1 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in light of the latest charges against the National Environment Agency (NEA) for the Tuas Incineration Plant explosion on 23 September 2021, how has NEA strengthened its workplace safety practices and culture.
2 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment pertaining to the Tuas Incineration Plant explosion in September 2021, what measures have been put in place at all incineration plants to ensure that such an incident does not recur.
\tThe Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Speaker, this being the first Sitting of the year, may I wish you \"Happy New Year\", and through you, wish everyone in the Chamber, as well as all supporting staff of Parliament, an equally prosperous and happy new year.
May I have your permission, Sir, to answer oral Question Nos 1 and 2 in my Ministerial Statement to be delivered later at today's Sitting, please?
\tMr Speaker: You may, Minister. And allow me to also take this opportunity to wish everyone a happy and healthy 2024.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Develop Baseline Artificial Intelligence Literacy of Students","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr Ong Hua Han asked the Minister for Education (a) what other programmes beyond the artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled tools on Singapore Student Learning Space will be put in place to develop baseline AI literacy of students; (b) whether there are plans to launch AI coding programmes in the curriculum; (c) if so, when will such programmes be targeted to be launched; and (d) whether such programmes will be run by teachers or third party service providers.
4 Mr Ong Hua Han asked the Minister for Education (a) how many students have applied to join the Artificial Intelligence Student Outreach Programme; (b) what is the respective percentage of applicants who are from (i) secondary schools (ii) polytechnics (iii) Integrated Programme schools and (iv) junior colleges; and (c) whether there are plans to increase the take-up rate of the programme.
\tThe Minister for Education (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 3 and 4 on today’s Order Paper by Mr Ong Hua Han, together with the Parliamentary Questions from Mr Patrick Tay1 and Assoc Prof Razwana Begum2 scheduled for a subsequent Sitting?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, you may.
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, Members have asked how the Ministry of Education (MOE) plans to prepare our students, teachers and the workforce on the safe and responsible use of artificial intelligence (AI) and address potential risks, such as data breaches, misuse and fake news spread through AI systems.
MOE recognises that AI will become increasingly pervasive in the workplace and in our daily lives. To prepare our students and workforce, MOE develops students’ foundational knowledge of AI and promotes its safe and responsible use in schools and at the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs). Educators in schools and IHLs are provided with guidance, resources and training to effectively harness it to enhance learning.
Students acquire relevant digital literacies, such as understanding AI, its uses and limitations, and ethical considerations in the course of learning different subjects. Students also have opportunities to further their learning through school-based programmes, such as co-curricular activities, Applied Learning Programmes (ALPs) and enrichment programmes, which may be taught by teachers, industry partners and service providers.
One example is the AI Student Outreach Programme conducted by AI Singapore. In 2023, close to 17,000 students applied to join the programme, with the breakdown of applicants as follows: (a) 11% from the polytechnics; (b) 52% from the secondary schools; (c) 11% from the IP schools; and (d) 3% from the junior colleges. Students from the autonomous universities and the Institute of Technical Education make up the remaining 23% of applicants.
Besides knowledge of AI, schools and IHLs have measures to guard against the risks of AI. In schools, students are taught cyber wellness skills, which include evaluating information and identifying fake news including those transmitted through AI systems, understanding data security, privacy and responsible online behaviours. Teachers also guide students to use AI to support their learning, emphasising ethics related to the use of data and AI, such as the importance of integrity and proper data handling.
The IHLs also incorporate the use of AI tools in specific domains to ensure students understand the risks that AI poses, such as the potential to perpetuate misinformation. They also have governance frameworks to ensure the ethical and responsible use of AI.
Beyond our schools and IHLs, working adults can take up AI-related SkillsFuture courses to become smart and secure users of AI in their respective industries.
Mr Speaker, Sir, if I have your permission, let me illustrate this with some real examples of what is happening in our schools and IHLs.
Teachers at Temasek Primary School taught students to use an AI tool called Stable Diffusion, which is a generative AI image-generator, when learning about sustainability concepts as part of the school's science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) ALP. Guided by their teachers, students learn how to write prompts, evaluate the effectiveness of their prompts and adjust them to improve the quality of the generated images as they create an e-book to advocate sustainability.
Another example: students at Montfort Secondary School learn AI through their STEM ALP. Students learn the basic AI applications, such as image recognition, chatbots and smart assistants that use natural language processing. Students build on this knowledge and further apply it in the Design and Technology subject to design products, such as a blockchain-inspired smart savings application that tracks spending habits and automates money deposits.
Yet another example: at Peirce Secondary School, they use generative AI tools in coursework subjects like Design and Technology, and Nutrition and Food Science. Design and Technology teachers guide their students to use generative AI tools like ChatGPT and Vizcom to generate new ideas for their products, develop their ability to sketch, visualise and imagine solutions for their prototypes. At Yuan Ching Secondary School, students also use AI to generate ideas for their Nutrition and Food Science projects. In both schools, students are taught to evaluate the credibility of AI-generated content by corroborating it with other reliable information sources. Students are also taught to acknowledge the use of AI tools and other sources in their reports. This helps them to use AI ethically.
At a higher level, Anderson Serangoon Junior College partnered AI Singapore to introduce students to foundational learning in AI. Through a jointly organised event, \"Prepping for an AI career revolution\", students learn about AI and its use cases and engage in a dialogue with industry leaders. Anderson Serangoon Junior College also developed the infocomms technology (ICT) Champions Programme to enhance digital literacy and skills amongst interested students.
At another level, we also use an AI-enabled adaptive learning system (ALS) for mathematics that has been made available through our Singapore Student Learning Space (SLS) for Primary 5-level topics since 2023, with more topics to be progressively rolled out in the next two years.
At St Hilda's Primary School, teachers guide students to use customised recommended resources for self-learning or embark on a different lesson if they wish to explore a different sub-topic. At Rosyth School, before using the ALS, students undergo an introductory module on how AI can be used and its ethical considerations to ensure students use AI safely and holistically.
At Temasek Polytechnic's Diploma in Interior Architecture and Design, students are taught to use AI tools to aid them in the design process, such as using ChatGPT to generate design statements and Midjourney to generate reference images.
Singapore University of Technology and Design's Design and Artificial Intelligence Programme equips our students with technical expertise in AI and design innovation skills. Core domains covered include algorithms, AI applications in design and applied deep learning. Through acquiring such competencies in the various domains, graduates can apply AI-driven designs to transform the economy and improve lives.
Mr Speaker, Sir, these are various examples where we apply AI and teach AI in our schools according to the age-appropriate level.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Ong Hua Han.
\tMr Ong Hua Han (Nominated Member): I thank Minister Chan for his answer. I have one supplementary question. I understand that the SLS holds a repository of lessons for our students to engage with at their own pace, outside curriculum hours. Could MOE consider recognising a student's commitment to completing all the self-paced lessons, perhaps under the LEAPS 2.0 framework for secondary school students or in some other way?
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, we thank Mr Ong for the suggestion. I would like to share with Members of the House that in the SLS, there are different types of modules. There are modules that are part of the core curriculum – or part of the school curriculum – which the students can access and help them to pace their own learning. Within the SLS, there are also modules that are outside the school curriculum or available in other schools, which the students can access at their own time to learn about things beyond the curriculum. We encourage the students to do so because we would like our students to develop the habit of initiating their own learning and taking charge of their own learning. Hopefully, these habits apply to them not just within the school premises, but also, throughout their lives.
We will take into account Mr Ong's suggestion.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Sir, I note that the Minister shared how schools are using generative AI in the instruction of their students, has there been any change in the stance of MOE on the use of generative AI for graded schoolwork and assignment submissions?
Secondly, do schools specifically teach all students on how to prompt generative AI models, since this is fast becoming a key skill for the workplace?
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, the short answer is that it depends on which level of exposure we give to the students. In the various examples I have highlighted just now, for example, at the primary school level, many of the things that we do are for exposure purposes, for the students to learn how to be a smart user.
We do not necessarily use it for assessment at all levels. But if I may give an example, at a higher level, the module at Temasek Polytechnic which they demonstrated to me, the students used generative AI as part of their coursework. When they use the generative AI coupled with the interior design course, what they figure out very quickly are two things.
First, with AI, they can refine the designs very quickly – using, perhaps, half the time that they used to, using the previous method. But the second thing that they have also learnt and very importantly, is how to sharpen – as the Member said – the prompt required in order to start the whole process. If the prompts are not well-crafted, then, you could be doing things very fast, but not necessarily down the correct path.
This is what we mean by age-appropriate lessons. At a certain level, you can apply AI and sharpen the skills necessary at that level. Different students at different levels learn to use AI at different levels of competencies and sophistication.
Mr Speaker: Ms Jean See.
\tMs See Jinli Jean (Nominated Member): Thank you. I have a supplementary question. Relating to AI readiness, the Minister mentioned about schools preparing students for AI type of work skills. I just wanted to understand, what is the bridging with the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI), in terms of getting students ready for the AI-type of work?
The second area would be in terms of ethics. For those in IHLs, when they enter the workforce, it is not just about being able to do the job, but it is also about how we shape the work that is carried out. I think there is quite a number of grey areas in terms of AI ethics. What would be the type of education pathways that we intend to introduce to IHL students to help them to better prepare for AI-types of job roles in the future?
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me make a few points in response to Ms Jean See's comments. First, we certainly agree that learning to use AI is important, but learning to use AI ethically is even more important. For us, from MOE's position, we will always couple the learning of the technical use of AI with the ethical use of AI. To us, that is very important.
This goes beyond just about giving credit to or informing people that you have used these tools. But more importantly, to know the downsides that the program or the AI algorithm – after all, it is an algorithm – may bring and some of the biases that may happen in the course of using that.
This is something that we are very careful about. We do not start this at the IHL level. For example, in one of my visits to the schools, the teachers encouraged their students to use an AI tool to help them craft an essay. But it is not about the essay that is most important. After they crafted the essay, the teachers wanted the students to: first, know the sources of information that the AI draws upon; then, the teachers encouraged the students to critique the AI product so that they can understand the upside and the downside of the product and also, the potential biases that that algorithm has generated.
So, it is through such examples that we allow our students to learn to use AI ethically.
My second part of the comments relates to how we are preparing our students for an AI-enabled world. There are two sub-parts to this.
First, at the broader level, it is making sure that our people are smart users – they know how to use this. That is easier done – how to use it, how to use it ethically and how to use it intelligently.
The other part is how to prepare our people to be the coders, the people to work on such algorithms. That is a bit more sophisticated. For that, our belief is that there are certain fundamentals that are important to equip our students across the board for them to get into careers in this track. For example, the importance of mathematics, logical thinking, computational skills – these are very important. So, we may not teach AI or we may not teach coding specifically. But behind coding, there are certain foundational skills that are very important.
\t
Even in the recent Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) results, we are glad that our students have done well in terms of their ability to think logically and to exhibit traits of computational thinking. Because ultimately, in this AI-enabled world where there is an overflow of information, three words come to mind when we encourage our students to use AI.
First, the ability to distil, discern and to discover. Why these three?
Distil: because the world will be flooded with information. How to distil the information into what is relevant and useful to us, is the first important step.
Discern: because, having done that, it must come with value. Discernment comes with value. So, it is important to distil and discern.
But, very importantly, our students and our workers, in time to come, must be able to discover, which means to create new value propositions.
In today and tomorrow's world, none of us will be rewarded by regurgitating old knowledge or what I usually say, \"No point answering yesterday's questions with yesterday's answers\". What we need, is to prepare our students to answer tomorrow's questions and challenges with tomorrow's solutions ahead of time. That is where the discovery comes in and that ties in with the emphasis on self-initiated learning so that you take control of the mastery of the content that we want our students to have.
So, these are important skills for us to prepare our students for the AI-enabled world and we are working closely with MCI on the technical part to build up the repository of courses and knowledge for our students.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
\t
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): I thank the Minister for his answer. Last year, during the debate on the President's Address, I spoke on the age of AI and how Singapore needs to survive in it. I am glad that MOE is taking a serious look and making a serious push regarding AI in our education system. I have got two supplementary questions for the Minister.
Firstly, I have met Clementi parents who are excited by the prospects of AI but also the concerns about the implications for inequality and what happens when some households have better information technology (IT) access, IT opportunities and training opportunities than others. Can the Minister assure us that the opportunities he described in his answer are evenly available for students across households of diverse social economic backgrounds? That is my first question.
The second question is that there are also Clementi parents worried about media literacy in the age of AI. Recently, the Prime Minister, himself, mentioned the risk of deepfake videos. Are we educating our younger generation to be mindful of deepfakes, the risk of being tricked as well as the risk of deepfake technology being abused against peers in unethical ways?
\t
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me take the second supplementary question first. The short answer is yes. We are concerned about the issue of misinformation – including deepfakes – and this is an ongoing topic of conversation in all our schools and IHLs. I think it is not just about schools and IHLs.
Actually, across our whole society, we should be equally concerned about this: how to distinguish truth from fake news, right from wrong. So, this is a concerted effort and MOE cannot do this alone. We will certainly partner all the stakeholders to make sure that we can share the right information – appropriate information – with our students and also the community, so that we all become more informed in the process without being misinformed by others or being proxies for other people's misinformation. That is important.
On the first supplementary question on inequality of access, it is precisely what we have been trying to do, which is to democratise the access. We are very keenly aware that some families may not have access to some of the materials in the past. But let me just give two examples of how we have done this and continue to do this.
First, is the SLS. In the past, some parents might have more resources and then they go and buy more resource materials for their children to read and worksheets to work on and so forth.
But today, I encourage everyone to check the SLS. If you have children who are in the school-going ages, you will find that within the SLS, there is an entire repository of all kinds of materials. The best teaching resources are available in the SLS. And your child does not need to just log on to do the homework that is being assigned by his or her teacher. He or she can also log on and do many other things that the teachers did not assign them. Recently, I put up a video to illustrate this because a Secondary 3 student, Kairos, demonstrated to me how he took charge of his own learning during the school holidays by accessing the modules on SLS – these are all free of charge, by the way – to learn at his own pace.
So, this is one way we democratise the access to all the best materials available across our own system. It helps our people to save time; it also allows everyone to have the access to similar materials.
Another example of how we have done this to democratise the access is that we make sure that even students from poorer family backgrounds do not get left out. It is the vivid example of how we have overcome a potential learning loss among such students during COVID-19.
When schools were closed during COVID-19, we did two things.
First, we made sure that even if the students do not come to school, they have access to laptops, tablets and computers so that they can learn at home and we even made sure that they have access to the bandwidth necessary to support the working of this laptop. And, of course, on top of that, for students who are unable to do such things at home, we even opened up the schools to allow them to continue their learning in schools.
So, our teachers actually run two systems in parallel whereby we have online access and also offline, back-in-the-school access. This is MOE's commitment to make sure that, through the use of technology, we do not end up with a digital divide but, instead, we use technology to democratise the access to the best material available to all students.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Tan, later in this Sitting, we do have a Motion to talk about Building a Safe and Inclusive Digital Society. Last supplementary question, Assoc Prof Razwana.
\tAssoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim (Nominated Member): I thank the Minister for sharing the various initiatives to ensure ethical and responsible use of AI. Considering the danger of fake news and misinformation and the impact on public safety and security, would the Ministry consider adopting a comprehensive framework across Ministries to educate both parents and students, especially the younger children, on the concept of digital citizenship?
\tMr Speaker: Minister Chan, I hope it is a short answer.
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: The answer is yes, we are working closely with MCI and other Ministries to do this. But I must say that this is an ongoing challenge not just for MOE or MCI; but it is a whole-of-society challenge. At the crux of it is whether we can have trusted sources of information, which goes to the core of our democratic system. We cannot have reasoned debate, elections and so forth, if we cannot trust the information that we are accessing. So, I think this requires a whole-of-nation effort and, definitely, MOE and MCI will be working closely with all our stakeholders to develop the framework that the Member suggested.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Education whether the Ministry is preparing students and the working population for the use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in Singapore, including the proper, secure and safe use of GenAI, especially in relation to data breaches and the misuse of GenAI.","2 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Education as part of the proposed integration of artificial intelligence (AI) technology into school settings, whether the Ministry is considering (i) providing training to school-teachers on the responsible use of AI technology and (ii) introducing strategies to address the implications of fake news disseminated through AI systems."],"footNoteQuestions":["3","4"],"questionNo":"3-4"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of \"Long Island\" Project along East Coast Parkway on Marine Habitats and Property Prices in the Area","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development (a) what steps will be taken to ensure that construction on the \"Long Island\" reclaimed site will not significantly impact sensitive marine habitats like coral reefs; (b) whether a public consultation will be carried out; and (c) whether the nature groups have been or will be consulted from an early stage on this process.
6 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the projected environmental impact, specifically concerning marine life and habitats, from the \"Long Island\" reclamation project; and (b) whether the Government will involve environmental groups and nature researchers in stakeholder consultations to assess and mitigate potential ecological consequences before commencing the project.
7 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for National Development in relation to the \"Long Island\" project (a) what have been the considerations for population and developmental planning along East Coast Parkway; (b) what is the longer-term impact on property prices in the area; and (c) whether significant traffic infrastructures will be required to facilitate smooth traffic flow adjoining the areas.
The Minister for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to give a combined reply to Parliamentary Question Nos 5, 6 and 7 in today's Order Paper?
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
\tMr Desmond Lee: Sir, my response will also cover matters raised in the question by Assoc Prof Jamus Lim1, scheduled for the subsequent Sitting on 10 January. I invite the Member to seek clarifications if need be. If the question has been addressed, it may not be necessary to proceed with the question for future Sittings.
Sir, Dr Lim Wee Kiak and Mr Louis Ng have asked about the environmental impact of the \"Long Island\" reclamation.
As with all other land reclamation projects, before we proceed with the \"Long Island\" reclamation, detailed environmental studies will be conducted to assess the environmental impacts and to develop appropriate mitigating measures. These studies will take into account surrounding marine habitats, including intertidal flats and coral communities. We will also explore ways to incorporate nature-based solutions into the design of \"Long Island\" to minimise the environmental impact of the reclamation as we seek to tackle the effects of sea-level rise. We will engage the nature community, academics and researchers and the public for feedback on the environmental studies and mitigation measures before commencing reclamation work.
Miss Cheryl Chan asked about the considerations for and the impact of the planned developments at East Coast Parkway and \"Long Island\".
Our key considerations are the need for coastal protection for the low-lying East Coast area due to future sea-level rise and the need to create land to meet Singapore's longer-term developmental needs. \"Long Island\" will integrate coastal protection measures with our reclamation plans while strengthening our flood resilience and water supply. It offers an integrated solution to meet the multiple needs of future generations, including the building of new homes with a quality living environment, comprising coastal and reservoir parks and amenities, as well as creating new jobs. By reclaiming \"Long Island\" away from the current coastline, we can achieve coastal protection, the strengthening of our water supply and creation of new tracts of land, while retaining the existing East Coast Park largely as it is.
Given its scale, planning and implementing of \"Long Island\" will take a few decades. We are only at the very beginning of the process – kickstarting environmental and engineering studies to determine feasibility, as well as the shape and form of \"Long Island\". At a later stage, agencies will undertake further studies to ensure that the area is well developed – with quality housing, network of new green spaces integrated with East Coast Park and good transport connectivity.
We recognise that many people and stakeholders would be keen to understand and know more about the project and how it may potentially impact them – residents, businesses, nature and heritage groups, the sporting and water sports community, park users, maritime industry and many more groups. That is why we are starting our planning and engagement early.
Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked about the source of reclamation sand. The import of reclamation sand to Singapore is conducted on a commercial basis and sand is imported from a variety of sources. Importers must abide by the laws and regulations of source countries. These include sourcing from legally permissible areas, obtaining the proper export documentation and permits from the relevant authorities, as well as complying with local environmental regulations governing proper extraction and transport within source countries. Where applicable, our agencies would check that the necessary environmental-related approvals from the source countries are in order before contractors are allowed to commence sand imports.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I thank the Minister for the reply. I think there is particular concern about the source of the sand that we are using for this project. The Minister has clarified some of the questions about this earlier. But could I ask, one, whether we have a list of countries where we are hoping to import sand from; and two, whether we will have a responsible sourcing framework to evaluate the social and environmental impact of the imported sand?
\t
\tMr Desmond Lee: I thank the Member for his concern. We must ensure that as much as we study the impact of our \"Long Island\" plans on our own surroundings and environment, we also want to make sure that when we import material for reclamation and other works, that our commercial operators also act within the ambit of the laws and regulations of the source countries and minimise the impact of their operations. The list of countries where we import from, some of these are available online in terms of the quantity of sand.
But when we are talking about \"Long Island\", this is far into the future. Works are not going to proceed in the near term. So, this will be something that will be developed as the technical studies and implementation plans get greater granularity.
\tMr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): I thank the Minister for his response. If I may just push a little bit, my understanding is that this sand is typically procured by JTC Corporation – I am willing to stand corrected on that. What are the mechanisms to ensure that JTC complies with the stipulations that the Ministry sets forth?
And secondly, if I may just follow up from the Member Louis Ng's question: what is the broader framework? I think what we want to avoid is a situation where we get just all the valid paperwork, but we violate the spirit of acquiring sand in an ethical fashion. And I think that is, ultimately, what he may be suggesting when it comes to a broader framework for acquisition of sand.
\tMr Desmond Lee: I think the Member made very sensible points, along with Member Louis Ng. As I said earlier, JTC and other agencies that procure sand, procure it on a commercial basis from operators. There are requirements in the specifications for tender that the operators who import the sand comply with certain rules and regulations, particularly those of the source country. And the source countries will have their own regulators. But on Singapore's end, the entity that procures the sand will, where necessary, do the necessary checks to ensure that the rules and regulations and the paperwork are in compliance.
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I ask the Minister, when are the environmental studies going to be commenced and how long would they be expected to take?
Mr Desmond Lee: Sir, the technical and environmental studies are expected to take around five years.
Mr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
\tMs He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just one supplementary question for the Minister. I think the Minister mentioned earlier that there are some checks that are done by the agencies with their counterparts overseas, from source countries, on where the sand comes from.
I just want to understand, how often are these checks done and what triggers their being carried out; whether it is through tip-offs or whether it is a regular spot check or audit? How do they actually decide when to carry out these checks to make sure that all the regulations have been complied with?
And then, the follow-on thought process from that is, whether or not our current regime is strict and enough to make sure that all these things, like illegal mining and smuggling of sand, do not take place as and when our counterparts export the sand to us?
\tMr Desmond Lee: Well, as I have mentioned earlier, the tender specifications and contractual requirements require compliance with local laws and regulations and certain standards that are set out and expected by the agencies procuring the sand. And the agencies will look out for and receive information from a variety of sources, if there is a sense of non-compliance with any of these contractual terms as well as with regulatory groups.
Mr Speaker: Miss Cheryl Chan.
\tMiss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (East Coast): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have got two supplementary questions for the Minister.
The first one is with regard to the population. While there is reclamation and there will be additional land mass at the area, I think the East Coast residents would be concerned, partly because there is already a Bayshore Build-To-Order (BTO) project that is upcoming. While the \"Long Island\" project may be decades out, it would increase the entire population around the area. So, that is the reason behind my question. What is the population framework control that is thought behind this?
The second supplementary question is, the Minister has explained that this entire project planning and implementation will take several decades. So, the whole idea is there will be newer technologies around coastal protection that may come up over time. How are we going to integrate some of these newer technologies, in terms of the protection around the \"Long Island\" project or along the East Coast, so that we will not just put all the expenditure only on one project, particularly around the \"Long Island\" project?
\tMr Desmond Lee: I thank the Member for her questions. Let me start with the second question first. In 2021, we started a series of site-specific surveys. We know that sea levels are expected to rise up to 1.15 metres by the end of this century, above mean sea levels. This came out in the latest report, version 3 of Singapore's National Climate Change study. And if it coincides with storm surges and high tide, by as much as four to five metres.
So, certainly with some one-third of Singapore's land being below five metres above mean sea level, this is an existential challenge. And not doing anything about it is not an option.
At the same time, we have to plan early and well in advance, harnessing the various technologies that are available to tackle sea level rise.
