the company and the jobs of the remaining workers under certain circumstances. Employers also need this in cases of legitimate employee performance issues. My concern is with employers who exercise this right for the wrong reasons − for reasons of ageist prejudice.
No doubt, this is an issue that goes beyond the scope of the current changes to the Act and touches on our framework for dealing with discriminatory employment practices in general. But it is worth noting that this law does not address this possibility. It is a possibility that faces a huge number of workers who may be forcibly retired and, hence, thrown onto a job market where finding good permanent employment for someone in their late 40s or 50s, let alone older, is extremely hard, especially in the current economic climate. This points to a huge gap which the law does not address.
In 2015, there were 8,700 discouraged workers in Singapore who would like to work but had given up looking for a job because they feel that their chances are almost nil, according to the 2015 Labour Force Survey. Sixty-nine percent of those discouraged were aged 50 and over. I suspect that many of these workers would have undergone countless ordeals of sending in applications with no reply, or going for interviews only to be met with rejections or a stone wall of silence until they decided to give up the unequal struggle.
To meet this gap, we should relook at the framework for tackling discriminatory employment practices in general, not only for ageist prejudice but for other forms of prejudice on grounds of gender, race, religion, disability status or ex-offender status, for example. A good starting point would be to get good data from a comprehensive survey of employees, not only of employers, and this is a subject we have discussed in this House last year. We could then look at better carrots for employers who can demonstrate robust and auditable hiring and firing practices that give no quarter to prejudice of any kind. Further down the road, depending on the effectiveness of these measures, as surveys reveal, we could consider introducing sticks against proven and repeated discriminators, as my colleague Mr Faisal Manap argued during the 2016 Committee of Supply debate.
Right now, we have a system where employees can complain to TAFEP and TAFEP can then escalate complaints to MOM which can wield the stick of employment and work pass access as well as moral suasion. However, for companies that are not open to moral exhortations or which do not require Employment Passes or Work Permits, these sticks may be ineffective.
Moreover, going further upstream, there could be many employees who know or suspect that they have been on the receiving end of discriminatory practices but who would not want to complain to TAFEP for many reasons, not only a lack of confidence or timidity but also perhaps a lack of confidence that they could prove their case in a \"my word against yours\" sort of situation.
As a country, we have a long way to go to shift our labour market norms towards embracing the idea of people working till well into their 60s and perhaps older, if they choose to do so. Such work opens up a crucial vista for self-fulfilment for older Singaporeans who might otherwise be at risk of social isolation. It also gives older people a fair chance to enhance their incomes by earning an honest pay.
As a country, it allows us to raise our total labour force participation and thus staff our industries without adding to the population as much. To move down this path, we need to go much further than this Bill.
Mdm Speaker: Assoc Prof Randolph Tan.
Assoc Prof Randolph Tan (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, I support this Bill. However, I strongly believe that it is necessary at this point in time to speak up about the challenges I believe it brings to the economy.
Until fairly recently, the combination of increasing foreign manpower levies and tighter quota restrictions appeared to have done little to slake the seemingly insatiable appetite of employers for manpower. It was not so long ago that the labour market was assessed to still to be tight and employers bemoaned the impact of unfilled vacancies on their capacity to meet robust demand.
The apparent change in the labour market did not occur overnight. The shifting sands of the global economic landscape, accentuated by volatile energy price movements and trade flows, are nothing new. But what has added to the uncertainty are the disruptive outcomes of high-profile events over the past year. These events hold significant consequences for future trends in global trade, upon which Singapore depends so critically. Singapore has not been slow to anticipate the need to be prepared for such \"Black Swan\" events. Since the crisis of 2008/2009, the labour market has been undergoing deep change, reorienting away from excessive reliance on foreign manpower.
One prominent result of this reorientation is the remarkable increase in the labour force participation rate (LFPR). The increase in the resident LFPR in recent years has been especially pronounced for two groups, namely, females and older workers. A large share of the credit for this goes to the concerted efforts made by our Government policymakers to expand employment opportunities.
And in order to effect real changes, these efforts have not been sudden nor impulsive, but instead, were implemented in a calibrated fashion over a period of time in order to ensure that relevant stakeholders have time to buy into the changes.
So, instead of simply raising the retirement age, what the Government has opted to do is to expand re-employment opportunities. Everyone's ideal is for workers who are willing and able to work productively to do so without being asked to retire. Madam, although it appears to be a simple matter to remove the retirement age altogether, it is not clear what this implies for contractual commitments that employers have towards their employees.
The retirement age has served to deal with this difficult question all these years, and we will have to take a long, hard look at the deeper implications of doing away with retirement altogether.
In the meantime, given the potential implications of raising the retirement age, it makes sense to focus instead on re-employment. Hence, I support the Government's efforts in this push. But if we take into account the current economic climate, the changes proposed in this Bill have certain important implications.
Raising the retirement age and facilitating re-employment opportunities seem to be natural options to take as a follow-up to the success in raising the resident LFPR, but it is important to recognise that the situation is a lot less straightforward because the impact varies with different groups of workers and different types of employers.
There are many reasons why it is important to expand the opportunities for older persons to work, if they wish to. Foremost among these, of course, is the ageing population, as the Minister has already mentioned. In addition, MOM's statistics report that older residents aged 60 and over accounted for the largest share among age groups with residents outside the labour force. In 2006, 35% of residents outside the labour force were 60 or older; over the decade, this proportion has grown steadily, with the latest reported figure for 2016 showing 44% of residents outside the labour force belonging to this age group. With figures of this magnitude, expanding opportunities for re-employment beyond the current threshold of 65 years is clearly welcomed and necessary.
However, the raising of the re-employment age is just one factor which will tackle this issue. Another important factor is the duration of the employment contracts that employees are on. In June 2007, 25% of resident employees aged 60 and over were on term contracts. Almost a decade later, in June 2015, we still have 21% of resident employees aged 60 and above on term contracts. So, despite the improvement over the intervening period of time, the age-connected pattern in term contracts has remained basically unchanged. Hence, just as in June 2007, the proportion of employees on term contracts was more than twice that of all other age groups for those above 24 years of age. In addition, the proportion of resident employees on term contracts was lowest for those aged 30 to 39, and then increased with the group age thereafter for all the other groups.
As MOM had noted in the past in its 2006 Labour Market report, and I quote, \"the incidence of contract employment was higher among the younger and older employees, including those on casual or on-call employment, and was mainly concentrated in the lower skilled jobs, such as cleaning and labouring, sales and service and clerical work.\" The reality is that this characterisation remains largely valid today.
Is there a concern, therefore, that with the obligations imposed by the re-employment legislation that we see now, more employers may be driven by the strain of the regulatory burden to prefer placing older employees on term contracts?
Re-employment is dependent on employers being in a position of operating health and having the means to retain older workers. Availability of older workers benefit employers by expanding the size of the labour pool. At the same time, they increase competition for jobs. This is why flexibility from both employers and employees is needed in agreeing on re-employment terms.
Significant emphasis on such flexibility was placed on this in the Tripartite Guidelines on the Re-employment of Older Employees that was released in January 2011. Here, I would like to thank MOM for helping to clarify that the repeal of section 5 is not related to the re-employment contract. Nonetheless, section 5 could have been seen, correctly or not, as impacting overall salary adjustments.
I support the decision to repeal section 5. The problem with it is that although it has limited salary cuts of 10%, it was never completely clear, to me at least, whether the limit is taken into account later as part of total adjustments that would be due to job changes agreed in a re-employment contract.
In the longer term, Madam, I believe that these changes are sound. But at the present moment, however, it is not entirely clear what lies ahead for the labour market as the economy confronts the current bout of weakness. We should consider whether we are loading too much on to the economy by expecting it to deliver on multiple fronts, without allowing it more time to adjust at a pace more suited to accommodating the seismic shifts it is experiencing.
One major concern I have about \"hardwiring\" the obligations of employers further is that it may become an additional burden on them when economic conditions weaken, as we could be seeing.
Over the last few years, the labour market has held up well, due in no small part to the support of various schemes, some of which the Minister has already mentioned. The re-employment push is currently receiving very strong support from the tripartite partners. On its part, in addition to transforming mindsets through its own re-employment practices, the Government also offers substantial wage support through the payment of a Special Employment Credit. Since 2015, employers who voluntarily re-employ Singaporean workers aged 65 and above have been receiving an additional offset of up to 3% of an employee's monthly wages.
But the economy is weak at the moment and employers are facing several challenges. Hence, the Business Times reported yesterday that in the worst performance in five years, last year saw more companies slow to make payment and fewer paying on time. In other words, companies which need to generate jobs are themselves under severe pressure.
The heavy reliance on wage support in recent years could have come at a price. Going forward, the scope for using further wage support to make up for weak labour market demand is diminished, I believe, because they have been in force for some time. If employment conditions weaken further, a heavily legislated employment regime may increase the difficulty that companies face in trying to manoeuvre their way out of a business trough. Why do companies need more room to manoeuvre? There are many signs that the economic conditions of the future will not be the same uniform challenge to all, as we have seen in the past, but could instead consist of a variegated landscape.
At the same time that we see some businesses doing very well, others could face substantially different and very difficult competitive circumstances. As a commentator for the Business Times appeared to suggest last week, and I agree strongly, it could simply be because such companies operate at the confluence of disruptive new phenomena.
America's economic recovery has been replete with such examples over the last few years. Just days ago, at the same time that jobs growth in the US is returning to health, Macy's, an American chain, announced store closures and worker layoffs. This type of phenomenon is part of the new normal, and we have to help our companies in Singapore compete, reorganise and, if necessary, resurrect themselves with all the room to manoeuvre that is necessary. Because at the end of the day, we still rely on healthy businesses to create good jobs.
At the moment, neither the existing legislation nor the proposed changes take into consideration the fact that businesses may be very different and may also be operating under very different conditions. If we take size, for instance, a large organisation with a strong human resource structure will be able to incorporate some of the changes that are required under the new legislative framework readily with possibly negligible additional costs, compared to a business with a very small number of employees. Will a small business be given time to set up processes, such as an employee performance evaluation system, in order to comply with the requirement on assessing the eligibility for re-employment?
On a related note, I would also like to ask about the quantum of the EAP. Although paragraph 25(c) of the tripartite guidelines has stated that, and I quote, \"There should be a maximum EAP amount to moderate the financial burden on employers\", at the moment, the EAP requirement seems to ignore both the prevailing economic circumstances and the specific conditions under which a particular employer might be struggling. With the current economic climate placing employers under strain as well, this could add pressure to those already in difficulty.
In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, I believe that the current economic environment means that a rigid one-size-fits-all approach will be a challenge. As Singapore's labour market prepares to adjust to a different set of circumstances in future, I believe that leadership from the tripartite partners in empathising with one another's position will continue to be a much-needed ingredient.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Zainal Sapari.
Mr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mdm Speaker, I believe this Bill has great potential in addressing the concerns of our workforce, especially those of our ageing population. But it may still fall short if we look at the life expectancy trends in Singapore and other parts of the world.
Increasing life expectancy is a global phenomenon, and studies showed that it would increase, on average, by 2.5 years for every decade, three months per year or six hours per day. In fact, for millennial babies born in early 2000 onwards, half of them can live beyond 100 years.
In Singapore, our average life expectancy for females increased from about 63 years in 1957 to 85 years in 2015, and for males, it rose from about 59 years to 80 years over the same period. On average, we are looking at Singaporeans' life expectancy increasing by 3.5 years for every decade. Like other developed countries, half of our millennial babies will live beyond 100 years. Even those Singaporeans born after 1965, half of them will live past 90 years old.
What does this mean for us? If our workforce is living up to 100 years, it means that we have to work longer or save more. Given the future's reality, our retirement age must increase over time, to perhaps, 70 to 75 years to ensure a steady income stream for livelihood.
Alternatively, we should not look at a single retirement age but maybe a retirement age based on age cohort. In time to come, we need to be bolder to work towards removing the retirement age and allow a worker to work as long as he or she could.
Nevertheless, I still support this Bill amendment as a step in the right direction. Given today's economic climate and the increasing pressure to increase productivity to remain competitive, we must examine ways through which we can maximise our labour resources and ensure that our workforce remains dynamic in an era of rapid movement and change.
This Bill ensures that Singaporeans who are capable and willing to work beyond the age of 62 now have the option to do so till they are 67. At the same time, the amendment to this Bill can allow other employers to have access to the pool of experienced, evergreen workers since re-employment contracts can be offered to workers who have reached the age of 62 if their existing employers are unable to find a suitable position or vacancy for re-employment in their company.
Given this amendment in the Bill, I would like to suggest the Ministry monitor this new re-employment provision to closely assess its practicality and make future refinements to ensure effectiveness. That said, there are some areas I would like to touch on with regard to this Bill.
Firstly, I would like to ask if the re-employment obligations will still be applicable or subject to manipulation of the terms by the second employer in the long run. There should be some provisions for EAP to be paid by the first employer to assist the employee if the second does not extend the contract into the second year on unfair grounds. This will prevent any possible collusion or even uncertainties on the part of our older workforce, which can be very detrimental to their well-being and motivation.
Secondly, satisfactory work performance as assessed by the employer when considering re-employment contracts remains subjective and they may render the legislation rather weak in protecting workers. For example, the employer can arbitrarily choose not to offer re-employment to the employee if the employee is assessed by his employer to have unsatisfactory work performance or is medically unfit to continue working. The law should make provisions to allow for a worker to have independent assessment on medical fitness. This can be achieved by appointing a review panel of independent doctors to challenge the assessment of the company's doctor when the worker is certified unfit to work. If he is reassessed and deemed actually to be fit, and the company has no vacancies, he should have a form of recourse through EAP.
Thirdly, there should be tripartite guidelines issued for the employer to communicate to the affected employee on his plans to transfer re-employment obligations to a second employer. This process of matching should ideally begin a year prior to the date of the employee's re-employment to also allow him to make better decisions. The nature and scope of the alternative job should also be deliberated with the worker. This will make for a more streamlined and consistent approach to the transferring of re-employment obligations.
Fourthly, the law should look into extending the re-employment contract term to beyond a one-year renewal. There should be a longer contract period of three years, in view of the increasing life expectancy of Singapore's workforce and also in the interests of giving our older workforce a greater sense of security. This can still be subject to valuations on performance and health check as well.
Besides the above changes, the law can also look into providing incentives for companies that can strategically map out a second career for employees as early as 45 years into their lives. This foresight will allow companies to plan ahead, both for their own companies and for their own employees. This increases the likelihood of ensuring that their employees can carry skills that are relevant not just to their companies, but also to the industry as a whole. Mdm Speaker, please allow me to speak in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] While the amendment to this Bill will extend the re-employment age to 67, it does not guarantee that a job will be available to the worker.
Although this amendment has provisions for a worker to find a job with an alternative employer or be provided a higher EAP, the worker will have a better chance to continue working until 67 years old if the worker constantly ensures that he/she upgrades to the relevant skills through lifelong learning.
Regardless of whether a person is in a low-paying or high-paying job, the chances of re-employment will be lesser without the relevant knowledge and skills to make the person employable.
Only if workers tap on the various training support programmes by the Government, such as SkillsFuture, the Workforce Skills Qualification training and others, can this Bill then achieve its intent of lifelong employability. Hence, it is important that such training support programmes be constantly updated and frequently reviewed to ensure that those programmes will complement this Bill.
(In English): Madam, the effectiveness of this Bill requires every party to do its part. On the part of workers, this Bill does not give any job guarantee unless the workers constantly upgrade and reskill to ensure relevancy. Employers need to change their mindset to get rid of any prejudices they may have of older workers and change the work culture and processes to be more inclusive of older workers, instead of clamouring for more foreign workers. The Government must continue to support training to ensure our local workforce have the opportunities to upgrade and reskill for lifelong employability and calibrate its manpower policies to encourage a strong Singapore Core. Let me end by quoting from a book entitled the \"100 years\":
\"We are in the midst of an extraordinary transition that few of us are prepared for. If we get it right, it will be a real gift; to ignore and fail to prepare will be a curse.\" Mdm Speaker, I support the amendments to the Bill.
Mdm Speaker: Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Speaker, this train has taken a very long time to arrive. Back in 1993, when Parliament amended the law to raise the retirement age from 55 to 60, the Government set 67 as the target retirement age to be achieved in a decade. This was not done. The retirement age was raised to 62 in 1999. And then in 2012, when Parliament amended the law to set the re-employment age at 65, the Government again set the target age, now for re-employment age, to 67. It has taken five years to move the extension and 23 years in total to reach the 67 target.
How many senior Singaporeans who had wanted to work longer have lost many good working years as a result? Why the long delay? I sincerely hope it was not due to the political calculation of electoral cycles. If not, what were the demographic and economic considerations underlying the long delay to raise the retirement age to 67?
The Government owes Singaporeans an explanation because during these 23 years, we saw a massive influx of foreign mid-skilled workers who out-competed senior Singaporeans in the labour market. It was also during these 23 years that we saw a culture of ageism take root, so much so that analysts, unionists, Government leaders and Members of this House have been calling for a mindset change among employers to change their attitude towards senior workers. Habits and norms, once settled in place, are very difficult to change. In this case, policy inaction has allowed the culture of ageism to deepen and shape society's view that senior workers are less valuable than younger workers.
The benefits of allowing senior Singaporeans to continue to work go beyond the narrow dollar and cents of economic value. A study by researchers at the Singapore Institute of Management (SIM) University in 2013 shows many benefits. Work gives senior Singaporeans a sense of social purpose as they feel that they are doing something useful for others and society. Work is also a recognition that they are still valued by others and society. Work provides for a sense of autonomy, as they have the opportunity to deploy their skills and solve problems. Work provides for positive relationships as many senior Singaporeans make good friends at their workplaces.
For the senior Singaporeans themselves, many would like to continue working to remain financially independent, to be socially integrated, to maintain good health and for self-fulfilment. If we consider the qualitative benefits of work, beyond the quantitative measures of a narrow economic model, allowing senior Singaporeans to work longer kills many birds with one stone. It helps with the retirement insecurity of inadequate CPF savings. It helps to push back the onset of dementia and other ageing health issues. It helps to improve the psychological well-being of senior Singaporeans and enhances ageing in place, as the workplace is also a meaningful social place for senior Singaporeans.
Getting the right retirement age policy to facilitate senior Singaporeans to continue to work is not just an economic issue. It will tackle with one stone the many issues related to the ageing population. However, that one stone has to be thrown right and accurate. It has to be decisive and courageous. We have already wasted 23 years. We have no more time to waste with the ageing society at our doorstep. What we have here is a throw of a stone that is still too tentative. In this regard, I have six points to raise for the Minister to address and consider.
The first point, why is 67 the magic number after more than two decades? In 1993, the average life expectancy of Singaporeans was around 77 years. Today's average life expectancy is around 83 years and still rising. What was the model that was used to calculate the optimal retirement age that led to 67 as the target retirement age in 1993? Is the same model in use today? Should the effective retirement age not be adjusted as life expectancy goes up? Should it not be around 70 years of age today?
The larger point is the automatic linking of effective retirement age to life expectancy, which is the emerging best practice in developed economies around the world. This is so that the financial risks of ageing could be more equitably borne by all sectors of society, especially employers. Would the Government consider this policy innovation and link the effective retirement age to life expectancy, since we have now reached the target age of 67?
The second point: is the retirement age going to be stuck at 62? It has been stuck since 1999. Twenty years is a good time to reconsider whether we should raise the retirement age to 65 for future cohorts and existing cohorts if they so desire. This will encourage employers to think longer term when it comes to staff recruitment and, especially, training and retention. It would also give greater job security to Singaporeans and address the tight labour market conditions when we reduce the factor of foreign labour inputs.
At the 2015 National Day Rally, when announcing that the re-employment age would be raised to 67, the Prime Minister noted that employers had gotten used to employees working to 65 and were starting to benefit from it. If so, why not entrench 65 as the retirement age then? The employers are ready. They do not even cut salaries by 10% at age 60 anymore, which is why the Bill is repealing that part of the law. There are insignificant costs involved for employers. The benefit is added security for workers. Is there any reason why the Government would not do this?
The third point, in the extension of the re-employment age to 67, this Bill could have dealt with one of the biggest issues faced by senior workers who want to continue to work − the short-term length of their annual contracts. The one-year term contract or a three-year contract to be reviewed yearly sustains a sense of insecurity about contract review and renewal, which is not the right way to treat a senior employee and colleague.
With the extension of the re-employment age to 67, this means senior Singaporeans who would like to continue working would suffer twice the anxiety of contract review or renewal, four times from 63 to 66 years of age. Is there any reason not to stipulate the contract length to be at least two years, unless the senior chooses otherwise to have one-year contracts? Two years seem more reasonable and balanced. It makes more sense too, since employers should consider performance records of the past two to three years when re-employing senior workers.
The fourth point, there is the possibility for a loss of benefits in the switch from regular employment to the re-employment contract. This loss of benefits while still being employed to do the same work by the same company in the same workplace with the same colleagues is solely due to the employee reaching a certain age. Is this not unfair, smacking of ageism, and stigmatising for the senior Singaporeans?
This has real physical consequences, too, when it comes to medical benefits. There is a short circuit to the current policy logic. Employers are required to re-employ senior workers who are medically fit and yet they are allowed to reduce the medical benefits, when the benefits present a serious cost concern. Is it not self-defeating that the reduction of medical benefits could lead to senior workers becoming medically unfit for continued re-employment?
The fifth point, other than the criterion of medical fitness, employers are required to re-employ workers who have satisfactory work performance. However, for medical fitness, the Act currently has a section stating that the employee is presumed to be medically fit unless the employer proves otherwise on the balance of probabilities. There is no equivalent clause for the work performance eligibility criterion.
I understand there is a need to balance the interests of employers and workers and allow for enough flexibility when it comes to re-employment. However, what recourse does a senior worker have when the employer refuses him or her the right of re-employment on grounds of unsatisfactory work performance which the senior worker disagrees with?
If the normal convention applies, the burden of proof is on the senior worker to show that the termination is unfair. This is onerous and borders on the impossible for many senior workers, especially when they are not professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) who would usually have access to human resource records for formal performance reviews. Does the Ministry depart from the convention of placing the burden of proof on the worker for senior workers seeking recourse on this matter? If not, would the Ministry do so for senior workers being rejected for re-employment by investigating the evidence on the balance of probabilities?
The sixth point: Manpower Minister Lim Swee Say said during the General Election in September 2015 that the payout age of 65 for the CPF LIFE scheme would not be raised when the re-employment age is raised to 67. Will this promise be fulfilled?
If so, this effectively delinks the CPF LIFE minimum payout age from the re-employment age. This means that at age 65, senior workers can enjoy monthly CPF LIFE income to augment their regular income from re-employment to 67 years of age. The Workers' Party has been calling for this delinking of the CPF drawdown age from the retirement age since the debate on CPF reforms in 2007.
With this delinking, we are now in line with the practice of pension and retirement policy in many developed countries internationally. With this delinking, the Government is acknowledging that there is no need for a rigid fixing of the pension income payout age to the retirement age because there is no rigid relationship between the two. Many developed countries allow for earlier pension income payout regardless of employment status of senior citizens, so that the seniors could start adjusting to their retirement plans even as they continue to work.
Why not allow senior workers to begin collecting their CPF LIFE payout earlier at 60 years of age if they choose to? This will allow them to augment their regular income earlier, which may well be critical for senior workers to maintain their good physical health so that they can be medically fit for re-employment at 62.
The only reason I can think of not allowing senior workers to start collecting their CPF LIFE payout earlier is that the Government does not trust our senior workers to use a few extra hundred dollars a month wisely by investing in their own health and in their own retirement plans, especially if they would like to continue to work. When it comes to the retirement and re-employment policy, we have been catering flexibility for employers to protect their bottom line for many years now. We should also cater flexibility for employees to help them protect their financial and physical health.
In summary, the Government should explain to Singaporeans why it took all of 23 years to raise the effective retirement age to the targeted 67. And now that it has, I have these six questions for the Government.