When we did the site-specific study, we focused on areas which face some of the greatest risks of flood inundation from sea level rise. We started with the city to the East Coast; we are also working on Jurong Island, the Jurong West area and also the northwestern coast.
When we did the study for City-East Coast, essentially, the broad mitigation measures revolved around two possible measures. One was the \"Long Island\", where you reclaim and build land higher at the distance from the existing coast. So, this is, effectively, the indicative plan for the \"Long Island\" reclamation profile for coastal protection. The other is actually what I call the \"Long Wall\" concept, where you take a stretch of 14 kilometres from city to East Coast, along the existing East Coast, and you build a wall, roughly around three metres tall, with 12 pumping stations and tidal gates along the whole stretch.
So, these are the two broad concepts. The specific technologies – whether you are pumping, whether you have coastal walls, whether you have nature-based solutions incorporated – these are the technical details that will be studied over the course of the next five years. So, that is in response to the Member's second question.
In response to the first question, starting from this year, we will engage all stakeholders, all Singaporeans, including residents that the Member has spoken about, who are concerned about the plans for the future \"Long Island\". As part of the Draft Master Plan 2025, we consult Singaporeans on the detailed concepts and ideas around various parts of Singapore, flowing through from the Long-Term Plan or Concept Plan which we concluded two years ago in 2022 and 2023.
That will be an opportunity for residents, Singaporeans and stakeholders to have a better sense of the broad concepts and ideas that we may have.
But broadly, the purpose of \"Long Island\" is: first and foremost, coastal protection; second, enhance our water resilience; third, create more land and opportunities for future generations of Singaporeans; and lastly, to keep the East Coast Park largely as it is.
In terms of the master planning of the future land that will be generated over the course of the decades ahead of us as we implement the \"Long Island\" project, that will be subject to detailed planning; and certainly, detailed consultation with stakeholders, including the Member's residents.
Mr Speaker: Last supplementary question. Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Thank you, Sir. If I could go back just to the issue of sand again. I understand that with the sand imports, we are reliant on compliance with the local laws, but I think the concern is that the local laws might not be as strong as we hope for them to be. And so, the call is for our own responsible sourcing framework, and for this framework to be made public as well, so that we are assured that the import of the sand will not affect the social and environmental conditions in other countries.
\tMr Desmond Lee: Certainly, we have a mechanism in place in the contractual procurement processes, to ensure that rules and regulations are complied with. Certainly, the source countries have their own rules that they implement to protect their local communities.
Commercial operators have an obligation, both under the laws of the source countries, as well as the procurement framework under which we procure sand. And we will certainly continue to find ways to continue to improve the processes, so that we ensure that the sourcing is done well and that the environmental impact here in Singapore is also mitigated.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for National Development (a) where will the sand for the land reclamation works as part of the \"Long Island\" project be sourced from; and (b) whether the Government will conduct a study to evaluate the social and ecological impact that any sand-dredging works will have on the surrounding ecosystem and communities."],"footNoteQuestions":["5","6","7"],"questionNo":"5-7"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Sufficiency of Fines to Deter Officers in Manpower Ministry's Agencies from Carrying Out Unsafe Activities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Manpower whether fines meted out to agencies under the Ministry's charge are sufficient deterrence to ensure that unsafe activities are not carried out by the agencies' officers.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Zaqy Mohamad) (for the Minister for Manpower): The Government takes workplace safety and health extremely seriously. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) investigates every fatal case thoroughly to ascertain the culpable parties and we will not hesitate to take action against those responsible if wrongdoing is found. This includes prosecuting the agencies, organisations, culpable senior management and individuals.
Culpable parties will be taken to task under the Workplace Safety and Health Act, where the maximum financial penalty for an organisation and for an individual guilty of an offence under the Act, is a fine of up to $500,000 and $200,000 respectively. An individual can also be imprisoned for up to two years in addition to any fine.
These penalties are reviewed regularly. Organisations and individuals found guilty under the Act will also suffer reputational damage.
Since the promulgation of the Act in 2006, our workplace fatality rate has improved significantly from 3.1 per 100,000 workers in 2006, to around 1.0 today. However, Speaker, every fatality is one too many. We will continue to strive towards a workplace fatality rate of below 1.0 by 2028. Only four countries in the world have achieved this consistently ─ that is the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Sweden and Germany. No Asian country has done so on a consistent basis. So, we set high standards for ourselves.
Improving workplace safety and health cannot be achieved through law and punishments alone. In addition to a good regulatory framework and putting in place sound policies, it is crucial to build a sustainable workplace safety and health culture. This requires a sustained and collective effort by organisations, management, industry associations, union leaders and workers.
Leaders in the organisations must set the tone and foster a culture and mindset where safety is second nature and where workers feel safe to report unsafe workplace practices to their employers, supervisors or union leaders. Employers must ensure that their workers are properly trained and equipped with workplace safety and health capability and knowledge; and use technology to detect and prevent workplace accidents.
Workers themselves must play their part to follow safe work procedures and report unsafe work practices to the appropriate authority. This ensures their own and their colleagues' safety, so that every worker can return safely home to their loved ones.
On the Government's part, we have implemented various measures and programmes over the years to enhance workplace safety and health. Most recently, the Multi-Agency Workplace Safety and Health Taskforce, or MAST, introduced a series of measures after the Heightened Safety Period, or HSP, to strengthen workplace safety and health ownership and capabilities at the sectoral, company and individual levels.
For example, we will require Chief Executives (CEs) and Board Directors of all companies in higher-risk industries to attend a programme on how to meet their workplace safety and health responsibilities and develop their companies' workplace safety and health capabilities.
Sir, workplace safety and health standards apply equally to the private and public sectors. I would like to reassure Members of this House that MOM is impartial in our dealings with both public agencies and private organisations, be it in terms of inspections or taking appropriate enforcement actions.
Mr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
\tMs He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is good to hear from the Senior Minister of State that we have got this target in mind, to bring our fatality rates down to 1.0. And I do hope that we do achieve that consistently in the future.
The one supplementary question that I had was, in terms of the compensation of the office holders who are involved in overseeing workplace safety and health, when there is a public agency involved — because I think the concern here is that, when the public agencies are given the fines, that is obviously fining the public agency. Then of course, that comes from public funds. So, how do we ensure that the public officers who are in charge, how do they, apart from the usual key performance indicators (KPIs) that ensure they do their jobs well and the usual appraisals, is there an element of compensation that is linked to these safety KPIs?
\t
\t
Mr Zaqy Mohamad: Can I ask the Member to clarify? I did not quite get the question. Is the question more, in terms of whether there is a public sector KPI or —
\tMs He Ting Ru: Sorry. When the public officers are responsible for safety records, is there an element of their compensation or any KPI that is tied to the safety record of the agencies under their charge?
Mr Zaqy Mohamad: I am not familiar with the individual compensation formulae for Public Service officers. You may want to try to ask the Public Service Division (PSD) on that one.
What I am quite certain about is that many of our agencies – in fact, I think all of our agencies – have got a KPI for workplace, safety and health, especially for those overseeing high-risk projects. This is where I am quite familiar with – many of them have reporting standards and of late, some, for example, like the Land Transport Authority (LTA), have improved their standards by including near-miss reporting, so that they can reduce injury rates. Our agencies do track this. I think you can also seek clarification subsequently, as there is a Ministerial Statement is coming up, on how the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment and National Environment Agency do their tracking. That is a good example, as well, in terms of how agencies track and monitor their safety records.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
\tMr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answers. I think the Senior Minister of State would know, throughout the years, I have been calling for a dedicated WSH officer for every organisation so that there is a focus on workplace safety.
I would like to ask, for the public agencies, do they each have a dedicated WSH officer? And if no, are there any plans – at least for the Public Service – to start having one to focus on some of these projects that have a higher risk, so that risk assessments can be done properly?
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. Following HSP, as I have shared in my reply earlier, we have set up MAST. In that team, we have various Ministries who are involved in high-risk projects, where we track performance across not just the sectors, Ministries and contracts, but also the whole sector as a whole.
To some extent, at the management level, there is expectation that they watch this quite closely. The statistics also show the results. If you look at where we were pre-HSP, our fatality rate was about 1.5 per 100,000 workers. During HSP, it dropped to 0.8 per 100,000 workers. Having said that, that is over a short period of time.
Nonetheless, we look at improving practices as a whole, beyond just having one officer because it is not possible to monitor so many projects across the board. I think it is important that every project is closely watched by the respective project officers. That is why I also mentioned the expectations on the CEs and the board of directors to also be involved and trained.
Hence, we have put in place, as one of the measures of MAST, to have CEs and board of directors attend courses because they cannot just outsource it to someone and say, \"no, we have been audited by external party and the external party says 'okay'.\" That is not sufficient. You need ownership at the senior management level and not just down to one officer. I think that makes a difference because they allocate resources, they put the focus, they put the KPIs. That sets the tone and culture; not just at the sectoral or Government level, but across every company. We need to put that in place to make it sustainable.
\tMr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): I thank the Senior Minister of State's first response. I wish to elaborate a little bit on a specific case that I believe he is familiar with, about a former investigation officer who was charged with molestation against three women while conducting investigation on behalf of the Health Sciences Authority. The point I wish to raise is that, that individual who was charged the year before worked for WSH Experts, which is an outsourced agency.
I mentioned this because all individuals, whether contractors or agents directly employed by the Government are subject to the stipulations of the law. But nevertheless, when this form of law enforcement is outsourced, one wonders, whether these external contractors are put under the same rigours of clearance before employment, because they are after all, carrying out an official duty.
\t
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his question. I have to say this is not related to the Parliamentary Question and I think the Member may want to file a separate one.
Generally, I wish to assure Members that as part of Government contracting, there are certain rigours in place. It is not possible to check the character of every single one who comes into contract with the Government, but we do our best to try.
Anyway, if the Member would like more details on the particular case, do file a separate question.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Houthis' Attacks in Red Sea on Singapore's Maritime Security ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Mr Desmond Choo –
9 To ask the Minister for Defence (a) whether the Houthis' attacks on shipping in the Red Sea impacts Singapore's maritime security; and (b) noting that the US and other nations have announced the creation of a multinational maritime security initiative to secure the Red Sea, whether the SAF will be contributing to this effort.
\t
\tMr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): Question No 9.
The Minister for Defence (Dr Ng Eng Hen): Mr Speaker, the Red Sea, which connects the Suez Canal and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, is the shortest sea route linking Asia and Europe. It is a major Sea Line of Communications (SLOC) with approximately 12% of global trade by volume and 30% of global container traffic.
As of 7 January 2024, the Yemen-based Houthi forces have unlawfully attacked 15 merchant ships in the Red Sea through firing of missiles, drones and hijack attempts. There have been 20 such attacks, including one on a Singapore-flagged vessel MAERSK Hangzhou. As a result, all five of the world's largest global shipping companies, namely the Mediterranean Shipping Company, Maersk, CMA CGM, COSCO, Hapag-Lloyd and other shipping lines, had earlier announced that they would suspend transits through the Red Sea.
Prior to the attacks, around 60 ships passed through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait in the Red Sea daily, but the number has dropped by about a third in recent weeks. Singapore-registered ships have also been affected, with the number of daily transits through the Red Sea now approximately halved.
The disruption of the Red Sea SLOC will have an impact on global supply chains. However, based on the current situation, the immediate impact on Singapore is expected to be limited, as the majority of our critical supplies, such as food and pharmaceuticals, are delivered via air freight or do not pass through the Red Sea. Our local manufacturers also seem to have sufficient spare inventory to hedge against supply disruptions, though they are worried about increases in business costs.
Nonetheless, it is in our interest for Singapore to join cause with the international community to protect and ensure that key SLOCs around the world remain open, especially if threatened by unlawful acts by non-state actors or terrorist groups. We have previously articulated key principles that govern the Straits of Malacca and Singapore when this key SLOC was threatened by piracy and sea robbery. I think some Members would remember those incidents, that resulted in insurance premiums for ships that traverse the Straits of Malacca and Singapore to increase manyfold. These principles were articulated in the 2005 Shangri-La Dialogue.
There are three. First, the primary responsibility of maritime security lies with the littoral states. Second, the international community and agencies, such as the International Maritime Organization (IMO), have a role to play. Third, all measures have to be in accordance with international law and respect the sovereignty of the littoral states.
As Mr Desmond Choo mentioned, the United States has announced the launch of the multinational Operation Prosperity Guardian to ensure maritime security in the Red Sea. This operation aligns with the key principles that I have just articulated. In this regard, Singapore hopes that the littoral states that surround the Red Sea step up efforts to end the unlawful Houthi attacks.
The international community of user states also has a role to play. In particular, there is the 39-nation Combined Maritime Forces (CMF), of which Singapore has been a member since 2009. The CMF's Combined Task Force (CTF) 153: Red Sea Maritime Security has been tasked to keep the Red Sea SLOC open and safe. The launch of Operation Prosperity Guardian aims to restore international confidence and the free flow of maritime shipping through the area.
Singapore will participate in Operation Prosperity Guardian and contribute to CTF 153's efforts. The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) had similarly participated in the Combined Task Force 151. That was a counter piracy effort in the Gulf of Aden, where we deployed assets for quite a long time from 2009 to 2023.
For CTF 153 and the current Operation Prosperity Guardian, the SAF will deploy a team of planners, to work with international partners at their headquarters to formulate plans; a team from the Republic Singapore Navy's (RSN's) Information Fusion Centre to support information-sharing and engagement outreach with the commercial shipping community; and a Senior National Representative to the Combined Maritime Forces in Bahrain.
Separately, Singapore and the SAF, together with our international partners, have continued to monitor developments in the region, including the ongoing need for humanitarian assistance. Some of you will remember that the SAF has been supporting Singapore's humanitarian contributions to Gaza and we were doing this through our Changi Regional Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief Coordination Centre's information, networks and resources.
Most recently, the SAF delivered relief supplies on 30 November last year to the Egyptian Red Crescent. Further to this effort, the French Armed Forces has invited the SAF to provide two medical personnel to serve on FS Dixmude, now docked at the El-Arish port in Egypt. This is a reconfigured hospital ship and has been treating casualties from Gaza. The SAF has accepted the offer and plans are underway to deploy this medical team to aid civilian casualties there.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
\tMr Desmond Choo (Tampines): I would like to thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply about how Singapore will support the efforts. Does he also foresee that if the situation does not improve or the tension at the Red Sea escalates, that Singapore will also similarly increase our support to international task forces or supporting humanitarian support in the area?
\tDr Ng Eng Hen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do not want to pre-empt the situation, it is a complex situation. I would just make two general points and then perhaps a specific one.
As I took pains to elaborate, our contribution to CTF 153 has been consistent with the principles that we have articulated. In other words, it is focused primarily on keeping key sea lines of communication free, which is in our interest because if the same thing happens, as it did in the Straits of Malacca, we would want the international community for assistance as well, if that was necessary.
Nonetheless, we recognise and we have articulated that the littoral states have the primary responsibility and there must be sufficient efforts there. That is why we encourage the littoral states and other countries, to work towards a diplomatic solution so that the Red Sea problem can be mitigated.
\t
If the problem gets worse, we will assess it. Apart from that, we are also watching, as I said, the humanitarian situation unfolding and where we can contribute and, we think, meaningfully, we will do so.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rationale for and Impact of Increased Rental Occupancy Cap for HDB Units","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"10 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked \tthe Minister for National Development (a) whether there is any correlation or increase in neighbour disputes with regard to the number of occupants living in a HDB unit over the past five years; (b) whether the Ministry foresees that the increased rental occupancy cap for HDB units from January 2024 will result in more of such disputes; and (c) if so, how will HDB intervene to manage it.
11 Mr Pritam Singh asked \tthe Minister for National Development with regard to the increased rental occupancy cap for HDB units from January 2024 (a) whether the Ministry foresees a rise in neighbour disputes and community disamenity, given the rationale for a reduced occupancy cap in HDB flats from nine to six as previously announced in 2018; and (b) whether HDB is sufficiently equipped to resolve any rise in complaints from such disamenity.
12 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry can provide details on why the number of unrelated occupiers in a residential unit is increased from six to eight; and (b) what mitigation measures are taken to address the concerns of neighbours as a result of this increase.
13 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development in each of the last five years (a) what is the number of cases of infringements of the occupancy cap on the number of persons allowed in (i) HDB flats and (ii) private residential properties respectively; and (b) what is the number of cases of unauthorised renting out of HDB flats.
14 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB will limit the number of flats in each HDB block that will be allowed to house up to eight unrelated people under the new occupancy guidelines in order to ensure the existing infrastructure such as lift operations and bicycle parking space can cope with increased density of occupants in the block.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for National Development (Mr Tan Kiat How) (for the Minister for National Development): Sir, may I have your permission to give a combined reply to Question Nos 10 to 14 in today’s Order Paper?
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Sir, my response will also cover matters raised by Mr Gan Thiam Poh scheduled for a subsequent Sitting. So, I invite the Member to seek clarifications if need be. If the question has been addressed, it may not be necessary for him to proceed with the question for future Sittings.
Since 2022, we have seen sharp increases in rents in both the public and private rental market. Prior to the pandemic, rents had stayed broadly stable, even a bit soft. However, COVID-19 caused unprecedented disruption in the construction industry, global supply chains and border controls, and the ensuing construction delays contributed to significant tightness in our rental market.
In addition to the supply-side constraints, the delays resulted in strong rental demand from Singaporeans who were seeking interim housing while awaiting the completion of their new residential units. Subsequently, with the easing of border restrictions in 2022, non-resident rental demand also quickly recovered.
To address these supply and demand imbalances, we have undertaken a broad suite of measures to support households that intend to rent. This includes significantly ramping up our public and private housing supply and increasing the supply of flats available under the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS) for those awaiting completion of their new Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats. Close to 100,000 public and private residential units will be completed from 2023 to 2025. We have also more than doubled PPHS supply to about 2,000 since 2021 and will further double it to about 4,000 units by 2025.
Public and private housing rents have showed recent signs of stabilising, with the quarterly increase in public and private housing rents moderating to 1.9% and 0.8% respectively in the third quarter of 2023, from 3% and 2.8% respectively in the previous quarter.
That said, we expect rental demand to remain robust over the near term.
That is why we announced the temporary relaxation of the occupancy cap for 4-room and larger HDB flats, and private residential properties of at least 90 square metres. From 22 January 2024, these accommodations will be allowed to house up to eight unrelated persons, up from the current cap of six unrelated persons.
Allowing larger units to be rented out to more tenants will increase rental supply, even as we recognise that not all landlords and tenants will tap on the relaxed occupancy cap.
By increasing supply, we aim to ease the pressure in the rental market and help to moderate rents overall. This will benefit all households seeking to rent, such as Singaporean families who are in-between homes, including those waiting for the completion of their new flats, as well as Work Pass holders who play a critical role in our domestic economy and essential services, such as healthcare workers.
As of November 2023, there are approximately 58,000 HDB whole flats that are rented out. This is about 5% of the approximately one million sold HDB flats islandwide. Of these, 16% are rented out to six unrelated occupants. About 90% of these occupants are non-residents, with most in their 20s or 40s.
Some Members have raised concerns about infringements of the occupancy cap and potential disamenities that may arise from this temporary relaxation. We understand these concerns. We have put in place measures to mitigate these infringements and disamenities.
First, HDB regulates who is allowed to rent a HDB flat or a bedroom to minimise disamenities and maintain the Singaporean character of our HDB estates. We have put in place the non-citizen quota of 8% for HDB neighbourhoods and 11% for HDB blocks, which limits the number of flats that can be rented to foreigners in each neighbourhood and block. Non-Malaysian Work Permit holders from the construction, marine and process sectors are also not permitted to rent HDB flats or bedrooms. These rules will continue to apply.
A Member asked if we intend to limit the number of flats in an HDB block that may tap on the temporarily relaxed occupancy cap, to prevent overloading of existing infrastructure. While we do not currently have plans to impose such a cap, the existing non-citizen quota will help to limit the increase in occupants in each block, given that most of those renting at the occupancy cap are non-citizens.
Second, HDB flat owners are required to seek HDB’s approval prior to renting out their flats or bedrooms. HDB also undertakes routine inspections to ensure that owners and tenants comply with the terms and conditions of approval and do not cause serious disamenities to the public.
Over the past five years, instances of feedback relating to nuisance caused by tenants renting HDB flats or bedrooms constituted 1.5% of the total feedback on nuisance from neighbours. Where friction arises between neighbours, including tenants, HDB adopts a mediative approach and advises flat owners and tenants to be mindful of causing disturbances to others. Should the parties require additional mediative assistance, we will encourage them to tap on Government initiatives, such as the inter-agency Community Dispute Management Framework and the Community Mediation Centre, which provide facilitated mediation sessions that can help parties reach mutually acceptable solutions. Finally, in instances where tenants cause serious disamenities, HDB will take firm action by revoking the approval for the rental of the flat or bedrooms.
Over the past five years, HDB has taken action against an average of 115 cases of unauthorised renting a year, including cases where flat owners had breached the occupancy cap.
As we temporarily relax the occupancy cap, we will continue to take firm action against those who breach the rules. Depending on the severity of the infringement, HDB will issue written warnings, impose financial penalties or compulsorily acquire the flat for the most severe cases.
Similarly, owners of private residential properties must first register with the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) to authorise their properties to accommodate more than six persons. In the event of serious disamenities, the authorisation will cease, requiring the property to revert to its original occupancy cap of six.
URA undertakes regular inspections to ensure compliance with the prevailing occupancy cap. Those who breach the cap can be fined and/or imprisoned. Over the past five years, URA has taken action against an average of 244 cases per year for breaches of the occupancy cap in private residential properties.
Sir, the relaxation of the occupancy cap is a temporary measure that will be in place for three years to better meet near-term rental demand and moderate rents for Singaporean households that need to rent. We will continue to monitor the demand and supply of open market rentals as well as residents’ feedback on disamenities. These will be taken these into consideration when reviewing whether the relaxed occupancy cap should be extended beyond 2026.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.
\tMs Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the good work and the comprehensive reply to our Parliamentary Questions. I understand of course there is a need to meet the increasing accommodation needs nationally to address the increasing housing needs of both locals and foreign non-home owners in this very tight rental market. And, of course, looking at the number of questions, many Members of Parliament have had to handle disputes over the years primarily between the transient tenants and the neighbours who own their homes permanently.
I have two supplementary questions. First, where tenants are non-citizens, are there more specific, more blatant, explicit measures to ensure that they are familiar with local standards in terms of safety, in terms of noise or even the use of these units as Airbnb type of accommodation or practices like unlawful partitions. That is one. Are there blatant, explicit measures to ensure they understand?
Number two, to ensure that the units do not turn out to be unregulated hostels, causing a negative impact on both the occupants and the neighbours, what are some measures that can be done to proactively prevent this from happening?
\t
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Sir, I thank the Member for her two questions. I believe these are at the back of the minds of many Members when they raise the questions today about potential disamenities.
Let me set in context some of the key points that I highlighted in my earlier reply.
Firstly, there are rules that are in place, both in terms of eligibility. For example, in HDB estates, who can rent a flat and a bedroom; and there are also non-citizen quotas that we have put in place and these rules apply. I also, earlier, mentioned that only about 16% of the rental flats that have been rented out are reaching the six unrelated persons occupancy cap. We do not have a feel of how many of the full tenants and landlords will take advantage of this temporary relaxation.
At the same time, we are also putting in place measures to minimise potential disamenities. I mentioned earlier that those landlords who want to take advantage of this temporary relaxation have to apply to both HDB, prior to renting out, as well as to URA to increase to that eight unrelated persons occupancy cap.
We will take all feedback and complaints seriously and we will investigate and take firm action if needed.
Just to share with the Member, HDB investigates all feedback received and conducts routine planned inspections of almost 500 flats per month. URA, likewise, has been maintaining a high enforcement tempo over the last five years. On average, there were about 330 instances each year where enforcement actions were taken.
So, I assure Members that we will take all feedback and complaints seriously; and we take firm action if needed.
\tMr Speaker: Miss Cheryl Chan.