One, should the Government consider linking the effective retirement age to the average life expectancy of Singaporeans? Two, why leave the retirement age stuck at 62 now when employers have grown accustomed to senior Singaporeans working to 65? Three, why maintain the annual review and renewal structure of re-employment contracts? Four, why are the medical benefits for senior workers not protected for re-employment? Five, should the Ministry depart from the convention of placing the burden of proof on the worker for senior workers seeking recourse on being rejected for re-employment due to alleged poor work performance? Six, since CPF LIFE payouts are now delinked from the effective retirement age, why not let senior workers get their payout earlier and trust them to invest in themselves?
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair]
In conclusion, I support this Bill because it finally fulfils the promise to raise the effective retirement age to 67 after a very long delay. Retirement age policy is a critical tool that could be used to effectively tackle many of the economic, social and psychological issues related to the ageing population. This tool should not be influenced by short-term economic and political concerns. It is important for us to harness the retirement age policy for its long-term impact and implications for the ageing society. I hope the Government will have the courage to do so even if it would prove unpopular in the short run.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. Longer life expectancy and better healthcare systems have allowed workers to work longer and more productively. I welcome the amendments in this Bill as they will take Singapore further in providing more options for older workers and companies. It provides the flexibility to strike a good balance between the interests of both workers and companies. The changes proposed in this Bill are important threads in our tapestry of support for older workers, which will take time to develop.
This Bill is timely as it comes at a time when we need to meet the challenges of an ageing population. In weaving this tapestry, we must be guided by a vision of ageless workplaces. In such workplaces, employers and workers are not fixated on age, older workers are not seen as liabilities, and technology will better enable older workers rather than replace them. It is a lofty vision but it is one that is imperative for an ageing Singapore. It will take time, but we will get there. This will require a fundamental mindset shift. But some aspects of this Bill will have already contributed to this vision. For example, the abolishing of the salary adjustments is important because wages should reflect a worker's job scope and output. Age should not matter.
I believe that we can and should do more to support the shift towards ageless workplaces. In this economic slowdown, we can easily lose momentum, and older workers, who are most vulnerable during restructuring, will suffer the brunt of it.
Could the Government consider continuing the additional wage offset of 3% of wages support given under SEC? Could the Government also review the ceiling cap for the SEC, so that the wage offset can be given to companies that employ older workers earning more than $4,000 a month? This incentivises them to keep even more of their older, mid-level workers.
This Bill also provides for a second employer to take over the employment terms of an older worker. How will the Government ensure that all means are exhausted before workers are transferred? What safeguards will be put in place to ensure that this does not act as a conduit for ill-intentioned companies to use the new companies to exit workers via liquidation? In addition, for workers who will be transferred to a new company, could the Government provide training programmes and leave support so that they can smoothly transition into their new career? Mr Deputy Speaker, let me continue in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the amendments to the Retirement and Re-employment Bill, raising the re-employment age from 65 to 67. It will be helpful to our older workers in terms of financial planning and self-fulfilment through work. This is an important step towards our vision of building an inclusive and ageless workforce.
The concerns of the older workers are understandable. Many of our workers, by the time they reach the retirement age, are still unable to achieve financial freedom and have to continue to work. There are also many Singaporeans who would like to stay connected with society and long to continue working. However, they also have age-related special needs. Many older Singaporeans wish to achieve a balance between work, family, aspirations and physical strength. However, looking for a suitable job can be a difficult and frustrating challenge.
I would like to urge the Government to provide a one-stop job-matching and training service for our older workers. Jobs matched and training provided will be specifically selected to suit the older workers. This will make things much easier for them.
Although we have legislation in place, employers and employees need to have a change of mindset and thinking to achieve our vision of building an ageless and inclusive society. The Government and employers should work together to improve the work process and fully develop the workers' potential, and not go by the old way of recruiting foreign workers whenever there is a shortage of manpower.
Workers themselves must also be willing to try new jobs. Only by doing this can we fundamentally eradicate age discrimination and create an inclusive society.
(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, please let me continue in English.
There is a need for dedicated channels and platforms with curated silver-friendly jobs to help older workers function well in jobs that they are suited for. We have already done the same for PMETs. Could we not take the same approach with our older workers so that their skills and knowledge can be tapped on in an environment that is better suited for their needs?
Finally, for workers who will turn 65 before the passing of the Bill, could we encourage the public sector, government-linked companies (GLCs) and private sector companies to extend the same employment terms to them until they reach 67 years old? After all, we must all work in the spirit of the law, rather than just the letter. With this, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. With Singaporeans living longer and in better health, raising the re-employment age from 65 to 67 is timely and will allow them to continue their work longer, contributing their valuable expertise and experience.
I am very glad to note that an outdated provision, which allows employers to cut employees' wages at age 60, will be repealed. It is unfair to a worker who does the same job to have his pay reduced once he reaches 60.
I am also happy to support the amendment which allows eligible employees to be re-employed by other employers with the older workers' consent. This will be more flexible than the current arrangement, where the employment obligations lie with the older worker's employer. In the event an employer is unable to find a suitable job within his company for the older worker, he will be able to transfer him.
However, I am concerned that it would not be easy to transfer re-employment obligations of a 67-year-old employee to another employer in practice. The highest chances of success may be transfers to a subsidiary or related companies. Unfortunately, most SMEs do not have this option.
In addition, companies may face a manpower crunch which does not allow them to look into helping the older workers find suitable jobs in other companies. This may result in the companies taking the easy way out by offering EAP which is a waste since many workers still can work and want to work.
I would like to ask if it would be possible to offer current and potential employers additional incentives, such as tax rebates, to re-employ workers aged 67 and above, or recruit them from other companies?
There is already an incentive scheme for employers to hire older workers. This is the SEC scheme which provides employers up to 8% of an older employee's monthly wage. The scheme targets companies which hire employees aged 55 and above and who earn up to $4,000 a month. The highest tier of SEC is 8% for employees aged 65 and above. While this incentive is appreciated, additional benefits would be useful. Employers would be concerned about potential energy and declines in cognitive functions in workers in their late 60's and would need extra motivation to hire these older workers. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Under the Retirement and Re-employment (Amendment) Bill, if a company with older workers do not have suitable positions for employees eligible for re-employment, they may choose to arrange for them to work in other companies, including a subsidiary or related companies.
The important thing is that new employers should not just be fixated on whether the older worker can do the job. Although that is important, employers should also ensure the older employee can adjust to the new environment and adapt because older workers take time to adapt and adjust. It would be best if they are made aware of the whole work environment, instead of just knowing what work they themselves will do. That would be ideal. I am sure that with years of experience, they can adjust appropriately and make even better contributions to the company.
We must encourage and guide Singaporeans to lifelong learning and ensure good results, so that they can cope with the challenges of new work environments. I hope that the Government will consider providing tax incentives to employers who are willing to hire and support the training of older workers.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Thomas Chua.
Mr Thomas Chua Kee Seng (Nominated Member):\tMr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, from 1 July 2017, the Retirement and Re-employment Act will take effect, with the re-employment age being extended from 65 to 67. MOM is amending the legislation and requesting employers to shoulder more responsibilities. As an employer, I support the amendment of this Bill. However, from the perspective of an employer, I also wish to voice some of my opinions.
Singapore's population is gradually ageing and extending the re-employment age is a major trend. Older workers have a wealth of experience and, if their health conditions permit, could remain in their positions. This is good for the company and for the individual. However, we also need to understand their limitations; in particular, during the current volatile business environment, many industries are restructuring, and the Government is also encouraging businessmen to improve their productivity and lessen the reliance on workers.
Under these circumstances, the Government is requesting employers to arrange for a position for a 62-year-old employee to work until 67, even if there is no position available. If no position can be found, the employer has to offer a substantial amount of EAP or help the employee get a job at another company. Frankly speaking, the Government's new request and the direction for the last few years are clearly not on the same frequency. People aged around 65 are the baby-boomers and constitute a substantial number.
Before 1 July 2017, enterprises need to do proper financial planning. Restructuring requires the redesign of new workflows. On one hand, we need to raise productivity. On the other hand, we need to consider the situation of older workers, who may not be able to adapt immediately to technology which is too advanced, or methods which are too trendy. The company's capital is a pool, and if there is some outflow here and there, and no water flows in, the pool of water would be reduced. The ideal scenario is to have some outflow but balanced by some inflow, and maintaining that level of water could then ensure normal operations.
In this regard, can businessmen expect the Government to reduce other costs, like the foreign worker levy, the Certificate of Entitlement for commercial vehicles or, as the Member has just mentioned, offer more tax rebates to bring down their newly-added expenses? In the past, the Government had introduced wage credit schemes to lighten companies' burdens. However, we all know that legislations are there forever, they are permanent; but schemes are temporary. A company can only look after its older workers well if the company is functioning well.
Singapore companies are already learning to adapt to this new type of human resource (HR) structure. The company's workforce should comprise the old, middle-aged and young; each age group has its special qualities and everyone's value should be appreciated. For example, when female employees go on maternity leave, and the male employees go for reservist training, perhaps the older workers who have been trained could help to hold the fort and help to share the workload. Employers can see that.
In my company, the oldest worker was 80 years old, who carried on working until he passed on two years ago. When we arrange his work, we do not expect him to exert himself, but he won the respect of colleagues from his experience and attitude. In fact, if the bosses treat their elderly workers well in the long term, it also becomes a form of encouragement to younger employees. If they see this being practised in the company, the younger employees would have greater confidence in the company and give them a greater sense of belonging. A wise boss should know this.
Extending the re-employment age by two years does not mean that all older workers would be able to work for another two years, especially in this critical period of economic restructuring where some positions which were suitable for older workers may become obsolete. Those businesses which are in the process of restructuring, especially those in traditional industries, need to think of ways to adapt to new business environments.
From the viewpoint of economic development, the Government encourages enterprises to innovate and bring in new technology to create more benefits. From the viewpoint of social development, the Government requests enterprises to take care of the older workers and arrange for suitable positions for them. But at the same time, the Government needs to be aware that business costs are rapidly rising and understand the predicament of businesses. Our trade growth will continue to remain weak. Under these economic situations, it is very difficult for companies to seek growth. More companies are struggling to survive and are trying very hard to transform.
Thus, I hope that when the Government rolls out its policies, Ministries should be even better coordinated and make policies more relevant.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Retirement and Re-employment (Amendment) Bill. This is good news for our mature workers, especially those above the age of 62 and who wish to continue working for as long as they can.
Our employment practices and workforce need to evolve to meet the challenges of the future global economy and job trends. The intrinsic value of mature workers is the invaluable wealth of experience they bring with them, which companies can tap on when training their younger workers. It makes business sense to re-employ them beyond 62, if they are fit and capable to handle the demands of the job, and I am glad that Mr Thomas Chua agrees to this point as well.
As Executive Secretary of the National Transport Workers' Union (NTWU), I am heartened that our public transport operators were among the first to raise the retirement age of their workers beyond 62.
In 2013, the Singapore Bus Services (SBS) Transit raised the retirement age of their bus captains to 67. Last year, Singapore Mass Rapid Transit (SMRT) raised the re-employment age of bus captains to 69. Some of these mature bus drivers have driven more than 30 bus routes throughout their careers and this makes it easier for the operational team to deploy them to service different bus routes, especially during emergencies.
Our public transport operators also assign experienced bus captains to guide new bus captains. Newer and younger bus captains have told me that they pick up useful skills like providing better service and learnt life skills like work ethics and job dedication from their seniors. These benefits of hiring mature workers are especially more salient in industries with manpower challenges, like the bus service industry.
Today, many companies are already re-employing their mature workers beyond the re-employment age and I look forward to seeing even more companies hire workers beyond age 67. Age should not be a limit, but be a quality valued by employers. I hope that more companies can recognise these benefits.
I would also like to applaud the change that there will no longer be a wage cut for mature workers turning 60. This is a much-awaited move. Within the Labour Movement, we know of many companies that do not cut the wages of their 60-year-old employees. Some continue to receive salary increments due to their good performance. This legislative change sends a strong signal that companies should pay their workers based on performance, regardless of age.
For those approaching retirement age, having a fair remuneration package would encourage more to consider working so that they can remain financially independent, enjoy leisure activities, save up for retirement and be prepared for any unexpected medical expenses.
Lastly, we need to ensure that our workplaces are age-friendly. Creating age-friendly workplaces requires a whole-of-organisation approach, with open dialogues between employers, unions and all employees. Areas of work that can cause strain on our mature colleagues should be identified and promptly addressed.
As part of the enhanced WorkPro scheme which came into effect last July, there is the Job Redesign (JR) Grant to help companies create easier, safer and smarter jobs for our mature workers. The JR Grant aims to make current jobs physically easier, safer and smarter through improvements to the workplace environment or work processes to increase workers' productivity and satisfaction.
Let me cite an example. With assistance from the Singapore Industrial and Services Employees' Union (SISEU), Aerospace Component Engineering Services Pte Ltd is one of the first few companies to embark on this enhanced grant administered by NTUC's U Live department. Previously, workers were required to engrave intricate details like 2D dot-matrix or QR prints on very small data plates. Thanks to job redesign, workers can now make use of a laser marking machine and the relevant software to perform the engraving. This is especially helpful for the mature workers as it augments their physical abilities and enables them to continue doing this high precision job. This also helps them gain new skills and new process capabilities. The reduction in printing errors saved time and money, thus raising productivity for the company. This example showcases the viability of job redesign and I urge the Ministry to encourage and support more companies to embark on such projects. It would also go some way to address Mr Thomas Chua's concern about rising business cost.
I would also urge more companies to offer free health screening to their mature workers and encourage more workers to take ownership and adopt a healthier lifestyle. Through a health screening jointly organised by NTWU, Health Promotion Board and SBS Transit, 65-year-old Senior Bus Captain Mr Lee Chai Seng found that he had a high level of triglycerides and high blood pressure. Besides medication, he was advised to make lifestyle and dietary changes. After exercising regularly, reducing his food intake and opting for healthier meals, Mr Lee obtained a clean bill of health from the doctors within a year. A healthy worker is a happy and better worker who can contribute to his or her company. More companies should recognise that this is a win-win.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, our mature workers continue to be an important pillar within our workforce and have much to contribute to their companies. It is crucial that they are recognised and supported at the workplace. Employers, with support from our Government agencies, can lead the way to redesign jobs to make full use of the wealth of experience and abilities of our mature workers. We need a real mindset and culture change to get rid of ageism at the workplace. The proposed amendments to the Bill serve to reinforce that no worker should be discriminated because of their age. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill represents significant changes to our re-employment landscape. Reiterating Minister of State for Manpower Mr Sam Tan during the Committee of Supply debates last year, this is a necessary move which shows that Singapore is not just accepting, but embracing our older workforce.
Raising the re-employment age from the cap of 65 to 67 brings benefits both to our economy and to our workforce. The retention of manpower will inject vitality into our tight labour market.
At the same time, we are helping older Singaporeans to remain employable. My personal interactions with residents in Nee Soon, which has a sizeable population of seniors, tell me that many still want to work because of their desire to be financially independent, and many are already working well beyond the age of 65.
By raising the re-employment age, we will shine a light on the value that older workers can bring to our workplace, fostering a mindset shift that ageing is not a burden, but an opportunity.
Sir, I also applaud the Government's move to support companies to re-employ older workers. This Bill provides further flexibility for companies, while offering greater options for older workers.
However, as we recognise this group of seniors who work only because they want to, we must not forget the population of seniors who work because they have to. For many of the seniors, the reality is that they do not have enough savings to retire. I have met many who continue to work despite physical illness and severe fatigue.
Even for those with children, for some, financial contributions from their children are insufficient for their basic survival and I have encountered a few residents in Nee Soon East whose children only provide for them because the law mandates so, through the Parents Maintenance Act.
The rising costs of living may also mean that many have no choice but to work well beyond the age of 65, sometimes into their 70s, as you have heard, and even 80s. This would be a very sad reflection of Singapore, if we are a society that cannot even offer rest and repose to our people during their final days.
With this in mind, has the Ministry conducted any studies to reveal statistics on how many of our seniors work beyond the age of 65 because they want to, or because they have to and the reasons they have to work beyond 65? There are distinct differences between these two groups and a better understanding of this landscape can help create better policies.
Lastly, the main question I have been asked about this Bill is whether we will also be increasing the CPF Retirement Account payout eligibility age, which is currently at age 65 and we might be increasing it to 67. Can the Minister comment on this, please?
Sir, the above comments notwithstanding, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Thanaletchimi.
Ms K Thanaletchimi (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the revision to the Retirement and Re-employment Bill. I must applaud the tripartite partners for their effort in bringing about the change, that is, the extension of re-employment age to 67 and also to ensure responsible re-employment on the part of the employers instead of taking the easy way out by paying EAP. I certainly hope there will be more enlightened employers who will provide these older workers employment beyond 67 and certainly envision a day when the retirement age can be raised to 65 and re-employment could continue without a cap in age as long as a person is mentally well and physically fit to work and can contribute effectively and, more essentially, continue to embrace lifelong learning taking a three \"A\"s approach, that is, \"Adopt, Adapt and Advance\".
However, it is lamentable that there is still a negative perception amongst employers that older workers are a liability to the company. Many employers plainly label older workers as too old for the job, lacking in energy and creativity, are not tech-savvy, have health problems and not able to work long as there are uncertainties in their health condition.
If one were to flip the coin to the other side, one would come to realise that, fundamentally, older workers provide stability to the organisation. For example, should the network fail or if there is tech downtime, they do not panic for they have alternative ways to get things done even though they are not tech-savvy, unlike our younger generation who often become paralysed when there is tech downtime. We should recognise and acknowledge the fact that our Baby Boomers and Generation X are willing to learn new technology to be tech-savvy.
Our older workers work in an era when work-life balance means work until the job gets done. They are resilient. For employers to recruit and retain them, it is all about the art and science of managing older workforce which companies must embrace.
Sir, I wish to highlight one main concern which I hope MOM will look into: the plight of the older workers, especially those between 62 and 65, and those beyond 65 who have lost their employment and are actively seeking a job.
Though the changes to the law are, indeed, timely and a most welcome step for a more inclusive and progressive workforce, measures have to be taken to help those older workers who have fallen out of employment now and until the law takes effect. We need to address the plight of our older workers, especially those above 65 who have lost their job prior to the legislation and now seeking employment. It is a great challenge, indeed, for this group of Singaporeans to find a job. Also with the slowing economy, what safeguards can we provide these older workers who are eligible for re-employment but lost their job because of early termination of term contract when companies underperform since older workers, besides foreigners, are the first to be terminated?
Secondly, once an older worker, within the re-employment age, becomes unemployed, it is rather a challenge for him to find another job. There is unspoken discrimination which is, indeed, difficult to establish. Even though there are various wage support schemes for companies to keep older workers in a job, be it those 55 and above and those 65 and above, perhaps MOM could review if these measures have been effective, especially to encourage companies to hire workers beyond 65, or should there be an enhanced wage support scheme that is tiered based on age band?
Anecdotally, there are many older workers, especially those beyond 65 who increasingly find it a challenge to even be given an opportunity for interview. PMEs especially, who have lowered their expectations, do see a constant roadblock with age being the undeniable barrier. Let me now share one of the several cases of such nature which I had come across. A technician denied re-employment after he turned 65 since the employer's legal obligation is until employee is aged 65, sought employment in many industries, including the security industry, which was a 12-hour shift work. He wants to be gainfully employed so as to keep himself active while earning to support his spouse who is a housewife as his two children are residing overseas. The word is to keep himself active, that is, occupied, and to have some money in his pocket for daily expenses. \"Is it too much to ask for?\" he asked. He personally shared that there is prejudice against older workers which is a challenge to prove as it is rather subtle. I shared with him that TAFEP has been doing extensive work to promote fair and progressive work practices and to highlight cases of such nature to TAFEP should he feel strongly that there is discrimination. He shared that he does not want trouble. I believe there are many of such cases where people are trying to get an employment and subsequently stop trying as it produces futile outcomes.
I wish that all employers, be it multinational corporations (MNCs) or SMEs, as part of their corporate social responsibility, can be enlightened, be fair and inclusive by providing a suitable job and a flexible work arrangement to allow for older people to be economically viable and self-sustaining. From the health and economic perspective, it is also good for the nation and the society as a whole.
I certainly hope MOM can provide more effective and sustainable incentives and continue promoting and sharing good practices of companies that hire older workers.
As we see the ageing population growing rapidly, perhaps it is worthy for the Government to consider creating cottage industries for the greying population. Singapore can be a lifestyle hub for one to age gracefully and it can bring about collective economic value and essentially doing well for our ageing population by creating jobs of such kind.
I also hope that MOM will consider upping the retirement age to 65 at a suitable time in the medium term and allow for re-employment without age limit. This, indeed, will require a tripartite effort to create genetic mutation of Singapore's DNA of how individuals view ageing and that to cultivate a culture of \"age neutral workplace\" as well as \"age-friendly workplace\". It is all about attitude, skill and adaptability. Technology can complement the effort of these older workers without having to totally replace them.
With the growing grey waves, will MOM consider having a quota on the foreign workers to older Singaporeans employed without affecting the opportunities for our younger workforce? We often hear of companies employing foreign workers at the expense of older workers. This is where monitoring and enforcement are required to deal with such unscrupulous employers and such sensitive issues.
Notably, MOM could consider anti-discrimination laws, especially on age, as it is more prevalent as a constant bugbear so as to safeguard the interest of our growing older population seeking jobs, should the persuasive effort yield be low and slow.
Lastly, on the revision of the Bill itself, I would like to seek a few clarifications.
One, with reference to section 7 of the principal Act, it is good to include the tripartite guidelines as a reference in this Act where the explicit details are contained in the guidelines. For example, the need for the employer to inform the employee of its intention to reemploy at least three months before the employee turns 62. Even if these guidelines are referenced elsewhere but for greater accessibility and quick reference, I would urge MOM to consider this suggestion.
Two, with reference to section 7A of the principal Act section (d), subsection (4) section (e) and sub-section (6), does this amendment mean that reemployment contracts will not be deemed as a new contract and employee's employment can be considered as a sail through?
Three, in regard to section 7B, can I clarify if we can delete or amend the subsection so that re-employed workers will not see a cut in their entitlements that are tied to length of service?
In the amendment under section 7B(5) also provides for the continuity of the employee's service for the purpose of computing the employee's entitlement to annual leave and sick leave. Would not this mean that subsection (1) is not as relevant?
Four, with reference to section 7C, does the current employer have an obligation to seek employment opportunities from another employer for the re-employed staff? Can they be expected to seek such employment opportunities among their parent/subsidiary companies with this amendment?
Mr Deputy Speaker, the revision to the Bill is a step in the right direction. I am indeed heartened that being old in Singapore will increasingly be less of a liability from the employment perspective. As we mature as an ageing society, it would be notably worthy for MOM to keep track of gender-based re-employment data so that there can be a more targeted effort to increase employment amongst older Singaporeans. What is of utmost importance is that to continue to provide employment opportunities to these older workers, be it men or women, and for companies to embrace age-neutral, age-friendly hiring practices and create a fertile environment for older workers to age gracefully with pride and dignity.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Intan Mokhtar.
Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, the amendments to the Retirement and Re-employment Act serve to protect the employment interests of our employees, specifically those aged 63 to 64 and above.
I am particularly heartened that an employer can no longer make indiscriminate downward revisions of the salaries of employees once they are nearing retirement age. As our population ages, we can expect to live longer and work until much older. Now, 60s are the new 50s.
During my house visits and at my Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS), I have come across middle-aged residents who have expressed their worry at imminent job restructuring, salary reduction or employment retrenchment.
For some of them, even though they are in their 50s, they are still supporting young school-going children as well as elderly parents. On top of that, they are still paying off their home loan. Yet another group of middle-aged residents are the sole breadwinners for their families, and job insecurity as well as salary reduction weigh heavily on their minds and shoulders.
I particularly support clause 11(2), (3) and (4) to repeal section 5 of the principal Act. This is good news and is very fair to our senior employees. I believe that once someone reaches the age of 60, it does not mean that that person is less competent or less able to work. Competency and the ability to work really depends on the individual, regardless of age.
Besides, with life expectancy now expected to be between 80 to 85, being 60 is still considered relatively young. A 60-year-old would still have a good 10-15 years to work and be economically active.
There is, however, Mr Deputy Speaker, one part of the amendment that I am concerned about.
Clause 4, section 7(3) states that, I quote, \"Where an employer does not intend to re-employ an employee because the employee does not meet the criteria in subsection (1)(b), then as far as it is reasonably practicable, the employer must give the employee a written notice of that intention within a reasonable period before terminating the employee's employment.\"
What is a \"reasonable period\"? One month's notice, which is standard practice, may seem like a reasonable period. But for those who are older, say, 50 and above, one month may not be enough to find another job. I have met older residents who have lost their jobs and are unable to find another job even after many months of searching, sending out job applications, attending interviews, and even after undergoing skills training in new areas of specialisation.
Some have even resorted to settling for lower-paying jobs or taking up jobs that do not fully utilise their skills or allow them to tap on their past work experience, because they are quite desperate to find another job, any job, just so that they can continue to pay their bills and support the family.
This is an area in which I hope we can work closely with employers in providing more opportunities for older workers to undergo proper work redesign to ensure job relevance or provide them with more time to gain alternative employment.
In addition, while I support clause 7 that makes amendments to section 7C to provide EAP, there is the question of how much payment is sufficient and fair and what constitutes reasonable attempts made by the employer in accordance with the tripartite guidelines. Will the Ministry elaborate on what reasonable attempts may be and what these tripartite guidelines are? Mr Deputy Speaker, please allow me to continue in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The amendments to the Retirement and Re-employment Act are a welcome move, especially the move to repeal section 5 of the principal Act.
The repeal of section 5 will give more assurance to workers and employers that one's age should not be used as a yardstick to measure whether someone is capable, is still able to work or is still competent for the job. Therefore, employers are no longer able to reduce an employee's salary just because he or she has reached the age of 60.
Personally, I have met those who are in their 20s but cannot endure hard work and cannot accept criticism at the workplace. At the same time, I have acquaintances who are above 60 but are still working actively, even though they have heavy work responsibilities and have to endure long working hours.
For so long, our community has become comfortable with the notion that 55 is the retirement age. But in reality, with higher standards of living and life expectancy now reaching age 80 to 85, the age of 55 is still relatively young. A person who is 55 can still work and be active for 10, 15 or 20 years more.
Here, I would like to urge our Malay community to avoid planning their retirement too early. Employment is meaningless if we are unable to spend time with our family or pursue personal interests or perform our religious obligations.
I believe we have heard of celebrities like creator of Marvel Comics Stan Lee, fashion designer Vera Wang and founder of GAP fashion retailer Donald Fisher. They became famous and embarked on new careers at the age of 40.
Our own countryman, Mr Sarkasi Said, a batik master whom I respect deeply, also began to enjoy success in his field at the age of 40. Although Mr Sarkasi is now 76 years old, he is still actively practising the art of batik making.
I am reminded of the saying \"Life Begins at 40\". Maybe it is also because I am now 40, too. But as long as we breathe, we should continue working and serving our nation, society and family.
(In English): We need to showcase more older employees who are contributing extensively to their employers and companies and value-adding to their work despite their age. Such open-minded and inclusive employers who employ them should also be showcased and commended for retaining, retraining and re-employing older workers. With that, I support the Bill.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exempted Business","subTitle":"Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2.\" – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Retirement and Re-employment (Amendment) Bill ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Heng Chee How.
Mr Heng Chee How (Jalan Besar): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Bill. I would like to make three points today.
First, I support this Bill. We must continually innovate our methods so that our mature workers can keep contributing, and this Bill does that.
Second, big disruptions are happening to global trade, technology, business models, buying behaviour. How things are made, sold and bought are all changing quickly. Businesses and workers who can adapt will grow. Those who cannot, risk becoming obsolete more quickly than before. These same factors will also impact the chances of displaced workers when they look for jobs.
Hence, my view is that improvements in this Bill are absolutely necessary but are not sufficient to maximise the working years of mature workers who would have to deal with this increasing flux.
This brings me to my third point, which is that there is a critical need for the tripartite partners to examine these developments carefully and proactively devise policies and plans to address them in the interest of both mature workers and Singapore.
First, on the Bill itself, I am very happy, like all my fellow Parliamentary colleagues, about the key amendments: the one raising the re-employment age ceiling from 65 to 67.
Second, repealing the power of employers to reduce wages at age 60. Very few employers had resorted to that, given that most were fair-minded and that pay is very much performance-driven nowadays. Repealing this is timely.
Third, allowing employers to offer re-employment job positions that go beyond the immediate company or organisation, after due efforts have been made within the immediate company, to workers who are due for re-employment.
This gives more flexibility and scope for job sourcing. However, it is important to note that it is the worker's right whether to accept such an offer, and they cannot be ridden roughshod over. So, that retains the security that they have under current arrangements.
Where the offer cannot be met with acceptance, the worker remains entitled to EAP.
Mr Deputy Speaker, clearly, mature workers wanted an extension of the age ceiling soonest. The Labour Movement fully understands our mature workers' feelings and needs and has been pushing hard for an early resolution. Yet, the negotiations have taken several years. You may ask why?
Employers wanted added flexibility of options for them to fulfil their legal obligations without overly constraining their business and manpower decision-making. Workers, on the other hand, wanted more legal assurance to help them work beyond 65 and on fair terms. They do not want to be discriminated against just because of age. Workers wanted as much security as possible. In short, the negotiators were seeking a balanced and sustainable approach to achieve flexi-security.
The amendments proposed in this Bill are, therefore, agreed to as a package to address the needs and interests of both the mature workers and businesses.
A key lesson from these negotiations is that all sides were open to considering fresh approaches and innovations to reach a win-win outcome that secures each side's core interests. Such a mindset would be even more necessary when seeking new paths forward in the future.
I now move on to my second point. A company will only employ a worker when there is a need to create a job position and when they can find a candidate whom they believe is worth employing.
Singapore's economy is undergoing fundamental restructuring. Even as we work hard to transform ourselves, we are buffeted by serious cyclical and structural changes. Events in 2016, for example, have also shown us how volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) the world is becoming.
Consider the nationalist and protectionist backlash against globalisation and free trade, rapid currency swings, heightened global political instability, terrorist and cyber threats, technological changes interacting with social connectivity to upend business models in both manufacturing and services and to redefine where productivity and innovations are to be found and exploited.
So, these developments raise two questions, one I consider basic and the other one consequential.
The basic question is: given these disruptive challenges, how will goods and services be produced and sold? If technology and social connectivity, whether through driver-less vehicles, 3-D manufacturing, robotisation or e-commerce, if these are causing the creating, selling and buying of goods and services to be carried out in very different ways from before, then just making laws to enable people to do existing jobs for more years would become less and less adequate for more and more people as time passes. Even upgrading skills to do existing jobs better may or may not be adequate.
This flux increases the risk of mismatch and worker displacement. The structural challenge in this is very real and serious. Unless we ready ourselves to deal with it, structural unemployment, which is sticky, may rise. And structurally unemployed workers, especially mature ones, will find that even cyclical upturns will not bring back the jobs because the old jobs may no longer exist.
The consequential question is: what should we then do to help mature workers stay employed or be re-employable in this changed and changing environment? This is my third point.
I believe that, for this, we need to strike out boldly in three areas.
First, measures that help mature workers stay valuable and cost-competitive. Reduce net business cost of employing mature workers, for example ‒ and this has been mentioned by both the Minister and the other Members ‒ through an extension of employer wage subsidies, such as SEC or the additional SEC. In this regard, I note the Minister's point that this is being reviewed, and I strongly support every effort and consideration towards its extension because not only would it help render the mature workers more cost-competitive in general but, in the current soft economic climate, it would be particularly pertinent.
Next, step up efforts to educate companies on the implications of the peaking of the Singaporean workforce in the coming five years, and to help them find ways to tap on every worker, regardless of age, to the best extent.
Next, increase publicity of mature workers being valued for their worth on the job, as well as for their resourcefulness and tenacity in adapting to new circumstances and in seizing opportunities. The more our society sees this as normal, the more mindsets about mature workers ‒ who they are, what they are capable of ‒ will shift in the positive, correct and desired direction.
Secondly, we have to do more with measures that help match displaced workers quickly to new work.
If increasing flux raises displacement risk, then we must find ways to increase the clearance speed of our job-matching mechanism so that we can avoid a build-up of a pool of structurally unemployed workers. While this is true for workers of all ages, it would be particularly pertinent for mature workers of all levels, given the realities of the labour market.
To do this well, there is a need to significantly improve our knowledge of where the jobs and displacements of today and the future are or will be. We also need to enrol the mature workforce into life-long adaptive upgrading much more intensively and find ways to guide such learning and relearning beyond providing funding.
Our job and training matching efficiency and effectiveness must also undergo a step upgrade to deal with the expected larger flow volumes as this flux spreads and intensifies.
It would also require significantly enhancing social support and lowering switching costs for displaced mature workers who are undergoing retraining for new jobs in new sectors. These displaced workers have families to feed and commitments to meet. So, if left without systematic transition support, many more may exhaust their resources and end up in sub-optimal and underemployed work. Others may be discouraged from the labour market altogether and you will have this pool building up and that would become eventually a threat to social cohesion. We do not want that to happen.
The third area of action would be the structural reform of work, work processes and also legislation, regulation and so on. The gig economy and the workforce will grow quickly, if we look at international trends. Companies will keep a small core and tap on contract, outsourced or freelance labour more and more frequently. New-age workers and displaced ones may also seek to earn a living as self-employed, freelance providers, independent contractors, or other non-traditional forms of work, whether out of choice or no choice.
New technologies and social commerce platforms may also reduce or eliminate certain previously abundantly available self-employed or gig job options in time to come, such as the impact of autonomous vehicles on hired driving.
This is, therefore, much more complex than moving from full-time to part-time work, or moving from being a salaried worker to being self-employed as a business owner.
Our labour laws and arrangements have to keep up with the changes and challenges, so as to ensure that the risks and rewards of enterprise and production continue to be fairly and sustainably balanced between businesses, working people and the state. I mentioned the state for considerations, such as in terms of tax collection and social support outlays.
Press on to revamp workplaces and work processes to be age-universal, through ramping up such schemes as WorkPro. The design of workplaces, work processes and jobs have a direct and significant impact on whether older persons can avoid premature loss of employability. Given the relative difficulty faced by displaced mature workers in finding new jobs quickly, such upstream work will help reduce downstream pain.
Thus far, we have largely gone on the basis of a single national statutory retirement age, followed by a standard duration of re-employment. I believe that it is time also for the tripartite partners to study how mature workers in different occupation types may raise their effective working years beyond prevailing national statutory norms, for example, via industry-based or occupation-based norm setting.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the Bill before us will help more mature workers cope better and continue to work, especially in the jobs of today. At the same time, the future is rushing at us at an unprecedented speed and with unfamiliar manifestations.
Even as we strengthen our frameworks of today, we must mobilise Singapore and Singaporeans to tackle that VUCA future with focus, joint effort and a sense of urgency. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. In view of our ageing population in which one out of four Singaporeans will be aged 65 and above by 2030, the Government would have to work with employers to adjust to the new norm where older workers will become one of the key pillars of our workforce.
The amendments to the Retirement and Re-employment Act are necessary to include those who are able and willing to continue working. Raising the re-employment age to 67 is one thing; convincing companies to retain and recruit these senior employees is another.
We need to balance the needs of businesses and workers. How would the Government encourage both employers and employees to retain older workers at other jobs within the company and at re-negotiated wages? My concern is that it is easier for an employer to offer EAP than to help an older employee find a position.
Currently, the SEC scheme provides some incentive for companies to hire older workers aged above 55 earning up to $4,000 a month. These companies will receive SEC of up to 8% of the employee's monthly wage. However, to attract employers to hire workers at the much older age of 67, particularly those who used to work at other companies, additional incentives, monetary or otherwise, would have to be given. Incentives will be needed for the current transition period until the concept of working into a person's 70s or even 80s becomes more widely accepted and integrated into our company culture.
I would like to ask the Minister: what have the public sector employers, including Statutory Boards, done for the re-employment of older workers? What are their success rates and the percentages of such workers being retained and redeployed? In addition, what is the percentage of older workers aged 62 and above in SMEs, relative to large corporates? This information will be useful for reference by both the public and private sectors and will inform our future policy measures.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Jessica Tan.
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Bill. I rise in support of this Bill as the amendments seek to help older local workers who are able and wish to stay employed to do so. With an ageing population, increasing life expectancy, we are seeing more people able and wanting to stay in the workforce. In my role as a Member of Parliament, I have met many older residents who have shared with me their desire to stay employed. Raising the re-employment age to 67 years and the provisions in this Bill will be welcome news for these older workers.
There are three areas of the Bill that I wish to clarify.
Raising the re-employment age to 67. Over the last five years, we do see an increasing trend of older people working in Singapore. For those 65 to 67 years, the labour force participation rate has risen from 30.9% in 2010 to 42.2% in 2015, although at a slower rate in the last three years.
The Bill specifies that from 1 July 2017, the new re-employment age of 67 will be applicable to those born on or after 1 July 1952. Can the Minister clarify what this will mean for those born before July 1952 who are currently employed and not yet 67 years of age? While I understand the need to give employers time to adjust to these changes, can those aged above 65 but below 67 be included to receive the same benefits with the provisions of this Bill as those born on or after 1 July 1952?
The second area, the repeal of the provision allowing employers to cut employees' wages at the age of 60. I am glad that this provision is being repealed. It is only fair that employees, regardless of their age, should not be compensated any less for the job that they are doing just because they are older.
The Minister has shared in his speech that the Government is assessing the need to extend the 3% additional SEC that supports employers to offset wages which will expire on 1 July this year. I do hope that a decision on this can be made sooner as it will benefit those currently working aged below 67 not covered by the new re-employment age of 67 as well as what the Minister had shared in his speech, those working and above 67.
The final area, on the inclusion of the option to allow eligible employees to be re-employed by another employer to increase labour market flexibility, it is good to allow for this flexibility and also having the safeguard that this can only be effected with the agreement of the employee. I do believe that going forward, there is a larger factor that needs to be addressed, especially as we discuss older workers. With the speed of technological changes and the disruptions impacting industries, business models, how work is done and the type and quality of jobs available, there will be job creation, but also job displacements, as well as new skills requirements.
So, while we make provisions for re-employment and raise the re-employment age to enable older workers to stay in the workforce if they wish and are able to, we need to complement this with concrete efforts to future-enable all workers. This will involve the development, training and retraining of workers before they reach 60. This will help workers, including older workers, to be more ready to take on re-employment opportunities and new roles that will exist at re-employment age.
For workers, having a learning mindset is important. If all of this does not happen, we would probably see a situation where employers will have to make the EAP as the jobs available will not be suitable for the worker with the current employer or any other employer. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Miss Cheryl Chan.
Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (Fengshan): Mr Deputy Speaker, as we look at an ageing population in Singapore, this Bill serves to highlight some truths about social awareness of our ageing workforce and the current situation that many seniors face today or in the coming years. For a society with an active workforce, surely our definition of retirement and re-employment must go beyond the traditional association with an age or the adjustment of benefits in a contract for older workers.
How do we then define retirement? A check with Oxford Dictionary describes retirement as \"The action or fact of leaving one's job and ceasing to work\". Literally, this means anyone can retire at any age they feel comfortable to go without a need for the job and not because they have reached a predefined age and need to be made redundant from work.
I view both retirement and re-employment as personal choices where individuals decide when they wish to retire and whether they wish to be re-employed post-retirement at work and in what capacity. Sadly, the current employment trends reflect the harsh reality of the mindset of many employers and society at large that links one's effective worklife contribution to a particular age. While we question the state of things, should we not be asking what the root cause is? And are there better options in keeping a healthy, active workforce of willing and engaged workers?
I agree that it is necessary to have some short-term plans on creating active work for our seniors or Pioneer Generation. But is it sufficient to achieve sustainable re-employment through a transactional focus on areas like how and when companies find ways to employ our seniors beyond a certain age; or for the Government to continue providing transitional subsistence for the employers to hire our seniors? Now, would it not be more critical for us to fast forward our thinking on solutions for the future where generations of seniors, where workers in their mid-40s today, can continue to be meaningfully involved at the job market as they mature in the workforce?
We should recognise that under the Tripartite Committee on Employability of Older Workers (Tricom) and TAFEP, some progress has been made through working with the tripartite partners and also with the WorkPro Grants. However, depending on the Government alone or the law to ring fence and provide security for our older workers may be counter-productive in some instances and stagnates progression in achieving our desired outcome of having active ageing for those who wish to. There is a Chinese saying, 强 中 自 有 强 中 手、 一 山 还 有 一 山 高. What this means here is, whilst we can put some measures in place to ensure that our older workers remain employed, but the employers could also find more reasons and tactics to argue why they prefer not to have seniors in their workforce.
Based on feedback, I believe there are three reasons that primarily led to the companies' reluctance in retaining or hiring older workers. First, our subconscious conjectures that associate our seniors to specific roles and worth of their abilities when they come of age. Second, the perceived higher cost of having older workers due to their need for more medical benefits and correspondingly more sick leave and time off work. Third, many companies lack the ability and bandwidth to deploy resources with job match, redesign appropriate jobs and have little will to retrain and manage these workers.
As the Government encourages and persuades the tripartite partners to re-employ older workers, I urge the Ministry to consider the following on grounds of immediate and long-term needs.
The first area is the increased focus on contract workers and freelancers. I have previously raised in this House and would reiterate again the need to provide access to basic knowledge related to contracts, service agreements, common HR practices to all working age adults, so that they are better equipped with understanding the latest industry practices and mentally prepared to handle the situation if it does arise.
Increasingly, our older workers will not be hired as permanent or full-time staff and more PMEs are facing retrenchments even before the specified retirement age. Many of them end up with roles as part-time contract workers and freelancers. Such information and knowledge bear significance and are central to the workers on being better-informed and reduces the risk of unfair practices or litigations.
With the tightening labour market and a maturing workforce, it is hard to imagine why our older workers are perceived to bring no value at all to the workforce. Some claim that physically, the older workers cannot cope or do not have relevant skills to handle the work. This may be true for some specific jobs, but it cannot be so for all. Many companies are willing to hire fresh graduates or some with little relevant experience, so why not the older workers?
From my experience and observations, many mature workers have stronger resolve to learn, are willing to take on more scope if given the opportunities and share a greater sense of loyalty to their companies. Indeed, their wealth of experience cannot be redundant simply because they have reached an age. To change this trend, I strongly urge hiring managers and employers to rethink and to shift their mindset. Consideration must be based on the value that each worker brings to a company, many of which will not diminish with age, such as expertise and experience; and if done in collaboration, more work opportunities can be created locally and reducing social costs.
As pointed out by my colleague, Mr Heng Chee How, it will also be useful for MOM to work with SPRING Singapore to actively share practices and showcase how some companies, especially SMEs, have successfully implemented and redesigned their work scope to help mature workers manage new functions that they have not encountered previously.
In the second area, enhancing the framework for broad-based learning. We constantly speak about continuous learning and encourage individuals to cultivate a habit of learning not only in school but also at work. Often, this is not an easy task for companies without a people development centric culture or others without the scale to offer their staff training beyond their current job scope.
As we develop the scope of SkillsFuture in Singapore, I suggest looking at courses from a different angle and enhancing it in three ways. First, to gradually mandate that tertiary students should have at least an opportunity for internships at companies in the public or private sectors through the course of their study. Second, allow companies to tap on SkillsFuture credit and expertise to develop in-house training programmes relevant to their organisations or industries. Third, incentivise the employers not through salary subsistence but skills development and work scope crafted for mature workers.
Why the need for this? Early exposure provides our students with choices and understanding of what the future work environment might be or to further pursue areas of studies they are keen to specialise in. For the companies, it is a resource pool and also an early recruitment of potential talents that fit their company well.
While it is important to develop skills in areas that one is lacking and those where one is passionate about, the identification process and taking the relevant courses to reinforce it is not an easy path. The challenge that many individuals may face after gaining qualification from third party vendor courses in the open market is the level of recognition these companies are willing to accept on relevance and useful skills they have acquired.
Thus, if company or industry-related training can be considered under SkillsFuture, it will provide the incentive, scope and flexibility for the companies to enable some focus on continuous upgrading of their workers. Some of the programmes can be on-the-job training or cross-function job rotations; and this ultimately benefits the companies and enhances broader skillsets of our workers over time. This will also assist the SMEs which usually do not have the luxury of more resources and ability to dedicate their staff for external training. For workers in this situation, they will be further disadvantaged from not having a chance to learn broadly. With time, they may even face more difficulties to find the next appropriate job.
So, Mr Deputy Speaker, while I support the Bill and efforts that MOM has made thus far, we need to be cautious of the weary and prolonged effects a society may face if the efforts are made solely on the part of the Government. I hope our society can embrace the reality of an ageing workforce, progressively change their mindset on appreciating values of workers based on their abilities and make room for more people who are willing to contribute their part.
It may not be time for many to hang up their boots as they are cruising in their career, but reality hits hard when the mature worker wishes to remain active at work, only to find that redundancy and no vacancy are the music that welcome them. With this, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Henry Kwek.
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Nee Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, the amendments to the current Retirement and Re-employment Act are sound. It strikes a good balance between protecting our seniors and encouraging our employers to hire seniors. Therefore, I stand in support of the Bill. I am also very heartened to hear Minister Lim's remarks about considering extending the SEC. I think that is a very good measure that many will welcome.
The next challenge we face is to get the information across to both our seniors and our companies. More so for the former, as our seniors are much more vulnerable.
One important point to communicate is the concept of re-employment age. On the ground, residents occasionally tell me that companies ask them to leave because they have reached \"retirement age\". Some companies even say that the \"law prevents them from hiring seniors beyond a certain age\". I am disappointed when I hear such misconceptions.
As my Parliamentary colleague Darryl David recently put it, as long as the employee is medically fit and willing, the re-employment age of 67 is just the floor and not the ceiling. The law does not stop companies from hiring seniors beyond 67, even though they are not covered under the rules spelt out in the Bill. This misconception shows us that empowering seniors with information is key. I have a few suggestions.
First, the Pioneer Generation Office can conduct household visits to seniors above 50 to share information on the current employment laws, as well as the incentives, such as the SEC, that can help them and that companies employ them. Secondly, well-crafted advertisements in different languages, including dialects, are also options. The ones for MediShield Life are very well-received and very effective. Third, let us not forget social media, especially since some of our younger seniors are also tech-savvy.
Besides informing seniors, companies need to understand that they not only gain from monetary incentives, but also from the experience our seniors have. However, it is not easy for businesses, especially SMEs, to stay current on regulations.
Therefore, our Government can do more to keep our businesses informed. For example, one, the upcoming business grant portal can be clear in stating senior employment incentives and re-employment age, perhaps through a pop-up banner at the launch page. This will ensure that our business leaders and towkays are kept in the loop. Two, the relevant MOM, CPF and Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) websites can display such information, too, so that the HR managers are aware of it as well.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, the Bill amendments today are an important step to assure our seniors of their employability. But for the law to see its intended effect, seniors and businesses need a genuine shift in mindset. And for that to happen, they must first be empowered with the right information. I look forward to the responses from MOM and I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Lim.
Mr Lim Swee Say: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first of all, I would like to thank the 17 Members who have spoken and for their support of the Bill. Let me try to address the key issues brought up by the Members.
First of all, I am happy to see that all of us in this House share a common objective which is to help as many Singaporeans as possible to work for as long as possible. Given the longer life expectancy, I think there is no disagreement that helping our seniors to live what I call \"H2P2\" − a Happy and Healthy, Productive and Purposeful life. I think we are on the same wavelength.
The issue is: what is the best way to go about achieving this? First, why re-employment and not retirement? Why do we not raise the retirement age? The Member Assoc Prof Daniel Goh asked that question: why leave the retirement age at 62? Why not raise it to 65 or even higher? Why raise only re-employment age?
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we started off raising the retirement age as the key mechanism to enhance the employment rate for older workers. We used to have a de facto retirement age of 55. Later on, we formalised it at 60 and it was alright. Later on, the tripartite partners worked very hard together to raise it to 62. We managed to make it happen. But after that, we hit a wall. When the tripartite partners sat down to talk about raising the retirement age from 62 to 65 and beyond, all three parties objected.