\tMiss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (East Coast): I thank the Senior Minister of State for his replies. I guess it is never easy whenever it comes to neighbourly disputes and we all know we have received such feedback. Trying to do that mediator role is probably one of the most challenging.
I have got three supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. The first one is, back in 2018, the Ministry made the decision to reduce the number from nine to six in terms of the occupancy cap. There are always questions: while this is a temporary measure, why is the number increased back to eight and not nine? That is the first supplementary question.
The second one is, given the very robust rental demand at present – and that is the reason for this temporary measure – would the Ministry have sufficient capacity to do the enforcement to make sure that the landlords stick within the number that has been put as a cap?
And lastly, given the disamenities that have been happening, there is still a lot – particularly, noise between neighbours – that we have still not resolved, even with the current limitations. What is HDB's plan on trying to manage the situation? Sometimes, it is not enough to just tell them to go for mediation through the Community Medication Centre. Would the Senior Minister of State elaborate on this?
\t
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Sir, I thank Miss Cheryl Chan for raising the three supplementary questions and I note that she also spoke about this matter in 2017, on the occupancy cap. At that point in time, we revised the occupancy cap from nine to six for HDB flats. In this instance, we are making a temporary relaxation to raise from six for 4-room and larger HDB flats, up to eight.
Her question was, why not nine; go back the original number? There is no magic number. Firstly, at that point in time, for private residential apartments, the cap was also at eight and we reduced it to six – for the same reason, to minimise disamenities. For us, we will continue monitoring whether this move will help to elevate the rental tightness that we currently face and also, some of the consequences in terms of potential disamenities.
So, I think we will continue reviewing the results of this move and we will continue to look and see whether this relaxation will continue.
The second question is about whether we have enough resources to enforce. This is something we take seriously, and we will take the adequate steps to make sure that we follow up on feedback, complaints and to continue the tempo of inspections and enforcements.
The third supplementary question, if I got it correctly as I was scribbling it down, is about noise disamenities and what are the steps that we can take. Well, Sir, firstly, let me set the context. The number of feedback relating to neighbourly disputes as a result of rental, is about 1.5% of the total feedback received about nuisance from neighbours. So, by and large, I would believe that most of the tenants and landlords are responsible in making sure they are aligned and consistent with the norms and culture in our HDB estates. That is the first point.
\t
The second point is that issues around noise disamenities go way beyond just about rental units. It goes into many of the other aspects because tolerance levels and sensitivity to noise are actually a very complex and multi-faceted issue, and we have had many discussions about this issue in this House. Suffice to say that these are issues that we continue to take seriously and work together with community partners through the different mechanisms to minimise neighbourly disputes and to still take a mediative approach in the first instance. In most cases, that works. If need be, HDB will not hesitate to take firmer action against serious disamenities, including revoking the permission to rent out the flat or bedroom.
\tMr Speaker: I see many hands. I will request every Member to keep your supplementary question short. Mr Louis Chua.
\tMr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just two short supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State.
The first is relating to the number of rental flats that are being rented out right now. I think it was 58,000. May I ask, what has been the increase in the last five years and, correspondingly, the expected increase in the number of HDB flat units that will be rented out? And the context is really that, given that there is an increased number of units completing, a lot of them will still be subject to the five-year minimum occupation period (MOP).
The second supplementary question is: beyond the so-called natural increase in the number of units that are put up for rent, are there other proactive measures that the Government is taking in order to increase the number of rental flats available for renting, from now until December 2026?
\t
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Sir, on the first supplementary question by Mr Louis Chua, I think he has also filed a Question for Written Answer in Parliament today. More details will be shared if there is a written answer. But suffice to say, in general, over the past five years, the proportion of flats rented out and the average number of occupants in each flat type has been fairly stable.
For the second supplementary question, can the Member repeat? I missed out that point.
\tMr Chua Kheng Wee Louis: It is basically that, other than this measure, are there other measures that will be taken to increase the actual units to be supplied?
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Sir, Mr Louis Chua earlier, in his first supplementary question, also asked about the projected number of rental units that will be available because of this relaxation. If we look at the analysts' reports, actually there is a range of views and most of them also cannot find a strong position of whether this will increase the supply because it really depends on whether landlords and tenants take up this additional relaxation.
I have looked at some of the analysts' reports. Some said that, the supply might actually decline because, for example, if a company is renting out two flats for eight workers and they are renting in two flats now, they may combine, at least for the next few years, into one flat. At the same time, some of the landlords might take advantage of this temporary relaxation to increase the number of tenants in their flat. So, most analysts also cannot project the number of flat supply that may come onstream because of this.
Earlier in my reply, I also mentioned that this move should be seen in the context of the suite of measures that have been put in place: increasing the number of flats available in the market, increasing the number of Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS) flats available, the suite of measures that were put in place to moderate the imbalances between demand and supply.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Foo Mee Har.
\tMs Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Mr Speaker, I have two supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State.
The first one relates to my question in the Parliamentary Question. It is about how the HDB infrastructure can cope, because going from six to eight, essentially, you are increasing. If everybody takes it up, it is a third, 33% more. So, in the light of the new occupancy guidelines, which may lead to increased usage of infrastructure, who will be responsible for covering the cost associated with a higher maintenance in the enhancement of facilities in affected HDB blocks? That is the first one. If it is intensified, who is going to bear cost, especially in the common areas?
Second, the Senior Minister of State mentioned that it is fine because to preserve the Singaporean character of the HDB estate, HDB has established a quota, 8% at the neighbourhood level and 11% at the block level, for the proportion of flats that can be rented to non-Singaporeans. Actually, I am very happy because I was the one who championed this. But then, if you are now allowing – at flat level – an intensification of 33% from six to eight, how is it that you can still keep the Singaporean character if everybody decides to increase to the maximum cap? So, if the Senior Minister of State can elaborate on that.
\t
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Sir, on the first question, I would like to just highlight some of the figures I mentioned earlier my reply.
I said that about 58,000 of HDB whole flats are rented out and this is only about 5% of the approximately one million sold flats islandwide. And of these 58,000 HDB whole flats that are rented out, only 16% are rented out to six unrelated occupants. So, by and large, our neighbourhood estates are still majority owner-occupied. Again, I also mentioned that we are not sure if all of the tenants and landlords will take full advantage of this relaxation. That is the first clarification.
We agree with the Member that it is important to maintain the Singaporean characteristics of an HDB estate and that is the reason why we have the non-citizen quota at 11% at block level and 8% at the neighbourhoods. And to share with the Member, as of December 2023, less than 2% of HDB neighbourhoods and about 1% of HDB blocks are affected by the non-citizen quota. So, by and large, owner-occupied. We do not expect the operation and maintenance costs of common areas and facilities, like lifts and playgrounds, to go up significantly. Like the Member said, most of the users are existing owner-occupiers.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Just two questions for the Senior Minister of State.
I refer to the point the Senior Minister of State made about the non-citizen quota. I understand it only applies when the entire flat is rented out and does not apply when bedrooms are rented out. In view of the decision to increase the rental occupancy cap, does HDB actively track, or does it plan to actively track the nationality of tenants who are renting out bedrooms? And would the Senior Minister of State agree with me, notwithstanding his previous answer to the supplementary question by Member Foo Mee Har, there will also be additional manpower expectations on Town Councils arising from the new rental occupancy cap? For example, when you have eight tenants in an HDB flat, they may dry their clothes at the common corridor and there may be additional disamenities of this nature requiring HDB to come in to liaise with the owner and so forth. My Parliamentary Question covered manpower issues and is it the Senior Minister of State's position that there is sufficient manpower for HDB to deal with this problem?
The second question pertains to a possible increase in noise-related complaints with the revised rental occupancy cap. The Community Advisory Panel on Neighbourhood Noise that was set up in 2022, recommended a quantitative noise threshold in the form of decibels to help in the assessment of egregious cases of neighbourhood noise. In January last year, Minister Desmond Lee replied in Parliament that the Ministry of National Development (MND) was studying the recommendations and would provide a response when it was ready. Can I inquire whether a decision has been made on the specific proposal pertaining to a quantitative noise threshold and if more communication and education needs to be undertaken by HDB to prospective owners who intend to let out their flats or bedrooms to ensure that tenants adhere to the recommended quiet hours of between 10.00 pm and 8.00 am?
\t
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Sir, Mr Pritam Singh has two supplementary questions. Let me take them in turn.
The first one is a relatively factual one, whether the occupancy cap applies to flat or room rentals. It applies to all room rentals, tenant composition and so on. But a more important point he was asking was related to what Ms Denise Phua and Miss Cheryl Chan were asking as well, whether there is enough manpower for enforcement.
Sir, we take the feedback on disamenities and complaints seriously and we will proactively work with the community partners to deal with these matters. But again, let me just set in context that, as of now, the complaints received resulting from tenancy rental, feedback on nuisance between neighbours is about 1.5% of all the total number of feedback received from nuisances caused by neighbours. And that is why we have to also look at these numbers and have an appreciation of whether there will be a sudden explosion of disamenities. But we take all complaints seriously and will continue to work closely with community partners, including Town Councils.
On the Member's second query regarding the quantifiable measure for noise, I invite the Member to file a Parliamentary Question on this because separate data on this is not available to me at this point in time.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh: Much obliged, Speaker. Just a quick follow-up to the reply to the first supplementary question on the applicability of the non-citizen quota vis-à-vis the renting out of bedrooms. I have the relevant printout from the HDB website here. It states that the non-citizen quota does not apply to the renting out of bedrooms. So, I hope the Senior Minister of State can clarify this particular point. Is that applicable only in a certain situation or is that the broad policy that the quota does not apply to the renting out of bedrooms?
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Sir, sorry. I thought the Member meant the occupancy cap, whether it applies to whole flat rentals or bedroom rentals. For the non-citizen quota, it applies for whole flat rentals.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Carrie Tan.
\tMs Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): Speaker, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State for clarifications regarding not the prevention or mitigation of disamenities but what is the recourse available to victims of disamenities caused by – I am going to bring up something other than noise – air-conditioning condensation due to excessive and incessant use of air-conditioning by tenants that creates health hazards in the neighbouring units where residents have to deal with mold and a lot of these things and they have to spend money to repaint and to get rid of this mold.
Is there any recourse for these victims and what does MND intend to do about possibly enhancing some regulations and enforcement actions so that we can prevent such excessive air-conditioning usage by tenants which, anecdotally on the ground, seems to be predominantly an issue with tenanted units.
\t
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Sir, like all neighbourly disputes or issues around living in an HDB estate where we live in very close proximity to one another, these are matters that we have to work through, closely as a community. HDB takes a mediative approach. Where friction arises between neighbours – it could be noise, it could be air-conditioning condensation – we take a mediative approach and advise flat owners and tenants to be mindful of causing disturbances and there are many existing mechanisms, whether through mediation and other platforms, where some of these issues can be brought together, discussed and, hopefully, amicably resolved. And by and large, that approach has worked. It is about being considerate to one another. These are matters that we continue to look at and work closely with our partners on. I assure Members that, as a result of this relaxation, these are matters that we will still continue to look at.
Mr Speaker: We are out of time. Order. End of Question Time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Charges against NEA in Relation to the Incident at Tuas Incineration Plant","subTitle":"Statement by Minister for Sustainability and the Environment","sectionType":"OS","content":"
Mr Speaker: Ministerial Statement. But before I call on Minister Grace Fu to deliver her Statement, I wish to highlight to Members that the subject matter of the Statement is related to a case before the Courts. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 50(2), reference should not be made to any matter which is sub judice.
I would, therefore, like to advise Members to exercise caution in discussing or reflecting the details of the case before the Court as it could be sub judice or prejudice the investigations and the interests of the parties to the matters. Minister Grace Fu.
The Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Speaker, on 26 December 2023, charges were filed against the National Environment Agency (NEA) and two senior NEA officers, in relation to an explosion that took place at an electrical switch room at Tuas Incineration Plant on 23 September 2021.
The incident was extremely painful for all of us in the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE) family. Two NEA officers, Senior Engineering Manager and Head of the Electrical Maintenance Branch Mr Kwok Yeow Wai and Executive Engineering Manager Mr Wee Eng Leng, lost their lives. Between them, they contributed nearly 85 years of service to NEA. They continue to be missed and will be remembered as caring and good-natured colleagues. A third officer, Engineering Manager Mr Low Yin Choon, suffered third-degree burns during the incident. He has since recovered and returned to work.
Following the incident, NEA provided the families of all three officers with care and support, covered all medical expenses and provided workplace injury compensation. Till this day, NEA remains in contact with the families of the two late officers.
The charges against NEA and its officers are serious. I had indicated, on the day the charges were filed, that I would be making a Statement in Parliament about the incident and charges. In addition, Members have asked questions: Ms Poh Li San asked about how NEA has strengthened its workplace safety practices and culture; Mr Melvin Yong asked about measures put in place to ensure such an incident does not recur. These are important questions which I will address.
However, as the case is currently before the Courts, I seek Members' understanding that what I can share today will be limited, so as not to prejudice the ongoing judicial proceedings. For example, I will not be able to go into details of the incident itself, or what contributed to the incident.
In my Statement, I will cover, briefly, the incident and how it was handled by MSE and NEA; NEA's response to the charges; and NEA's ongoing commitment to workplace safety.
Let me first briefly recount the incident. Most of this information is already in the public domain.
On the afternoon of 23 September 2021, an Induced Draft Fan could not be switched off from the central control room, where the equipment is normally controlled. The Induced Draft Fan is used to extract gases from the incineration process for discharge via the chimney and is about two metres wide.
Mr Kwok Yeow Wai, Mr Wee Eng Leng and Mr Low Yin Choon from the Electrical Maintenance Branch obtained permission from the control room to troubleshoot the electrical fault. Mr Kwok, Mr Wee and Mr Low were the three most senior officers in the Electrical Maintenance Branch.
The troubleshooting led them to an electrical switch room. At the electrical switch room, a localised explosion happened near the switch gear. Mr Kwok died at the scene and Mr Wee was seriously injured. Mr Wee succumbed to his injuries three days later. Mr Low was also injured in the explosion, but has recovered and returned to work.
I will now speak about how NEA responded in the immediate aftermath of the incident. First, what was done to ensure safety at the Tuas Incineration Plant and other incineration plants. Second, what was done to investigate the incident. These were done concurrently.
Immediately after the incident, Tuas Incineration Plant stopped receiving waste for incineration and was safely shut down. On 27 September 2021, NEA was issued a Stop Work Order by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) to cease any process or works in relation to electrical servicing and maintenance.
During the period of the Stop Work Order, NEA engineering officers carried out and completed comprehensive checks on machinery and reviewed all safety procedures at the plant. Extensive checks and tests were also conducted by an external licensed electrical engineer. NEA did likewise at Tuas South Incineration Plant. NEA also notified private operators of incineration plants about the incident and requested them to review their safety procedures and equipment. The private operators acknowledged the requests.
With MOM's clearance, Tuas Incineration Plant resumed partial operations on 13 October 2021. The waste that had been stored in the bunker from before the incident was then incinerated, but the plant did not receive new waste. Incineration of the waste in the bunker was necessary to prevent the build-up of potentially flammable gas from the decomposition of waste. The Stop Work Order was eventually lifted by MOM on 24 November 2021.
The Tuas Incineration Plant had been in operation since 1986. With the commencement of operations at TuasOne Waste-To-Energy Plant, which was developed to replace the Tuas Incineration Plant while catering for growth in Singapore's waste treatment capacity, NEA stopped operations at the Tuas Incineration Plant in February 2022, after 36 years of service, as planned. The Plant was eventually decommissioned in July 2022. During the plant's 36 years of operations, there were no other serious or fatal work injuries at the plant.
In parallel with these safety measures, investigations were also carried out immediately after the incident. MOM, the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) and other technical agencies carried out their independent investigations. NEA fully cooperated with these investigations.
NEA also convened an internal Investigation Panel to ascertain the events which led to the incident, identify the possible causes and recommend additional measures to prevent the recurrence of such an incident.
NEA's internal Investigation Panel comprised four members. It was chaired by a Group Director in NEA who had experience in the operations of incineration plants but was not managing such plants at the time. The other three members were two Divisional Directors from the Ministry and NEA, and a former General Manager of the Tuas South Incineration Plant. NEA also engaged an external technical expert to provide an independent review of the affected equipment and to advise the panel on the likely cause of the localised explosion.
The Panel reported to the then-Chief Executive Officer of NEA. The Panel's findings were shared with the NEA board and the Ministry. The findings were also shared with MOM investigators. MOM has since concluded its investigation of the incident. Charges have been filed against NEA as a body corporate and two senior NEA officers.
NEA has been charged under section 12(1) of the Workplace Safety and Health Act, read with section 20 and punishable under section 50(b), for failing to take, so far as was reasonably practicable, such measures as were necessary to ensure the safety and health of its employees at work. Two senior officers in NEA have also been charged. Mr Ng Wah Yong, the General Manager of the plant at the time, as well as Mr Lee Yew Binn Christopher, Director of the Waste Infrastructure Operations and Management Division at the time, were charged under section 15(3A) of the Workplace Safety and Health Act, for negligently endangering the safety of others at the plant without reasonable cause.
NEA is studying its charge in consultation with its legal counsel. The two senior officers charged have been re-deployed to non-operational roles. It is important that we let the proceedings take its course and not come to any premature conclusion.
I will next cover the measures which have been put in place at NEA's incineration plant to ensure that such incidents do not recur and how NEA has strengthened its workplace safety practices and culture. This will address the questions filed by Mr Melvin Yong and Ms Poh Li San.
With the benefit of information obtained from its investigations, NEA's internal Investigation Panel made recommendations to strengthen the plant's work system and processes involving high voltage works. I am not able to detail the specific recommendations due to the ongoing Court proceedings.
Nonetheless, all the recommendations were accepted by NEA's senior management and have been implemented at Tuas South Incineration Plant, the only waste incineration plant which NEA currently operates. NEA also shared the recommendations with waste incineration plants that are privately operated, for their own process safety reviews. The private operators have acknowledged the recommendations.
Workplace safety is a continuous journey and it is important that we learn the lessons from each incident to make our systems and operations even safer and prevent recurrence of a similar incident. Having covered the measures that were put in place shortly after the incident, I will now turn to how NEA is strengthening its workplace safety practices and culture, in a broader sense.
First, at waste management facilities. NEA is currently undertaking an operational review of its waste management facilities, which includes not just Tuas South Incineration Plant, but also other facilities, such as Semakau Landfill.
This is part of a broader set of operational reviews to strengthen operational excellence, safety and resilience. This ensures that NEA responds effectively to changes in the operating environment.
As part of the operational review for waste management facilities, NEA has appointed an External Advisory Panel (EAP), comprising senior industry leaders who have had experience managing large facilities and operations. The EAP is advising NEA on ways to strengthen operations and safety at its waste management facilities. NEA is also in the process of engaging consultants to undertake a technical review of existing operational processes and controls, which includes but is not limited to safety.
Next, at the organisational level. NEA has also taken steps to further strengthen workplace safety and health (WSH), taking reference from guidelines and best practices issued by the WSH Council.
After the charges were filed, NEA also called an organisation-wide Safety Time Out to reaffirm its commitment to safety. During this week-long Safety Time Out, NEA re-assessed its WSH practices and work processes and NEA senior management conducted additional safety walkabouts and held discussions with officers on ways to further improve WSH. These efforts were over and above regular WSH activities and served as opportunities to re-emphasise the importance of WSH.
NEA is also in the process of seeking external validation of its WSH practices through the bizSAFE Level 3 Risk Management Audit, which will take place later this year.
In terms of governance at the board level, the NEA board was restructured last year to include a dedicated Risk Committee to oversee and manage key enterprise risks, including workplace safety which is a top priority for NEA. Key enterprise risks were previously overseen by the Audit Committee, which reported to the board. The formation of a Risk Committee is part of NEA's efforts to continually strengthen the governance of its risk management.
The localised explosion at Tuas Incineration Plant in 2021 was a painful chapter for NEA and the MSE family. As I have set out in my Statement, NEA has implemented measures to prevent similar incidents from taking place. More broadly, as part of its continuous journey of improvement, NEA has strengthened WSH at its waste management facilities and across the entire organisation.
The charge faced by NEA is a serious one. Two of its officers have also been charged.
NEA has implemented all recommendations made by the internal Investigation Panel following the incident and strengthened its workplace safety culture and practices. It would be premature to comment on the Court’s decision and the impact of the decision.
After the Court's decision is released, my Ministry will work with the board of NEA to study the Court's decision and assess how it should be reflected on personnel matters, including performance assessment, remuneration and disciplinary action, if and where appropriate.
Mr Speaker, WSH is a top priority for my Ministry and Statutory Boards, including NEA, to keep our operational and frontline workers safe. In response to some questions raised earlier for an MOM Parliamentary Question, I would like to add that WSH is one of NEA's key corporate key performance indicators (KPIs). It is also taken into consideration for performance assessment and bonuses. NEA has a dedicated WSH team supporting senior management to strengthen WSH culture and capabilities. Across NEA's premises and facilities, there are also WSH committees and appointment holders that oversee and manage WSH risks in the organisation.
Sir, we have continually sought improvements and enhancements to the way we work and will continue to strive to do even better. We will continue to focus on and emphasise the importance of building a collective and strong WSH culture.
The charges against NEA and its two senior officers are now before the Courts and going forward, they will be addressed as the legal process runs its course. In the meantime, NEA and all our officers will continue to carry out their duties in service of Singapore and our people. I urge all of us to play our part to ensure WSH, so that every worker can return home safely to their loved ones. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Charges were filed against the NEA and two senior NEA officers under the Workplace Safety and Health Act in relation to an explosion at Tuas Incineration Plant on 23 September 2021. Two senior NEA engineers lost their lives and another was seriously injured.
MOM, SCDF and other technical agencies concurrently carried out independent investigations. NEA also convened an internal Investigation Panel, which recommended additional measures to prevent the recurrence of such an incident. NEA is undertaking a broader operational review of its waste management facilities and seeking external validation of its workplace safety and health practices later this year.
The charges against NEA and its senior officers are serious. Workplace safety is a continuous journey and remains a top priority for my Ministry and statutory boards, including NEA, to keep our operational and frontline workers safe. All of us have a part to play to ensure workplace safety and health, so that every worker can return home safely to their loved ones.
We pay our tribute to Mr Kwok Yeow Wai and Mr Wee Eng Leng who passed away in the incident and offer our condolences to their families for their loss.
(In English): Mr Speaker, I will now take clarifications from the Members.
Mr Speaker: Order. We will now have clarifications on the Ministerial Statement. I would like to take this opportunity to remind Members that pursuant to Standing Order 23, Members may seek clarifications on the Ministerial Statement but there is no debate that should be allowed thereon. Members can certainly seek clarifications by way of asking questions. So, I seek Member's understanding to keep your clarifications clear and concise.
Likewise, I will make the same request to Minister when she responds to these clarifications. Ms Poh Li San.
Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang): Thank you, Speaker and Minister. I would like to know will further details of the findings and lessons learnt after NEA's thorough review, also be shared with the other private incinerator operators so that similar work accidents do not happen in the future.
And the second question is, what are the types of assistance that have been rendered to the families of the three affected staff?
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The response to the first question is, definitely, yes. As I have stated in my speech earlier on, we have been keeping our other operators informed as and when we undertake reviews. I think we will continue with these working relations of informing the industry about practices and processes that we have made improvements on.
I would also like to repeat that we have been assisting the families from medical expenses to workmen's compensation and also psychological and well-being support. Obviously, the families had suffered, very regrettably, deep losses; and our colleagues had been long-time colleagues with these two officers as well. Psychological support and also just being there for the families has continued until today.
Mr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): I thank the Minister for her Statement and also her assurance that measures have been taken to strengthen WSH across our waste management facilities.
I would like to ask, were there or are there dedicated WSH officers appointed at NEA to look into the risks associated with operating an incineration plant? Was there a proper risk assessment done for such plants and is it a requirement by NEA, even for the privately-run incineration plant? If not, will NEA be appointing dedicated, trained WSH officers for all such facilities?