First, the employers objected for the very obvious reason because they are concerned about the impact on businesses. On the part of the workers, Members may not be aware, our younger workers objected, too. In fact, at a grassroots dialogue chaired by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, a young worker asked him a very direct question. He said, \"I am now in my 40s. I have been waiting for many years to take over the position of my boss. My boss is going to retire very soon because he is reaching 62 soon. Now, if you were to raise the retirement age to 65 and beyond, it means I have to wait a few more years.\" He asked, \"How is the Government going to take care of the aspirations of the young?\" The young employees objected.
The older employees also expressed their concerns. They talked to NTUC. Every time we raise the retirement age, employers will demand a wage cut because of various considerations, and the older employees would object to the wage cut. So, we could not move. Employers did not want to move, young workers did not want us to move, and unions were pressured by senior employees not to give in to demands for wage cuts. So, we were stuck. How to find a solution? But we believe that instead of having all three parties looking at this as a problem, why not all of us work on a solution that can produce an all-win outcome?
We went to Japan. We studied their model. Every country talks about raising their retirement age but, in Japan, they pursued the direction of re-employment age. The core difference between retirement and re-employment age is that when you raise the retirement age, the expectation is for same job, same pay. As a result, we may deprive the younger ones of career progression. Whereas when Japan introduced the idea of re-employment age, the concept is, not necessarily the same job, not necessarily the same pay.
They told us when we visited them in 2005, 2006 that, in Japan, under the Re-employment Act, no manager is allowed to be re-employed as a manager so that the position will be made available to a younger successor, and that person who is re-employed will provide value-add, maybe as a consultant, an advisor, or a staff officer to guide and help the younger ones to succeed. In some cases, if the corporation does not have a position opening for them, they allow them to be deployed to the subsidiaries. Why? Because they can actually help to bring their expertise and experience to the subsidiaries.
We learnt from them. We thought it made a lot of sense. We invited the Japanese experts to come to Singapore to conduct workshops. And finally, we came to the conclusion that that is the best bet and the way to go ahead. As a result of that, we moved away from raising the retirement age towards the introduction of the re-employment age. I would say that, over the last five years since 2012, it has been proven that what we did was correct.
The second point: are we moving too slowly? Have we wasted 23 years? Deputy Speaker, Sir, we learnt from Japan the concept of re-employment. Come 1 July 2017, we will be ahead of Japan in the adoption of the re-employment age. The re-employment age in Japan today is still at 65. We learnt from them five years ago and adopted the re-employment age of 65. Come July, our re-employment age will be 67, but in Japan, it is still 65. Our re-employment age at 67, compared to many other countries, is already among the higher ones. Of course, some many argue: why not do away with retirement age completely? Why not do away with re-employment age completely?
We did a quick comparison. There are countries that have no retirement age, for example, the UK, Australia, the US, Denmark, New Zealand and Germany. They have no retirement age, but yet at the same time, there are other countries − I am talking about the developed economies − they have a retirement age. For example, in Korea, it is 60; in Switzerland, 65 for males, 64 for females; Sweden, 67; Finland, 68; Luxembourg, 68. Some of them are about the same as us, some are lower, and some are higher than us.
At the end of the day, we look at the employment rates. Yes, you can do away with the retirement age or have a higher or lower retirement age. The bottom line is: to what extent are we able to help the older workers to stay employed?
We looked at the employment rates of those who are aged 65 to 69, and guess what? What we discovered is that, with Singapore's re-employment age of 65, our employment rate of those aged 65-69 is 40.4%, as of 2015. Of the developed countries, two countries are higher than us: Korea whose rate is 44.8%, and Japan whose rate is 41.5%. We learnt from them about the re-employment age but when it came to actual employment rates, they are still higher than us.
These two countries are higher than us. And guess what? If we compare ourselves to all the other countries with a higher retirement age, for example, Luxembourg, their employment rate for those aged 65 to 69, is 7.1%, less than 10%. In the case of Finland, the retirement age is 68, but their employment rate for those aged 65 to 69 is 13.1%. In the case of Sweden, the retirement age is 67 and their employment rate is 21.9%.
What about countries with no retirement age? The UK has no retirement age, employment rate for those aged 65 to 69 is 21%; Australia, 25%; the US, 31%; and Denmark, 15%. All of them, all these countries, even though they do not have a retirement age, their employment rates for workers aged 65 to 69 are all significantly lower than Singapore's 40.4%.
What about workers aged 70 to 74? Eventually, what we hope is that our people can actually continue working for as long as they are able to, and as long as they want to. Looking at the employment rate for those aged 70 to 74, Singapore is 24%. Is that low? Is that high? Again, if we compare it to all these other countries, one country that is much higher than Singapore is Korea, which has 32.3%. I must really visit Korea soon to see how and what we can learn from them. Japan is again higher than us, 25%. But all the other countries are significantly lower. In other words, if we compare the employment rates of older workers aged 65 to 69, and 70 to 74, the tripartite partners in Singapore are very convinced that the way we are doing it is the right way.
The re-employment model is the right model. At the same time, we are not progressing too slowly. In fact, compared to other countries, our re-employment age at 67 is comparable and in fact, higher than many other countries, either going by the re-employment age as in Japan, or the retirement or pension age in other countries.
Therefore, I want to appeal for the support of Members: let us commit ourselves. At the end of the day, here in Singapore, what is our objective? We want to ensure that our economy can continue to grow. We all recognise that for economic growth, we have to support businesses. However, the main objective, the end outcome of economic growth must be translated into employment opportunities for people, young and old, all inclusive.
Jobs represent the best welfare; full employment is the best protection. Therefore, we will continue to evolve the re-employment model and, at the same time, make sure that our re-employment model in Singapore must be both pro-business and pro-worker. If we do not address the interests and concerns of businesses, we will eventually run out of jobs. But yet at the same time, if we do not take care of the interests of our workers, our people will eventually not be able to continue to pursue and live a \"H2P2\" life.
With that as a backdrop, I will now address some of the points brought up by Members. A related issue is about the CPF Payout Eligibility Age (PEA). Assoc Prof Daniel Goh asked whether we can roll back PEA from 65 to 60. For Member Louis Ng, he asked: with the increase in our re-employment age, does it mean that we are going to adjust the PEA to 67 as well?
Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me explain the current situation. Up until 2012, the link between the retirement age and CPF PEA was direct and identical. It is a point-to-point linkage. So, when the retirement age was 60, PEA was 60. When the retirement age went up to 62, PEA was 62. But in 2012, something happened. The two are still related, but they are no longer identical. They are still related because both are related to the expected lifespan but yet at the same time, I think from 2012, you would notice that even though we raised the re-employment age to 65, the CPF PEA, in fact, went up much slower to 63 in 2012, 64 in 2015, and 65 only in 2018.
The increase in our PEA is already something like six years lagging behind the re-employment age. Something happened again last year. I do not know whether Members noticed. At the recommendation of the CPF Advisory Panel, we amended the rules by which members can draw on their CPF payouts.
Starting from 1 January 2016, CPF members will start their CPF payouts between ages 64 and 70. Come next year, it will be ages 65 to 70 even though the re-employment age is 67. Therefore, the relationship between re-employment age and the age of starting the CPF payouts has already changed. It used to be point-to-point, but now, it is a range. The CPF payout start range is now 64 to 70, and the re-employment age will be 67 by July, within that age band. Next year, the CPF payout start range will be 65 to 70, and again, the re-employment age at 67 is still within that band. There is no longer a direct point-to-point linkage.
I think on this, we are all in agreement. But one point which we are still in strong disagreement is really not about the de-linking, but rather, it is about whether we should reset the PEA back to 60. For this Government, we think it will be the wrong thing to do, given that the life expectancy of our people is getting longer.
Also on the point about letting our CPF members withdraw more money so that they can invest on their own. If Members have been following all the developments, many of the CPF members who had invested their money on their own through the CPF Investment Scheme, or CPFIS in short, have not done better. By putting their money under our CPF LIFE, they can earn an interest rate of at least 4% per year. Therefore, I believe that it is to the best interests of our CPF members for them to keep their CPF retirement money in CPF LIFE.
Please also do not forget that CPF members can withdraw their savings above the Basic Retirement Sum (BRS) if they already have got a sufficient housing charge or pledge in place. In other words, we are not depriving our CPF members from investing their own retirement sum, if they have anything above the BRS for those who have sufficient housing charge or pledge and above the Full Retirement Sum for those without sufficient housing charge or pledge. Therefore, this amendment Bill is about raising the re-employment age. It has nothing to do with the CPF PEA or payout start range which, as I have said, is already fixed at 64 to 70 this year, and 65 to 70 from next year.
On eligibility for re-employment, some Members have expressed concern on whether the onus of proof is on the workers or the employer. I want to make it very clear that the onus is on the employer to show proof. If the employer says this worker is not eligible for re-employment due to poor performance, it is for the employer to show proof. If the employer says that this worker is not eligible for re-employment due to medical reasons, it is for the employer to show proof.
Some Members asked, \"What if this company has no performance appraisal system in place?\" When that happens, we will tell the employer, \"Since you don't have proof, you don't have a performance appraisal system in place, and you don't have proof that this person has not been performing well, year after year, and more than that, along the way, you had not been giving him feedback, suggestions and so on, these cases would be ruled as being unreasonable denial of re-employment\". MOM will then come in to either reinstate re-employment or order compensation, based on the situation of the case.
In the case of discrimination, I share the concerns of Members. This is something that we are always on the lookout for. For example, can the employer try to find ways to get rid of a worker just before 62? A worker may come to MOM to complain and say, \"I have been working for this company for 10, 20, 30 years; everything went very well. But somehow, three years before I turn 62, everything turned negative.\" If this worker is a union member, we can ask him or her to approach the union. If he is not a union member, he should come to MOM.
Let me also emphasise that the Retirement and Re-employment Act covers all local workers. There is no salary cap of $4,500. Re-employment is an entitlement that covers all local workers, regardless of whether they are PMETs, high-wage or low-wage workers, they can all come to the tripartite partners or MOM if they feel that they had been discriminated against under the Retirement and Re-employment Act.
Regarding the employees' entitlement on re-employment, again, this is a trade-off between being pro-business and pro-worker. The tripartite partners negotiated and decided to strike a balanced outcome, which is that the core entitlement of workers provided for under the Employment Act should be protected. For example, paid sick leave of 14 days for outpatient consultation and 60 days of hospitalisation are protected. In the case of annual leave, the minimum seven days provided for under the Employment Act, again, is protected.
Some other entitlements may no longer be relevant and so, they are removed. For example, maternity leave. It is unlikely that the re-employed workers would need maternity leave. This is removed.
The question, really, is what about the contractual benefits: medical benefits and other benefits? Contractual benefits have never been part of the Employment Act. In other words, even the Retirement and Re-employment Act cannot protect your contractual benefits. Contractual benefits are bounded through contracts. It applies to all workers, young and old. Whether you are 40 years old or you are re-employed and aged 62, all your employment contract terms depend on what is contained in there; it is a subject of direct negotiation between the employee and employer, or between the union and the management. This will continue.
However, the tripartite partners are still concerned that the older workers, those who are re-employed, may not be in a good position to negotiate for fair terms and conditions. As a result, we have issued a set of tripartite guidelines. The latest revision will be issued later today.
In these guidelines, we will highlight what are considered reasonable terms and conditions. These guidelines are very important because in the situation of any dispute, the employee can come to the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) for mediation and come to MOM for mediation. If the mediation is not successful, the case can go to the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT). ECT will make reference to this set of tripartite guidelines. So, if the employer is, indeed, being unreasonable in terms of the terms and conditions and, after mediation, we could not succeed in a resolution and the case goes to ECT, ECT will make reference to this set of tripartite guidelines and rule whether the terms and conditions offered upon re-employment are reasonable. I want to assure Members of this House that the tripartite partners take this very seriously. ECT will come into effect on 1 April, before the re-employment age of 67 comes into effect.
On the issue of a new option for a second employer, some Members are concerned about what would happen if the second employer is not able to fulfil the commitments of the first employer. So, they asked if there is a way out for the second employer. First, I want to assure the Members that the consensus of the employee is a mandatory condition. If the worker does not feel comfortable, then he does not have to accept this offer. Once the offer is accepted, the second employer will have to fulfil all the obligations of the first employer.
For example, a Member mentioned about what would happen after one year, the worker is subsequently not offered re-employment at 63, after having been offered re-employment at 62. At the point of 63, if the worker is not offered re-employment, the second employer would have to pay the worker EAP. No difference from the first employer. Before the second employer can offer to pay EAP, the tripartite partners will come in to scrutinise whether this is the last resort. Remember that EAP is a last resort. Mr Patrick Tay highlighted this.
We will be monitoring very closely to ensure that there is no abuse of EAP. I am happy to say that in the five years of the Retirement and Re-employment Act, we have not come across too many cases; just a handful. The large majority does not have this issue of abuse of EAP. As such, we believe the second employer will be tightly bounded by these criteria and conditions.
On the question about whether workers should be told much earlier if they are not eligible for re-employment, our tripartite guidelines stipulate that whether a person is eligible or not eligible for re-employment, he should be notified at least three months in advance, the longer the better. Mr Zainal Sapari asked if the notice period can be one year. The unionised sector can try. The guidelines dictate at least three months' notice for eligibility, and mutual consultation for at least six months prior to re-employment or extension of re-employment. We think that is sufficient but let us do more.
On the payment of EAP, I agree fully with Mr Patrick Tay that we must have a safeguard in place to prevent abuse. As I mentioned, we watch it very carefully, and so far, so good. We will continue to monitor the situation.
In terms of the review of the quantum of EAP, we just reviewed it this round. Having extended the re-employment period from three to five years, the EAP quantum would be higher now, in the event the employer is not able to offer re-employment. This is already in our guidelines.
Business concerns are real. We take business concerns very seriously because we recognise that re-employment can only work if it is a win-win outcome. We have been in very close consultation through SNEF to take into account all the feedback. We will continue to provide support, not just through this scheme, but through the overall package that is coming up.
Assoc Prof Randolph Tan asked what if a company in financial hardship is not able to pay EAP. Those cases can go to Employment Claims Tribunal and the Tribunal will then rule, after they have seen whether the company is, indeed, in such great difficulty that it is not able to pay the EAP. There is a mechanism to resolve this.
Ms Jessica Tan asked whether we can do something to help and encourage employers to re-employ the older workers, including those not eligible for re-employment till 67. The answer is yes, we are actively looking into this. The decision on the extension, what form, what coverage of this additional wage offset will be decided soon, well ahead of the 1 July implementation date.
Last but not least, I share the views of many Members here that at the end of the day, the true success of re-employment depends a lot on how we value our older workers and how we redesign their jobs. I am very happy to hear the Labour Members repeating the call for \"ESS\", or making our jobs \"Easier, Safer, Smarter\". We are 100% aligned on this.
Last year, we enhanced WorkPro for job redesign. I am still looking for more ways to encourage greater adoption. Many countries have done something, so there is a lot that we can learn from.
Mr Melvin Yong asked about whether the Public Service can take the lead on re-employment. The answer is yes. Actually, the Public Service was the first one to adopt the re-employment age of 67 way back in January 2015. It has been about two and a half years ahead of the law. I also agree with Mr Heng Chee How that we should look at different ways to make \"progressive workplace practices\" more prevalent across the board.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I hope I have addressed most of the issues brought up by Members. I also want to assure the Members that many of their good suggestions will be taken note of by the tripartite partners and will be incorporated in our implementation. At the end of the day, just because we have succeeded in re-employment in the first five years, from 2012 to now, it does not mean that the way forward will be smooth.
The tripartite partners are concerned that as we raise the re-employment age, the higher the re-employment age, the more challenging it is going to be. Therefore, we have to find ways on the one hand, to make sure that the workplace becomes more age-friendly so that the older workers will be able to remain productive and help companies to remain competitive; at the same time, we must also take good care of our older workers in terms of employability and welfare.
We believe that by working together, we can continue to ensure that employment rates of our people aged 65 to 69, 70 to 74 and above, will always be among the highest in the world. On that note, I beg to move.
Mr Deputy Speaker:\tMr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera: I thank the Minister for his answers. Just a few brief clarification questions. First, with regard to the possibility of discriminatory employment practices, the Minister cited an example of ageism, everything going bad in the last three years and how the employee in that case can go to MOM. My question is: what will MOM do at that point? I suppose MOM will look at the case and see if it contravenes the Retirement and Re-employment Act. Would MOM also look at that company in a more systematic way? The reason I mention this is because of the \"double weak companies\". For those who discriminate against Singaporeans, there is a so-called framework where you look for other evidence or a pattern of discrimination, who are the people they have hired over time and so on. Does MOM do that now in cases of ageist discrimination and other kinds of discrimination, or will it consider doing so in the future if it does not do so now?
The second and last question is: the Minister talked about the link between countries which have a higher or no retirement age and the labour force participation of those aged 65-plus. I am wondering: why do the tripartite partners feel that raising the retirement age or eliminating the retirement age reduces the labour force participation? I am wondering if there is really a causation or could it just be a correlation. There could be other reasons countries like the UK and the US may have lower post-65 labour force participation; they could have more generous defined benefits and pension schemes, for example. It may not be just the raising of the retirement age that is the thing that lowered the labour force participation.
Mr Lim Swee Say: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on the first point, the answer is yes. Currently, all complaints are investigated by TAFEP. Once TAFEP does the investigation, if it discovers that it is not an isolated incident but rather it is a more pervasive HR practice of the company, then TAFEP will watch the company more closely and we will continue to work with them to work through that. The answer is yes.
Having said that, let me also assure Members that the incidence of discrimination of all forms, based on the cases we see at TAFEP, is still low. Of course, we will take every case seriously.
The second point about the retirement age, as I had mentioned, the key difference between the retirement age and re-employment age is that retirement age involves same job, same pay. Re-employment age is not necessarily the same job, not necessarily the same pay.
Let me give an example. I will not name this company but it is a company that I know. The senior management has been ageing. When we introduced re-employment up to age 65, the employees and the union asked the management how this would affect the renewal of the senior management in the company. The Chairman and CEO, in consultation with the top management of the company, about 20 to 25 of them, they came to a collective decision. They decided that in this company, all senior management of certain positions, on a voluntary basis, will exclude themselves from re-employment. They are very determined and said that leadership renewal for their company is critical to their sustained success. So, on a voluntary basis, they excluded themselves from re-employment.
The difference between re-employment and retirement really is about mindset; about how are we going to be able to continue to address the concerns of businesses and, at the same time, also address the concerns of the younger workforce in terms of their career advancement; and, at the same time, address the concerns of the older workers for wanting to continue to be re-employed.
So far, most countries still go for retirement age. To the best of our knowledge, Japan and Singapore are the only two on the re-employment model. The results, so far, I would say, seem to be more positive because the employment rates in Japan and Singapore are relatively higher compared to other countries. But the Member is right that this cannot be the only reason. It could be many other reasons and that is why in Singapore, we make sure that all the conditions are right, are conducive to be supportive of re-employment. It is not easy. Through tripartite efforts, I believe we can continue to make progress.
Mr Deputy Speaker: I shall put the question.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Lim Swee Say]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee. (proc text)]
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair]
The Chairman: The citation year \"2016\" will be changed to \"2017\", as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.
[(proc text) Clauses 1 to 11 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Civil Claims for Negligence Arising from Safety Breaches during SAF Training","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Deputy Leader (Mr Desmond Lee): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to take this opportunity to address the House today about the Government Proceedings Act (GPA).
Specifically, I would like to propose that section 14 of the GPA should be amended to allow civil liability in the tort of negligence in respect of a member of the Armed Forces or the Government for death or personal injury during training as a result of any conduct by any officer during training that conspicuously violates safety protocols, procedures and regulations. An example would be if an officer or instructor fails to comply with Training Safety Regulations (TSR) or any training safety protocols recommended in any Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) lesson plans or manuals. There should be a clear distinction between training and operations for purposes of liability under section 14 of GPA. Such an amendment to GPA can better protect our troops and better enhance public confidence in SAF in the area of training safety.
In March 2016, I filed a Parliamentary Question to the Minister for Defence on issues relating to the death of Private (Pte) Dominique Sarron Lee during SAF training. I asked a supplementary question as to whether the Government would consider amending section 14 of GPA to allow certain situations of liability instead of the current absolute exemption from liability for all claims attributable to service.
I gave a few examples for consideration: the waiver can be limited to actual operations and should not apply to training, or when a death or personal injury occurred as a result of omission from observing TSRs or when the negligence of an officer has some causal connection with the death or personal injury. I had asked whether this law could be amended at least to reduce the possible moral hazard of any officers not taking sufficient care and caution in abiding by established TSRs during training exercises.
In response, the Minister for Defence said that if I felt strongly about the changes to GPA, I could put up a Motion. I do feel strongly about not just the case of Pte Lee. Any loss of life is regrettable. But there are larger issues at stake as well. They have to do with ensuring that our women and men in uniform have the protection they deserve during training. This remains the case even as SAF seeks to prepare them realistically for tough operational situations. They also have to do with bolstering public confidence in the Armed Forces. After all, we have an armed forces which is composed mostly of conscripts. Anything to do with SAF has the potential to affect every single Singaporean family.
As legislators, those of us in this House have an obligation to citizens that we work to their best interests. It is for these reasons that I am moving this Motion.
Tough and realistic training is important for SAF. There is no doubt about that. However, training occurs in a controlled environment by design, unlike operations that, by their nature, have higher levels of risk, uncertainty and unpredictability. Action and behaviour permissible during training should be subject to more stringent limits than operations. Managing the training environment ensures that not only learning takes place, but that service personnel do not face unnecessary physical risks. Our Servicemen must remain safe, healthy, fit and ready for operations when called.
All military training and operations carry some risks to be sure, but training affords the controlled circumstances that allow the careful management of such risks. The aim is to ensure that learning takes place without harm to our service personnel. These are the same personnel whom we will have to rely on during operations.
To expect service personnel to risk themselves for our country, to go into harm's way for us when asked, it is only right for the nation to afford them adequate protection where possible, not least during training, when what is at stake is a learning outcome and not an immediate life or death situation. Given Singapore's limited human resources, it is also in the interest of SAF and the nation to keep injury and death in training to a minimum.
Actually, SAF has always recognised this distinction between training and operations. That is precisely why SAF has the TSR and other safety directions in lesson plans. When I was an officer cadet, we were all drilled in the TSR. We had to be tested on it. We consulted the TSR and had safety briefings before activities and exercises. When we go into the units, the same emphasis on TSR remains. This was also the case during my National Servicemen (NSmen) training. As NSmen commanders, the safety of our men during training and observance of TSR are always top priorities. After all, every NSmen is a son, sibling, spouse or father to another Singaporean. We inprocess together to do our In Camp Training once a year and we want to outprocess together with everyone safe, sound and happy to go back to our families. NSmen who have been through the usual NS cycles will understand that and it is down to NSmen commanders to ensure, as far as training safety is concerned, that that will happen.
The TSRs describe safety procedures in detail, often giving very exact distances, ranges, equipment and contingency safety measures for different types of training exercises. They lay out what should be done and spell out what needs to be avoided. There is good reason for this meticulousness. A mistake from carelessness, laziness, or irresponsibility may lead to serious injury, even loss of life. So, it is important to remind commanders what to do and what to avoid when conducting training.
Lesson plans and TSRs are, in a number of cases, written in blood. Safety procedures for prisoner of war training saw a revision after the unfortunate death of one service personnel and serious injury to another. The tragic death of Pte Dominique Sarron Lee brought a revision to safety procedures relating to the use of smoke grenades in training, including a change to the type of smoke grenade SAF uses. There are other examples which I do not have the time to go into now.
Operations. Training situations are and should remain qualitatively different from operational circumstances. It is important not to conflate these very different situations. Operations are not, at their core, meant for practice and learning. They have very different objectives and goals. What is at stake in operations is very different from a training exercise. They may involve conditions outside the control of commanders and SAF.
In this regard, considerations of risk during operations are very different from training. There is a different case to be made for exempting commanders from legal liability during operational situations. Training safety protocols obviously do not readily apply. A clear line exists between operations and training.
I was a little bit surprised when the Minister for Defence equated examples of operations with breaches of safety protocol during training in his reply to my supplementary question in Parliament last March. The Minister cited examples of: (a) a Police Officer discharging a firearm when in pursuit of a suspect that the officer \"thinks is going to commit harm\"; (b) service personnel who \"see a significant threat\" at a key installation they are protecting; and, (c) the Police shooting incident after a vehicle tried to breach the barricades at last year's Shangri-La Dialogue and was shot by a Gurkha Police Officer.
The Minister's examples all pertain to Police operations, not even training. Training personnel to make operational decisions does not involve completely replicating a real-world situation. It is peculiar at best to think that training personnel to make snap judgements about responding to significant threats or vehicles breaching barricades requires the use of live weapons on real people, for instance. A line can and should be drawn between training and operational considerations. This is a line that is clear in principle and in fact.
In the Minister's response to my Parliamentary Question in March, he said, \"injuries and deaths can happen despite best efforts.\" He went on to discuss two accidents that involved negligence, a rash act, and an attempt to \"pervert the course of justice\". These incidents involved \"acts that amount to criminal offences under general law\", as the Minister noted. I agree with the Minister that accidents can and do sadly occur.
Accidents, however, can take place for a variety of reasons, under a range of conditions. They may occur on the road, in the regular operation of equipment, or because of unforeseen circumstances. In training situations, safety protocols laid out in lesson plans and the TSR seek to minimise accidents and other incidents.
When a training accident occurs because of clear, and especially deliberate breaches of established safety codes by officers responsible for conducting the training or recklessness as to its compliance, there should be channels for civil liability, just as there are channels for criminal liability.
There may be situations that are not criminal but where victims and their families should still be able to seek legal recourse directly. I am not calling for a blanket civil liability for accidents; just for accidents during the controlled environment of training. Training conditions have clear safety codes laid out, and commanders have a duty to comply.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when commanders violate established protocols, they are sending out a signal that they do not care enough about measures put in place for protecting those under their charge, that they are willing to put their men at unnecessary risk. SAF should not tolerate, much less condone, such behaviour, and it is important to make this clear both within its ranks and to the public.
If commanders choose to engage in such behaviour, if they choose to endanger our children, siblings, spouses or parents in situations that do not warrant such risk, they should answer for it, and not just to the state, but to the Servicemen or to his or her family. Section 14 of GPA should be amended to reflect this.
If someone endangers or, worse, harms our women and men in uniform because of a lack of care with regard to established safety protocols, they need to answer to those they have a responsibility for. This should be the case, even if an act is not criminal. Answering to SAF through the military justice system does not achieve this. In effect, at least from a civil law perspective, errant officers or instructors are not directly accountable to the people they are in charge of. At best, officers are only accountable to the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) or to the state.
The Minister for Defence is right to say that civil suit is not trivial. That is precisely why there are circumstances where civil claims should be allowed, and I submit that violation of safety procedures during the controlled environment of training should be one of them. Knowledge of the potential seriousness of consequences can encourage those responsible for the lives of our women and men in uniform to be more careful and treat their duties more seriously and be less cavalier about non observance of TSRs or safety considerations in lesson plans.
Knowledge of the possibility of a civil suit reduces the moral hazard by making the gravity of consequences more evident. One common claim about the Singapore legal system is that clear, consistent and proportional sanction deters violations of the law. Allowing civil liability for violations of training protocol is an extension of this principle. The point about deterrence is that civil liability can be quite easily avoided by adherence to established safety regulations governing the type of training in question.
Even if an accident happens, and they unfortunately do, once commanders have shown that they have taken all necessary precautions and have complied with TSR requirements, they should not be held responsible. They should not have to worry about any civil liability.
The Minister has, in response to my supplementary question about lifting the right to sue for training cases, said that: \"The Member says, why not lift it from training? You cannot train at one pace and expect your security forces to ramp up their capabilities when in real operations. There is a saying, you know, 'When you do not sweat in training, you will spill blood in real operations'. You have to make your training realistic so that when we meet those circumstances – like the guard who fired at the car and stopped the car in time. Do you think you can get that level of proficiency if they think they are not protected during training?\"
With respect, I was not asking for unbridled or unrealistic restrictions to training. That is quite clear from the scenarios I cited in my question. Nevertheless, I have said today that civil liability should be allowed for limited circumstances, for instance, when officers have clearly failed to comply with TSRs. Surely, the Minister was not implying that training in compliance with TSRs is not realistic or that any breaches of TSRs to make training realistic is acceptable to SAF.
The Minister mentioned that punitive actions have, in the past, been taken against errant officers by way of criminal proceedings or proceedings under military law. By military law, it can, of course, be Court Martial proceedings or summary trials. But such actions are very different from the rights of an injured Serviceman or the family of a deceased Serviceman having to commence a civil claim in negligence against any errant officer or SAF. The Serviceman or his family has no say whether criminal proceedings, Court Martial proceedings or summary trials are to be commenced. It is completely at the discretion of MINDEF or the Attorney-General's Chambers. This is unlike the right to a civil claim, where the decision to commence action lies with a Serviceman or his family.
By allowing them to have the right of suit, once the suit is commenced, the Courts will decide on liability based on the evidence and arguments that are presented before it. The defendants have the right to defend themselves. The injured Serviceman or the family of the Serviceman bringing the suit still has the burden to prove his or their case, as is required for all civil cases. Ultimately, it is up to the civil Courts to decide based on the merits of the case.
MINDEF mentioned in their press release of 7 March 2016 of an offer of compensation to Pte Lee's family which was rejected. It appears that the offer was \"based on the full extent allowed by the compensation legislation\". MINDEF also said that \"To respect privacy and maintain confidentiality, compensation amounts are not disclosed, but are generally two to four times that of amounts provided under the Work Injury Compensation Act\" (WICA). It is not very clear what was offered to the family but, for avoidance of doubt, the awards under WICA are usually less than awards under common law negligence claims.
I have two further reservations about this system of compensation. This seems to be strictly on a confidential and \"without prejudice\" basis. While as a lawyer I have familiarity with this kind of thinking in litigation, for the lay person without having the right of civil suit, the entire culture of this internal system of compensation to have offers couched in confidential, \"without prejudice\" language and with MINDEF's denial of liability as a basis for such compensation, just does not augur well for the confidence of the injured Serviceman or the family of a deceased Serviceman in such a system.
Mr Deputy Speaker:\tMr Tan, you have three more minutes.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: Furthermore, such settlement will be subject to the discretion of MINDEF. Above all, the availability of such offers of compensation does not, in itself, encourage officers to comply with TSRs. If the law were to allow civil liability and MINDEF would still like to make a \"without prejudice\" offer during negotiations for future claims, it may well be looked upon quite differently by claimants.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the independence of the judicial process through the civil Courts will help to prevent any undesired impression or accusation of cover-up and underscore that MINDEF or SAF are above board. This willingness to allow for legal scrutiny builds public confidence. Allowing civil proceedings is not about pinning guilt on particular individuals, which is ironically the case with the current regimes used by MINDEF, such as summary trial, Court Martial or criminal proceedings. It is about giving a Serviceman or his family an unfettered right of recourse not dependent on an organisation which might otherwise have been vicariously liable for the tort but for the current statutory exemption from liability.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, making commanders more accountable and more careful during training helps to ensure that learning outcomes are safe for our service personnel by the standards that SAF has set for itself in its various SAF Core Values.
Declaring values and laying out safety regulations are but one step towards greater safety for our troops during training. Compliance is key. And by allowing independent judicial oversight through civil proceedings when there are violations of safety standards, SAF further encourages commanders to be mindful of safety protocols in the controlled environments that training is supposed to be. Such an amendment helps to enhance adherence to training safety protocols and bolster public confidence in SAF.
There is always room for improvement. We can and should always strive to do better. This includes enhancing training, which includes more attention to promoting safety for our troops. It also involves taking steps that further bolster public confidence in SAF as a key national institution. We owe it to our citizens and our women and men in uniform. I believe that the GPA should be amended to allow civil liability in negligence against a member of the Armed Forces or the Government for causing death or personal injury during training as a result of any conduct in training that conspicuously violates safety protocols, procedures and regulations.
Mr Deputy Speaker:\tMinister for Defence, you have 10 minutes.
The Minister for Defence (Dr Ng Eng Hen): Mr Deputy Speaker, safety is one of the Singapore Armed Forces' (SAF's) core values, and we strive to continue to tighten our safety system to even achieve zero fatalities, even zero incidents, and we continually do this to make sure that our current safety outcomes are among the highest for militaries globally. But as we all know, unfortunately, despite our best efforts, mishaps do occur from time to time.
When these safety breaches do occur, we want to make sure that those responsible are punished. And we certainly do not condone these acts. It is not fair to paint even those who have not followed TSRs, as some do it out of mischief or negligence, and they are taken to task if they are reckless. Some do it for a variety of reasons, so there is a spectrum. But if they have been reckless or negligent, they are not protected from criminal prosecution, even when they are conducted by Servicemen in the course of duty.
The Member talks about judicial process. The Coroner's Inquiry for fatalities is an open process. The facts are established and the Member failed to mention that, in this particular case that he referred to, the coroner made a finding on the cause of death, and while the infractions in the TSRs were associated, they were not the direct cause of death. He did mention that we changed the smoke grenade, but he did not say the reason why. Because it was an acute hypersensitive reaction, which is very uncommon. So, I think the facts are established by an independent body. If there is criminal negligence and rash acts, they are charged in criminal Courts and punished accordingly. SAF Servicemen have, indeed, been jailed and fined as a consequence. Members can refer to our records, which I will not repeat here.
Apart from criminal proceedings, SAF and its members can be litigated against for compensation in the civil Courts for damage done to civil property or injury suffered by civilians.
The Member is quite right in raising section 14, that section 14 exempts the Government and servicemen from being sued. I thought it would be useful, in response to the Member's various points, to quote the Grounds of Decision (GDs) by Judicial Commissioner (JC) Kannan Ramesh in this specific case which he cited, the Estate of Lee Rui Feng Dominique Sarron, deceased v Najib Hanuk bin Muhammad Jalal. And in the GD, the judge provided a comprehensive examination of the history and the reasons for section 14 and I will share some passages.
The judge recognised that section 14 of the GPA was enacted to place SAF in a special position in recognition of its heavy responsibility of safeguarding the defence of our country and the high degree of risk intrinsic to military training. \"Intrinsic to military training\". He recognised that. JC Kannan added that the consistent legislative intention underpinning section 14 is to ensure that the Government and the members of the Armed Forces are shielded from liability in tort in order to ensure the efficiency, discipline, effectiveness and decisiveness of the Armed Forces in both training and operations, without being burdened by the prospect of legal action when training, to the point of having to second guess the consequences of every action.
The Member paints it as if this Act protects the Government and Servicemen who are not part of our Singapore community. But he is absolutely correct that we are a conscript army and this very Act protects commanders and Servicemen who are also partly drawn from our Singaporean community.
JC Kannan also explained that while section 14 removed the Plaintiff's right of action in tort, the Plaintiff is nevertheless entitled to compensation under the SAF Pensions regulations and our compensation, as I have previously said in this House, is about two to four times of the Workmen's Compensation.
Each country will have to decide how it provides its public security agencies as a whole and their personnel − in our case, the SAF, Singapore Police Force and Singapore Civil Defence Force − the confidence to train and perform their duties diligently without this fear of litigation against them. Note that section 14 does not accord any of our Servicemen any protection against criminal proceedings or civil litigations brought by civilians for compensation or damages, which I have already stated earlier. It only precludes legal suits brought against the Government − the SAF in this case − or its individual Servicemen by Servicemen and their next of kin themselves.
Note, as JC Kannan highlighted, that the immunity conferred by section 14 does not extend to acts that amount to an intentional act committed by an SAF member, which is separate and independent of the member's duties, for instance, punching his superior.
For Singapore, section 14 continues to serve a vital purpose as intended. SAF soldiers train realistically, conduct many operations overseas. Because they train realistically, without the commanders or the individual soldiers themselves in each instance wondering if their organisation or they themselves could be sued by other Servicemen, when injuries and fatalities occur. Removing section 14 is not likely to improve outcomes, as the Member says and, indeed, may do us harm.
The UK removed this protection for their military in 1987. But in a 2013 report published by the UK House of Commons' Defence Committee, it was found that repealing that protection had resulted in reputational risk to armed forces personnel and the fear that they and their legitimate actions may be exposed to extensive and retrospective legal scrutiny. This had led many to question their position serving in the UK armed forces. Retired senior British commanders also reported that it had undermined armed forces personnel's willingness to accept responsibility and take necessary risks, with the consequent impact on operational effectiveness.
Mr Deputy Speaker:\tMinister, you have three more minutes.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: I will give a simple example: training for the Individual Physical Proficiency Test (IPPT). The TSR says you do it; you keep within the TSR. But if you push someone to run faster than he can and he collapses, and it is found that he had an undetected condition after the fact, and if the person, the commander or even the fellow Servicemen feel that he can be sued, not protected, how many commanders do you think will encourage their unit to train harder?
This is a reality we face; there are inherent risks. I think we have struck a good balance between maintaining very high safety standards, and section 14 provides us that confidence for our commanders to train realistically.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 8.34 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":"Matter Raised On Adjournment Motion","questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Reduce Food Waste","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"18 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what plans are in place to reduce the amount of food waste generated in light of 785.5 million kilogrammes of food waste being generated in 2015; (b) what are the top contributing factors of food wastage; and (c) what are the targeted approaches to be undertaken by the Ministry to tackle each contributing factor effectively.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Food waste is a concern to my Ministry. When we throw away food, we waste the resources used in its production and expand manpower and resources for waste collection and cleaning. Food waste, when not properly managed, causes odour and pest issues. It also contaminates recyclable materials when they are mixed. Besides the environmental impact, wasting food is a waste of money.
The amount of food waste in Singapore has increased by about 50% over the past 10 years. Households generate around half of the food waste, with the other half generated by sources, such as food manufacturers, hotels, shopping malls and hawker centres. We can expect the amount of food waste to rise further as population size, incomes and economic activities increase.
Unfortunately, there is no easy solution to this problem. My Ministry believes that a multi-pronged approach should be adopted to combat food waste. This starts with avoiding, where possible, excess food production. Where this is not possible, we encourage the redistribution of excess food. Lastly, we encourage food waste to be segregated for recycling and treatment. Food waste segregation is an important step that reduces the likelihood of recyclable contamination and enhances the effectiveness of our recycling efforts.
My Ministry works closely with other Government agencies and private sector partners to combat food waste in the non-household sector. In October 2016, the National Environment Agency (NEA) and the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore (AVA) launched a food waste minimisation guidebook for food retail establishments, with the aim of sharing good practices, such as smart planning and inventory management, to avoid food waste and save costs. To promote food redistribution, guidelines on the proper handling and redistribution of unsold and excess food have also been incorporated. People sector organisations, such as Food Bank Singapore and Food from the Heart, also play an important role to redistribute food to those in need.
My Ministry is experimenting with different models to implement onsite food waste treatment to reduce the road traffic created to transport food waste to our waste disposal facilities. Food waste is treated onsite at the hawker centres at Block 628 Ang Mo Kio Avenue 4 and Tiong Bahru. We have taken this one step further at Our Tampines Hub, where up to 1.4 tonnes of food waste generated from the hawker centre and food and beverage outlets can be recycled each day into non-potable water and fertilizer. NEA has also supported the installation of on-site food waste treatment systems at 19 premises under its 3R Fund, including Resorts World Sentosa, Mandarin Orchard and Amara Hotel.
We are also experimenting with district-level food waste treatment. Since last month, our partners, comprising selected army camps, schools and food centres, have been segregating their food waste at source. This food waste is then sent to a demonstration facility located at the Ulu Pandan Water Reclamation Plant for co-digestion with used water sludge to produce biogas.
Households are major contributors of food waste in Singapore. NEA launched a public education campaign in 2015 to increase awareness of the food waste situation and promote ways to reduce food wastage. These include tips on planning food purchases, food storage and food preparation habits to help consumers minimise food wastage while saving money. NEA also partnered the North East Community Development Council (CDC) to launch the I Love My Food @ North East initiative in November last year. My Ministry welcomes more stakeholders to come on board to undertake food waste reduction initiatives in the community.
We are also studying the experiences of others closely, while being mindful of our local context. For example, households in Taipei segregate their food waste from other household waste before disposal. Some states in Australia have turned to technological solutions instead, such as in-sink grinders for food waste. We will monitor these best practices overseas and hope to seek the support of Members to partner us in these efforts. Together, I hope that we can gradually change the attitudes and habits of households to reduce food waste.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Radicalisation of Foreign Domestic Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"24 Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for Home Affairs if he can give an update on the reported radicalisation of some foreign domestic workers in Singapore and what is the Ministry's approach on handling this issue as well as planned future interventions.
Mr K Shanmugam: In the past two years, seven foreign domestic workers in Singapore were found to have been radicalised through the Internet. They did not have plans to carry out acts of violence in Singapore at the time they were investigated. However, their interactions with others showed that they had bought into radical ideologies and were on a dangerous path. Their presence in Singapore posed a security concern. They were repatriated to their home countries.
Our security agencies will continue to monitor the situation closely and will investigate individuals in Singapore who are suspected of being radicalised, both foreign and local. As part of the global counter-terrorism effort, our agencies actively share intelligence with foreign security partners to tackle this transnational threat.
The public must also play a part in protecting Singapore against the terrorism threat. The public should promptly alert the authorities if they notice signs that someone is becoming radicalised.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Challenges in Ramping Up HDB Flat Supply","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for National Development whether more resources can be allocated to expedite the construction of HDB flats for young couples and what are the challenges, if any, HDB faces in ramping up new flat supply.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Helping young couples own their first home is one of our key priorities. The ramp-up of Built-To-Order (BTO) flat supply between 2011 and 2014 has helped to clear the first-timer demand backlog. Most first-timers are now able to select a flat within their first or second application, and definitely on their third try. We will monitor the market closely and calibrate our flat supply to be responsive to the housing needs of Singaporeans.
To shorten waiting time for flat buyers further, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) has since 2011 been calling tender for many projects as soon as designs are ready, instead of the previous practice of doing so only after 70% of flats have been booked. Hence, waiting time today is mainly down to construction time. In this regard, HDB has also adopted various productivity measures in the design and construction phases, such as the use of precast technology, to expedite construction.
In terms of challenges in ramping up new flat supply, immediate site availability is one, as time is often needed to ensure that existing encumbrances and uses on the sites are cleared. There is also a need to ensure that there will be sufficient infrastructure capacity, such as transport, sewerage and drainage, to support the new housing developments.
Nonetheless, we recognise that some young couples want a new home as quickly as possible. HDB is studying how we can advance the construction work of some BTO projects and build them ahead of their sales launches. While it is not feasible to do so for the entire flat supply due to land constraints and risk of over-supply, we can potentially do this for some projects every year. This will provide some flats with a shorter waiting time to cater to couples who need a new BTO flat more urgently.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Maternity Claims for Mothers whose Companies Close Down During Maternity Leave Period","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"29 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what options are available to new mothers whose companies close down while they are still on maternity leave in terms of being able to claim their full maternity leave benefits.
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: Employers are obliged to pay maternity benefits to employees retrenched while on maternity leave, even if they close down. This is provided for under the Employment Act and the Child Development Co-savings Act. Employees who are not paid accordingly may approach the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) or the Ministry of Social and Family Development for advice and assistance. MOM will investigate accordingly and take appropriate action, including through the Labour Court.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Improvements after Signalling System Upgrade at North-South and East-West MRT Lines","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"31 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Transport following the upgrade of the signalling system at the North-South and East-West MRT lines (a) what improvements have been observed; (b) what is the average interval between train arrivals during peak hours; and (c) what maintenance protocols are in place to ensure that the signalling system on the newer lines is always in optimal working condition.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The upgrade of the signalling system for the North-South Line will be completed by March this year, and that for the East-West Line by 2018. When the upgrade is completed, we will be able to run the trains closer together: one train every 100 seconds, compared to 120 seconds today. We will run the trains at this improved frequency during peak hours, effectively increasing the capacity of the two lines by 20%. Commuters can benefit from shorter waits and more comfortable rides.
Changing the signalling system is, however, a complex undertaking and we have been advised by other mass rapid transit operators, including the London Underground, to expect significant teething problems in the process. Thus, I had asked the Land Transport Authority and the operator SMRT to conduct much more extensive testing before switching to the new signalling system. Still, the experience elsewhere suggests that testing may not completely anticipate and eliminate the technical glitches that come when the system is fully loaded. We thus seek commuters' understanding and patience.
Thales, the signalling equipment manufacturer, is training SMRT staff on the operation and maintenance of the new system. They will also provide technical support in the initial years to resolve any teething issues.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Action against Illegal Gambling Dens","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Ms Chia Yong Yong asked the Minister for Home Affairs what action will the Government take against (i) illegal gambling dens, many of which operate openly in the back lanes of the lorongs in Geylang; (ii) illegal medicine peddlars in Geylang; (iii) illegal pasting of advertisements on lamp posts and other public properties in Geylang; and (iv) illegal sale of cigarettes, most of which operate openly without fear or regard for the law.
Mr K Shanmugam: Over the past three years, serious crimes reported in Geylang, such as robbery and snatch theft, have fallen by more than 42%, from 134 in 2013 to 77 in 2016. Public order-related cases, such as affray and serious hurt have also fallen by 27%, from 51 in 2013 to 37 in 2016. Nonetheless, more can be done to address the other offences and social disamenities at Geylang.
The various offences reported in Geylang, such as those raised by Ms Chia Yong Yong, come under the purview of multiple agencies beyond the Ministry of Home Affairs. However, to enhance enforcement effectiveness, the various agencies co-ordinate their actions closely. This coordinated approach is underpinned by (a) information-sharing; (b) leveraging technology; and (c) optimising enforcement resources across agencies. Let me touch on these aspects in turn and explain how they have enabled us to deal more effectively with the specific issues raised by Ms Chia.
First, information-sharing among agencies. An inter-agency operations centre (IAOC) led by Police, has been established at the Geylang Neighbourhood Police Centre since May 2016. The IAOC allows multiple agencies to plan and execute enforcement operations in a coordinated manner. Take the example of the sale of duty-unpaid cigarettes, an issue which was raised by Ms Chia. The IAOC's closed-circuit television camera feeds of Geylang allow Singapore Customs and the Police to conduct surveillance, identify persons-of-interest, locate storage areas for duty-unpaid cigarettes, and mount joint operations to apprehend illegal peddlers and seize the cigarettes.
Second, our enforcement agencies are deploying more technology to enhance their effectiveness in Geylang. The Police have installed more Police Cameras and improved the lighting at the Geylang lorongs. A total of 171 cameras have been installed in Geylang since 2015. This is a fourfold increase from the 47 cameras in 2014. The increased street lighting and wider network of cameras enhance the deterrence and detection of illicit activities at back alleys and side lanes, including those mentioned by Ms Chia, such as the peddling of duty-unpaid cigarettes and illegal gambling.
Third, to optimise the limited enforcement resources available, the various law enforcement agencies have pooled and reorganised existing Auxiliary Police Officers into multi-skilled enforcement teams. Unlike single-agency teams which have a limited scope of enforcement, these multi-skilled teams allow officers to take action against multiple offences during each enforcement round, therefore, delivering a greater impact on safety and security in Geylang with the same amount of resources. Since April 2016, the multi-skilled teams have performed high-visibility patrols in Geylang and enforced against a range of regulatory offences, including the supply of medicinal and health products without a valid licence, another area of concern raised by Ms Chia.
On Ms Chia's feedback about the illegal pasting of advertisements on lamp posts and other public properties, the Land Transport Authority enforces against such activities. Anti-stick paint is applied on lamp posts and other street infrastructures to make it more difficult for advertisements to be pasted on them. Advertisement boards are also installed at areas with high pedestrian traffic to allow advertisers to publicise their goods and services.