I acknowledge Senior Minister of State Zaqy's earlier response that beyond having a singular person looking at WSH within an organisation, we should also place some responsibility on individuals with oversight of the workplace or the worksite; so, he cited examples of project managers.
So, I would like to ask if the key managers overseeing such incineration plants are trained in workplace safety and safety risk assessments? If not, will NEA send them for the proper WSH training?
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Thank you. I think I have covered the points raised in my speech, but I will reiterate that we do have dedicated staff undertaking the WSH responsibilities. Also, we have taken steps to continue to strengthen the WSH practices, including in the area of risk assessment. And we will work very closely with the industry, the private operators, together with MOM to ensure compliance with the existing laws and regulations.
Mr Speaker: Any other clarifications for the Minister? I do not see any hands. Order. End of Ministerial Statement. Introduction of Government Bills.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Administration of Muslim Law (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Administration of Muslim Law Act 1966\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister, Prime Minister's Office (Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman) on behalf of the Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs; 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":"Enlistment and Other Matters (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Enlistment Act 1970 and the Requisition of Resources Act 1985 in relation to national service and voluntary service and to update provisions on service of documents, and to make consequential amendments to certain other Acts\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Defence (Mr Heng Chee How) on behalf of the Minister for Defence; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, on or after 6 February 2024, 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":"Prevention of Proliferation Financing and Other Matters Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Precious Stones and Precious Metals (Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing) Act 2019, the Legal Profession Act 1966, the Moneylenders Act 2008 and the Pawnbrokers Act 2015 to provide for the prevention of the financing of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, to make other amendments to the Precious Stones and Precious Metals (Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing) Act 2019 and to make consequential amendments to the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1992\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) on behalf of Minister for Law; 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":"Significant Investments Review Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Minister for Trade and Industry.
The Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Alvin Tan): Mr Speaker, the Minister for Trade and Industry is on his way and will be here momentarily.
Mr Speaker: Alright. Will that be momentarily?
Mr Alvin Tan: Within a minute, Sir. He is here, Sir.
Mr Speaker: And that is the definition of \"momentarily\". Minister for Trade and Industry.
The Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Gan Kim Yong): Sir, I apologise for being late. I think you are very efficient, so the earlier Ministerial Statement has progressed very quickly.
Sir, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Sir, Singapore is an open economy, well connected to the rest of the world. This has allowed us to become a vibrant business hub and an attractive investment destination. We must remain open and continue to attract new investments so as to grow our economy and create good opportunities for our businesses and our people.
However, we also recognise that the world has become increasingly complex and the economic environment more uncertain and challenging, creating new risks and vulnerabilities. We must constantly review and update our regulatory regime to keep pace with the changes in the global economic landscape and to strengthen the resilience of our economy in the face of new threats. Doing so will give our investors and businesses added confidence in our economy and our ability to respond to emerging challenges.
Indeed, as an open economy, we can be vulnerable to actors that may seek to undermine our national security interests through ownership and control of critical business entities. Therefore, we must put in place adequate measures to safeguard our national security interests.
In fact, we have been doing so through our sectoral legislation to mitigate such risks specific to the respective sectors. For instance, the Banking Act and Telecommunications Act require approval to be sought before a party acquires 12% of shares or voting power and before appointment of key personnel, such as the chief executive officer. This will help prevent actors from influencing critical entities in the financial and telecommunications sectors to undermine their stability and threaten our national security.
We have taken a calibrated and balanced approach, which has enabled us to ride the winds of globalisation and benefit from the growth of the global economy. In recent years, we have seen several global financial crises that threatened to undermine the stability of economies and societies. We have lived through the COVID-19 pandemic that led to border restrictions and shortages of essential medical supplies. There is also increased use of protectionist measures amidst geopolitical contestations. Military conflicts have also brought about disruptions to critical supplies, such as energy and food. This has led to many countries prioritising domestic and national security considerations, leaning towards \"near-shoring\", \"friend-shoring\" and \"re-shoring\" of supply chains. Against this backdrop, it is timely that we update our investment management toolkit to ensure it remains adequate and effective.
We are not alone in doing this. According to a 2023 United Nations report, at least 37 countries have introduced regulatory frameworks for the screening of investments on national security grounds since the 1990s. More recently, countries like Australia, China, Japan, Ireland, the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US) have introduced or enhanced their investment management regimes, with more planning to do so.
Investors in a critical entity will normally have some form of influence or control of the entity’s decisions and operations. Investors may then exploit their ownership and control over these entities to disrupt the delivery of essential goods and services, or access and use sensitive information to threaten our national security.
It is, therefore, important to have adequate and effective investment management measures to safeguard our national security and ensure our economy remains resilient. This will provide businesses and investors with continued confidence in Singapore as a stable, trusted and well-connected global business and investment hub.
While the sectoral legislation we have today has served us well, we need to continually assess our security needs and strengthen our safeguards, where necessary.
The Significant Investments Review Bill is designed to complement the existing suite of sectoral safeguards, by introducing a new investment management regime. In designing this regime, we have studied the investment management legislation of other jurisdictions. We have also taken into account our current sectoral legislation. Allow me to share three key principles in the design of the Bill.
First, the legislation should strike a careful balance between protecting our national security interests and minimising the impact on businesses and investors. Second, the Bill should apply to both foreign and local parties, while focusing on national security considerations. Third, the processes should be as transparent as possible, while taking into account national security considerations.
Sir, let me now explain the key features of the Bill. I will cover three segments. First, provisions that apply only to designated entities. Second, provisions that apply to entities that have acted against Singapore’s national security interests, regardless of whether they have been designated. Third, other general provisions.
I would like to make it clear from the outset that, it is not the intention of the Government to directly interfere with the routine commercial decisions and operations of designated entities.
The first broad set of provisions relate only to ownership and control over designated entities to ensure the reliability of critical functions that they provide as well as to safeguard Singapore's national security interests.
Clause 17 allows the Minister to designate a specific entity based on national security considerations. This is quite unique to Singapore, as most overseas jurisdictions generally scope the designation broadly to cover all entities based on either activities they carry out or the sectors they operate in.
Common overseas examples of these activities or sectors include those relating to communications, defence-related supply chains and advanced technologies. Most entities within these sectors or performing such activities will be regulated.
But for Singapore, as the majority of critical entities here are already covered by existing sectoral legislation, we expect to designate only a handful of entities. This approach was deliberately chosen to reduce the regulatory burden of the Bill. Otherwise, every entity that falls within certain sectors or provide certain activities would all be included, regardless of whether the entity itself is critical to our national security interests. This would not only be administratively tedious but also impact Singapore's position as a business and investment hub. Instead, our targeted approach to designate only specific entities will achieve a better balance between national security and the impact on businesses.
In deciding which entities should be considered for designation, various factors will be considered. These include whether the entity provides a critical function in relation to Singapore's national security interests, such as a key provider of security-related functions, especially where there are few or no alternatives; and whether it is adequately covered by existing sectoral legislation. Conversely, should a designated entity subsequently cease to meet these criteria, its designation may be cancelled. Over the last few months, we have reached out to all the entities that are being considered for designation. That means, if you have not been approached, you are not currently being considered.
The engagements will help us to better understand their perspectives and concerns, clarify the obligations should they eventually be designated and explore ways to mitigate the regulatory impact on their businesses.
In the interest of transparency and to provide certainty to the entities and potential investors, clause 17 provides that all designations or cancellations of designation will be notified in the Gazette.
Clauses 18 to 20 allow the Minister to exercise oversight over the ownership or control changes involving parties in positions to influence and direct the actions of the designated entities. These requirements will not apply retroactively, but only to new ownership or control changes after the entities have been designated.
Notification or approval obligations will be imposed on prospective controllers, existing controllers and designated entities, based on specific thresholds that take reference from existing sectoral legislation.
Buyers are required to notify the Minister within seven days after becoming a 5% controller. They will need to seek the Minister's approval before becoming a 12%, 25% or 50% controller. Parties are, similarly, required to seek Minister's approval if they are becoming an indirect controller or acquiring parts of the business or undertaking as a going concern. On the other hand, sellers will have to seek Minister's approval before ceasing to be a 50% or 75% controller.
Clause 16 allows the Minister the flexibility to vary such thresholds for specific entities as the situation warrants and, if so, to prescribe them in subsidiary legislation.
Under clause 19, the Minister may approve applications by parties if he is satisfied that all of the following conditions are met.
One, that the prospective acquirors or controllers and their associates are fit and proper persons.
Two, that the designated entity will be able to continue providing its critical functions if the transaction proceeds after approval is granted.
Three, that approving the transaction is not against Singapore's national security interests.
The designated entity has a duty to report changes in ownership or control specified above to the Minister within seven days of it becoming aware of the event. This provides an additional safeguard to detect any potential attempts by parties to circumvent the notification and approval requirements and ensure that the entities stay vigilant to potential threats.
Should prospective or existing controllers proceed with the transactions without seeking the necessary prior approvals from the Minister, clause 21 automatically renders such transactions void. However, materially affected parties may apply to the Minister to validate the transaction and the Minister may do so by issuing a validation notice. The Minister may also proactively issue such a notice if he is satisfied that it is in the interest of Singapore's national security to do so.
Clauses 22 to 24 allow the Minister to issue remedial directions under a variety of circumstances – for example, if conditions of approval have been breached or false or misleading information was provided in relation to an application for approval. Such remedial directions may include directing the transfer or disposal of equity interest in the designated entity or any other direction that the Minister considers appropriate.
Where a remedial direction has yet to be carried out, clause 25 has provisions to achieve the practical outcome of such a direction. Let me explain. As an example, if an initial remedial direction to divest equity interest has not been carried out, voting rights may not be exercised and no dividends may be paid in relation to the relevant equity.
The Bill also includes oversight over the appointment of key personnel of the designated entities, such as the chief executive officer, board directors and chairperson of the board. Such individuals can influence the entity's policies, decisions and actions, including over the critical functions it provides.
Under clause 27, a designated entity must obtain prior approval from the Minister to appoint key personnel. The Minister may consider any relevant factor in arriving at a decision. For example, if we receive information that a particular individual has a track record of engaging in conduct or activities that could undermine our national security interests, then this would be taken into consideration in deciding whether approval would be granted.
Clause 28 allows the Minister to require the removal of an appointed key personnel of a designated entity, if this was done without the necessary approval or if any condition of approval has been breached. The Minister can also require the removal of any key personnel, if deemed necessary in the interest of national security.
There are also provisions to ensure the continued performance of the critical functions by the designated entities.
Under clause 26, the designated entities cannot be dissolved, terminated, wound up voluntarily or be subject to judicial management without the Minister's consent. In addition, parties cannot enforce security, judgment or Court order over designated entities, unless prior advance notice has been given to the Minister. This will allow the Minister to take the necessary actions to safeguard our national security interests. If there are Court proceedings involved, the Minister will be a party to such proceedings and the Court must consider any representations made by the Minister.
Clauses 30 and 31 allow the Minister to issue Special Administration Orders – otherwise known as “step-in rights” – to direct the takeover of control of the affairs, businesses and property of a designated entity by another party. Other orders can also be issued, such as directing the designated entity to immediately take or cease any action or appointing a person to advise the designated entity in the proper conduct of its businesses or undertaking.
I would like to assure Members that such powers will only be exercised in the interest of the continued provisioning of critical functions by the designated entity or Singapore's national security interests. When exercising such powers, we will always be mindful of shareholders' interests.
The second broad set of provisions relate to powers that can be exercised against any entity that has acted against Singapore's national security interests, regardless of whether they are designated or not.
Currently, there are already existing laws to deal with egregious acts against national security. For example, under the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act, the Court may order the winding up of a company if it is being used against Singapore's national security. However, winding up an entity could affect the continued provisioning of its functions, and may not be the desired outcome.
In the investment management legislation of most overseas jurisdictions, there are similar concepts often referred to as \"call-in\" powers. The relevant authorities may \"call-in\" certain types of transactions for review, even though they may not have triggered filing and pre-approval requirements under the regime. Such \"call-in\" powers are typically exercised on national interest- or national security-related grounds.
In some jurisdictions, they can be based on perceived risks without actual actions committed by the entity. The time limits of such \"call-in\" powers vary across jurisdictions. For example, this could range from five years in the UK to 10 years in Australia, and there is no time limit in the US.
In Singapore's case, under clause 32, the Minister can review ownership or control transactions involving any entity only if two pre-requisites are met.
First, the entity must have acted against our national security interests, and not merely pose potential threats to our national security.
Second, the ownership or control transaction must have occurred within the two years prior to the above-mentioned action by the entity against our national security interests.
The Minister for Home Affairs, as the Minister-in-charge of internal security, can issue a certificate stating that he is satisfied that the entity has acted against the national security interest of Singapore; which will be treated as conclusive evidence for the purposes of this Bill.
Following the review of the transaction, a range of directions may be issued, such as directing the transacting party to transfer or dispose of his equity interest in the entity; or directing the entity to restrict disclosure of confidential information to any person.
Let me now move on to the last segment on other general and miscellaneous provisions under the Bill.
Under clause 12, powers under the Bill can be exercised against any individual regardless of their citizenship or residency status; and any entity, regardless of the type or domicile location. As mentioned earlier, this takes into account that threats may emanate from various sources or channelled through various entities and we will need sufficient flexibility to exercise our legislative levers.
Further, under clauses 17 and 32, entities that may be classified as designated entities, or for which post-transaction powers may apply, would include those that are incorporated, formed, or established in Singapore; carry out activities in Singapore; or provide goods and services to persons in Singapore.
Clauses 47 to 50 provide a range of enforcement powers that authorised officers, Police officers and Commercial Affairs officers may exercise. All of them have powers to require any individual or entity to provide information relating to the Bill. Police officers and Commercial Affairs officers will also have powers to enter premises for investigation under the Bill.
Penalties will be differentiated depending on whether the party guilty of the offence is an individual or an entity.
Fixed monetary penalties may be insufficient deterrence for certain offences that are meant to safeguard our national security interests. This is especially so as the Bill would cover transactions across a wide range of values, as well as entities in diverse sectors and of different sizes as well as varying financial abilities.
For high-value transactions or large businesses with significant revenue, a fixed penalty quantum may neither be a sufficient deterrent nor result in a proportionate penalty in the event of non-compliance. On the other hand, for low-value transactions or small-sized businesses, going with the transaction value or annual turnover alone could translate to penalty amounts that run into similar issues. As such, for both individuals and entities, the maximum applicable penalty will be based on the higher of an absolute quantum cap or the transaction value, where applicable. If there is no transaction value, for entities, the maximum penalty will be based on the higher of an absolute quantum cap or 10% of the annual turnover. For individuals, imprisonment is also a possible penalty.
While the penalties themselves are significant, they need to be an effective deterrent as we are dealing here with actions that may impact national security.
Clauses 38 and 39 set out processes for parties that wish to seek reconsideration from the Minister for his decisions and to make further appeals to an independent Reviewing Tribunal.
Clauses 40 to 45 provide details of the Reviewing Tribunal, while clause 46 provides for limited judicial review only on grounds of failure to comply with any procedural requirement of the Act, or the regulations or rules made under the Act.
These processes are modelled after similar provisions in other legislation here that deal with Singapore's national security interests, such as the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act.
Under the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI), we will set up the Office of Significant Investments Review. The Office will serve as a dedicated one-stop touchpoint to engage affected stakeholders and provide them with guidance and clarifications. It will also coordinate and oversee the implementation of the Act.
In closing, I would like to take this opportunity to thank various industry representatives, such as those from the law firms, financial institutions, accountancy firms and general business community, which we have consulted and which have provided valuable input in helping us refine the Bill and take into account potential impact on businesses and investors.
As described, the Bill intends to provide Singapore with an updated toolkit to manage threats posed by significant investments into critical entities. I would like to reiterate that the provisions under the Bill have been intentionally calibrated to protect Singapore's national security interests, while minimising impact on affected stakeholders so that our corporate landscape remains vibrant and attractive to bona-fide investors.
Singapore has always strived to be a responsible partner on the global stage. Our actions are based on clear and consistent principles. We will work closely with the industry and affected stakeholders and implement this Bill in a calibrated and balanced manner. This approach will allow Singapore to remain a trusted and reliable business hub, where investors can continue to invest and operate with confidence and create more opportunities for Singapore and Singaporeans. Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, many of our critical economic capabilities are owned and controlled by commercial entities. They are managed on commercial basis with the aim to attain profitability and other economic interests. Such entities are also critical to the proper functioning of our economy and society.
We cannot rule out the possibility that, as the business owners or operators advance their strategic or economic interest, there could be potential situations where these entities may act in way that is detrimental to our national interest.
Hence, I see the need for the Government to be empowered with the necessary legislative and executive levers to not only safeguard our national security, but also ensure resilience of our economy and society.
Many other jurisdictions already have such dedicated regulations to monitor and manage such strategic entities. With rising geopolitical tensions and concerns over national economic security and strategic competition, we have seen more countries introduce new legislations to protect strategically important technologies, assets and key infrastructures, such as the CHIPS and Science Act in the US and the Export Control Law in China.
When I first heard of this Bill, my immediate response was that I thought we already have these ownerships and control safeguards to manage key sectors, such as in telecommunications, banking, utilities and media, through very extensive legislation and regulations. However, upon more detailed reading of the Bill and how the framework of review is designed, I am fully supportive of this targeted approach to review these specifically earmarked critical entities.
The new legislation targets and imposes on individual entities, rather than on the whole sector or sets of activity. As there are already existing sectoral legislations to regulate the broader critical and strategic sectors, this Bill will only impact a handful of entities that are of significant strategic and security implications. As the Minister said, those who are covered under the Bill would have been informed. Those who are not, I suppose they can feel more assured now. Furthermore, the designated entities will be published in the Gazette.
Sir, today, we live in an increasingly complex operating environment. The security threats that we face could come from various sources and in various forms, including through the ownership and control of the critical entities. Hence, the provisions in this Bill would apply to entities that are both locally- or foreign-owned.
The objective this Bill is to ensure that the critical entities continue providing their functions securely and reliably over time. Therefore, beyond imposing obligations tied to specific transactions relating to significant investments, the Bill also contains other important provisions, such as requiring approvals for the appointment of key personnels to the designated entity.
Notwithstanding my support, I have a few clarifications to seek from the Minister.
Firstly, under the Bill, only a handful of critical entities are designated as significant investments, while other potential critical entities may also not adequately be covered by existing sectoral legislation. So, my question to the Minister is, whether entities, especially those in new or emerging sectors, like artificial intelligence (AI); or those providing services in certain sectors, such as data centres, will be designated under the Bill?
Secondly, while Special Administration Orders as well as other orders, to ensure the security and reliability of the designated entities' functions, will only be exercised when it is necessary, can I also ask the Minister if there are safeguards to ensure the judicious and appropriate use of such powers?
Thirdly, with regard to the two-year time bar for entities that have acted against our national security interest, can I ask the Minister on the consideration behind this parameter of two years?
Sir, I understand that the Ministry has also considered provisions from the investment management legislation of other jurisdictions. As the Minister has said, the Bill was also developed in consultation with various industry representatives from the legal, finance and accounting sectors, as well the general business community, with particular attention paid to minimising the potential impact on businesses and investors.
So, overall, I find the Bill suitably balanced between maintaining an open investment environment while still fulfilling the intent to have adequate and effective safeguards for Singapore's national security needs. As such, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, in its press release on 3 November 2023, MTI shared that the Significant Investments Review Bill, or SIRA as it will be known, is to ensure the continuity of critical entities.
Under the new investment management regime, entities that are critical to Singapore's national security interests will be identified as \"designated entities\" and will be regulated, and these include entities which are not currently covered under existing legislation to monitor and manage entities in sectors, such as telecommunications, banking and utilities.
In recent years, the issue of national security has risen in prominence, alongside greater uncertainty and volatility in the world today. To that end, I agree with the importance of safeguarding critical entities and infrastructure in Singapore and in taking preventive and corrective actions to keep our country safe and secure from state versus non-state actors, conventional versus non-conventional threats alike.
Many countries similarly recognise this point and have moved towards enacting or strengthening similar laws in recent years.
While we have learnt in Economics 101 that globalisation and free trade drives significant gains for both trading partners, I believe that there could be other important policy objectives that the Government must deliver for its people, such as minimising income and wealth inequality and ensuring that the gains of economic growth accrue broadly, ensuring our supply chains are resilient as evidenced by COVID-19, to name a few.
While global trade continues to grow, trade-offs to international trade are now seen by an increasing number of economies as almost inevitable, in favour of stability and national security. Findings from a September 2023 World Trade Organization (WTO) report, for example, suggest that trade is gradually becoming re-oriented along geopolitical lines.
But we can also see for ourselves the trade tensions between the two largest economies of the world and how they have cascading effects on the investment environment globally, and how corporate merger and acquisition (M&A) transactions have been blocked in the interests of national security.
Let me first share some of my observations about the business and regulatory environment here in Singapore.
The Economic Development Board (EDB) sums it up pretty well, in that \"The Singapore Government is committed to creating a pro-business environment through its economic and manpower policies\". This has also been affirmed in the Economist Intelligence Unit's (EIU's) latest business environment rankings, with Singapore retaining its position as the world's best business environment for 15 consecutive years.
Yet despite our pro-business environment and open economy with the ease of movement of goods, services, labour and capital, in speaking to international investors over the years, a number have shared with me their wonder as to how the Government continues to be able to exercise control over businesses and workers alike. In the case of workers, the rules imposed on trade union administration and leadership, or in Prime Minister’s words, a \"symbiotic relationship between the People's Action Party (PAP) and the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC)\". And in the case of businesses, explicit control mechanisms and arguably influence over companies, even though they may not be state-owned enterprises per se.
For example, Singapore Airlines has one non-tradeable special share issued to the Ministry of Finance (MOF) and no resolution may be passed on certain undisclosed matters without prior written approval of the MOF. For SingPost, the appointment of the Chairman, Directors and Group CEO requires the prior written approval of the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA), in addition to other Postal Services Act obligations. Singapore Press Holdings, when it was listed then, had a small handful of shareholders holding management shares; and though these represent only 1% of total issued shares, had 68% of the total votes when it comes to any resolution relating to the appointment or dismissal of a director or any member of staff.
These are just some examples of listed companies with publicly available disclosures detailing such mechanisms, but there could well be more of such mechanisms for other public or private companies in Singapore that we may not know of. Would these companies and the specifics of their control provisions be subsequently encompassed under SIRA and would the Minister be able to confirm if such details will be made public in the interest of transparency?
In the November 2023 press release by MTI, Minister Gan shared that, \"we expect only a handful of critical entities to be designated under this Bill\". However, it is unclear whether the list of designated entities will eventually be disclosed. While I can understand if the Government does not wish to disclose the identities of non-designated entities but which it is otherwise monitoring for national security concerns, making public the list of designated entities will signal to businesses that the vast majority of the market is open for investment and that the scope of SIRA is truly limited to just a handful of companies.
To be clear, I am not saying that SIRA is unnecessary because of existing control mechanisms, but on the contrary, I believe that the formalisation of SIRA will allow international businesses to have greater confidence in the regulatory environment in which investments into Singapore are made, with the scoping of provisions under SIRA providing greater regulatory certainty to businesses.
Moving to my next point, as I have shared earlier, many countries globally have moved towards enacting similar laws and it may be instructive to draw comparisons with the US Committee on Foreign Investment in the US (CFIUS) and the UK's National Security and Investment (NSI) Act.
Firstly, I note that CFIUS publicly issues an annual report to Congress, covering key indicators of its activities and process, including the complexity and volume of cases before the committee. This is as set out in statute at section 721(m) of the Defense Production Act of 1950.
Similarly, section 61 of the NSI Act requires an annual report to be published, with minimum statutory requirements relating to the details of its functions.
Would the Minister confirm if there will be subsidiary legislation governing the categories of information relating to SIRA that have to be disclosed, to better aid understanding and transparency?
Secondly, CFIUS authorises the US government's review in transactions of a certain nature between a US business and a foreign party, and these transactions could be (a) control transactions, (b) investments and (c) real estate transactions. On covered non-controlling investment transactions, these would mean a foreign party investing in a US business involved in critical technology, critical infrastructure and/or sensitive personal data, and the foreign party acquiring at least one of the listed rights.