Our law enforcement agencies are committed to improving safety and security in Geylang, while retaining the vibrancy of the neighbourhood. We will continue to work with local community leaders and other agencies to maintain law and order in the area.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Issues Surfaced through Suara Musyawarah Exercise","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"34 Mr Azmoon Ahmad asked the Minister for Communications and Information and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) what is the current status of the Suara Musyawarah exercise since its initiation; (b) what are the key issues highlighted by the Malay community that have been addressed; and (c) whether there are any key issues pending action.
Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: The Suara Musyawarah Committee was formed in 2012 to engage the community to listen to their aspirations and concerns. The report emphasised the \"can-do\" spirit of the community and provided a number of noteworthy recommendations, especially those pertaining to education, youth, family and service delivery. We have been working on these recommendations progressively over the last few years.
Education was a key topic of the Suara Musyawarah exercise, and we have further strengthened our educational support for the community at all levels. A key recommendation of the Council on Education for Muslim Children's (MENDAKI's) 2014 education review was for MENDAKI to provide greater focus on supporting our children's learning from a younger age, in preschool. In this regard, MENDAKI has developed and launched a Resource Depository to help parents navigate national resources on early childhood and learning. MENDAKI is also partnering the Early Childhood Development Agency to better support low-income and vulnerable families on KidSTART, so as to enable their young children to have a good start in life. KidSTART is a pilot programme that aims to build a strong ecosystem of support for the child's well-being, development and school-readiness. MENDAKI will continue to look at ways to strengthen its outreach and support for parents and children in the preschool years.
For older children and youths, MENDAKI has been regularly enhancing its flagship MENDAKI Tuition Programme, reaching out to more than 9,000 students annually, including strengthening tutor training and incorporating mentoring elements. MENDAKI also launched its \"Raikan Ilmu\" or \"Celebrate Knowledge\" campaign in June 2016 to promote a culture of learning, and this will be a regular event going forward. MENDAKI also established a Future Ready Unit to promote SkillsFuture to the community and to encourage, facilitate and position Malay workers well for the new economy.
We also continue to develop our youths. This year, because of the hard work and talent of our students, we had a record number of MENDAKI Award recipients, and we want to provide platforms and opportunities to develop the potential of these outstanding youths. I had earlier mentioned that one of these platforms would be enhancing the MENDAKI Leadership Incubator to include a mentoring scheme that we would start next year. Also, the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS), through the Rahmatan Lil Alamin Foundation provides support for youths to give back, by taking on local and overseas projects for service learning and to spread goodwill to those in need.
MUIS is also continuing its efforts to increase the reach of Islamic Education (IE) for the young. As of 2015, the participation of those in structured IE classes has increased to about 50% of Muslim youths aged 7 to 16. This is done by enhancing access to IE through initiatives, such as the introduction of Kids aLIVE Home Edition, which supports parents in conducting IE lessons for their children at home. MUIS will continue working with mosques and other partners in differentiating its Islamic education programmes to cater to different life stages of the young.
On families and service delivery, MENDAKI complements national schemes, such as Comcare subsidies, Workfare and Community Health Assistance Scheme, that support all families, by offering various programmes and services to equip low-income families with skills like financial literacy. MENDAKI helps these families through Education Trust Fund subsidies and organises the Family Excellence Circles for families to support one another. One key follow-up of the Suara Musyawarah report was the setting up of MENDAKI@Heartlands satellite centres to bring programmes and services closer to the community. To implement this, MENDAKI has partnered MUIS and six mosques and have since attained an expanded outreach of about 19,000 individuals island-wide.
MUIS has also increased the amount of financial assistance to the needy. Between 2014 and 2015, MUIS disbursed $2 million more to zakat beneficiaries. During Ramadan alone in 2016, MUIS disbursed $1.94 million to more than 12,900 beneficiaries, including those in welfare homes and institutions.
The report also touched on strengthening the Community Leaders Forum (CLF). The CLF secretariat continues to support capacity building for the Malay/Muslim Organisations (MMOs) in areas, such as staff training, governance and review consultancy. In 2016, 11 MMOs participated in a Singapore Workforce Skills Qualifications Leadership and People Management Training Programme to strengthen leadership and management.
The Suara Musyawarah conversation is not the end state. We will continue to engage our stakeholders and youths for new ideas and new ways of doing things, and work in close partnership with Government agencies to take the Malay/Muslim community forward.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Sustaining Youths' Interest in Sports after Olympics","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"36 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether there are plans by the Ministry to keep up the interest among Singaporean youths to take up sports in the aftermath of our success in the Olympic Games; and (b) whether more sporting events will be organised to ride on the prevailing enthusiasm, especially among school children.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Olympics and Paralympics in Rio last year were watershed events for Singapore sports. We won our first ever Olympic Gold Medal and added two Gold and one Bronze medals at the Paralympics a month later. Singaporeans from all walks of life celebrated the hard work, determination and achievements of our Team Singapore athletes, who have inspired all of us not only to pursue sports with passion, but to strive to achieve our goals.
The Government has put in place a comprehensive framework to develop young sporting talents, from building a broad base of active youths, to strengthening our talent development pipelines that will nurture young aspiring athletes.
To encourage Singaporeans to adopt an active lifestyle, we launched ActiveSG in 2014. It has since garnered 1.2 million members, of whom almost 200,000 are between seven and 18 years old. ActiveSG launched the Football, Basketball and Tennis Academies, as well as the Athletics Club last year, to provide affordable and structured programmes for youths to do sports beyond Physical Education and Co-Curricular Activities. About 6,000 youths have benefited from these programmes. Another 150,000 from more than 300 schools have participated in the ongoing Sports Education Programme and School Holiday Sports Programmes each year. Through these programmes, we aim to build a stronger base from which talents could be scouted.
Last year, SportSG also organised the inaugural GetActive! Singapore. This inaugural national week of sports saw more than half a million Singaporeans participating, including 40,000 students from over 70 schools. GetActive! Singapore also incorporated the third edition of the Singapore National Games, which saw more than 10,000 participants competing across 21 sports. The National Games complements existing competitions organised by the National Sports Associations, both adding to a stronger pipeline of sporting talents.
For the young aspiring athletes, we have pathways for them through the Singapore Sports Institute, Singapore Sports School and National Youth Sports Institute, as part of our comprehensive High Performance Sports System to build a strong core of national athletes.
The Singapore Sports Institute provides comprehensive support to athletes of varying potential and development needs, through financial grants, training and coaching, sports medicine to personal development. Athletes assessed to have the potential to excel at the highest level are supported on spexScholarships which allow them to focus on training fulltime to develop to their fullest potential.
The Singapore Sports School allows young athletes to combine quality education with an excellent sports programme. The National Youth Sports Institute (NYSI) was launched in 2016 to provide support to youth athletes from both the mainstream schools as well as the Sports School. NYSI works closely with partners to enhance the youth sports eco-system in the areas of talent identification and development, youth coaching, sports science and athlete life management.
The work of the Singapore Sports Institute, Sports School and NYSI complements the important role played by our National Sports Associations and sports clubs in developing interest and grooming competitive athletes in their respective sports. Going forward, the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth will continue to work with partners and stakeholders to enhance our High Performance Sports System.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reason for Singapore's Drop in World Talent Report 2016 Ranking","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) (a) what are the reasons for Singapore's drop in ranking in the latest world-talent ranking in IMD's World Talent Report 2016; (b) whether spending on home-grown talents has declined and whether this has adversely impacted the quality and size our talent pool; and (c) what is being done to further groom and boost the local talent pool.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The International Institute for Management Development (IMD) World Talent Report rankings take into account three factors. First, \"Readiness\", the availability of skills and competencies in the labour force to maintain the competitiveness of the economy. Second, \"Appeal\", the economy’s ability to attract top global talent. Third, \"Investment and Development\", the level of investment in and development of its local labour force, measured in terms of percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) spent on education and training.
The most important of the three factors to us will be \"Readiness\" because it directly affects employability and employment of our workforce. Our ranking on \"Readiness\" rose from sixth in 2014 to second in 2015 to first in 2016, amongst 61 economies listed in the same report.
On \"Appeal\", we maintained our ranking, from 19th in 2014 to 18th in 2015 and back to 19th in 2016.
However, on \"Investment and Development\", our ranking dropped from 31st in 2014 to 38th in 2016 (we were ranked 29th in 2015). This is the main reason why Singapore's overall ranking went down from 10th last year to 15th this year.
If you examine the reasons behind the fall in ranking of this category, a key reason is because percentage GDP spent on education dropped from 3.08% in 2013 to 2.99% in 2014. Notwithstanding this, I want to assure the Member that there is much more behind that broad percentage of GDP figure. Over the last decade, the Government's overall expenditure on education has increased by around 75%, expenditure per student has more than doubled, and the pupil-teacher ratio for both primary and secondary education has improved.
But as a percentage of GDP, education expenditure has fallen, because while the denominator – GDP and working population – is still growing, the numerator – cohort sizes and student population – is falling.
We pay attention to such rankings as they are credible, robust and helpful in giving a sense in how Singapore is performing vis-a-vis other economies. But at the same time, we need to understand our unique conditions and that these are just good references. We will continue to improve our education system, uncover passions and interests, and promote lifelong learning through the SkillsFuture programme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Drawing on Past Reserves for Singapore-Malaysia High-speed Rail Project","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"39 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Finance (a) whether the Government has sought the President's permission to draw down on Past Reserves in order to proceed with the High Speed Rail project with Malaysia; and (b) if so, how much of our Past Reserves has been set aside for this purpose.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Government did not ask the President for permission to draw on Past Reserves for the High Speed Rail (HSR) project. The project will be funded following normal budgetary processes in due course.
Under the terms of the HSR Agreement with Malaysia, the Government will guarantee payments by Singapore's HSR Infrastructure Company (InfraCo) to meet specific obligations, such as the Availability Payments by the InfraCo to the Assets Company (AssetsCo) to cover the latter's capital expenditure and costs of operation, maintenance and renewal of rail assets. In accordance with Article 144 of the Constitution and section 15 of the Financial Procedure Act, the Government sought and obtained the President’s concurrence to give this guarantee to the InfraCo.
Malaysia has also provided a similar guarantee for its InfraCo's obligations. This reaffirms the commitment of both Governments to the HSR project and gives added confidence to interested investors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Low Water Levels at Johore River Dams on Singapore-Malaysia Water Agreement Obligations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"40 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether the recent low water levels in Johore River dams, in particular that of Linggui Reservoir, will affect the ability of both parties in the water agreements from meeting their respective obligations
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: The 1962 Water Agreement grants to the Public Utilities Board (PUB) a right to abstract 250 million gallons per day (mgd) from the Johor River. It was guaranteed by both the Governments of Malaysia and Singapore under the 1965 Separation Agreement, which was deposited with the United Nations. The 1962 Water Agreement is sacrosanct to Singapore.
Under the 1962 Water Agreement, PUB has \"the full and exclusive right and liberty to draw off, take, impound and use the water from the Johore River up to a maximum of 250 million gallons per day\". In return, Johor is entitled to a daily supply of treated water from Singapore \"not exceeding at any time two per cent of the total quantity of water supplied to Singapore from twelve midnight of any one day to twelve midnight of the following day\".
In other words, Johor is entitled to buy up to about five mgd of treated water provided that Singapore is first able to abstract its entitlement of 250 mgd of water from the Johor River, and to subsequently import about 245 mgd of treated water in any given day.
However, out of goodwill and without prejudice to our rights under the 1962 Water Agreement, Singapore has, in practice, supplied Johor with treated water in excess of Johor's entitlement, even on occasions when PUB is unable to abstract its 250 mgd entitlement, for example during dry weather. Singapore has, in fact, been regularly supplying Johor with 16 mgd of treated water. In addition, we have supplied a further five to six mgd of treated water on a case-by-case basis at Johor's request during dry weather, for example, in June and July 2016, as well as when Johor's water treatment plants are partially shut down for their monthly operational maintenance.
We are concerned with the current situation at the Johor River. Linggiu Reservoir regulates the flow of the river, discharging water into the river to supplement the natural flow and to help contain salinity intrusions into the river from the sea.
In August 2016, the Johor River Barrage became operational. This has helped to keep out salinity intrusions. However, even with the Johor River Barrage, the Johor River is unable to sustain both PUB’s entitlement of 250 mgd, as well as the current abstractions by Johor's Semangar and Loji Air Water Treatment Plants, which are upstream of PUB's waterworks.
In order to support the current rate of abstraction, PUB has been discharging more water from Linggiu Reservoir. As a result, the water level in Linggiu Reservoir has dropped drastically over the past few years, from 84% at the start of 2015, to 49% at the start of 2016, to the lowest recorded level of 20% in October 2016. It stands at 27% as of 1 January 2017. There is a significant risk that Linggiu Reservoir may fail, that is, drop to 0%, in 2017 if it turns out to be a dry year. Should Linggiu Reservoir fail, there will be many more occasions when it will not be possible for PUB to abstract its entitlement of 250 mgd, and the current abstractions by Johor’s Semangar and Loji Air Water Treatment Plants will also be affected. This will cause severe problems for both Malaysia and Singapore.
Given the importance of Linggiu Reservoir to Singapore's overall water supply, the Singapore Government is watching the situation closely, and has raised the matter with the Malaysian Government, most recently during the Malaysia-Singapore Leaders' Retreat on 13 December 2016. The Prime Ministers agreed on the importance of ensuring reliable and adequate water supply from the Johor River. The Malaysian Government reaffirmed its commitment to uphold Singapore's rights under the 1962 Water Agreement. Malaysia has informed us that it plans to implement schemes to increase the yield of the Johor River and ensure that Singapore can reliably abstract our entitlement under the 1962 Water Agreement even during periods of dry weather.
Singapore will cooperate with Malaysia to achieve a mutually beneficial outcome. The senior officials of our water Ministries will discuss and identify possible solutions. Our agencies have an excellent working relationship and will continue to work closely together to sustain our water supply.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Pilot Public-Private Partnership to Send Emergency Cases Transported by SCDF Ambulances to Raffles Hospital","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"41 Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for Health what are the outcomes of the pilot public-private partnership between SCDF and Raffles Hospital whereby emergency cases transported by SCDF ambulances are sent to the emergency department at Raffles Hospital on weekdays between 9.00 am and 5.00 pm.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The collaboration between the Ministry of Health (MOH) and Raffles Hospital in emergency care started in June 2015. The objective is to improve access to emergency medical care in Singapore by tapping on available capacity in the private sector. Under the collaboration, Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) ambulances send patients with non-life threatening conditions to Raffles Hospital for emergency medical treatment.
To support care continuity for patients, doctors at Raffles Hospital are given authorised access to the patients’ medical records and discharge summaries in the National Electronic Health Records. MOH provides Government subsidies to patients under the collaboration for their medical treatment at Raffles Hospital, similar to how they would receive means-tested subsidised services at public hospitals.
The collaboration with Raffles Hospital has served more than 3,500 patients so far, with comparable health outcomes to patients who went to public hospitals. More than 90% of patients surveyed have indicated that the arrangement has met or exceeded their expectations. The collaboration benefits other patients, too, as it increases our overall capacity for emergency medical care in Singapore. It has also reduced the travel time and turnaround time for SCDF ambulances.
MOH is open to partnerships with private sector healthcare providers, whether in hospital services, primary care or intermediate and long-term care. In deciding future extensions or expansions of such collaborations, we will continue to focus on achieving good outcomes for patients in terms of care quality and affordability.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Evidence that Section 309 of Penal Code Deters Attempted Suicides","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"43 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the evidence available to the Government that suggests that section 309 of the Penal Code deters attempted suicides; and (b) what efforts will the Government be undertaking to ensure that this law does not deter those who entertain suicidal thoughts from seeking help.
Mr K Shanmugam: I had addressed the issue of attempted suicide in an earlier reply. It has been a criminal offence to attempt suicide, because it was thought to be important that society should make it clear that people should not take their own lives. Based on the World Health Organisation’s statistics, Singapore's suicide rate is lower than a number of other developed countries.
In practice, prosecutions are rare, and Police Officers are trained to respond to cases of attempted suicide with sensitivity and compassion. When responding to such cases, the Police's priority is to ensure the person’s safety.
The Ministry of Health has also shared in an earlier reply how Singapore adopts a multi-pronged approach to prevent suicide. Government agencies and social sector organisations work together to try and prevent suicides through upstream prevention, encouraging people to seek help, providing support to at-risk groups and offering crisis support.
This multi-pronged approach includes programmes to reduce the stigma in seeking help for suicidal thoughts. Voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs), such as the Samaritans of Singapore, have been actively promoting public awareness on suicide prevention. They have rendered advice and help to persons with suicidal thoughts who call their hotlines. Silver Ribbon (Singapore) also addresses the stigma associated with mental illness, reaches out to those who need help, and encourages them to seek early treatment. The Institute of Mental Health also conducts public education programmes in schools and in the community to increase understanding of mental health conditions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number and Causes of Environment-related Workplace Injuries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"45 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the number of workers affected by environment-related injuries over the last two years; (b) what is the number of workplace accidents caused by the lack of protective equipment being used during harsh weather conditions; and (c) what are some of the safety measures put in place when harsh environmental conditions set in, especially for workers exposed to the weather elements.
Mr Lim Swee Say: Nine workers were affected by environment-related injuries over the last two years and none of these injuries was due to the lack of personal protective equipment being used during harsh weather conditions.
The Workplace Safety and Health Council has developed clear guidelines for employers and workers to adopt when harsh environmental or weather conditions are involved. These can be found in the Guidelines on Managing Heat Stress, and Haze Guidelines and Advisory for Work. For example, employers should first assess if outdoor work is necessary and develop a plan for working safely during harsh environmental conditions.
When outdoor work cannot be avoided, raincoat and safety boots have to be provided during rainy weather and N95 masks whenever the air quality reaches the unhealthy levels. To mitigate the risk of heat stress, employers should provide short regular rest periods in between work and allow workers to rest in cool shaded rest areas with drinking water points.
We will continue to work with workers, employers and unions to increase awareness of environment-related risks and the needed safety measures. Anyone who assessed that workers’ safety and health are put at risk because of exposure to harsh environmental conditions can report these situations to the Ministry of Manpower. We will investigate and establish if the safety measures are adequate. With proper risk assessment and preventive measures in place, we can provide a safe and healthy work environment for our workers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Encouraging Building Owners and Developers to Adopt Solar Energy Technology","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"46 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for National Development (a) what plans are there to encourage more building owners and property developers to adopt solar energy technology; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider introducing incentives for private landed home owners to install solar panels at their properties to save on energy consumption.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Solar energy is a promising renewable energy option for Singapore. We plan to increase our solar generation capacity from 114 Mega-Watt-peak (MWp) today to 350 MWp by 2020. This will represent about 5% of our projected peak electricity demand in 2020.
The Government is encouraging the adoption of solar energy technology in several ways. First, we are aggregating demand across Government agencies through the SolarNova programme. Aggregating demand leads to greater economies of scale and reduced costs. So far, around 55 MWp of solar panels have been installed on about 1,000 Housing and Development Board (HDB) blocks. The intention is to eventually deploy solar panels on 5,500 HDB blocks and 100 Government buildings by 2020.
Second, the Building and Construction Authority's Green Mark Scheme encourages the adoption of renewable energy, including solar power. Green Mark accreditation points are awarded to buildings for incorporating sustainable design features like the installation of solar panels. To date, over 100 Green Mark developments have committed to installing solar panels. Together, they will contribute about 20 MWp to our solar generation capacity.
For private landed home owners, they are free to install solar panels on their own properties. The Energy Market Authority and Singapore Power have provided information to guide home owners on how they can go about doing this. In addition, they can offset their electricity bills by selling any excess solar-generated power back to the power grid.
The Government will continue to study ways to encourage more solar power adoption, including continued investment in research and development, policy enhancements and increased engagement with potential users.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Upcoming Home Improvement Programme Plans for HDB Flats in Nee Soon","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"47 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the upcoming plans for HDB's Home Improvement Programme in Nee Soon GRC; and (b) whether the programme will include the sealing-off of air-conditioner ducts as the plywood rots after some years.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Home Improvement Programme (HIP) was introduced in 2007 with about 300,000 eligible flats. To date, HIP has been announced for about 220,000 flats. For Nee Soon Group Representation Constituency, there remain about 8,000 HIP-eligible flats. The Housing and Development Board (HDB) expects to complete the selection of the remaining HIP-eligible flats by financial year (FY) 2018. The next nomination exercise to select blocks to undergo HIP is scheduled to take place in early FY2017.
With regard to the air-conditioner ducts, these are timber panels provided in older HDB blocks to facilitate installation of air-conditioners. There are currently no plans to include the repair of these panels under the HIP's scope of works. As these fall under common property, residents can approach the respective Town Councils for help in replacing decayed panels or make their own arrangements to seal up these panels.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Energy Usage Trends and Future Energy Conservation Plans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"49 Mr Azmoon Ahmad asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what has been our energy usage in the last 10 years and what is the forecast for the next 10 years; (b) whether our future energy needs can be met and what is the plan to meet this demand; (c) whether our green environment initiative has borne results on energy usage and what more can be done; and (d) whether the Ministry will consider (i) turning off some street lamps on expressways and major roads after midnight till 5.00 am to save energy; and (ii) incentives for private residences to install solar panels.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Our annual energy demand grew from 38,300 Gigawatt hour (GWh) in 2005 to 50,300 GWh in 2015, representing a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 2.8%. Over the next decade, energy demand is expected to grow at a slower rate, with a projected CAGR of about 1.2% – 1.8%. This is due to factors, such as lower projected growth rates for gross domestic product and population.
Singapore has adopted a liberalised market environment which encourages efficiency and competition. We do not subsidise energy and rely on price signals from the wholesale electricity market. Based on current projections, there is sufficient supply to meet electricity demand for the next 10 years. Nonetheless, the Government has taken steps to improve our energy security, competitiveness and sustainability. For example, we built the liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal to diversify our energy sources and we are pushing for greater adoption of solar energy.
The Member has also asked whether our green initiatives have helped to reduce our energy consumption. Yes, it has. Let me give a few examples.
The industrial sector is the largest energy user in Singapore, accounting for 67% of total energy consumption in 2014. The Government uses both incentives and regulations to improve energy efficiency amongst companies. So far, 60 projects have been approved under the Grant for Energy Efficiency Technologies (GREET) scheme. These projects are expected to yield energy savings of S$726 million. We also introduced the Energy Conservation Act in 2012 requiring energy-intensive facilities to put in place energy management practices.
Another energy-intensive sector is the building sector. Since 2005, the Government has been driving the adoption of energy-efficient design and solutions towards more environmentally sustainable buildings. To date, there are more than 2,800 green building projects in Singapore translating to about one-third of the total building stock. Our target is to have 80% of all buildings green by 2030. The Government will also lead by example to attain relevant Green Mark ratings for all large and mid-sized public sector buildings by financial year 2020.
For households, since the introduction of the Mandatory Energy Labelling Scheme and the Minimum Energy Performance Standards in 2008 and 2011 respectively, we have seen improvements in the energy efficiency of household appliances that contribute to a significant share of the household electricity bill, such as air-conditioners and refrigerators. These efficiency improvements will translate to annual energy savings of more than $100 million for households. Going forward, we will be including more appliances under these initiatives.
The Member has also asked about street lighting. Singapore follows international guidelines for street lighting. For the safety of all road users, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) will not be switching off street lights on our roads between midnight and 5.00 am. However, LTA will be switching to Light Emitting Diode street lights, which consume 25% less energy than regular street lights.
Notwithstanding this, there is clearly room for us to do more. Singapore is an alternative energy disadvantaged country. That is why improving our energy efficiency is a key strategy to achieving our pledge at the Paris Agreement. We will continue to improve our policies as well as test new technologies, such as smart homes, smart grids, zero-energy buildings and electric vehicles. Although we do not provide incentives or subsidies for energy, we have introduced regulatory enhancements to facilitate the entry of renewable energy, such as solar energy, across all sectors, including private residences. Lastly, we are working to further increase public awareness and participation in conserving energy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Protect Consumers who Buy from Parallel Car Importers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"50 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) in view of repeated incidents of parallel car importers who fail to deliver the car orders, what measures are there to enhance protection for consumers and tighten the criteria for companies which register themselves as parallel importers.
Mr S Iswaran: The Government's approach to consumer protection is based on promoting fair trading among retailers and helping consumers make informed purchasing decisions. Motor vehicle dealers, including parallel importers, do not require a licence to operate.