Further, the Executive Order 14083 specifically identified sectors fundamental to US technological leadership, including but not limited to microelectronics; AI; biotechnology and biomanufacturing; quantum computing; advanced clean energy; climate adaptation technologies; and elements of the agricultural industrial base, that have implications for food security.
The UK NSI has similarly defined the list of 17 sectors of the economy for which prior approval is required for acquisitions that could harm the UK's national security.
In addition to the telecommunications, banking and utilities sectors, in which there are existing sectoral legislation, will the Minister make known the sectors in which SIRA will apply, to provide for greater regulatory transparency to investors and businesses? Further, given the speed of technological advancements, how often would this sectoral coverage and consequently, the list of designated entities be reviewed and updated?
Thirdly, on notification thresholds, CFIUS requires the authorities to be notified if a foreign party obtains 25% or more voting interest in critical technologies, critical infrastructure and sensitive personal data (TID) businesses; and a foreign government, except for Australia, Canada, and the UK, holds a 49% or more voting interest in the foreign party.
The UK NSI Act would apply for acquisitions of control over qualifying entities or assets where there could be a potential risk to national security, with control defined as: (a) an entity acquiring or increasing its interest to at least 25% or such that it crosses the 50% or 75% thresholds; (b) an entity acquiring voting rights in qualifying entity such that the acquirer could secure or prevent the passage of any class of resolutions; (c) an entity obtaining “material influence” over a qualifying entity.
What is the rationale for the designation of 5% as the threshold in which acquirers of designated entities must notify the Minister? I recognise that this is like that of the substantial shareholder notification requirements for listed companies on the Singapore Exchange, but beyond changes in ownership, does the current legislation sufficiently provide for situations where control may be effectively transferred, without necessarily changes in ownership, such as via different classes of shares or specific resolutions that are passed by the company?
Moreover, does SIRA also sufficiently cover any technological transfers or core intellectual property rights that may potentially jeopardise our national security, even without ownership changes? What are the preventive or corrective measures that are available under SIRA to protect these on the grounds of national security?
Finally, I move on to Bill-specific clarifications.
The first thing I observed is that, even though the primary purpose of this Bill is to safeguard Singapore's national security interests, the phrase \"national security interests\" does not appear to be defined anywhere in the Bill. How then, does the Government satisfy itself that an entity has acted against the national security interests of Singapore? A law professor was quoted in The Business Times that such an omission is deliberate, and I quote, “to enable the authorities to adopt a broad and generous reading” of the term. Does the Minister agree with such a view, that such a broad interpretative freedom by the Government was deliberate; and if so, why?
Second, clause 27 empowers the Minister to decide on the appointment of key officers of designated entities, such as the chief executive officer, directors and chairpersons, and similarly, clause 28 empowers the Minister the remove such key officers. What are the objective and subjective criteria that the Government will put in place in exercising its powers over the key officers of designated entities?
Clause 27(3) references criteria that the Minister may specify; and 27(4) references conditions that the Minister may prescribe for the approval of key officers. What are some examples of and the nature of such criteria and conditions?
Finally, clause 46 on limited judicial review, where every determination, order and other decision of a Reviewing Tribunal or any Minister made or purportedly made under this Act is final and is not to be challenged, appealed against, reviewed, quashed or called in question in any court, except in regard to compliance with procedural requirements or the rules and regulations governing that determination, order and other decision.
We have had a long discussion on the role of judicial review ouster clauses in our legislation, during the debates on the then-Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Bill, or FICA.
SIRA is similar to FICA, in that there is limited judicial review and in which the reviewing tribunal is also comprised of three individuals appointed by the President on the advice of the Cabinet. The Workers' Party believes in the important oversight mechanism played by the role of the courts and as my hon friend Ms He Ting Ru shared in 2021, such a clause offends Article 93 of the Constitution, which expressly states that \"judicial power of Singapore shall be vested in a Supreme Court and in such subordinate courts as may be provided by any written law for the time being in force\".
While FICA deals with counteracting acts of foreign interference and specifically aimed at politically significant persons, where the evidence rely heavily on sensitive intelligence and collaboration with foreign counterparts; SIRA deals with investment decisions made by businesses where, yes, there can be the possibility of insidious parties masquerading as legitimate businesses, but where I would imagine the threat to our national security interests depend more on the nature of the industry sector, that type of goods and services provided to Singaporeans and the business activities that are carried out here. What is the rationale for disallowing the role of the courts, particularly when our reputation as an international business hub relies heavily on upholding the rule of law itself?
To conclude, Mr Speaker, I recognise the importance of safeguarding critical entities and infrastructure in Singapore and in taking preventive and corrective actions to protect our national security interests. It is also as important that we ensure the implementation of the Act and the exercise of powers conferred are done in a justifiable and transparent manner, with decisions made publicly accounted for on a regular basis, such as in other jurisdictions, where practicable. And it is also as important that we continue to uphold and defend the sanctity of the rule of law in Singapore, in which our reputation depends so heavily on. Notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Shawn Huang.
Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong (Jurong): Mr Speaker, in an era where economic landscapes are rapidly evolving, there is a need for robust measures to safeguard our national interests. In a world where some economic activities are intrinsically linked to national security, the importance of this Bill transcends mere financial implications. It is about preserving our sovereignty, protecting our critical infrastructure and ensuring that our nation remains relevant and viable. I have a few questions for the Minister.
Can the Minister clarify, how the Bill will balance national security and economic interest without adversely impacting Singapore's competitive business environment? How does this Bill comply with Singapore's existing trade obligations? How will this affect future trade negotiations?
What are the mitigating measures to ensure this Bill does not deter foreign investors and maintains Singapore's reputation as a global investment hub? How will this affect entities considering investments in infrastructure, technologies or capabilities in Singapore that may be included as significant investments in the future?
Would the Minister provide a more comprehensive definition of what constitutes as \"significant investments\" under this Bill? What criteria will the Minister use to designate entities as critical for national security? How will this process be safeguarded to ensure accountability?
How will this Bill affect entities whose operations depend on specific proprietary technologies and intellectual property whose rights and use may not reside within this entity, and if the network of capabilities or infrastructure is multi-national and cross-border? Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the above clarifications, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, the Significant Investments Review Bill seeks to protect Singapore's security interests by regulating significant investments in and control of critical entities.
Under the proposed Bill, a screening regime for ownership transactions in critical business entities will be set up. This is similar to the screening regimes in other countries, such as the UK and Ireland.
The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) agrees that we can enhance our national security, by ensuring that key entities in critical business sectors always remain under some level of domestic control. These sectors would include defence, military supplies, telecommunications, transport and banking. We do not oppose setting up a screening regime for ownership transactions in such sensitive sectors of the economy.
However, the powers granted to the Minister to designate entities as critical entities under section 17 of the proposed Bill are very broad, as any entity can be designated as such. We are particularly concerned about the following provisions.
Firstly, in the interest of transparency, will the Government spell out the sensitive economic areas where entities are likely to be designated as critical entities under the proposed Bill? Will these sensitive economic areas extend to areas which are not considered sensitive in other jurisdictions, such as the media? The NSI Act in the UK, for example, has subsidiary legislation that designates 17 sensitive areas of the economy, such as AI, defence and transport, where acquisitions must be subject to government review.
While the proposed Bill currently provides for the designation of these entities to be publicly announced in the Gazette, it would be better for these economic areas and entities to be designated under a Schedule to the proposed Bill so that Parliament has greater oversight over the designation of these critical entities. Today, Parliament is asked to support the Bill without knowing which are the economic areas and companies that are likely to be affected.
Secondly, under section 27 of the proposed Bill, critical entities will be required to seek approval for the appointment of key officers. Section 28 of the proposed Bill also allows the Minister to remove key officers in the interest of national security.
PSP is very concerned about such provisions, which are very broad and could potentially be used by the Government to interfere with the business decisions of private companies or as a tool for retaliation. It is, theoretically, possible for the Government to use these powers under section 28 to remove the CEO or director of a critical entity, who has joined an opposition party, in the name of national security interest.
Thirdly, PSP is concerned by the broad powers of a Police officer to enter premises without a warrant under section 49 of the proposed Bill. Can the Government explain why these broad powers are necessary under the proposed Bill, in addition to (a) the power to obtain information by written notice under section 48, of which non-compliance constitutes a criminal offence; and (b) the power of entry with a warrant under section 50?
Fourthly, while the decisions by a Minister would still be appealable to an independent Reviewing Tribunal, section 46 of the proposed Bill is a judicial review ouster clause, which provides that the Tribunal's decision is final and cannot be challenged, appealed against, reviewed, quashed or called into action in any other Court of law.
Judicial review is only allowed under extremely narrow grounds to ensure that the procedures under the Bill, regulations or rules have been complied with. It is also noteworthy that these regulations and rules are made by the Minister himself; and by the Tribunal itself, pursuant to sections 45 and 44(3) of the proposed Bill.
It is very troubling to us that, yet another law is being passed where there is limited provision for judicial review on the grounds of national security. This ouster clause is very similar to the ouster clauses under the Internal Security Act and FICA. It breaches the principle of the separation of powers by limiting the checking powers of a co-equal judiciary upholding the rule of law. It is noteworthy that even in the UK where Parliament is supreme, the National Security and Investment Act 2021 provides for judicial review beyond complaints of procedural improprieties.
Without amendments to the provisions discussed above, PSP opposes this Bill. PSP believes that while it is fundamentally in the interest of our national interest to ensure that key entities in critical business entities and business sectors remain under some level of domestic control and can maintain business continuity under all circumstances. We can do this without having such sweeping legal powers on the books.
Recently, we have witnessed several banking and e-payment outages at banks, such as DBS and OCBC, which would be prime candidates to be designated as critical entities under the proposed Bill. These banks are already under domestic control and their operations are subject to regulations by the Monetary Authority of Singapore. These outages demonstrated that it is not enough to just have oversight over the ownership and management of such entities, if we are really serious about ensuring national security.
There must be a whole-of-country approach towards ensuring the resilience of such critical entities. For example, there must be a talent pipeline made up of a strong Singaporean Core that is able to operate, manage and maintain key systems, such as data centres and other IT infrastructure, within critical entities. We also cannot rely excessively on outsourcing these key systems to other foreign countries to save costs. Some of these infrastructure and systems must always be maintained in Singapore.
Finally, we must have a robust regulatory framework that enforces stiff penalties, commensurate with the scale of the failure when these critical entities fall short of delivering essential services to the public. It is in our national interest to ensure that critical entities provide these essential services with minimal and infrequent disruptions in services to the public, even in the absence of extreme situations, such as a war, pandemic or extreme weather caused by climate change.
Mr Speaker, PSP believes that we do not need such sweeping legal powers under the proposed Bill to control our significant and critical entities. Rather, we should focus on the resilience of such entities where the Singaporean Core is no longer overseeing and manning them. PSP does not support this Bill in its current form. Singaporeans deserve better. For country, for people.
Mr Speaker: Mr Raj Joshua Thomas.
Mr Raj Joshua Thomas (Nominated Member): Sir, I rise to support the Bill moved by the hon Minister for Trade and Industry.
The Bill follows on the tails of an international wave of jurisdictions introducing or tightening laws with similar intents over the past few years. Over 50 jurisdictions have done so. I think the Minister mentioned at least 23 countries, but my research seems to suggest that there are over 50 jurisdictions that have done so. The UK Parliament enacted the NSI Act in 2021, which entered into force in 2022.
In Germany, the government made amendments to the Ordinance on the Designation of Critical Infrastructures, which came into effect in 2022, that significantly expanded the scope of entities that qualify as operators of critical infrastructure and lowered the investment thresholds in certain critical infrastructure sectors, for example, IT, telecommunications and energy. There are also similar laws in the US and in Australia.
I have two clarifications on the Bill.
My first clarification is on definitions and the consistency of definitions across statutes. The term \"national security interest\" is used extensively in the Bill but is not defined in the Bill; and the term \"national security interest\", in that order – \"national\", \"security\", \"interest\" – also appears to be quite unique to this Bill.
The Personal Data Protection Act, or PDPA, has a definition of \"national interest\". It is defined as including \"national defence, national security, public security, the maintenance of essential services and the conduct of international affairs\". So, national security is included in that Act in the definition of \"national interest\".
However, I separately note that pursuant to the introduction of FICA, we amended, inter alia, the Societies Act to change the mention of \"national interest\" to \"national security and interest\". It, therefore, follows or suggests that \"national security\", \"national interest\" and potentially \"national security interest\" may actually refer to different things.
I note that in then-Minister for Communications and Information Dr Yaacob Ibrahim's speech on the Films (Amendment) Bill in 2018, the Minister provided another relevant definition, that is, the definition of \"considerations of national security\". He defined it as including what would be \"detrimental to the continued existence of the country, its ability to exercise its sovereign rights and the safety and security of citizens and their way of life\".
While it may appear pedantic, it is important for us to have consistency of definitions across statutes, especially when the use of a particular term or particular similar terms confer wide-ranging powers to the respective Minister as it does in this Bill. It is also important to clarify what exactly the term means to give guidance to the Office of Significant Investments Review, which will be set up after the enactment of the Bill, on what exactly are the activities they should be looking out for, particularly as regards non-designated entities that have acted against Singapore's national interests, pursuant to clause 32 of the Bill. It would also help to identify what activities or transactions entities should avoid so that they are not inadvertently caught by the provisions of the Bill.
In this regard, I would like to seek clarification from the Minister as to the definition of \"national security interest\" in the Bill; and specifically, whether it would be aligned with the definition of \"considerations of national interest\" as elaborated by Minister Yaacob Ibrahim in the context of the Films (Amendment) Bill, which I mentioned earlier, or otherwise.
Again, I would like to emphasise that consistency in the use of terms across statutes is important and that these definitions should be clarified at the earliest opportunity to avoid ambiguity and uncertainty.
In fact, the point made by the hon Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Mr Leong just in his speech before mine is interesting, where he asked whether a CEO who joined an opposition party, whether such a situation would be considered as contrary to national security. So, if we can define what the term is properly and clearly, then we can avoid such concerns or such assertions being made, which may mislead the public as to the intentions and the results of the application of the Bill.
My second question is with regard to the possibility of listed companies being designated as designated entities, in particular, defence-related Singapore-listed companies. I note that the list of designated companies will be published after the enactment of the Bill. First, I expect that the mere fact that a company is a listed company would not deter the Government from designating it as a designated entity if necessary. In such an event, how will the Government ameliorate any adverse effect on the share price of such companies if they are announced to be on the list of designated entities, so as to avoid undue effects on investors, in particular, retail investors, in these companies?
The above having been said, this Bill is an important chink in our armour against undue influence that may be used against Singapore's interests and will complement existing legislation to protect Singapore's national security and economy. Notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Don Wee.
Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill.
The COVID-19 pandemic has shown how important it is that we have control over critical entities, supply sources and logistic chains. Given how dependent we are on imports and considering the diversity of countries which supply goods and services to Singapore, we must ensure that significant investments are from reliable and friendly allies to mitigate our risks.
Similar legislation had been passed in many countries in recent years, including a few Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries and China. More nations are expected to follow, as governments scrutinise inward foreign direct investments (FDIs) ever more rigorously to enhance economic resilience and national security. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The proposed Bill is intended to complement the existing legislation that already targets individual business sectors, while the current legislation already imposes restrictions on institutions in sectors, such as telecommunications, banking and utilities. The new Bill could plug the policy loopholes created by today's international strategic investment environment.
However, since these institutions have not been identified, would the Minister be able to share more clearly the criteria for the selection or exclusion of these candidates and the components which buyers and sellers need to pay attention to? Will the Minister provide more information and examples of the circumstances under which our national security and strategic interests are threatened? Do these instances include private healthcare facilities with medical records of our government leaders and industry heads? May I know what impact does this type of regulation have on businesses in specific sectors from the time they were implemented till now?
This new Bill should draw upon experiences from the past and most importantly, not cause foreign investors to lose confidence in Singapore, which impact employment opportunities for our people.
(In English): Another question I have is regarding the complex structures of many investment companies. More likely than not, most have many owners and the intertwined relationships can be multi-layered and multinational. How would the Government assess these complicated fund sources and identify the ultimate beneficiary owners? In the event remedial direction may be issued to transfer or dispose equity interests held in the designated entities or to change a key office-bearer, how does the Minister decide on the timeframe? A lot of malicious corporate actions can be performed during a short duration.
As with any new process, there are possibilities of unintended consequences. While I am glad to note that the Bill was crafted in consultation with industry representatives to take into account the potential impact on businesses and investors, I am concerned about the potential dampening impact on our FDI. As a country, which has traditionally courted investments, how would the Government project our continued welcome of legitimate investments and build upon our reputation as an attractive investment destination?
Mr Speaker: Mr Neil Parekh.
Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join this debate. Before us today is the Significant Investments Review Bill.
Keeping in context the current geopolitical environment, many similar open economies in the world have introduced measures to subject investments in strategically important companies to greater scrutiny. For example, as of April 2023, 24 out of the 27 member states of the European Union have already introduced or are in the process of introducing similar measures. There is a concern that investments in strategic companies may be motivated not just by commercial interests, but also by geopolitical objectives. These concerns are most pronounced where the acquiring firms are state-owned or controlled by a state.
Moreover, considering Singapore's status as a significant global financial hub that embraces international investors, conducting such a review at this time is highly opportune. Clarity and consistency of policy is what sophisticated investors around the world look for. Striking a balance between ensuring national security and maintaining a business-friendly environment is crucial for enhancing Singapore's competitiveness in the global arena.
I would like to take this opportunity to seek some clarifications from the hon Minister.
The Bill empowers the Minister to take various actions, including designating entities, issuing remedial actions and conducting reviews of transactions. The potential for such an intervention may result in delays in the approval of forthcoming legitimate investments. Could the Minister please elaborate on the scenarios that may warrant some of these remedial actions? Has a maximum timeline been provided for issuing remedial decisions and conducting reviews of transactions? Also, has a timeline been established for the regular review of the list of designated entities?
Another point where I would like to seek a clarification on, is what may constitute national security interests? While I fully appreciate it may be impossible to list every possible interest, I ask for this clarification as, in many other jurisdictions, the ambiguity surrounding this definition has led to significant losses for investors.
In the current geopolitical environment, the biggest national threat for Singapore is the economic threat. As has been mentioned, this new legislation will be in addition to the existing sectoral legislation in regulated sectors, such as telecommunications, banking and utilities. I would like to seek clarification on how inconsistencies in regulation of entities with a similar economic risk profile across sectors will be avoided. Would we not have been better served by having one clear, consistent and comprehensive Bill that covers all relevant sectors and entities? From a business investor's point of view, having one single comprehensive process would provide the enhanced clarity and consistency that is desired.
In this regard, I would like to seek a clarification on whether a more comprehensive approach to regulating foreign investments in entities significant to Singaporeans' daily lives is being considered. For example, in Australia, the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 applies to all foreign investments in that country. Having a similar act would help maintain all critical entities that play a key role in the daily life of all Singaporeans to remain in control of Singaporeans rather than fall prey in the hands of foreign investors who, perhaps, may be more focused on short-term profits rather than optimising quality products and services for Singaporeans over the long-term.
To maintain the transparency, consistency and clarity that investors desire, perhaps a high-dollar limit for a minimum transaction value of S$400 million be established for such foreign investments to be included in this process. Establishing such a higher minimum transaction value could perhaps help maintain efficiency without compromising regulatory oversight and continue to make Singapore an attractive destination for foreign investment. In my view, in the current geopolitical environment, such a broader proposal for a more comprehensive Bill would be understood and readily accepted by foreign investors.
Also, many large institutional investors cannot invest in designated entities unless there is a clear mechanism for those designated entities to potentially regain their undesignated status. Can the Minister perhaps share information on the process that is being established for such designated entities to be undesignated in the future?
In summary, aiming to enhance the resilience of the economy and strengthen Singapore's position as a trusted hub for businesses to invest with confidence, in my view, the introduction of SIRB at this time is opportune and excellent for Singapore.
This Bill provides the necessary flexibility to the Minister to act swiftly and decisively when needed. The establishment of the Office of Significant Investments Review also provides a very useful dedicated one-stop touchpoint for all stakeholders.
Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding my request for some clarifications, I believe this Bill is a very good balanced first step for us to manage the unique risks emerging from allowing meaningful investments in our critical entities in Singapore. I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Razwana Begum.
Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Significant Investments Review Bill.
This Bill sets out a framework to regulate significant investments, whether originating locally or internationally, in entities deemed crucial to the national security interests of Singapore. This is an important, timely and strategic Bill. The Bill develops an investment management regime that balances Singapore's economic prosperity and capacity to attract investors with proportional oversight mechanisms to protect and safeguard Singapore's national security interests.
As explained by Minister Gan earlier, this Bill aims to adopt a calibrated approach, balancing both investment and national security interests.
Mr Speaker, part of Singapore's success can be attributed to our capacity to attract foreign investments and our focus on innovation. Singapore is a small nation with no natural resources to trade with the world. Yet, we have developed a robust economy and established a strong reputation in global markets. We have created a safe and secure environment for our people with living standards that are among the highest in the world. We have come a long way over the past 60 years: from our initial industrialisation effort in the 1960s, with factories producing items, such as garments, mosquito coils and toys; to now, hosting regional headquarters for some of the world's largest and most innovative companies, such as Novartis, Microsoft and Apple.
Mr Speaker, investment is critical to Singapore's economy and this Bill provides a framework to assess and mitigate potential risks associated with investments that could compromise national security. Issues of national security are multifaceted and constantly evolving in an interconnected world where capital flows transcend borders. The impact of large investments on nationals' well-being cannot be understated. Certain industries are critical to Singapore's infrastructure and our safety and security must be shielded from potential threats posed by foreign and domestic entities.
Legislative control is necessary to prevent large-scale disruptions to critical entities caused by speculative investments or hostile takeovers, without compromising Singapore's attractiveness to foreign investors. With that understanding and while I acknowledge the potential benefits of this Bill, I do have some clarifications and suggestions.
Mr Speaker, as a head of the Public Safety and Security Programme at the Singapore University of Social Sciences, I have a personal and professional interest in the area of public safety and security. My concerns are largely based on my research and development of courses related to this topic. My clarifications are divided into two areas.
First, national security risk assessment. Mr Speaker, as raised by other hon Members of this Parliament earlier, despite the concept of national security interests being fundamental to this Bill, the Bill does not include an explanation or definition of the term.
Prof Arnold Wolfers from Yale University famously defined national security as an ambiguous symbol. According to Prof Wolfers, \"National security concerns the protection or preservation of cherished values against threat or damage and traditionally. For the State, these values are sovereignty and prosperity\". Prof Wolfers goes on to say that, \"In an objective sense, national security measures the absence of threats to acquired values; in a subjective sense, it measures the absence of fear that such values will be attacked.\"
Given the inherent vagueness surrounding the terms \"national security\" and \"national security interests\" and the ever-changing nature of national security, it may not be feasible to include a workable definition of those terms in the Bill. However, I would like to echo the points made by my fellow Nominated Member of Parliament, Mr Raj Thomas, on the need to differentiate the terms and be clear.
Additionally, what is a national security issue one day, may not be so the next; and we also never know what is around the corner regarding new and emerging national security threats.
Mr Speaker, in Singapore, our national security strategy aims to enhance coordination among the different Ministries and national security agencies. We have the National Security Coordination Secretariat that provides planning and coordination and each Ministry also has its own system for assessing risk to national security.
In light of the above, will the Ministry consider developing an evidence-based robust and flexible risk assessment tool that can be used across all Ministries to identify what is and what is not an issue of national security? In doing so, the tool could also be used to assess or categorise investments based on their potential impact on national security as well as monitor which sectors may pose a greater security risk at any one time.
As well as being of assistance across the Government, the risk assessment tool could also form the basis of guidelines to educate and support potential investors with investment applications. The guidelines would also promote responsible investments, increase investors' confidence in expanding into sensitive industries and maintain the image of Singapore as being efficient and pro-business.