The majority of motor vehicle dealers engage in fair trading practices. Over the period of 2013 to 2015, the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) received an annual average of about 120 consumer feedback on car dealers failing to honour contracts. This is less than 1% of the average annual motor vehicle transactions over the same period.
It is a common business practice for motor vehicle dealers to collect prepayment for motor vehicle purchases. This is not considered an unfair trading practice. Consumers can protect their prepayments by making informed purchasing decisions, such as reading reviews on the dealer, finding out if the dealer is on CASE's alert list, and transacting with dealers which participate in the CaseTrust Accreditation Scheme, as they are required to maintain a performance bond to protect consumers' fees and deposits. Car dealers who are members of the Singapore Vehicle Traders Association may leverage on the association's Local Enterprise and Association Development programme with SPRING Singapore to reduce the cost of signing up for CaseTrust accreditation.
Motor vehicle dealers who indulge in unfair practices will be investigated by SPRING Singapore, the administering agency for the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act. Egregious cases that involve criminal activities will be surfaced to the Police for investigation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Setting Minimum Age Limit for Drivers of Private Hire Vehicles","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"53 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will consider having a minimum age of 27 years for drivers of private hire vehicles based on accident-age risk assessment of drivers.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Our view is that requiring private hire car drivers to have a minimum driving experience of two years should be adequate to reasonably ensure passenger safety. There is no need to also discriminate on the basis of age.
In fact, where safety is concerned, the number of years of driving experience may be more important than age. An older person who has just gotten his driving licence might be less confident behind the wheels, compared to a younger person, say 25 years old, who has been driving for a few years.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Issues Highlighted from Our Singapore Conversation Exercise","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Mr Azmoon Ahmad asked the Prime Minister (a) what is the current status of the Singapore Conversation exercise since its initiation; (b) what are the key highlighted issues that have been addressed; and (c) whether there are any key issues that are still pending action.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien (for the Prime Minister): Close to 50,000 Singaporeans from all walks of life participated in over 600 dialogue sessions as part of Our Singapore Conversation (OSC) in 2012. It was a rich dialogue among Singaporeans, and not just between the Government and Singaporeans, aimed at defining our shared future together.
This national engagement helped crystallise the core aspirations of Singaporeans. First, opportunities to lead fulfilling lives, to realise one's potential. Second, coming together to build a better Singapore. Third, assurance that our basic needs can be met, that we do not have to face life's uncertainties alone. Fourth, closer community ties, a cohesive society and a warmer kampung spirit. Finally, trust between the Government and people, and trust among Singaporeans.
These aspirations have served to shape our policy directions. For example, in the past few years we made significant moves to keep housing affordable, introduced the Pioneer Generation Package, MediShield Life, reviewed our Primary School Leaving Examination system and introduced Skills Future.
Another important outcome from OSC has been in how we see the importance of on-going public engagements. OSC helped us learn more about how we can better communicate and engage with Singaporeans, and also the importance of creating space for the community to take ownership in shaping our shared future.
Building on the momentum of OSC as well as the many ground-up efforts to celebrate SG50, we launched the SGfuture engagement series in November last year as a platform to encourage more Singaporeans to go a step further by taking action to realise their aspirations and ideas for the future.
We launched Our Singapore Fund in August to partner and support more Singaporeans who wish to embark on ground-up initiatives that will bring people together as a community and help build the Singaporean identity. We are also launching Singapore Cares as a national movement to rally Singaporeans to strengthen the kampung spirit and help others in need.
The way we work as a Government is changing. We will continue to find different ways to understand citizen needs and to partner them. SGfuture is a step in our ongoing journey to make it possible for every Singaporean to co-create our future together as we journey towards SG100.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Minimise Sale of Beverages with High Sugar and Caffeine Content in School Canteens","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"56 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Education (Schools) (a) what are the steps taken to minimise the sale of beverages that are high in sugar and caffeine content in Government school canteens; and (b) whether there are guidelines on the nutritional value and types of food and beverages allowed for sale in tertiary institutions.
Mr Ng Chee Meng: The food and beverages (F&B) sold in school canteens must comply with the Health Promotion Board's (HPB’s) guidelines. In particular, only drinks with sugar content equal to or less than six grammes per 100 millilitres (g/100 ml) are allowed to be sold. This is a reduction from the previous guideline of seven g/100 ml. Our teachers encourage students to drink plain water and schools have installed water fountains for their convenience.
HPB's other guidelines require stallholders to use healthier ingredients and to include four food groups – carbohydrates, proteins, fruit and vegetables. There are no guidelines on caffeine.
Similarly, our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) are actively working with HPB and their F&B operators to provide and promote healthier options on campus. Healthier options include lower calorie meals, meals with higher nutrition value, for example, wholegrains, and lower sugar beverages.
Currently, over 50 F&B outlets, representing about 30% of the total number of F&B outlets at the IHLs, offer healthier options under the HPB’s Healthier Dining Programme. The IHLs are working with the other F&B outlets to increase participation in this programme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tracking of Zika Cases and After-effects","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"58 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Health (a) whether he can provide an update on the spread of the Zika virus in Singapore; (b) how many new Zika cases have been reported in November and December 2016; (c) how many of these cases are of pregnant women; and (d) what is the total number of pregnant women infected by the Zika virus in Singapore and, of these, how many have given birth and whether any of these babies have birth defects.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: As at 31 December 2016, 458 Zika cases have been reported to the Ministry of Health (MOH). The incidence of new reported cases has been on the decline. Twelve cases were reported in November and four cases were reported in December. In comparison, 283 cases and 43 cases were reported in September and October respectively.
As of 31 December 2016, a total of 17 pregnant women have been diagnosed with Zika and reported to MOH. Four of the women have since given birth, and their babies show no signs of abnormalities thus far. One had a miscarriage for reasons not linked to Zika while two pregnancies were terminated for personal reasons. As the two foetuses were at early gestation, it is not possible to determine whether there will be Zika-related abnormalities. The remaining 10 cases are in their second and third trimesters and their babies will be monitored over three years as part of the monitoring programme. There is currently no obvious evidence to show that there are any Zika-related abnormalities.
MOH has put in place a programme to monitor infants whose mothers were exposed to the Zika virus during their pregnancies. We will track their development until they are three years old.
Given the presence of the Aedes mosquito here in Singapore, we are likely to continue to have Zika cases in Singapore. Some of these cases may be undiagnosed as the infection may result in mild or even no symptoms. I urge fellow Singaporeans to remain vigilant and to do our part to prevent mosquito breeding so as to protect ourselves and our loved ones.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore's Economic Growth Trend and Progress on Productivity and Innovation Adoption","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"60 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) whether he can provide an update on the state of the Singapore economy including progress on productivity growth and the country's traction in its pivot towards innovation and technology as the next phase of development.
Mr S Iswaran: Based on advance estimates, the Singapore economy grew by 1.8% on a year-on-year basis in the fourth quarter of 2016, faster than the 1.2% growth in the previous quarter. Growth was supported primarily by the recovery in the manufacturing sector. For the whole of 2016, the economy expanded by 1.8%, slower than the 2% recorded in 2015.
For this year, the Ministry of Trade and Industry's (MTI's) current assessment is that Singapore's growth should pick up slightly but remain modest. Although global growth is projected to improve marginally, the elasticity of trade to global growth is likely to remain weak due to factors, such as the slowdown in investment growth in major advanced economies and China, as well as insourcing trends in China. This suggests that external demand for Singapore and regional countries may not see a significant uplift this year. Nonetheless, there are bright spots in the economy, such as the education, health and social services, and information and communications sectors, which are likely to continue to see healthy growth. On balance, MTI expects the Singapore economy to grow by 1% to 3% in 2017.
Ms Foo Mee Har has also asked for an update on our productivity performance. As productivity is highly pro-cyclical for a small open economy like Singapore, we should consider our productivity performance over a longer time horizon. Between 2009 and 2015, productivity, as measured by real value-added per actual hour worked, grew by 2.7% per annum.
In more recent years, productivity grew at a slower pace of 0.6% per annum from 2011 to 2015. The slower growth was partly due to the sluggish external environment, which had dampened productivity growth not just in Singapore but also in other developed economies. Our productivity growth has also been weighed down by the weak productivity performance of domestically-oriented sectors, such as construction and food services, as well as a shift in employment towards these sectors. Notably, the productivity of domestically-oriented sectors contracted by 0.5% from 2011 to 2015, even as that of the outward-oriented sectors grew by 2.4%.
The Government has been working with the tripartite partners to raise productivity across sectors under key initiatives, such as the Industry Transformation Maps. Our productivity measures are gaining traction. For example, construction site productivity growth improved steadily from 0.3% in 2010 to 2% in 2015. More companies are also heeding the call to raise productivity. According to the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry's annual small and medium enterprises (SME) survey, the proportion of SMEs taking steps to raise productivity has increased from 84% in 2013 to around 88% in 2016.
Promoting research, innovation and enterprise (or RIE) is another key plank of our strategy to maintain Singapore's economic competitiveness. Under the RIE2020 plan, $19 billion has been set aside to spur RIE in Singapore between 2016 and 2020. This includes support for companies to establish and expand corporate research laboratories in Singapore, as well as equity financing for technology startups. Our RIE efforts have gained momentum over the years. For instance, private sector expenditure on research and development (R&D) reached $5.2 billion in 2014, the highest level to date. Of this, expenditure by local enterprises saw the most rapid growth, increasing by 23% from $1.4 billion in 2013 to $1.7 billion in 2014. The number of high-tech startups has also risen from 2,700 in 2005 to 4,800 in 2015.
To position Singapore for our next phase of growth, the Government will continue to push ahead with our restructuring efforts, with a strong emphasis on productivity and innovation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Complaint against EM Services for Refusal to Supply Lift Components","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"61 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Trade) (a) when did the Competition Commission of Singapore first receive a complaint alleging that EM Services Pte Ltd was refusing to supply lift parts for the maintenance of lifts in HDB estates; and (b) which other companies were investigated by the Commission.
Mr Lim Hng Kiang: The Competition Commission of Singapore (CCS) first received a complaint against EM Services Pte Ltd (E M Services) in April 2014. After a preliminary enquiry, CCS commenced investigations. CCS subsequently conveyed its initial findings to EM Services. In September 2015, EM Services voluntarily committed to CCS that it would supply lift spare parts to any purchaser, such as third-party lift maintenance contractors. In assessing EM Services' commitments, CCS conducted public consultations and market tests to ensure that the commitments sufficiently addressed the competition concerns highlighted. In May 2016, CCS accepted E M Services' signed commitment. The duration of CCS' investigations in this case is similar to its past three investigations on Asia Pacific Breweries Singapore, Cordlife and Coca Cola which involved voluntary commitments.
The investigations into the other companies are still ongoing and CCS does not name entities which are under investigation as the information is confidential.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessment of Deployment of Driverless Vehicles for Public Transport","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"62 Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for Transport whether he can provide the latest update and details pertaining to driverless vehicles for use in our public transportation system.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Self-driving technology, indeed, has the potential to transform public transport. For example, self-driving buses can help address the shortage of bus drivers. Self-driving pods or shuttles can be deployed at the neighbourhood level to further improve the first and last mile of a public transport journey. Commuters can summon these vehicles using their smartphones, and the vehicles will bring them in air-conditioned comfort from their doorsteps to the train station. This will be especially useful for the elderly, families with young children, and the less mobile.
Over the last two years, the Ministry of Transport has signed agreements with various private companies and research institutes to develop and trial such self-driving technologies and concepts. Nanyang Technological University (NTU) is developing self-driving buses for Singapore’s roads and climatic conditions. We expect the first on-road testing of NTU's self-driving buses to commence by the middle of 2018. A*STAR, Singapore-Massachusetts Institute of Technology Alliance for Research and Technology, Delphi Automotive Systems and nuTonomy are currently conducting self-driving trials in one-north Business Park which would be useful for first- and last-mile application. Singapore Technologies Engineering and Sentosa Development Corporation will be trialling a fleet of self-driving vehicles to ferry visitors within Sentosa, as Gardens by the Bay had done. Plans are underway for more trials.
There have been significant and rapid advances in self-driving technology and we expect it to be mature enough for widespread deployment in 10 to 15 years. Meanwhile, we will continue to press ahead with trials and limited deployment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Amount of Operating Subsidy for Public Bus Operators in 2017 under Bus Contracting Model","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"64 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether he can provide an update on the implementation of the bus contracting model; and (b) what is the estimated amount of operating subsidy that LTA is prepared to provide for the bus industry in 2017 and of which, how much is attributed to the lower bus fare with effect from 30 December 2016.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Our public bus industry fully transitioned to the bus contracting model in September 2016. This includes the two packages of bus services awarded to Tower Transit and Go Ahead through open tenders and the 12 packages that are operated by the incumbent operators, SBS Transit and SMRT. Over time, the operators of the 12 packages will also be appointed through open tenders, starting with that of the Seletar package to be awarded in the first quarter of 2017.
Service levels have improved under the contracting model. Bus services now operate at scheduled headways of 15 minutes or less during peak hours. As operators compete for bus captains with improved remunerations and working conditions, more Singaporeans have been attracted to the industry. The number of Singaporean bus captains has increased from around 2,400 to 3,000 over the past year.
All these improvements have, however, increased operating costs and public subsidies. After factoring in the recent fare reduction, we expect to incur $3.5 billion to $4 billion in subsidies for bus services over the next five years. To prevent the subsidies from ballooning over time, we will continue to impose cost discipline on the operators through regular competitive tenders and also through regular rationalisation of bus services, where ridership is low and the commuters have shifted to new Mass Rapid Transit lines. We must also maintain price discipline through regular fare adjustments.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Ensure Safe Evacuation of Persons Using Mobility Aids during Train Breakdowns","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"65 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Transport in situations of train breakdowns and the potential necessity for passengers to evacuate via the rail tracks, what measures are in place to ensure the safety of persons who are dependent on mobility aids, such as wheelchairs, during evacuations.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: During a detrainment, the rail operator will deploy staff to assist commuters to evacuate safely to the nearest station, focusing on those with special mobility needs. Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) personnel will also be on site, and stretchers will be used to evacuate wheelchair users as the maintenance walkway beside the running tracks is not wide enough to accommodate wheelchairs.
The operators conduct regular detrainment exercises with the Land Transport Authority and SCDF, and these exercises include detraining commuters in wheelchairs. The most recent exercise was held in December 2016.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Officers Hired for Enforcement Action against Errant Cyclists or Users of Personal Mobility Devices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"68 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Transport how many enforcement officers will be engaged to conduct enforcement action against errant cyclists or users of personal mobility devices who breach the rules on speeding on footpaths.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Currently, 16 Active Mobility Enforcement Officers from the Land Transport Authority (LTA), supported by more than 600 volunteers under the Active Mobility Patrol scheme, are involved in enforcement against errant cyclists and users of personal mobility devices. LTA is also looking at using other methods, such as closed-circuit television cameras, to deter offenders.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Steps to Prevent Commercial Vehicles from Parking in Non-charging Parking Spaces","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for Transport whether LTA can take steps to prevent transport leasing and related businesses from indiscriminately parking their commercial vehicles in non-charging parking spaces in the vicinity of landed properties in private residential estates which is causing inconvenience to residents in these estates.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Roads in private residential estates are public roads. Hence, where parking is allowed along these roads, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) cannot forbid any individual or company from parking. LTA is open to suggestions from residents on how parking schemes can be improved to minimise inconvenience to them, but once instituted, these parking schemes will have to be uniformly applied to all vehicles.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Traffic Flow at Junction outside Trade Association Hub","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Thomas Chua Kee Seng asked the Minister for Transport that in view of the completion of the Trade Association Hub at Jurong Town Hall in 2017 and the subsequent increase in trade association activities and programmes at the Hub, whether the Ministry can review and redesign the traffic flow around the area, particularly the traffic junction outside the Trade Association Hub so as to facilitate entry and exit out of the Hub.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Jurong Town Hall Road and Jurong East Street 11 have already been widened in 2012 and 2014 respectively in anticipation of the Trade Association Hub opening. The junction outside the Trade Association Hub has also been designed to allow vehicles to enter and exit the Trade Association Hub without interrupting traffic flow on Jurong Town Hall Road.
Public transport is another option as the Trade Association Hub is conveniently located within a 10-minute walk from Jurong East MRT station.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Taxi Driver's Vocational Licence (TDVL) Re-application Criteria","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for Transport what are the conditions for re-application or requalification for a Taxi Driver's Vocational Licence (TDVL) where the TDVL has been revoked due to the conviction of a criminal offence that is unrelated to road traffic and/or driving matters.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The Land Transport Authority considers the nature of the offence when assessing the re-applications of ex-offenders for a Taxi Driver Vocational Licence (TDVL), with a view to protecting the safety of passengers. Those who have committed extremely serious offences, such as rape, murder or kidnapping, are barred from re-obtaining a TDVL for life. Those who have committed less serious offences like housebreaking are barred for three to five years from the date of conviction, after which their re-applications will be considered. Other offences which do not pose any danger to the physical safety of the public, such as forgery, would not attract any debarment.
This calibrated approach is needed to maintain public confidence in the safety of our taxi services. At the same time, it provides some ex-offenders with a second chance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Inclusion of Potong Pasir in Silver Zone Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for Transport whether LTA will consider including the Potong Pasir area, in addition to Lorong 8 Toa Payoh, in the Silver Zone programme as it is a mature estate with a high number of elderly residents.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: In the implementation of the Silver Zone programme, the Land Transport Authority has prioritised areas where there is a relatively higher number of traffic accidents involving the elderly. We will include the Potong Pasir area in the programme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Foldable Bikes and E-scooters Pilot Project Findings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the findings of the ongoing pilot project to allow foldable bikes and e-scooters on MRT trains and buses; (b) whether the Ministry will consider disallowing this during peak hours when the trains are very crowded; and (c) what action can be taken if a passenger fails to fold the bike or e-scooter on the trains.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The six-month trial to allow foldable bicycles and personal mobility devices to be brought onto public transport at all times of the day started only about a month ago. We should allow the trial to run its course before making any policy decisions.
So far, the public response has been positive and there have been few complaints. From our observations, the very large majority of the commuters who brought bicycles or personal mobility devices on board buses and trains behaved responsibly and courteously and, in particular, folded the devices. Those who do not do so are liable to a maximum fine of $500 upon conviction.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Cross Island MRT Line Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry can provide an update on site investigation works on the two alignment options as part of Phase 2 of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the Cross Island MRT Line; and (b) how is the Ministry engaging volunteers from the nature community to monitor and manage the impact on the ground as the rainy season increases the risk of spills into forest streams caused by boring works.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Site investigation works on the two alignment options have commenced and are expected to complete by end-2018. We consult with the nature groups regularly. The Land Transport Authority has also appointed one of the nature group representatives as an advisor to monitor and audit the implementation of the Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan developed in Phase 1.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Considerations for LRT Service Bi-directional Operations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Ms Sun Xueling asked the Minister for Transport what are the parameters to determine when an LRT service can operate bi-directionally as the LRT service in the west loop of the Punggol LRT service travels in one direction before 3.00 pm and in the other direction after 3.00 pm.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The Punggol West Loop Light Rail Transit service is currently operating unidirectionally as its ridership of 7,000 passengers a day is still low. The Punggol East Loop, for example, has a ridership of 45,000. When ridership grows requiring additional capacity, we will increase the service frequency and/or operate it bi-directionally.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Construction of Lifts at Pedestrian Overhead Bridges","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether he can provide an update on the construction of lifts at pedestrian overhead bridges; and (b) whether LTA can consider expediting the construction of lifts at the pedestrian overhead bridge that links to the Chinese Garden MRT station.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Lifts have been installed at 18 of the 47 pedestrian overhead bridges identified for the lift retrofitting programme. Preliminary works at the overhead bridge at Chinese Garden MRT station have begun, and the lift installation should be completed by the end of the year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Developing and Maintaining a Singaporean Core in Commercial Aviation Pilot Sector","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Transport what measures are being taken to maintain and develop a Singaporean Core in the commercial aviation pilot sector.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: There are currently about 3,200 commercial pilots employed by Singapore-based airlines. About nine in 10 of them are Singapore Citizens or Permanent Residents.
To ensure that our airlines continue to have access to a sizeable pool of Singaporean pilots, the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) has approved four pilot training academies in Singapore, which supplement the airlines' in-house training programmes.
There are also programmes to support Singaporean pilots to upskill themselves. Those who are keen to deepen their management or specialist skills are able to tap on various avenues of support, including CAAS' Aviation Leaders Scholarship, the SkillsFuture Study Awards and the SkillsFuture Credit scheme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rank-and-file Workers on Adapt and Grow Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the retention rate of rank-and-file workers who have completed the Adapt and Grow programme; and (b) what is the number of rank-and-file workers who have embarked on this programme so far.
Mr Lim Swee Say: The Adapt and Grow initiative supports workers, including rank-and-file workers, in finding jobs. The initiative includes career matching services and programmes, such as Place-and-Train and Work Trials.
In the first three quarters of 2016, more than 7,300 rank-and-file workers were placed by Workforce Singapore (WSG) and NTUC's Employment and Employability Institute through the Adapt and Grow initiative.
For rank-and-file workers placed through the Adapt and Grow career matching services in 2015, about 10,000 or seven in 10 remained in employment for at least six months after their placements.
The Ministry of Manpower, WSG and our tripartite partners will press on with efforts to support jobseekers to find and remain in employment through the Adapt and Grow initiative.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Labour Court Orders on Employee Salary Non-payment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Kok Heng Leun asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how many complaints about salary non-payment or short-payment were lodged by employees in each year from 2015-2016; (b) how many cases were referred to the Labour Court; (c) how many Labour Court Orders were issued in favour of claimants; (d) how many Orders remained unpaid by the 14th day after their issuance; and (e) how many employers were prosecuted for non-payment or short-payment of salary in these two years respectively.
Mr Lim Swee Say: About 6,000 salary non-payment and short payment cases were lodged by employees each year in 2015 and 20161. For each year, the breakdown of the cases was similar and broadly as shown in the table below.
Among the 1,400 Labour Court orders issued in favour of employees, the payment status is shown below.
The 350 defaulted orders involved 200 companies which were mostly in financial difficulties or had ceased operations. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) took enforcement actions against all of them which included warnings, fines and restriction of work pass privileges. About 25 employers were charged in Court for more egregious offences each year in 2015 and 2016. Such offences carry a maximum fine of $15,000 and/or imprisonment of up to six months per charge.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Excludes ongoing cases in Labour Court."],"footNoteQuestions":["11"],"questionNo":"11"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Personal Data Collection at REACH's Public Events","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) what is the rationale for collecting the NRIC number, phone number, address and occupation of every participant at REACH's public forums; (b) how is this information used; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider doing away with this onerous registration process to encourage participation at its events.
Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: The feedback unit Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry @ Home (REACH) organises public forums to engage Singaporeans on various national issues. Like organisers of other conferences, REACH collects participants' National Registration Identity Card numbers to verify the identity of the attendee and facilitate the registration process. REACH also collects contact details, such as phone numbers and email addresses, to maintain communications with the participants before and after the forums. REACH does likewise with those who write or email in.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ministry of Communications and Information Public Opinion Polls","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Mr Chen Show Mao asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) how many public opinion polls did the Ministry commission in 2016; (b) what were the topics for each of these polls; (c) what was the cost of commissioning each of these polls; (d) what were the summary findings of each of these polls; and (e) whether and when will the Ministry publish the results of these polls.
Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: The Ministry of Communications and Information conducts occasional surveys to understand public sentiment on issues and to assess public awareness of, and response to, specific Government policies and programmes. Survey data has helped the Government evaluate if there are segments of the population who might benefit from a better understanding of a policy or programme. The data also helps the Government adjust the way it delivers services or implements policies to better meet the needs of citizens.
In 2016, we commissioned a number of surveys on a range of issues, including public perceptions of the annual Budget, public transport, changes to the elected presidency, as well as attitudes towards the death penalty in Singapore. The feedback unit Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry @ Home (REACH) periodically releases findings that may be of interest to the public. The amount spent by the Government on surveys is in line with market rates.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Collection and Disbursement of Zakat by MUIS","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Communications and Information and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs for 2015 (a) what is the total amount of zakat collected by MUIS; (b) what is the total amount disbursed; and (c) whether there is any undisbursed amount and, if so, how much is the undisbursed amount and what is the reason for not disbursing the monies.
Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: In financial year 2015, the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) collected $35.3 million of zakat and disbursed $36.3 million to the eight Asnafs, or categories, as prescribed by Muslim Law. This figure is reported yearly in MUIS' Annual Report.
Annually, more than 70% of zakat is collected during the month of Ramadhan. This is the period when MUIS would have greater clarity on the zakat funds available for disbursement in the year. However, zakat disbursement is spread throughout the year. There may be a slight surplus or deficit in any particular year. To ensure the continued funding of programmes under the zakat, MUIS maintains a reserve to buffer against shortfalls and unforeseen situations which may affect collections and needs, such as an economic downturn.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mendaki Educational Loans for Post-graduate Programmes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Communications and Information and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) whether MENDAKI offers educational loans for postgraduate programmes; (b) if no, what is the reason for not providing so; and (c) how many requests or appeals MENDAKI has received for such educational loans in the past five years.
Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: From 2011 to 2014, the Council on Education for Muslim Children (MENDAKI) offered interest-free study loans to Muslim students pursuing postgraduate programmes. During this period, MENDAKI received 78 applications for such loans. However, this initiative was discontinued from 2015 to focus MENDAKI's resources and support for Muslim students pursuing first-time degrees and diplomas.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"ASEAN Meeting Update on Developments in Myanmar Rakhine State","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he can provide an update on the ASEAN meeting on 19 December 2016 on recent developments in the Rakhine State, in particular (a) what was discussed at the meeting; (b) whether concerns about the treatment of the Rohingya people are valid; and (c) if valid, what will be done to encourage Myanmar to avert discrimination against the Rohingya people.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: On 19 December 2016, I attended the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Foreign Ministers' Retreat, which was an informal meeting called by Myanmar's State Counsellor and Minister for Foreign Affairs Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to brief ASEAN Foreign Ministers on the situation in Rakhine State. The meeting was timely and useful in helping the ASEAN member states better understand Myanmar's efforts to address the complex situation.
There was an open, frank and constructive exchange of views among the Ministers. The Ministers also discussed how ASEAN can best support the Myanmar Government in its efforts to find a viable, long-term and sustainable solution to the problems in Rakhine State. The focus was on making sure that humanitarian aid would reach the communities in need. Following the meeting, the Myanmar Government has expressed readiness to grant necessary humanitarian access and to continue to keep ASEAN informed on developments in Rakhine State.
On Singapore's end, we have emphasised that every government must ensure the safety and protection of its people, regardless of race and religion, and that all people must enjoy the same basic rights. At the same time, it is also the right and the responsibility of every state to secure its borders and maintain internal security.
Issues of race, language and religion in every country, including Singapore, are sensitive and complex. Similarly, inter-communal relations in Rakhine State are highly complicated with long-standing historical roots. These issues are not going to be resolved easily or quickly in the short term. Patience, restraint and time will be required to build trust among the different stakeholders and communities, foster racial harmony and to restore peace and stability.
We continue to encourage all parties, including the Myanmar Government and international community, to continue working together towards a long-term solution so that affected communities can rebuild their lives.
In Singapore, our local communities initiated a fundraising campaign in December 2016 to provide humanitarian support to affected communities in Rakhine State, as well as those affected by the earthquake in Aceh. It is heartening that Singaporeans across various communities have come forward to contribute more than $350,000. The funds raised will be divided and distributed equally to affected communities in Rakhine State and Aceh. The funds for Rakhine State will be channelled through Myanmar-based organisations to assist all affected communities, regardless of ethnicity and religion. President of the Singapore Islamic Scholars and Religious Teachers Association (PERGAS) Ustaz Mohamad Hasbi Bin Hassan had also written to the Prime Minister to offer PERGAS' assistance. In his reply, the Prime Minister encouraged PERGAS to contribute to humanitarian relief efforts through the fundraising campaign.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Convictions from Total Number of Crime Cases Reported from 2010-2015","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the number of convictions from the total number of crime cases reported from 2010-2015; and (b) what is the number of convictions broken down by the different types of crime reported from 2010-2015.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Police report the crime statistics annually, broken down into the different crime classes. This information is available on https://data.gov.sg/dataset/overall-crime-cases-crime-rate.
Between 2010 and 2015, the conviction rate of persons charged in Court was about 97%.
The Member has asked for a comparison between the number of convictions and the total number of crime cases reported. This is not likely to be meaningful for various reasons, including (a) multiple cases attributed to the same offender; (b) not all reported cases require arrests and prosecution. For example, there are, not infrequently, unmeritorious Police reports, and other cases, which for many reasons, result in no further action; and (c) even where investigations are necessary, prosecution may not be the most appropriate option. For example, over 80% of cases running into several thousands involving young people are not prosecuted, for reasons which have been publicly disclosed.
Thus, Police do not actively track the comparison between the number of all Police reports made versus the number of convictions which, as has been stated earlier, is not a meaningful comparison.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Subsidies Received by CHAS Cardholders for Dental Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Health (a) in the last year, how much subsidies for dental services has each CHAS cardholder and each CHAS cardholder aged 60 and above received on average; (b) whether a review has been conducted to determine that the subsidies are adequate for seniors; and (c) whether the subsidies should be increased for seniors to match their needs.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The dental subsidies under the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) vary, depending on the status of the cardholder and the dental procedure required. For example, to make a complete upper denture, CHAS Blue and Orange cardholders can receive a subsidy of up to $256.50 and $170.50 respectively. The subsidy for Pioneer Generation (PG) cardholders is $10 higher per procedure than that for CHAS Blue cardholders.
Those who have made a claim received about $320, on average, in dental subsidies in 2015. Those aged 60 and above received about $370.
The existing dental subsidies already cover close to 85% of the bill for the majority of visits, including for seniors. The Ministry of Health will continue to review CHAS from time to time so as to meet our objective of providing accessible and affordable dental care to Singaporeans, including our senior citizens.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Profile and Allocation of Additional 30,000 Healthcare Workers Required by 2020","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Minister for Health of the additional 30,000 healthcare workers required by 2020 (a) how many will be from the Singaporean Core; (b) how many are expected to come through the professional conversion programme; (c) how many are expected to be retired healthcare workers; (d) how many will be allocated to the eldercare sector; (e) what will be the allocation of these workers broken down by roles; and (f) what will be the expected increase in annual manpower expenditure.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: In tandem with the expected increase in demand for healthcare services that comes with an ageing population, we projected that an additional 30,000 healthcare workers could be needed between 2015 and 2020. Over 10,000 of the additional healthcare manpower demand is projected to come from the aged care sector, while the remaining will come from the acute and primary care sectors. About 50% of the new jobs are projected to be professionals, managers, executives and technicians positions, which include doctors, nurses, allied health professionals, and managerial and administrative staff, such as centre managers and operations and administrative executives.
The Ministry of Health (MOH) has been and will continue to grow a strong local core to anchor our healthcare sector. Locals made up about 75% of the healthcare workforce in 2015. MOH has been making efforts on a few fronts to attract, develop and retain the local healthcare workforce.
First, we have expanded intakes at local medical and nursing schools to attract more young Singaporeans to join the healthcare sector. Between 2012 and 2015, local medical and nursing intakes have increased by 29% and 17% respectively. In addition, the four allied health profession courses in Physiotherapy, Occupational Therapy, Diagnostic Radiography and Radiation Therapy have transited from diploma courses in Nanyang Polytechnic (NYP) to four-year degree programmes at the Singapore Institute of Technology in 2016, and the intake will grow over time.
Apart from attracting fresh school leavers, we have put in place Healthcare Professional Conversion Programmes (PCPs) for mid-career professionals to acquire relevant training to join the healthcare sector as nurses and allied health professionals. Since the commencement of the PCPs, more than 1,000 PCP candidates have undergone healthcare training. To bring in more mid-career entrants into the community care sector, the Agency for Integrated Care has also facilitated a series of manpower recruitment initiatives for the sector, which include organising recruitment fairs, introducing the Community Care Traineeship Programme to train new local support care staff for their new roles as well as the Senior Management Associate Scheme to train mid-career talents to take on managerial and operational positions in the sector. We will continue to provide more training pathways to enable more mid-career professionals to join the healthcare sector.
Second, we are leveraging SkillsFuture (SF) initiatives to support professional development and capability building in the healthcare workforce. MOH launched the Healthcare SF Study Awards in June 2016 to encourage skills acquisition in the areas of aged care, healthcare information technology and data analytics, and healthcare design, organisation and delivery. NYP is also rolling out a new Earn and Learn Programme in gerontology nursing for nursing graduates to deepen their skills and knowledge to provide aged care in the community.
Third, we seek to better retain healthcare workers. We have strengthened career pathways for clinical and support care staff across the public healthcare sector through more upgrading opportunities and better career progression and are making efforts to increase workforce longevity in the healthcare sector. Nearly all eligible public healthcare staff were offered re-employment upon reaching age 62. The public healthcare clusters have also extended the re-employment age of public healthcare workers to age 67 since 1 July 2016, one year ahead of the statutory change. We are pursuing efforts to redesign jobs through the use of assistive equipment, such as patient mobility aides and hoists, as well as encouraging healthcare institutions to offer more flexible work arrangements, to enable older staff to continue working.
In parallel with efforts to increase the supply of local healthcare workers, we are stepping up productivity efforts to reduce manpower demand through improving workflows, redesigning roles and leveraging technology. Our public healthcare institutions are rolling out more self-service formats and training patients, caregivers and volunteers to support the healthcare workforce in care delivery. With productivity efforts, we will strive to keep manpower expenditure growth sustainable so as to maintain affordability of healthcare services for Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Managed Care Companies and Third-party Administrator Companies on Healthcare Costs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Health (a) whether there is empirical data that reveals that managed care companies (MCCs) and third-party administrator (TPA) companies are driving up healthcare costs significantly; and (b) what are the main factors that are driving up healthcare costs in the private and public healthcare sectors.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Managed care companies (MCCs) and third-party administrators (TPAs) play a role in the healthcare system by providing information to patients and helping them with the administrative and claims processes. The Singapore Medical Council (SMC) is not prohibiting such services. The SMC's concern is with the charging practices adopted by some MCCs and TPAs, which compromise patient care and contribute to rising healthcare costs. For example, there are MCCs and TPAs which charge doctors referral fees of up to 25% of doctor’s fees. Their financial incentives are not aligned with the patient's interests as the decisions on referrals and care can be unduly influenced by the fee arrangements. In addition, the high referral fees will ultimately be borne by patients in the form of larger bill sizes or higher insurance premiums.
This was why medical professionals and the insurance industry have highlighted their concerns with these charging practices to the Ministry of Health (MOH) and SMC. SMC has since revised their Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines to state that doctors must not allow financial arrangements to lead to any compromise in the care of patients. Any charges which doctors pay to MCCs or TPAs should commensurate with the actual administrative work done by these intermediaries in processing the cases, rather than based primarily on the fees charged to patients. The SMC's position is supported by the Singapore Medical Association, Academy of Medicine Singapore and College of Family Physicians Singapore.
A key priority for MOH is to keep our healthcare system sustainable for the longer term. There are many factors which can contribute to increases in healthcare costs. For example, an ageing population and a higher rate of chronic diseases like diabetes and hypertension will increase the volume and complexity of healthcare services. We are investing in health promotion initiatives to help Singaporeans lead healthy and active lives.
Another priority is to provide appropriate care for patients by moving healthcare services beyond hospitals into the community, and to improve productivity and efficiency in our healthcare institutions.
MOH is also working with the professional bodies and industry players to enhance information transparency on fees and charges, and to discourage over-servicing by healthcare providers. All of these factors are important to develop a sustainable and affordable healthcare system that delivers quality care and outcomes for all Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on SG50's \"50 Schools, 50 SMEs\" Initiative","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) (a) whether the \"50 schools, 50 SMEs\" initiative of SG50 has been completed; (b) whether the Ministry has achieved its target of pairing 50 schools with 50 different SMEs; and (c) whether the Ministry has evaluated each school-SME partnership to find out if the learning outcomes have been met.
Mr S Iswaran: The \"50 Schools, 50 SMEs\" was a joint initiative by SPRING Singapore and the National Library Board (NLB) carried out from April 2014 to May 2015 in conjunction with the SG50 celebrations. The programme aimed to connect the younger generation with companies which had made contributions to Singapore. Students were given the opportunity to understand Singapore businesses up close and appreciate how local businesses had persevered through difficult times and contributed to Singapore’s economic development.
The programme matched 250 secondary school students, comprising 62 teams from 51 schools with 62 small and medium enterprises (SMEs), exceeding its target of pairing 50 schools with 50 SMEs. Students were matched with companies from a broad range of industries and, after the attachment, were required to submit a write-up on the company based on their learning experiences. Some of the featured companies which participated in this programme included Eu Yan Sang, Muthu's Curry, Malayan Daching, Epigram Books, Gardenasia and Pet Lovers Centre.
The feedback received from the programme was positive. Students found the experience beneficial and were able to appreciate how businesses had to adapt and innovate to remain competitive. Some students were motivated to consider working for an SME or setting up their own business. Many also shared that the experience helped them appreciate the important role SMEs played within the economy. The companies which participated also felt that they had benefited from the energy and fresh ideas the students brought with them. The write-ups from the completed projects have been uploaded onto the Singapore Memory Project portal, Wikipedia and Infopedia.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proportion of Public Procurement Projects' Contract Price Targeted at Wage Increases for Outsourced Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Finance (a) what is the estimated proportion of public procurement projects that factor in percentage increases in contract price targeted at wage increments for outsourced workers; and (b) what is the percentage and amount of liquidated damages enforced upon service providers by Government agencies in their service contracts for cleaning, security and landscaping.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: It is not feasible for individual buyers to verify the pay practices of their service providers. What the Government has done since April 2013 is to award cleaning contracts only to accredited service providers, who are required to pay their workers according to the Progressive Wage Model (PWM). The PWM takes into account the National Wages Council's (NWC) recommendations on wage increments. The Government also supported the adoption of the PWMs for the security and landscape sectors when they were rolled out to these sectors subsequently.
In addition, for new tenders called since 2013, approximately three quarters of Government contracts in the cleaning, security and landscaping sectors have explicitly included a reminder to tenderers to factor in NWC's recommended wage increments into their tender bids. Many agencies also allowed tenderers to present their bid price in year-by-year breakdown, which enables them to factor in cost increments, including annual wage adjustments. We are advising all agencies to adopt such good practices for their cleaning, security and landscaping tenders.
To ensure wider industry adoption of good employment practices, such as providing workers with annual wage increments, the Government encourages tripartite efforts, or efforts by relevant independent bodies, to accredit service providers who adopt such practices. The Government is prepared to accord more favourable consideration for accredited service providers.
As for the enforcement of liquidated damages, based on our survey, about 30% of the cleaning, security and landscaping contracts awarded from 2014 to 2016, or 91 contracts, have imposed liquidated damages due to failure of service providers to perform according to contractual requirements, such as service non-performance. The total amount of liquidated damages collected was approximately $4 million, which was about 0.5% of the total contract value of the 91 contracts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Factors Determining Number and Capacity of Senior Activity and Care Centres in HDB Towns","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how is the number and capacity of senior activity and care centres determined in existing HDB towns; (b) whether the current planning parameters are sufficient; and (c) how many senior activity centres are there in the Bedok South area.
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) and the Ministry of Health (MOH) have been working closely together to meet the full spectrum of social and healthcare needs of our seniors so that they can age gracefully within the community.
MSF sets up Senior Activity Centres (SACs) to reach out to low-income and vulnerable seniors staying in Housing and Development Board (HDB) rental flats. SACs conduct activities, such as outreach, home visits and centre-based activities, to encourage seniors to form social support networks and help detect risks early. An SAC is usually established when there is a reasonable number of seniors in the rental blocks. Larger centres are built in locations with more seniors within a cluster of rental blocks. MSF regularly reviews the planning and development of SACs, taking into account factors, such as the projected elderly population in upcoming rental blocks, the SAC utilisation patterns and users' feedback. There is currently a total of five SACs in Bedok planning area, including one in Bedok South subzone.
MOH develops Senior Care Centres (SCCs) to provide day care and rehabilitation services to seniors with care needs. MOH plans for these centres, taking into account projected demand based on a combination of factors, such as demographics and incidence of disability. MOH conducts regular reviews of projections and adjusts development plans, based on updated information, to ensure that our seniors’ care needs are adequately met. Within Bedok planning area, there are five centres that can serve about 300 seniors every day. In 2017, the new Chai Chee nursing home will also have a new day centre that can serve an additional 100 seniors.
SACs and SCCs complement each other to meet the social and healthcare needs of our seniors in the community. MSF and MOH will continue to work together to ensure that seniors are able to access the support and care services they require.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Dedicated Rest Areas Set aside for Outsourced Workers in Government Buildings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many Government buildings have set aside dedicated rest areas for outsourced workers; and (b) and how many of these are inspected regularly to ensure that they are not allocated for other purposes.
Mr Lawrence Wong: There are 115 Government-owned buildings with at least 3,000 square metres net floor area of commercial space. This is a reasonable threshold for which rest areas for outsourced workers could be provided as part of the building infrastructure.
Out of these 115 buildings, the vast majority, or 96 buildings, have dedicated rest areas for outsourced workers. These buildings are also inspected to ensure that the rest areas are not allocated for other purposes. While there are no dedicated rest areas in the other buildings, the workers there are allowed to use shared spaces, for example, visitors' rest areas and pantries, to rest.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Raising Income Cap of $1,500 for Public Rental Housing","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will consider raising the current income cap of $1,500 for public rental housing in view of the rising cost of living and the higher income caps of Government subsidies, such as the childcare/infant care subsidy and ComCare Short-to-Medium Term Assistance.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The income ceilings set for various Government subsidies serve different purposes and differ based on the nature of help provided and the target population. The Housing and Development Board (HDB) reviews the income ceiling and other eligibility criteria for HDB rental flats from time to time. This enables us to prioritise the rental flat supply to benefit low-income families who are without family support and other housing options.
In practice, HDB has exercised flexibility to enable some families with higher income get a public rental flat, if their circumstances are deserving of such assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of HDB Blocks Qualified for Home Improvement Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the total number of HDB blocks that qualify for the Home Improvement Program (HIP); (b) how many blocks have been selected for HIP by December 2016; and (c) whether HDB can consider announcing the precincts selected for HIP in 2017 and 2018 by the first quarter of 2017.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Home Improvement Programme (HIP) was introduced in 2007 with about 3,000 eligible blocks. Blocks built up to 1986 and have not undergone the Main Upgrading Programme are eligible for HIP.
To date, HIP has been announced for more than 2,000 blocks.
The next nomination exercise to select blocks to undergo HIP is scheduled to take place in early financial year 2017. Like the last exercise for 2015 and 2016, we are planning to select the HIP projects for 2017 and 2018 at one go, so that residents who may have plans to renovate their flats can make a better-informed decision.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on NEA's Rodent Control Efforts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) if he can provide an update on NEA's rodent control efforts; (b) how successful is the Rat Attack Programme; and (c) whether the Ministry is looking into how this problem is tackled by other countries.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Since 2011, the National Environment Agency (NEA) has been carrying out regular inspections of public areas to identify potential food sources and harbourages for rodents, as well as rodent burrowing activities. Some 32,000 burrows were detected in the first 10 months of 2016, a 12.5% decrease over the same period in 2015. Around 90% of these burrows were found in housing estates managed by the Town Councils (TCs), mostly near bin chutes and bin centres. With numerous such facilities located in housing estates, rodent control remains a challenge for many TCs, especially in areas where individual stakeholders fail to adopt proper food storage and waste management practices, resulting in ample food sources for rodents.
To tackle this situation, NEA has been working with the TCs to implement the Rat Attack Programme, to proactively take steps to reduce the rodent population in their housing estates. Last year, NEA calibrated the programme further to provide TCs with the flexibility to tailor specific rat control efforts according to the rodent situation in their respective housing estates. For instance, TCs can choose to adopt a combination of rodent control methods, such as population culling or burrow treatment. So far, 15 TCs have come on board the programme.
In some areas, actions by one party to destroy rodent burrows may displace the rodents to another location. NEA has, therefore, taken steps to strengthen the coordination among multiple stakeholders by facilitating the formation of Rat Coordination Task Forces. These working groups, which also include the TCs, facilitate the coordination of rodent control plans amongst the various stakeholders and help ensure that all parties play their part. Progress has been encouraging, especially in areas, such as Redhill Close, Clementi Avenue 3, Bedok Central and Bangkit Road, where the number of burrows has fallen by more than 30% since coordination efforts began.
Beyond these efforts, NEA also regularly inspects retail food establishments for signs of rodent infestation and conducted more than 137,000 inspections last year. Retail food establishments that fail to keep their premises free of rodent infestation could have their licences suspended or revoked. NEA also inspects shopping malls and requires the operators of such premises to put in place rodent control programmes and proper waste management practices. NEA will not hesitate to take enforcement action against any premises owners for any public health lapses that lead to rodent infestation.
NEA has also been studying how the rodent problem is tackled in other countries and will continue to evaluate our programmes and adopt relevant measures in our local context, where feasible.
While NEA continues to keep up the surveillance and control of the rodent population in Singapore, it is the responsibility of all stakeholders to ensure a good system of housekeeping, refuse management and routine pest control checks and treatment to keep the rodent population under control. For example, all home owners and retail food establishments should bag their food waste properly to minimise access by rodents and reduce the contamination of recyclable waste.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown in Utilisation Rate of SkillsFuture Credits by Age Group","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) (a) what is the breakdown in utilisation rate of SkillsFuture credits according to the different age groups; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider allowing elderly citizens to transfer their credits to their younger immediate family members for skills upgrading.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Since the launch of the SkillsFuture Credit one year ago, more than 126,000 Singaporean Citizens have used their SkillsFuture Credit. There is a good spread across the different age bands, as shown in Table 1 below.
The objective of the SkillsFuture Credit scheme is to send a strong signal to adult Singapore Citizens to take charge of their own learning journey. This is an objective that is relevant to every Singapore Citizen, whether young or old. Making the SkillsFuture Credit transferrable will undermine this objective. Hence, it is not transferable.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Approved Training Organisations (ATOs), Public and Inhouse ATOs and Inhouse ATOs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) (a) what is the current number of approved training organisations (ATOs), public and inhouse ATOs, and inhouse ATOs respectively; (b) what is the number of WSQ trainees who have completed courses offered by each of the three types of ATOs in 2016; and (c) how will the SkillsFuture movement expand to employer-led and employer-owned training.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: As of end 2016, there are 419 Approved Training Organisations (ATOs) that are delivering Singapore Workforce Skills Qualifications (WSQ) training. Of these, 154 are in-house ATOs, 144 are public ATOs and 121 are both public and in-house ATOs.
For the first three quarters of 2016, a total of about 229,000 unique local trainees completed WSQ training. The number of local trainees who completed WSQ training within each category of ATOs are as shown below.
Historically, Continuing Education and Training has emphasised employers training their employees. It was only much later, after the setting up of Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund, that the Government also promoted individual-initiated training. Employers will continue to play an important role in training and skills development of the workforce and this has been a priority for SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG).
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":1681,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Thomas Chua Kee Seng","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20170109/vernacular-Thomas Chua(1).pdf","fileName":"Thomas Chua(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":1682,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Zainal Sapari","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20170109/vernacular-Zainal Sapari(1).pdf","fileName":"Zainal Sapari(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":1683,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Desmond Choo","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20170109/vernacular-Desmond Choo(1).pdf","fileName":"Desmond Choo(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":1684,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Joan Pereira","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20170109/vernacular-Joan Pereira(1).pdf","fileName":"Joan Pereira(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":1685,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Thomas Chua Kee Seng","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20170109/vernacular-Thomas Chua(2).pdf","fileName":"Thomas Chua(2).pdf"},{"vernacularID":1686,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20170109/vernacular-Intan(1).pdf","fileName":"Intan(1).pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}