Similar guidelines are currently in use in Australia, where they have established publicly available sectoral guidance. They have also implemented national interests and national security tests as part of their investment screening policy.
Second, the Office of Significant Investments Review. Mr Speaker, I note that an Office of Significant Investments Review is to be established within MTI and it is supposed to be a dedicated one-stop touchpoint for stakeholders. I support the establishment of such an office and ask the Minister whether the office is to be established under the current Bill with its roles and function defined by legislation. Being legislatively based would clarify and formalise the roles and function of the office and would provide the office with ongoing certainty and stability.
Mr Speaker, in defining the roles and function of the Office of Significant Investments Review, it is important that the office is seen by both local and foreign investors as accessible and business-friendly and a place where they can go for information, advice and support. It would not be helpful if investors, either current or future, felt that the only function of the office was to oversee, investigate and issue remedial opinionative directions.
I am pleased to note that this Bill provides information on the administration, reconsideration, appeals and judicial review as well as enforcement. It is important for any remedial opinionative direction made to be transparent. By doing so, I believe we can create a safe environment, promoting responsible investments and voluntary compliance.
To conclude, this Bill is a positive step forward in ensuring Singapore remains a resilient and secured nation. When developing this management review framework, we must strike a balance between considering global economic condition, geopolitical tensions, defer competition for investments and investors' aspirations.
On that note. I would like to share the remarks made by Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong at the annual May Day Rally last year. On that occasion, he noted, \"We must always have that something special that convinces the world that we are better bad than most and that Singapore can always be relied upon to deliver.\"
Mr Speaker, clarifications notwithstanding, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill will create an oversight framework for entities critical to our national security interests. I have three points of clarification.
My first set of clarifications, is on the notification and approval regime for notification and approval regime for controllers of designated entities.
Under section 16, a person's shareholdings are combined with their associates' shareholdings to determine if notice or approval requirements are triggered. The definition of associate, under section 15, is very wide. It can include even a person's employers, employees and colleagues. Can the Minister share how the monitoring of the shareholding of associates may be carried out in practice by individuals?
If there is any contravention of notices or approval requirements, the burden is on the accused to prove that they were not aware of the contravention. Can Minister also provide examples of what an accused will need to show to prove that they were not aware of the contravention?
My other clarification on this topic, is on a difference in the defences available for contravening certain notices requirements.
Section 18(5) requires the accused to notify the Minister within seven days of contravening a notice requirement. Section 19(12)(c) only requires the accused to take \"all reasonable steps\" to notify the Minister within seven days of contravening a separate notice requirement. Can the Minister clarify the rationale for making it is easier to avail to the defence in section 19?
My second clarification is on the Minister's power to issue a review notice against an entity that has acted against our national security interests. This power extends beyond designated entities, to any entity formed in or carrying business in Singapore. It also extends to any transaction where voting power is acquired. The broad powers in this part of the Bill mean that such transactions may be unwound within two years after they are concluded.
MTI has said that the Bill is designed to be business-friendly. However, these broad powers may increase costs and slow down business activity by requiring additional due diligence and monitoring of investments after a transaction has closed. Can the Minister share the findings of its consultations with businesses on the impact of these provisions and how the Government intends to mitigate the impact on businesses?
My last clarification is on the role and powers of the Reviewing Tribunal. As the scope of judicial review is limited by section 46, the Reviewing Tribunal substantively performs the function of the Supreme Court in reviewing the Minister's powers under this Bill. The proceedings of a Reviewing Tribunal are deemed to be judicial proceedings. Can the Minister confirm that the Reviewing Tribunal will apply consistent standards of judicial review as the Singapore Courts, with reference to the applicable case precedents?
Due to national security reasons also, appellants may not be provided with full information regarding the decision being appealed. Can the Minister confirm that the Reviewing Tribunal will be separately provided with all information, even information not given to the appellant, to make their decision?
Lastly, will the Reviewing Tribunal be allowed to take into account the potentially incomplete information provided to the appellant, in deciding each case?
Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Mark Lee.
Mr Mark Lee (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore's reputation as an open, stable and business-friendly economy is a testament to our foresight and commitment to global integration.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, our decision to keep supply chains open and maintain trade links not only demonstrated our resilience but also reinforced worldwide investors' confidence. This strategic move was crucial at a time when many countries were turning inwards, underscoring Singapore's role as a reliable partner in global trade and commerce.
As we navigate new geopolitical and security complexities, it is crucial that the Significant Investments Review Bill is crafted and perceived as an extension of these values. The Bill must be seen as a proactive measure to safeguard our economic and security interests while reinforcing our commitment to being an open, transparent and reliable partner in the global economy.
As mentioned by the Minister, many countries have established various forms of investment screening, particularly in sensitive sectors, such as defence, technology, infrastructure and energy, reflecting the global trend towards safeguarding national interest. One of our nearest neighbours, Vietnam, has investment management rules for critical sectors, like rice exports and mineral mining.
Businesses appreciate that the proposed Bill strikes a reasonable balance between national security needs and business priorities. It is not an omnibus legislation and will only be applied to a handful of designated entities critical to Singapore's national security interests.
In addition, the establishment of a dedicated Office of Significant Investments Review as a one-stop touchpoint is a positive move and will help to ensure that key issues and concerns are addressed expediently.
I am glad that the Minister has made clear that the rules of this proposed Bill will not retroactively apply. This will give great comfort to ensure existing investors do not get stuck and entrepreneurs not lose value from having a narrower group of investors to prospect for fundraising or exit. The publication of the list of the designated entities will also be important to take the guesswork out of potential investors.
However, some clarifications to the Minister. Under what circumstances and how often will the designated list be updated?
Under the provisions regarding national security interest directions that the proposed Bill permits, the definition of national security needs further clarity as spoken by Nominated Member Raj Thomas.
Under section 32(3), a Minister is allowed to publish notices to review transactions within a period of two years after any transaction. After such notice, the Minister may at any time thereafter order directions under section 32(5). This means that businesses may be subjected to potential scrutiny and uncertainty for an indefinite, undefined time period even after transactions are completed. This is not ideal especially for higher-value transactions and investments.
Second, there are powers under this Bill that allow for the review of ownership of entities even if they are not designated. There are concerns that this will give the Government \"soft\" powers to flag and control the transactions of legitimate entities in certain sectors. It would be helpful for the Government to provide more clarity on how businesses can have certainty that they would not be penalised under this legislation and the conditions that they would have to fulfil do not fall out of line with national security provisions.
The current requirements under section 32(1), which provide that the Minister's powers can activated as long as the entity is incorporated and has business activity in Singapore, are quite broad and arguably require further clarity.
Lastly, we call for a consistently open and consultative approach from the Government, including established timelines for responses and a transparent appeals process. This will enable businesses to effectively navigate the legislation and align their operations with national security requirements.
For instance, there is currently no provision within the Act that allows for appeals against Special Administration Orders, even though such orders may potentially result in significant changes in the management of the affairs, business and property of a designated entity.
We appreciate that under section 28, designated entities and affected individuals will be given an opportunity to be heard in decisions regarding removal of key officers. It would be ideal if a similar forum could be provided for other Orders made under the proposed Bill as well.
We need to ensure that companies, investors and entrepreneurs do not perceive this proposed Bill as a protectionist move by Singapore, as such ownership rules tend to be associated with these intentions. The proposed Bill does well by clarifying the limited circumstances in which the Minister's discretion may be exercised and provides well-needed assurance that orders made outside such purposes would be against the spirit and objective of the Act under section 29(2).
In conclusion, the business community calls on the Government to maintain a consultative approach, provide clarity on pertinent issues, like national security definition; and also sought to refine processes and outcomes and ensure that the Bill does not inadvertently stifle growth and innovation. In doing so, we can continue to strengthen Singapore's position as a trusted hub for businesses and investments.
Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications raised, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Significant Investments Review Bill is a critical piece of legislation with far-reaching implications for Singapore's future trajectory.
While acknowledging the imperative of safeguarding our national security, I believe in the critical need to thoroughly consider this Bill's potential impact on our economic growth, transparency and accountability. I seek clarification in several areas.
First, Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek clarifications on how the Bill may impact foreign investment and some specific industries.
One of my primary concerns lies in the potential dampening effect this Bill may pose to foreign investment. Investors thrive on clarity and predictability. At present, the lack of specific guidelines could create an environment of uncertainty. While we understand the need for discretion, without a clear understanding of the risk assessment methodology, investors might hesitate and this might impede economic growth.
Also, will the provisions of this Bill conflict with any existing trade agreements? If so, how will this be addressed when the provisions of this Bill become law?
Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, the broad authority granted to the Government under this Bill raises legitimate questions about transparency and accountability. The vague delineation of \"national security interests\" necessitates clear guidelines and a robust oversight mechanism. This is to reassure stakeholders that they may be assured of equitable and judicious application of this law, thereby averting the potential abuse of authority.
Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, how does the Minister intend to strike a balance between security and economic growth? Achieving equilibrium between national security imperatives and economic prosperity is a nuanced undertaking. Compliance, like a tangled vine, can choke the life out of economic activity. We must ensure that the burden placed on designated entities is proportionate to the identified risk, lest we inadvertently stifle the very growth that we seek to protect.
Can the Government provide concrete examples of how the Bill will affect businesses in different sectors? What measures are in place to minimise compliance costs and administrative burdens?
Businesses are the heartbeat of our economy. We must treat them with the care they deserve. Overly stringent regulations risk stifling innovation and hampering our capacity to attract and retain talent, as the designated entities are required to seek approval for the appointment of key officers. This may be viewed as being intrusive. As such, this may ultimately hinder our long-term economic objectives.
Fourth, Mr Speaker, Sir, did we learn from the experiences of other countries with similar legislation, in the formulation of this Bill? I note that some countries have acknowledged the need to have adequate levers to ensure the security and reliability of their critical infrastructure, facilities, supply chains, technologies and resources.
For instance, in 2023, the UK government investigated the proposed acquisition of two UK businesses by a wholly-owned UK subsidiary of a French state-owned company. The transaction was deemed a potential risk to national security. This was because of the critical national security and defence capabilities relating to naval propulsion systems delivered through the two UK entities. While the acquisition was eventually given the go-ahead, it was subject to various conditions, such as physical and information security requirements.
This is not the only example. We must, therefore, look beyond our shores and other similar legislation implemented overseas. For instance, how do other countries define \"national security interests\"? What safeguards have they put in place to ensure transparency and accountability? By learning from others, we can refine our own Bill to achieve its objectives without inadvertently harming our economic engine.
Fifth, Mr Speaker, Sir, consideration should be given to the protection of minority shareholders. The Bill must, where possible, ensure the fair treatment and protection of these shareholders within designated entities. Their investments should not be prejudiced beyond what is necessary. Clear guidelines and robust dispute resolution mechanisms must be established to safeguard their interests.
Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, how does the Government ensure clarity and efficiency of the review process? It must be a process that is streamlined, expeditious and without unnecessary delays or administrative burdens. Investors deserve a transparent and timely decision-making process, one that fosters trust and encourages continued engagement with our economy.
Can the Government elaborate on the safeguards against potential misuse of Ministerial powers? Will there be independent review mechanisms in place for Ministerial decisions? Also, can the Government assure us that the Tribunal will be equipped with the necessary expertise to handle complex national security considerations? Will its decisions be binding on the Minister?
Further, will the Government publish or share the findings and the basis of such reviews? Doing so will likely instil confidence in investors, so that they may trust that such a process is transparent and fair.
We need to ensure that there is sufficient manpower and resources to facilitate this. I note that the Minister earlier mentioned that an Office of Significant Investments Review will be set up. What additional manpower would be required by this office? And given that this deals with national security interests would it mean only Singapore citizens would be employed?
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, from our early years of Independence, we have confronted both regional and domestic threats and events that aimed to undermine our national security. These threats persist today.
In recent decades, countries have increasingly embraced openness to investments, fostering economic growth through joint ventures, local partnerships and mergers. However, with these investments comes the risk of malicious actors exerting undue influence over entities, compromising a nation's security interests. In Singapore's context, with an open investment environment, we remain vulnerable to the risk of malicious actors seeking to gain control of our critical entities. It is therefore imperative that we introduce this Bill to safeguard our national security interests.
Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill sits at the crossroads. One path leads to a fortress, our nation shielded from harm. But another path leads to a tangled thicket, growth choked by uncertainty.
We must choose wisely. Therefore, I urge the Government to carefully consider the clarifications offered, scrutinise the potential ramifications of the Bill and glean valuable insights from the experiences of other countries. Only through comprehensive deliberation can we refine this legislation into a robust shield that protects our national interests without stifling innovation and investment.
In closing, I draw your attention to the earlier clarifications, namely:
(a) the potential impact on foreign investment due to the Bill's broad definition of \"national security interests\";
(b) the necessity for clear guidelines and robust oversight mechanisms to ensure transparency and accountability in applying the Bill;
(c) the delicate balance between national security and economic growth, and the risk of overly-stringent regulations hindering our long-term economic objectives;
(d) the importance of safeguarding the rights and interests of minority shareholders within designated entities;
(e) the imperative for a streamlined, efficient, and transparent review process that fosters trust and confidence in investors; and
(f) the question of the adequate resources for the new Office of Significant Investments Review and the potential implications for national security considerations.
Mr Speaker, Sir, addressing these concerns will not only pave the way for a more effective Bill. It also reaffirms Singapore's commitment to being a beacon of transparency, fairness, and a thriving economic engine for generations to come. Let us ensure that this legislation protects our future, not impedes it. Let us act now, without hesitation, to weave a future where security and prosperity flourish side by side.
Notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Foo Mee Har.
Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Mr Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the Significant Investments Review Bill. As the global economic and political landscape becomes increasingly volatile, I agree that it is timely that we further tighten the oversight of critical entities that are crucial to the proper functioning of our economy and society. Singapore must guard against undue influence from players whose interests may not be aligned with ours.
As we debate the Significant Investments Review Bill, we should be reminded of instances when Singapore was on the receiving end of such considerations. If Members of this House remember in 2011, the Australian Treasurer rejected the takeover of ASX Limited by the Singapore Stock Exchange, ruling that the takeover could undermine Australia's position as a financial centre as well as jeopardise the stability of the country's financial system. The takeover was deemed not to be in Australia's national interest.
With the introduction of Significant Investments Review Bill, Singapore will align with numerous countries globally that have strengthened their investment management legislation. Those in the investor community that I spoke to, whilst initially surprised by this introduction, acknowledged and said they understand the necessity of such measures in the context of today's economic environment.
Mr Speaker, whilst supporting the Bill, we must recognise that introducing an investment screening regime in Singapore, a country renowned for its open-market economy, requires careful balance. As highlighted in the 2023 United Nations Article on \"The Evolution of FDI Screening Mechanisms\", it is important to find the proper balance between preserving an appropriate level of regulatory discretion to address national security challenges while ensuring an acceptable level of certainty and predictability to investors. Three crucial aspects – predictability, transparency and administrative efficiency – are key to effective implementation.
To achieve this, it is of utmost importance that the provisions in the Bill adopt a balanced rules-based approach, with a predictable screening process with minimal bureaucracy. The Bill should also align with international best practices and standards, be focused on high-risk entities and never, never over-extend its regime. We should also take into consideration how the Bill may impact the wider investor community, including minority shareholders.
With these factors in mind, I would like to make five key points pertaining to the Bill.
First, it is noteworthy that the provisions in the Significant Investments Review Bill apply to both local and foreign investors, based primarily on considerations of national security. This approach prevents potential biases or preferential treatment that could disadvantage either domestic or foreign investors, fostering a level playing field and enhancing transparency in the investment environment. So, this is a good thing. The distinction between foreign and local can also sometimes be arbitrary. So, knowing that all players are subject to the same scrutiny can reassure investors that the market operates under fair and transparent principles.
Second, the Bill seeks to protect the \"national security interests\" of Singapore by regulating significant investments in, and control of, critical entities. But like many speakers in this House, it is unclear what specific criteria, in regard to \"national security interests\", apply to entities under the Significant Investments Review Bill. Without a clear definition of what constitutes \"national security interests\", this may risk the new regime being seen as opaque, lacking in transparency and fuel investors' fear of the enforcement being arbitrary.
I do acknowledge the multifaceted dimensions of what national security might entail, and Singapore has our own unique security needs, economic structure and geopolitical context. However, investors will need a clearer set of definitions and guidance to understand how entities are designated and classified in practice.
So, I would like to ask the Minister whether the Government can provide further insights by stating, generally, sensitive areas that may be covered by the Bill such as critical infrastructure, advanced technologies, data and personal information, military and defence, public services and utilities or critical supply chain components.
For example, the UK's NSI Act identifies 17 sensitive sectors where acquisitions need to be notified for national security reasons.
Sir, understandably, the Government ought to retain the flexibility to be able to deal with the consequences and externalities that may arise, to update the definitions in line with the changing technological and geopolitical landscapes. But there is great, great merit in increased transparency around what is deemed as critical entities and this would be enhanced by a regular process of providing detailed decisions by which others could judge how the process operates.
Third, the designation and approval process must be efficient and streamlined with minimal bureaucracy. I appreciate the Bill sets out clear and detailed processes, including instances where affected parties will have the opportunities to submit representations before the Minister makes his decisions; and there are channels for reconsideration requests and appeals to an independent Reviewing Tribunal.
The Minister also mentioned in his Second Reading speech, that there will be a dedicated one-stop office that will be set up to provide guidance as well as address clarifications from affected stakeholders. I think this dedicated touchpoint is helpful and reassuring.
However, while Bill does stipulate expected turnaround time for designated entities to respond to the authorities, the other way round is absent – so the expected turnaround time from the Minister or the authorities to revert for approvals and appeals is unclear. As business transactions are often time-sensitive, it would be reasonable to consider providing clarity on turnaround times for approvals and appeals, so that companies may make the necessary arrangements to meet the requirements under the Bill as well as their own business obligations.
For example, the CFIUS commits to a specific timeline for its review process, such as a 45-day review period, once a filing is accepted as complete. If necessary, this can be followed by a further 45-day investigation.
Sir, a robust appeal mechanism adds a layer of fairness and legal recourse for investors, which is critical to maintaining trust. Currently, the Bill has provision for the setting up of a Reviewing Tribunal with members appointed by the President, at the advisement of the Cabinet, and the chairperson must be a Supreme Court judge. The members are also accorded judicial protection and immunity as a Judge of the High Court and decisions made by the Tribunal are deemed as judicial proceedings.
At the same time, members of the Reviewing Tribunal will have access to information in the areas of internal security, defence, technology, national security and commerce. These stipulations reflect the highest importance and emphasis placed on the Reviewing Tribunal.
I would like to ask the Minister, what would be the broad operating principles that go toward guiding the appointment of the Reviewing Tribunal members, with power to revoke the Government's decisions? How can the investor community be confident that the Reviewing Tribunal members are free from political and economic pressures influencing the review process?
Fourth, it is of utmost importance that the application of the Significant Investments Review process is focused on high-risk entities and never to over-extend its regime. Could the Minister clarify how many critical entities are expected to be captured under this new regime at the start and how the list may grow or change over time?
Sir, Singapore currently already has in place, a range of sectoral legislation that includes ownership and control safeguards to monitor and manage entities in regulated sectors, such as telecommunications, utilities and banking. The Significant Investments Review Bill is expected to be targeted and imposed on individual entities not covered by existing sectoral legislation. Could the Minister please clarify, how the sector-specific legislation will be effectively integrated with the Significant Investment Review legislation?
In light of the additional obligations that come with being identified as a critical entity, will the Government consider implementing compensatory measures to ensure these entities can effectively meet their responsibilities? For example, could a large data centre infrastructure, designated as a critical entity, be assured of priority access to electricity to maintain uninterrupted operations vital to its role?
Fifth, as the Bill entails a range of possible interventions ranging from divestment orders to remedial directions around equity interests and control over officers of designated entities, such actions may have implications on market perception and confidence of the designated entities' future performance and prospects. I am concerned about the impact to minority shareholders. For example, blocking a foreign acquisition may prevent a potential increase in share price, affecting potential gains for minority shareholders.
In some cases, the Government intervention might lead to liquidity concerns, especially if it involves critical sectors where investment options are limited. This could affect the ability of minority shareholders to sell their shares without incurring significant losses. How can the Government protect the rights of minority shareholders in such circumstances? For example, in cases where the Government intervention leads to expropriation or nationalisation, will it ensure that minority shareholders receive fair compensation for their shares?
To conclude, beyond the specifics hard-coded in legislation, it is imperative to recognise that, for businesses and investors, the consistent application of transparency in interactions with stakeholders after the Bill's passage holds paramount importance. The true measure of our conduct will be reflected in the investors' actual experiences with the authorities. This includes the efficiency with which their applications are processed and the openness of regulators regarding the progress and status of these applications.
Singapore boasts an exemplary track record of administrative efficiency. So, I hope the Ministry will maintain this standard of efficiency in the implementation of this Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Minister Gan.
The Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Gan Kim Yong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank hon Members for their support of the Bill as well as their comments and suggestions. I note that Mr Leong Mun Wai has not supported the Bill and I hope I can explain to him all his questions, and I hope he will reconsider his decision.
Allow me to now address some of the key points and questions Members have raised.
In developing the Bill, we have studied carefully the investment management legislation of other jurisdictions as well as our own current sectoral legislation. The Bill's provisions are largely similar to those in overseas legislation and are quite similar to those in our existing sectoral legislation, which most investors would therefore be familiar with.
These provisions are also consistent with our international trade obligations, a concern raised by several Members.
We have reached out to various local and international communities to explain the intent of the Bill. We have reassured them that the Bill has been carefully calibrated to balance between having adequate oversight over the ownership and control of these critical entities, while ensuring that Singapore's economy remains open and business-friendly, as well as investor-friendly. This will address the concerns raised by Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Shawn Huang and Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant.
Mr Don Wee asked about the impact of existing sectoral legislation on companies in sectors, such as utilities and banking. While this will be more appropriately addressed by the respective sector lead agencies, I can assure Mr Wee that they have been working closely with the industry to address their concerns and minimise any adverse impact.
Let me emphasise that the provisions in this Bill will not be applied retroactively, a concern raised by Mr Mark Lee.
Mr Shawn Huang asked what constitutes \"significant investments\" under this Bill. We will focus on entities that would be significant to Singapore's national security interests, rather than to take a more expansive and comprehensive approach that other overseas investment screening regimes have adopted, as suggested by Mr Neil Parekh.
Ms Foo Mee Har, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Neil Parekh, Assoc Prof Razwana Begum, Mr Raj Thomas and Mr Louis Chua have all asked for greater clarity on the definition of \"national security\".
Sir, I join many Members in asking for more and clearer definition of \"national security\". But sometimes, more is less. Having discussed and deliberated extensively – internally and with our advisors and various parties – and taking into account legislation introduced by other jurisdictions; I came to a conclusion that sometimes, less is more. Especially, in today's world where the global landscape changes very quickly. I would like to assure Members that we will be very judicious in implementing our Bill, but we need the flexibility to allow us to respond very quickly to changes in the global landscape.
National security considerations will evolve over time, and we need to keep the scope wide to allow us sufficient flexibility so that we can respond to unanticipated circumstances in good time. Providing a specific definition of \"national security\" or specific examples of such threats would not only constrain our ability to act quickly to address new risks that may emerge over time, but also expose Singapore's vulnerabilities.
Having said that, broadly speaking, in the context of the Bill, national security would cover areas critical to Singapore's sovereignty and security, including our economic security and the continued delivery of our essential services. As I have mentioned in my Second Reading speech, an example would be if an entity is a key provider of security-related functions, especially where there are few or no alternatives, then this entity will be a critical entity.
Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr Neil Parekh asked how sector-specific legislation will interact with the new Bill. The Bill is not an omnibus legislation and does not supersede ownership and control provisions in sectoral legislation. Sectoral legislation is intended to address sector-specific considerations, including those beyond national security interests, and may set out different obligations than those under this Bill. The Bill is intended to complement existing legislation and focus mainly on national security-related issues.
Mr Shawn Huang and Mr Leong Mun Wai asked how the Bill will affect designated entities' operations, capabilities and infrastructure. As mentioned in my Second Reading speech, the Bill's provisions relate only to ownership and control over designated entities and the Government has no intention to directly interfere with routine commercial decisions and operations of the designated entities.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Ms Foo Mee Har, Mr Don Wee and Mr Shawn Huang asked about specific factors that will be taken into consideration in designating entities. Mr Leong also asked which sectors will be covered by this Bill.
I have covered this in my Second Reading speech. To reiterate, we do not intend to designate specific sectors, but rather, we will designate specific entities. Considerations would include, whether the entity provides a critical function in relation to Singapore's national security interests and whether the entity is adequately covered by sectoral legislation already.
Mr Neil Parekh asked whether there will be inconsistencies in regulation of entities with a similar economic risk profile. Entities with similar profiles and importance to our national security interests will generally be equally considered for designation, although there may be other considerations that eventually result in different designation decisions.
Mr Yip Hon Weng, Ms Foo Mee Har, Mr Don Wee, Mr Neil Parekh, Mr Raj Thomas and Mr Louis Chua asked about potential entities that may be designated.
As most critical entities in Singapore are already adequately covered by existing sectoral legislation, we expect only a handful of critical entities to be designated under this Bill. Designated entities who are of the view that they no longer meet the designation criteria may also engage the Office of Significant Investments Review to request for a review of their designation status.
As mentioned in my Second Reading speech, we have reached out to all the entities that are being considered for designation and are in close discussions with them to understand their perspectives and explore ways to mitigate the regulatory impact on them. I would encourage Members not to speculate at this point, which particular entities will be designated. And as mentioned in my Second Reading speech, after the Act comes into force, all designations will be notified in the Gazette.
We intend to review the list and carry out assessments from time to time, as required. Nonetheless, we do not expect to significantly expand the list of entities in the near future. The addition of any entity to the list will be a carefully considered decision, which will continue to be based on whether designation is necessary in the interests of Singapore's national security. The Ministry will be judicious in exercising the powers under the Act and set out clear processes where possible, to minimise the overall impact on businesses and investors.
On the specific obligations under the Bill, Mr Don Wee asked how the Government will assess complicated fund sources and identify the beneficial owners. We will be as thorough as possible, including consolidating and making sense of information from various sources. But I concede that there will indeed be challenges in detecting instances of non-compliance when ownership structures are complex. This is, indeed, why we need adequate flexibility to be able to respond to emerging national security threats.
Mr Louis Ng commented that the definition of \"associates\" under the Bill is very wide. The definition is actually quite clearly set out in the Bill. For example, those with familial relations or employees of the same employer would be deemed as \"associates\".
Mr Louis Ng also asked how monitoring of shareholding of one's associates may be carried out in practice by individuals. In practice, if an incoming controller is an individual and is aware that its associates also have shareholding in the designated entities, it should take active steps to ensure that it is able to comply with the notification and approval requirements. For example, it could reach out to its associates and request that all parties update each other if they plan to make any changes to their respective shareholding.
Mr Louis Ng asked for examples of what a non-compliant party will need to show to prove that they were not aware of a contravention. This would be fact-dependent, depending on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. If, for example, the contravention occurred due to active action on the part of its associates, then the accused will likely need to demonstrate that it had no prior knowledge of this.
For completeness, even if an accused successfully proves that it was not aware of the contravention when it occurred, to avail itself of the defence, it will have to comply with other provisions in the Bill. These include, notifying the Minister of the contravention within the specified period after he has become aware of it and complying with the remedial directions that the Minister might have issued.
Mr Louis Ng asked why the thresholds for defence differ for similar provisions across clauses 18 and 19. The thresholds are different as they were set, taking into account the contexts and other associated measures.
Mr Louis Chua asked about the rationale for notification obligations that are applicable to 5% controllers. As the Member has pointed out, this is like that of the \"substantial shareholder\" definition in other legislation, such as the Companies Act and the Securities and Futures Act. This will allow the Minister to know that someone has now become a substantial shareholder in an entity.
Mr Louis Chua also asked if the Bill sufficiently covers various scenarios under which control may be effectively transferred, such as via different classes of shares or specific resolutions. On his cited example where this is done via different classes of shares, the direct control thresholds may apply, as they are determined based on holding of equity interests or voting power in the designated entity.
On his other example where this is done via specific resolution, the approval obligations relating to indirect control would be also applicable. This is based on qualitative tests of control, for example, whether parties are able to determine the policy of the designated entity.
Mr Neil Parekh asked about scenarios that may warrant remedial directions. They may be issued under certain circumstances. For example, a party may be ordered to transfer or dispose of equity interests held in the designated entities, if conditions of approval have not been complied with.
Mr Don Wee asked about the considerations underlying the Minister's decision on the timeframe stated in the remedial directions. The Minister will take into account all relevant factors and circumstances of each case. This would include balancing between addressing the extent of national security risk or harm and affording the parties reasonable time to perform the necessary action.
Mr Louis Chua asked about the factors that the Minister could consider in assessing the appointment or removal of key personnel. As mentioned in the example in my Second Reading speech, if we receive information that an individual has a track record of engaging in conduct or activities that could undermine our national security interests, then this would be taken into consideration.
Ms Foo Mee Har, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Mark Lee and Mr Neil Parekh raised concerns about the clarity and efficiency of review processes. Sir, we have not imposed a constraint on turnaround times for the Minister's decisions in this legislation. This is because they may be diverse and complex considerations relating to specific cases. The Minister should be allowed adequate time to conduct thorough assessments.
And as mentioned in my Second Reading speech, we will set up a dedicated office under the Ministry. The office will work closely with the designated entities and affected parties. We will endeavour to process all applications expeditiously and avoid undue delays. Applicants are also welcome to check in with the office on the progress of their applications.
Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr Yip Hon Weng raised concerns about the impact of ownership and control provisions on designated entities, especially on minority shareholders.
Sir, we will be mindful of all shareholders and be judicious in the exercise of our powers, though this must be balanced against the need to ensure the reliability of critical functions that they provide and Singapore's national security interests. For example, for the Special Administration Order involving the transfer of property, rights and liabilities from the designated entity to a prescribed transferee, a payment scheme will also be established to determine the amount of payment to be made.
Mr Louis Ng, Mr Mark Lee and Mr Louis Chua have raised clarifications about the powers that can be exercised against any entity that has acted against the national security interests. We have consulted key stakeholders and they generally recognise the need for the powers to take action against any entity that have acted against our national security interests, even if they have not been designated under the Bill. They understood it should apply only to very few entities.
As mentioned in my Second Reading speech, two conditions must be met before powers under the Bill can be exercised. First, the entity must have acted against our national security interests and not merely pose potential threats to our national security. Second, the ownership or control transaction must have occurred within the two years prior to the above-mentioned action by the entity against our national security interests.
We do not expect there to be significant economic impact on the vast majority of non-designated entities, which have no proactive obligation to track, monitor or report transactions. As I have mentioned in my Second Reading speech, currently under the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act, the Court may order the winding up of a company if it is used against Singapore's national security. The Bill provides a more appropriate and calibrated approach than winding up the company.
Following the review of the transaction under the Bill, directions may be issued, such as directing the transacting party to transfer or dispose of his equity interest in the entity. This will allow the entity to directly address the risk or harm, while continuing to operate.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa had a query about the considerations behind the two-year time bar. The two-year time bar seeks to strike a balance between providing a sufficient runway to commence a review under the Bill and giving investors certainty as to when transactions would no longer be subject to such powers.
Relatedly, Mr Mark Lee said that notwithstanding the time bar for the Minister's issuance of a review notice, there is no time limit for Minister's directions thereafter. We should ensure that the Minister has adequate time to conduct thorough assessments, as I have mentioned earlier, as well as carefully consider what appropriate directions ought to be issued. Nonetheless, let me assure Members that the Government will endeavour to resolve such national security-related matters expeditiously.
Mr Louis Chua had a specific query on how the Government will satisfy itself that an entity has acted against our national security interests. This will be dependent on the circumstances of the case. As mentioned in my Second Reading speech, the Minister for Home Affairs can also issue a certificate stating that he is satisfied that the entity has acted so.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked if the Government will publish its decisions and the basis for doing so. Sir, we may not publish decisions or disclose the reasons for these decisions as they could pertain to sensitive matters of national security. Notwithstanding this, we may do so on a discretionary basis depending on the case-specific circumstances.
Mr Louis Chua cited the examples of the publication of annual reports in overseas jurisdictions and asked if we will have subsidiary legislation on disclosure of information relating to the Bill's implementation. Given that we intend to designate only a handful of entities under the Act and such designation will be notified in the Gazette, there may not be a need for the publication of an annual report per se.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Shawn Huang and Mr Mark Lee raised the need for safeguards and a robust oversight mechanism. Any aggrieved party can seek reconsideration from the Minister for his decisions. They may also further appeal to an independent Reviewing Tribunal.
Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr Yip Hon Weng raised specific queries about the composition of the Reviewing Tribunal. We will consult the Chief Justice on the nomination of the Supreme Court Judges, who will serve as chairpersons of the Reviewing Tribunal. The other members of the Reviewing Tribunal will be selected based on their areas of expertise and standing, just like any other tribunals or independent committees.
To ensure independent decision-making by members of the Reviewing Tribunal, the Bill expressly states that the Minister cannot alter the remuneration and terms of service to their disadvantage once they are appointed by the President. Further, as Ms Foo Mee Har has highlighted, members of the Reviewing Tribunal will also have the same legal protection and immunity as a High Court Judge.
Mr Louis Ng asked if the Reviewing Tribunal will be separately provided with all information, including information that may not be disclosed to the appellant, to make their decisions; and if so, whether the Reviewing Tribunal can take this into account when deciding on the appeal. Yes, the intent is to ensure that appeals before a Reviewing Tribunal are properly heard and thoroughly considered.
As such, the Reviewing Tribunal will be able to rely on all available information in making its decision on the appeal. We will also be working out the rules of the Tribunal in the coming months, which will be published in the subsidiary legislation.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked whether the Reviewing Tribunal's decision will be binding on the Minister. The answer is yes.
Mr Louis Chua and Mr Leong Mun Wai asked about the limited judicial review provision in the Bill. As Mr Chua himself has pointed out, there is the possibility of ill-intentioned parties threatening our national security interests via ownership and control transactions.
It will not be suitable to make the Courts serve as an oversight body, given that decisions under the Bill may involve national security considerations and may, indeed, rely on evidence from intelligence sources that would be highly sensitive. I should reiterate that parties can already appeal to the Reviewing Tribunal on decisions by the Minister. In response to Mr Mark Lee, yes, parties can also appeal to the Tribunal on Special Administration Orders.
Mr Leong Mun Wai also asked about Police powers and why they should be given the powers to enter premises without warrant to carry out their investigations. This power is already consistent with the powers given to the Police under the Criminal Procedure Code, as well as many other domestic legislations to allow them to carry out their investigations. In matters relating to national security, these matters are time-sensitive and it is important to allow the Police officers and commercial affairs officers the flexibility and the ability to carry out their investigation in relation to this Bill.
Assoc Prof Razwana Begum had some queries about the implementation of the Act. We will set up the Office of Significant Investments Review under MTI, which will be the Competent Authority to administer and operationalise the Act. The Office will also serve as a dedicated one-stop touchpoint and closely engage all stakeholders to address their concerns and to minimise the impact on them, if any.
Sir, I believe I have addressed the key issues that have been raised by Members. The Bill will strengthen our position as a trusted hub for businesses to invest with confidence in a stable, safe and secure Singapore. It provides an updated toolkit of levers to enhance our economic resilience and strengthen national security amidst a rapidly evolving and increasingly complex operating landscape.
At the same time, I agree with Mr Mark Lee and Mr Don Wee that we should continue to build on our key fundamentals and strengths which underpin our attractiveness as a business hub, to capture new opportunities and support our businesses.
We are doing so through three broad strategies. First, expanding and deepening economic connectivity for Singapore through international economic partnerships and agreements. Second, renewing Singapore's relevance to the world by furthering cooperation in strategic growth areas, such as sustainability and digitalisation. Third, remaining open as well as protecting Singapore's access to key resources and preferential trade status, by leveraging existing and new collaborations; as well as international engagements.
We will continue to establish strong supply ecosystems and work with businesses, including encouraging them to adopt supply chain resilience efforts, such as diversification of sources to better cope with global supply chain disruptions. As a small and open economy, Singapore will need to keep at adapting our economic strategies in response to the changing global landscape.
I am heartened that Members have acknowledged the necessity and importance of this Bill, and support the Ministry's approach in balancing between economic growth and national security considerations.
With the support of the House today, this Bill will strengthen Singapore's position as a trusted hub for businesses to invest with confidence. Sir, I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Are there any clarifications for the Minister? I see none.
[(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) Question put, \"That Parliament will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill\". (proc text)]
[(proc text) Hon Member said \"No\". (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, would you like for your dissent to be recorded?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, Sir, sorry. I did not mean to stop the formation of the Committee of the whole House.
Mr Speaker: Are you objecting to the Committee stage?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not objecting to the formation of the Committee.
Mr Speaker: Which was the question I had raised earlier, and I asked whether the ayes have it.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sorry, I missed that one. I raised my voice because I thought it was for objecting to the Bill. Can I register my objection to the Bill?
Mr Speaker: Can I suggest that when we go to the Reading of the Bill later, we register your dissent there?
Mr Leong Wai Mun: Yes, okay. Thank you.
Mr Speaker: So, let me repeat the question.
[(proc text) Question \"That Parliament will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill\" put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Gan Kim Yong]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee. (proc text)]
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
The Chairman: The citation year \"2023\" will be changed to \"2024\", as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.
[(proc text) Clauses 1 to 57 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill reported without amendment. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question for Third Reading put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, we will have your dissent recorded. Is that fine?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay.
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.40 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.20 pm until 3.40 pm.
Sitting resumed at 3.40 pm.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Finance (Mr Chee Hong Tat) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance): Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, I beg to move, “That the Bill be now read a Second time.”
Sir, this Bill proposes amendments to several Acts, which are technical in nature. Let me take Members through the key amendments.
Clause 2(b) of the Bill amends section 24(1) of the Business Names Registration Act 2014 to allow the Registrar of Business Names to restore a registration that has been cancelled because the person failed to make Medisave contributions required under section 9A of the Central Provident Fund Act 1953. This will speed up the process for restoring business name registrations, for example, where the business owner has already rectified the non-compliance, without the need to lodge a statutory appeal to the Minister.
Next, on the Property Tax Act 1960, or PTA, there are two groups of amendments.
First, clauses 6(a) and (b) of the Bill amend sections 20A(2) and 22(2) of the PTA, to confer the Chief Assessor and the Comptroller of Property Tax with the discretion to admit late objections to the valuation list and to property tax respectively. This is in line with the respective Comptrollers' powers to admit late objections under other tax legislation.
The second group of amendments in clauses 6(c) to (j) of the Bill amend the PTA to update and streamline provisions relating to the Valuation Review Board, or VRB, which is a tribunal under the PTA that hears and adjudicates property tax-related disputes between taxpayers and the Comptroller or the Chief Assessor. These amendments are aligned with those already made under the Income Tax (Amendment) Act 2022 to the Income Tax Board of Review and the Goods and Services Tax Board of Review.
The amendments to the VRB provisions include removing outdated references, such as the requirement to lodge the notice of appeal in \"duplicate\", which is no longer relevant where documents are sent digitally. The amendments also move various Act-level procedural provisions to subsidiary legislation and clarify the Minister's regulation-making powers on VRB appeals, as well as case management powers of the VRB and the Chairperson.
In addition, the amendments will confer a discretion on the Chairperson to convene a one-member coram to adjudicate VRB hearings, instead of the usual three-member coram. In deciding whether or not to convene a one-member coram, the Chairperson will consider the parties' submissions, as well as the facts and circumstances of the case. Taken together, these amendments will align the VRB provisions with other tax Boards of Review provisions to allow greater flexibility and ensure that tax appeals are resolved in a more timely and efficient manner. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Chee Hong Tat]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee. (proc text)]
[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]
The Chairman: The citation year \"2023\" will be changed to \"2024\", as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.
[(proc text) Clauses 1 to 7 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":"Stillbirths and Births (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The Registration of Births and Deaths Act 2021, or RBDA, governs the registration of births, deaths and stillbirths in Singapore. This Bill introduces two main amendments in relation to stillbirths.
First, clause 9 of the Bill will introduce new sections in RBDA to allow for the official naming of a stillborn child.
The new section 36A will enable the parents of a stillborn child to apply to the Registrar-General of Births and Deaths, or RG for short, for a name to be entered in the stillbirth register within one year after the stillbirth, should they wish to do so.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has heard the views of bereaved parents. We have heard their deeply felt sentiments that a stillbirth is similar to the loss of any child. For some parents, being able to officially name the child is an important step in the healing process.
I would like to especially thank Ms Mandy Too, who had advocated for a stillborn child's name to be entered in the stillbirth register.
In her correspondence, she shared, \"official documentation for stillborn babies would afford them a level of dignity commensurate with the impact they had on those who grieved for them\" and that it would mean the world to her and her husband if their daughters' legacy would help future bereaved families. The time her twin girls – Abigail and Lara – spent with us may have been short, but they have left an indelible mark in this journey to help the bereaved parents.
Others had shared their views in an online petition.
\"For my sleeping child, WY\", said one mum. Another mum said, \"Every birth should be recognised, and every baby deserves a name. In 2007, I lost a baby boy at 24 weeks, and it took me 15 years to finally have another baby.\"
I would also like to mention Ms Felicia Tan, who lost three children and subsequently set up Angel Hearts, a not-for-profit group which creates angel gowns for babies who sadly do not make it home from the hospital. She shared that it is heartbreaking for parents to go shopping for suitable wear for burial as the babies are so tiny that even the smallest baby clothing would simply be too big for them. She said, \"Giving the babies a name and clothing them is our way of saying goodbye and remembering them.\"
Another parent reached out to me for a commemorative certificate as they were preparing for a memorial for their stillborn child.
We hope the amendments to RBDA to allow for the official registration of a name for a stillborn child will go some way to recognise the birth of the child and support the healing process for bereaved parents.
Once clause 9 comes into force, there will be a facility for parents to apply to the RG to register a name for the child, within one year after the stillbirth. Subsequently, the digital stillbirth certificate for the child, which can be downloaded from the My Legacy website, will reflect the child's registered name.
The official naming of stillborn children will require enhancements to the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority's (ICA's) systems. As ICA also has other pressing system enhancements, the enhancement relating to stillbirth naming will take some time. We estimate it to be about two years.
The name for a stillborn child will be subject to requirements laid out in the new section 36B, which mirror the requirements for live births. For instance, the name should not be offensive or obscene.
In the interim, parents who wish to name their stillborn child may apply to ICA for a commemorative birth certificate that reflects the child's name, for remembrance purposes. This can be done through ICA's website.
Currently, \"stillborn child\" is defined in section 2(1) of RBDA as \"a child that issues from the child's mother after the 22nd week of pregnancy and does not show any sign of life at any time after being completely expelled or extracted from the mother.\" I apologise that this is legal language.
Clause 2 of the Bill amends the definition by raising the threshold from 22 weeks of pregnancy to 24 weeks. To provide context, RBDA was enacted in 1937 with a definition of stillbirths that used a threshold of 28 weeks of pregnancy.
In 2021, when RBDA was repealed and re-enacted, the definition of \"stillborn child\" was updated to the current threshold of 22 weeks, to align with the World Health Organization's (WHO's) statistical reporting guidelines which recommended using a gestational age of 22 weeks of pregnancy. These guidelines are non-binding on countries and MHA had, in 2021, decided to adopt them for RBDA for consistency with the WHO for the purpose of statistical reporting.
Subsequently, MHA received feedback from our local medical community that the threshold of 22 weeks of pregnancy in RBDA may be misinterpreted to be an indication of foetal viability, which refers to the ability of a foetus to survive outside the womb. Medical practitioners are concerned about this, because local medical and scientific evidence points to 24 weeks of pregnancy as the threshold for foetal viability and not 22 weeks.
Reviews by the Ministry of Health (MOH) in 2018 and 2022 involving local experts concluded that the survival rate for premature babies born at 22 weeks is close to zero, while foetal viability at 24 weeks is about 50%. It is also for this reason that the 24-week threshold is reflected in the Termination of Pregnancy Act 1974, where an abortion is not allowed for a foetus of more than 24 weeks' duration.
Medical practitioners highlighted that if parents mistook the 22-week threshold in RBDA as an indication of foetal viability, there could be confusion for them on the medical interventions for their unborn child.
We have only had one surviving baby born at 22 weeks in Singapore for the last 10 years. The media reported that the child, a baby girl, was born in 2018 and required a slew of life-sustaining treatments and maximum ventilator support. She spent a total of 166 days in the hospital before being discharged. She is a miracle baby who survived despite the odds. Sadly, such cases are extremely rare.
MHA has reviewed the matter with MOH and will amend the threshold in the definition of \"stillborn child\" in RBDA to 24 weeks of pregnancy. This will align with the cut-off for abortions in the Termination of Pregnancy Act 1974 and remove any potential confusion regarding foetal viability. For absolute clarity, clause 2 of the Bill states the existing position that a stillbirth does not include an aborted foetus.
I would like to assure Members that the amendment to RBDA to raise the threshold to 24 weeks of pregnancy does not imply or indicate any changes to medical guidelines, practices or the standard of care for premature babies born before 24 weeks of pregnancy.
Clauses 10 and 11 of the Bill make similar amendments to the definition of \"stillborn child\" in the Income Tax Act 1947. Stillborn children are counted in the child order for the purposes of administering tax benefits.
The Bill also makes other amendments, which I will summarise.
Clauses 3 to 8 of the Bill make amendments to RBDA in relation to registration and re-registration of births. These amendments are meant for clarity, with no changes to existing processes.
Clauses 12 to 15 of the Bill make consequential amendments to other Acts, for example, to update the reference to the RBDA 1937, which has been repealed, to the RBDA 2021.
Mr Deputy Speaker, before I conclude, I would like to share that this journey has not been an easy one. The conversations with bereaved parents, medical practitioners and community partners have been wrought with emotion.
Last Friday, as I was settling my younger child to sleep, she suddenly asked if she was a rainbow child. She had watched an episode on \"Bluey\", an Australian animated series, on baby loss. She reminded me about this rainbow pendant, which was gifted to me by a non-profit organisation, Angel Hearts, last year.
I hope that today's amendments will help bereaved parents in some way and also remind us that as we treasure and honour our babies who have departed, let us also look to the future with hope.
Ms Mandy Too is now a mother to Josie; and Ms Felicia Tan, a mother to Titus. I wish all our parents the very best. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Deputy Speaker, Sir, there are strong reasons to support the Bill to allow bereaved parents to name stillbirth babies, whom they had carried for more than 24 weeks.
I hope that families experiencing this tragic loss can find some solace and closure in naming their babies and as they conduct the necessary rites with these names, laying the babies to rest.
This legislation recognises these babies as beings in their own right – distinguishable from their parents. May the names provide their grieving parents a last chance for them to express their hopes and wishes for their children, gone too soon.
I commend the Ministry for considering and fulfilling the wishes of the affected families. I, therefore, wholeheartedly support this proposed legislation, notwithstanding, there are some pertinent issues for the consideration of the Ministry.
One consideration for parents after a stillbirth is the availability of a wrongful death claim. If a baby's stillbirth was due to wrongful conduct, it is important to recognise the tort claim. The approach may be taken from a legal marker equating foetal life with that of born persons. The claim would be in alignment with the reproductive justice principles. The mother is the parent of the child. She should not be deprived of the choice for a wrongful death claim.
Next, the Ministry may consider mandatory insurance coverage for autopsies after stillbirth. This is consistent with the reproductive justice framework. Firstly, an autopsy allows the parents of the stillbirth child to find out how the child died. It gives a sense of satisfaction that all avenues of investigations have been carried out. Secondly, the autopsy could reveal whether similar problems would affect future children. Thirdly, the information from the autopsy may be used during the counselling for future pregnancies. Fourthly, autopsies enable an improved management approach for future pregnancies. Finally, detection of chronic diseases of the mother would help prevent maternal morbidity or mortality.
The mandatory insurance coverage of autopsies after stillbirth would help the women to reduce the costs of the stillbirth. In addition, the results of autopsies should help to reduce medical costs in future pregnancies, which benefit the women and insurance companies.
Lastly, a tax benefit could be considered to provide practical assistance and support to the parents for the surprising costs of stillbirth, especially helpful for the mothers with lower socioeconomic status. These costs may be higher due to any maternal health complications that contributed to the stillbirth. The parents may incur additional medical costs if they seek mental health treatment. The parents may also face additional costs related to the child's burial and funeral.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, the proposed amendments embodied in the Stillbirths and Births Bill will alter the status of stillborn children, in the eyes of the law, by vesting official recognition of these children in allowing their names to be registered. Of course, for the parents of such children, they will always be recognised, regardless of the position of the law. But the step that this Bill takes, while seemingly small, will confer enormous dignity to these children, who would otherwise have gone on to live a full life.
While I cannot fully understand how it feels, as a parent, to lose a child in this manner, my family has experienced the misfortune of a stillborn child. As I had previously shared with this House, it was one of the few times that I had seen my father cry – even despite the fact that he was a traditional man. And it left my mother mourning for years after the loss and still leaves a gaping hole in her heart. We had named my brother Jaaron and he would have been 33 years old this year. Had this Bill been in place, we would at least have been able to commemorate him in a formal way and that process would have helped our family find some additional closure.
Of course, those who grieve find succour in myriad ways. For many, ritual and routine take the mind off the immediacy of the loss, and help the soul heal. That is why, all across the world, we observe funerals and wakes, and prayers and rites performed for the deceased. While practices differ – some weep, while others avoid doing so; some are sombre, while others involve singing – the commonality across cultures is that these rituals help with the grieving process.
I believe that, for many parents, being able to register the name of their child on birth certificates is one such ritual. Based on an online petition, this view is also held by more than 2,800 supporters.
It is for this reason – the dignity of recognition that a name confers, which, in turn, helps a mourning family move on from an unspeakable tragedy – that the Workers' Party supports this Bill. It is the right thing to do.
I will offer some additional thoughts on the other stipulations in the Bill. The amendments align the thresholds for what would constitute a stillborn child: the existing Registration of Births and Deaths Act currently sets the threshold at 22 weeks, which was, in turn, an alteration of the original 28 weeks in the original 1937 Act.
Ostensibly, this was to conform with the WHO's statistical reporting guidelines. Based on what I have been able to ascertain, however, the WHO actually recommends – for international comparability – the reporting of late foetal deaths to be at least 28 weeks. This is incongruent with the official MHA explanation.
Nevertheless, the same WHO report as well as the extant scientific evidence, suggests that, in high-income countries, such as ours, most live-born babies will survive even when they are born as early as 25 weeks of gestation, which is closer to the proposed 24-week threshold. For this reason, I agree with the re-alignment, although I would seek some clarification on why the cutoff was even lowered to 22 weeks in the first place.
The Bill, with accompanying collaterals, also does not make clear that the ability to register names for stillborn children applies to all children born in Singapore, regardless of nationality. Presumably, this would be the case, since the birth register is not restricted to only citizens. Nevertheless, it would be useful to verify that this is the case. After all, parental grief is not constrained by their or their stillborn child's national origin.
I wish to close with a more general lesson from this episode. While the Ministry has suggested that it has been looking to refine the laws in this regard since 2022, in response to two separate Parliamentary Questions I filed that year gave little indication that there was any intention to change the law. The first, in May, simply stated that, \"birth certificates are not issued to stillbirths\" and suggested that MHA would stop at the stage of issuing a \"digital stillbirth certificate\".
The second, in September that year, stressed the need for, \"process and system changes,\" some of which Minister of State Sun had elaborated on but, likewise, seemed unnecessarily dismissive, bluntly declaring that ICA had \"received only one request\" for a commemorative birth certificate.
This response prompted my suggestion to Mandy Too and Aidan Hoy, the parents of Abigail and Lara, that if there was a way to demonstrate that birth certificates for stillborns was a matter that had broad support, it may help move the needle in the direction of change. And to their enormous credit, Ms Too and Mr Hoy did the rest: they gathered the signatures and support to advocate for this cause.
I think this episode is a reminder for all of us, that the power to effect change, ultimately, lies within our hands. Representatives like those in this House are often only a conduit for the desires of our people to shape the world that we live in. When ordinary people have the courage to act on their convictions, change happens. That is the power of the people, in a democratic society.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill proposes amendments that will allow parents of a stillborn child to officially register a name for the child within one year after the stillbirth. This is an empathetic move that gives due acknowledgment to the lived, personal experiences of Singaporeans who have had the misfortune of losing their child. I thank the Government for making these positive changes.
I have two points of clarifications.
My first clarification is on the concern of misinterpretation of the stillborn threshold in the Registration of Births and Deaths Act. Minister of State Sun Xueling had earlier shared the rationale provided for increasing the threshold from the 22nd to 24th week of pregnancy is to address feedback from the medical community on potential misinterpretation of the threshold.
The feedback was that the stillborn threshold may be misinterpreted as an indication of foetal viability. This may confuse parents making difficult decisions about medical interventions for their unborn children.
Additionally, there were concerns expressed that such ambiguities lead to pressure on medical practitioners to use treatment methods that may increase the risk of severe neurodevelopmental disabilities in infants who survive or in higher rates of futile resuscitation attempts.
If there is, in fact, a significant risk of confusion about foetal viability, beyond increasing the threshold, can the Minister of State share if the Government is looking into other steps to ensure that parents have proper information relevant to foetal viability outside the womb?
Increasing the threshold is one way to remove potentially confusing information. But it will not fully solve the problem. It is even more important to ensure that parents have accurate, scientific information to help them make emotionally-charged decisions on foetal viability.
My second set of clarifications is on the naming of the stillborn child. MHA has clarified that pending the new provisions being operationalised, parents who wish to name their stillborn child may apply for a commemorative birth certificate. Can the Minister of State share if parents, whose stillborn are birthed in this transition period before the provisions are operationalised, can apply for their stillborn child to be named once the provisions come into effect?
Can the Minister of State also confirm that steps will be taken to ensure that the application process for entering a name for the stillborn will be sensitively designed and easy for parents to navigate?
Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister of State.
Ms Sun Xueling: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Members for their support and feedback on this Bill. Please allow me to address the questions and feedback in turn.
Firstly, to Member Jamus Lim's question: yes, stillbirth registration is for all stillbirths in Singapore regardless of nationality.
Mr Louis Ng asked whether parents can officially register a name for stillbirths that occur during the transition period before the provisions are operationalised. Under the new section 36A of the RBDA, parents with stillbirths registered in Singapore may apply for their stillborn child to be officially named when the provisions are operationalised, as long as the application to name the child is made within a year after the stillbirth. This time limit also applies to parents who have had stillborn children before the legal provisions are operationalised.
I would also like to assure Mr Ng that ICA will ensure that the application process is sensitively designed and easy to navigate.
Mr Ng also asked about the steps that the Government is taking to ensure that parents have accurate, scientific information on foetal viability outside the womb. When parents are faced with the prospect of delivery before the infant is at full term, they will be counselled by their doctors. This includes information on the infant's chances of survival and risk of severe complications, and takes into account the specifics of the case, such as any medical conditions the mother may have. Such counselling will help parents to come to an informed decision about the appropriate course of medical intervention.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked about tortious claims and expressed concern that a mother should not be deprived of an opportunity to file a wrongful death claim if the stillbirth was due to tortious conduct. We would like to assure the Member that these amendments are not intended to and do not affect any existing legal rights or claims, including tortious claims, that a mother may have in relation to her stillborn child.
Mr Gan also asked the Government to consider mandatory insurance coverage for autopsies after stillbirths. Autopsy, or post-mortem examination, is not routinely offered for stillbirths and the decision on an autopsy of a stillborn child is a personal decision by the parent. As this is a personal decision by the parent, parents may seek their own options to cover the cost.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh also asked about the practical assistance and support that could be provided to parents to cover the costs associated with the stillbirth. We recognise that we need to support parents of stillborns. Our public maternity hospitals provide support for these parents. Parents may also be referred to a medical social worker, nurse or mental health team for emotional and practical support, such as advice on financial assistance and counselling during the bereavement process.
In the Government's desire to support families and employees, there is also continuous engagement with employers and employees to look at how leave benefits can support better work-life situations, better productivity in the workplace and better overall well-being for employees.
I would like to end off my speech by saying that MHA has heard the views of Ms Mandy Too and all the other bereaved parents who had signed the petition and who have shared their views with MHA.
When MHA and the Government look into reviews, we do not look at it cursorily. And when we say we will study something, we will commit to it and study it carefully before committing to policy and legislative changes. As you would know, by October 2023, our systems were in place to start issuance of commemorative birth certificates. And the first certificates were issued to Ms Mandy Too's twin daughters.
We were also careful with publicity as we do not want to make it look like it was compulsory and different parents may also address infant loss differently.
To date, 51 commemorative birth certificates have been issued and like I mentioned, there have been parents who have reached out over email, over the phone, to ask for overnight issuance of commemorative birth certificates. When ICA and MHA undertake to look into policy change and effect legislative change, we make sure that we tackle all the nuts and bolts so that when we decide to go ahead with these changes, we are able to meet the needs of bereaved parents. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Sun Xueling.] (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee. (proc text)]
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]
The Chairman: The citation year \"2023\" will be changed to \"2024\", as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.
[(proc text) Clauses 1 to 16 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Social Cohesion through Common Spaces in Residential Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not imagine that any Member of this House would object when I say that social cohesion is a necessary and integral part of nation-building and national survival.
Especially in recent years, one could argue that: more than any amount of economic abundance and resource, social cohesion remains the necessary bedrock of any nation to navigate catastrophe, calamity and modern-day challenges. Societies with greater social cohesion and cohesiveness have been shown to have had better outcomes from COVID-19 and the same can be said with such societies in overcoming disasters, acts of terrorism and bouncing back from national crisis. Social cohesion is the unseen force that binds us together in adversity and it will take us through as a people when things get tough.
In her speech at the International Conference for Cohesive Societies in September 2022, then-President Halimah Yacob said, \"Social cohesion is a necessary condition for our collective security. Societies cannot survive, let alone thrive, without the social glue that bonds people together.\"
Social cohesion, Mr Deputy Speaker, is not a mere absence of conflict. It is a deeper sense of connectedness between peoples; a sense of belonging to a collective identity, with an entrenched trust and solidarity towards a common good.
I scoped this Adjournment Motion of Social Cohesion to focus on Common Spaces in Residential Estates, because such common spaces make up the first boundaries of where one's private residence interfaces with common areas of interaction with others in the community. Such common spaces are where social cohesion is most frequently tested on a daily basis and become the first confronting intersection between what is private to an individual and what is common to others around him or her.
Often, the line is not so black-and-white, as many of the Elected Members of Parliament can attest to. Frequently, complaints over municipal issues or neighbourly differences hover at the intersection of these common spaces. The best solutions almost always require compromise, some give and take, underpinned by empathy, a consideration for others and a genuine desire for the collective good.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
As far as social cohesion goes, it is less a question of what is mine or yours, but more so of what is ours and what it is that we can collectively build together as a community and as a society. It is anchored by our collective values as Singaporeans; values that are evergreen and resilient both in good times and in adversity.
The building blocks of our social cohesion are in the everyday. Social cohesion arises and morphs from the daily grind of how we respond to one another, from the strength of our relationships with our neighbours with whom we live, stay and play and from the way we navigate mutual understanding of one another's needs, cultures, peculiarities and nuances.
Therefore, I argue, Mr Speaker, that for social cohesion to take root, we need to allow ourselves to experience one another in the common space of residential estates. We must feel safe and comfortable to bring forth our authentic selves into the space to be discovered by others, to give permission for others to be curious and seek to understand us and have a willingness to share common spaces for mutual benefit.
As is the case in teambuilding, social cohesion will take some time to form and to norm. It may not come in the first instance, especially if it appears that the activity of one group seems to infringe on the private space of another. My view is that we should not shy away from the opportunity to explore these differences, find common ground and nurture relationships alongside.
In recent months, there have been news coverage, opinion pieces and debate over the closure of some common spaces in residential estates, specifically, a barricaded void deck in Woodlands Ring Road and the closure of a football hard court in Bedok North Road.
By any measure, I am no die-hard soccer fan. Though in my youth, I have had forays in playing games like football, sepak takraw and even marbles in common spaces. To my memory, there have been other occasional examples over the years of such actions taken by various municipalities on similar common spaces to curb inconsiderate behaviours. Even as I cite these examples, I mean them purely as an illustrative example of the broader points I am about to make.
I can understand the challenges of Town Councils in moderating complaints and disagreements on the ground. It is not easy. However, when we take steps to close common areas of play or restrict areas of spontaneity from fair and legitimate interests like sports, for example, I offer three areas of concern relating to social cohesion for the House to consider and ponder upon.
First, it is a missed opportunity at the level of the activity itself, in terms of the nature of cohesion it brings to the community. When one goes to the void deck or common space in residential estates, we bring the most authentic, simple and personal version of ourselves. Everyone is seen as a fellow neighbour – not the boss or executive at work, not the student of any particular school; nor does it matter whether you stay in a nearby private estate, a 5-room flat or a rental unit within the neighbourhood. You come as you are, you join in the game and no one will notice or care about who you are beyond what you are willing to share. The social currency in the neighbourhood game is your friendship, your sense of camaraderie and your teamwork. It might not even matter how good you are in the sport or game, as long as you are friendly and amicable.
The common space in residential estates equalises access, cuts across all layers of society and brings people together and, because of the dynamic and spontaneous nature of such interactions, the mix is never constant and that makes it beautiful for social cohesion.
Because they are rooted in the everyday, the nature of such interactions also tend to be the most genuine, unbridled and sustained, and these are the same ties – organic in our neighbourhoods – that will form the basis of how our society will overcome adversity and respond to crisis, if and when it happens.
For those who venture often for such activities, you will also notice that the networks of the neighbourhood game or activity are distinct and different from what you may get in school or at work, with subtleties that only free, spontaneous and unstructured play close to your place of residence can replicate.
Second, Mr Speaker, in terms of social cohesion, it is a missed opportunity to negotiate and achieve collective compromise. In common spaces, because it is open to all, inadvertently, it is a melting pot for some level of disagreement. The boundaries are not so clear sometimes and it is impossible to articulate an exhaustive set of rules to the extent that all possibilities are covered.
It takes people – young, old and of all persuasions – to engender good common sense and consideration of others to find a common ground for the use of the common spaces. There may be a need for some guidance or nudging through broad rules, but how we navigate our common spaces in the residential estates is a function of our values and ability to be socially cohesive in spite of our differences. It is an exercise of navigating our social contract with one another. Achieving a mutual understanding elevates our societal norms to a deeper level of awareness, one of greater compassion and empathy and a genuine care for one another's needs.
When youths want to play, say, at the void deck, there is an expectation that when someone frail or elderly comes by, you stop and give them space to pass. When one wants to have an activity at the common multi-purpose area, whether a celebratory wedding or a sombre funeral, there is an expectation to be mindful of the noise levels and at what hour some activities can be conducted.
For us to strengthen our social cohesion, we must find ways and means to allow for reasonable play and activity within the common spaces of our residential estates. It is this very \"give and take\", \"push and pull\" tension inherent in such common spaces that hones our cohesion as a society and unlocks our potential as Singaporeans to be familiar with and know one another more intimately.
We should not be afraid of differences. Instead, we should have a healthy curiosity, seeking to appreciate and understand the different views. To close, to barricade, to block common spaces appear to suggest that there can be no room for compromise and that the redacted behaviour or activity is so abhorrent that there is no place for it at all. It then becomes a paradox, because these are the same activities that engender close connectedness in the community and a solution to such a quandary is surely worth a thought.
We should recognise that these values will be mirrored in other circumstances too. We must try harder to allow space for spontaneous activities in our neighbourhoods and be mindful of how we navigate differences, because it impacts how we consciously or unconsciously view one another, the extent to which we are ready and willing to seek common solutions, to compromise and to co-exist amidst our differing needs, and also, in the longer term, how our young will view each other and the world around them.
The third area of concern is that we can do better in terms of finding solutions that are win-win for all. With some creativity, collective thought and deliberate consideration, it is my firm belief that it is possible for us to further nurture common spaces in residential estates for a myriad of activities that engage all layers of society.
It takes a good urban design, sound social policy and the interplay of the two to make things work.
In terms of macro-urban design, my view is that the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) and Housing and Development Board (HDB) have done well in the strategic planning of spaces to consider most aspects of our residential needs and ensure they are accessible to all, that they are people-friendly and are liveable. However, at the last mile and in the finer details, I think we can do better to imagine solutions that would further promote play and spontaneity, and for social cohesion to flourish.
At the outset, if, indeed, social cohesion and community space activities are key intended outcomes of residential living, we should endeavour to eliminate most challenges proximally by design. If noise levels are a concern, could it be possible to design better noise insulation strategies for the lower floors? If safety of passers-by is to be considered, can we not demarcate and design areas of play better?
I believe it is not impossible for both new and existing estates to be adapted to foster such activities if we resolve together that social cohesion is an important area we want to develop and further strengthen in our people.
We have shown that such adaptations are possible. We employ the same creativity for our green and sustainability goals under the HDB Green Towns Programme. We pilot cool coatings, elevator energy regeneration systems, electric vehicle charging points and even urban water harvesting systems underground.
Under the Solar Nova Programme, into its eighth leasing tender last year, HDB has endeavoured to install more than 8,000 blocks with solar panels over the past decade. It is indeed possible to redesign the systems in residential estates to achieve a desired outcome towards how we imagine society should and can be.
Beyond the structural aspects of our residential estates, it also requires sound social policy and a desire to strengthen the community further at our doorstep and in our everyday.
Today, we have the People's Association alongside our community partners to build and bridge communities. There needs to be continued fervent policy encouragement that allows for spontaneous day-to-day activities arising from and that are organically sustainable to community. This should be coupled with a considered approach towards usage of common spaces and engendering trust and responsibility to the end-user and resident.
It can be a function of when and where certain activities are allowed, whether modifications need to be made for certain games to be void-deck or common space friendly, or certain no-go areas for specific activities. There is enough space in the common spaces of residential estates, but it is a matter of how we allow for its use to, together, achieve the best outcomes for social cohesion.
At the same International Conference for Cohesive Societies in September 2022, Mdm Halimah Yacob also said, \"Cohesive societies do not exist spontaneously. They are borne of choice and conviction.\"
In conclusion, I urge fellow Parliamentarians to consider the Motion in the context of how we can choose to do better in engendering social cohesion in our every day. The Motion speaks to how we can and must co-create and curate the common spaces in residential estates, to foster better understanding amongst Singaporeans and consciously allow for the opportunity to interact in a manner that transcends our layered identities and interests.
When we take decisions relating to common spaces, we should be wary how it impacts social cohesion, for better or for worse. We need to consciously work hard on social cohesion always, for it is a process and a journey, rather than an end-state to be achieved.
We take careful thought in the planning of our urban living spaces and we have done well, over decades, to ensure there is a good balance multicultural representation and interethnic presence in our residential estates. I would argue, though, that it is in the last mile delivery and policy – the one that fronts the experience of the ordinary Singaporean – that integrates and converges all the proximal work that is done for social cohesion. And it takes place and comes to life in the common spaces of residential estates.
To falter at this point is like training hard for a marathon for months on end and building towards peak performance and results, but only to trip at the final kilometre of the race on an obstruction that one knew was there to begin with. So, with forward planning, a little bit of creativity, some contemplation and a considered compromise, common spaces in residential estates can be realised as the focal point for community relations and a beacon for social cohesion.
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Faishal Ibrahim.
The Minister of State for National Development (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi for sharing his views and putting forth suggestions on how we can foster stronger social cohesion through purposeful design and management of common spaces in our residential estates.
I fully agree with the Member on the importance of social cohesion. Given our multiracial and multi-religious context, building a harmonious and cohesive society in Singapore is critical. This is something we must never take for granted.
Social cohesion does not come about by chance. It requires a deliberate and concerted effort from all of us – to build bonds and mutual understanding amongst Singaporeans, whether it is across races, religions, socio-economic backgrounds or age groups. The Government pays close attention to the upstream planning and design of the built environment, to facilitate social cohesion amongst Singaporeans from all walks of life.
In order to create opportunities for Singaporeans to interact with one another on a regular basis, we deliberately inject a range of common spaces when planning for residential estates, parklands and commercial and mixed-use areas. We also actively encourage the integration of community and sports uses within commercial and mixed-use developments, to provide highly accessible spaces for the community.
With almost 80% of Singapore's resident population living in HDB flats, HDB plays a pivotal role in providing a liveable environment for Singaporeans to live, work and play together.
I shall now touch on some of the efforts by various agencies including HDB, to foster a cohesive community in our heartlands through both design as well as active programming.
HDB carefully designs our estates and towns to incorporate a range of common spaces that maximise social interaction and facilitate community building while meeting diverse needs. HDB's Designing for Life roadmap guides the planning and leveraging of common spaces, to help Singaporeans \"Live Well\", \"Live Green\" and \"Live Connected\" to each other.
Within residential blocks in new HDB developments, Community Living Rooms provide a laid-back gathering point for neighbours to hang out and host simple, small-group activities at the community deck. We have also introduced facilities like the community pavilions, fitness corners, and 3-Gen playgrounds, to facilitate inter-generational interaction.
Older estates are retrofitted with new or enhanced facilities through upgrading programmes like the HDB's Neighbourhood Renewal Programme and the Ministry of National Development's (MND's) Estate Upgrading Programme. It is at such facilities where residents have the chance to meet and mingle, while exercising, playing, or going about their daily lives.
At the town-level, HDB has planned and built larger spaces, like neighbourhood parks and town plazas, to host big-group activities and heartland events.
The \"hardware\" constitutes only one part of the equation. Activities and programming that bring residents together and encourage spontaneous interactions, are just as, if not more, important. They shape and activate our common spaces and encourage community-driven participation to foster social cohesion.
Each year, HDB hosts some 600 activities and events with an outreach of 220,000 residents at town plazas, in collaboration with agencies, such as SportSG, National Arts Council and Health Promotion Board, as well as schools and grassroots organisations.
For homeowners-to-be, HDB and the People's Association organise MyNiceHome Roadshows to bring future neighbours together to build relationships early. Getting to know one another and the support available in the community enables better assimilation and good neighbourliness among new residents.
Across all residential estates islandwide, the People's Association and Grassroots Organisations actively organise and support a range of ground-up community initiatives that bring people together across race, religion, socio-economic backgrounds and age groups. Examples include Ramadan Porridge Distribution, donation drives, as well as free tuition and peer coaching for students.
We can easily spot these efforts in our common spaces – in our community decks, neighbourhood parks, Residents' Committee and Network centres, as well as community centres and clubs. As a Grassroots Adviser for more than 15 years, I have seen how Government and social service agencies and residents work together to promote social cohesion in our community.
I must say, such efforts take time, but make a big difference in building a strong and vibrant community.
I have also seen agencies going beyond to innovate and take a concerted, holistic approach to marry hardware and heartware. As of end-2023, we have disbursed and committed more than $1.1 million under the Lively Places Programme, supporting 229 projects that enliven common spaces and strengthen community identity. These include the establishment of pet parks, community cafes, allotment gardens, community libraries and workshop spaces at community decks.
In the upgrading of estates and towns, we engage residents to co-create solutions, enabling residents to collectively express and decide on what they would like to have in their neighbourhood. Under the third run of the Remaking Our Heartland Programme, HDB worked with close to 6,000 residents and community stakeholders for the design of six community nodes, 10 neighbourhood parks and four Build-A-Playground projects in Toa Payoh, Woodlands and Pasir Ris.
Agencies also engage residents to develop upgrading proposals for their estates under the Estate Upgrading Programme, which has benefited about 54,000 households in 74 estates to date.
A key guiding principle in managing our common spaces is that they should be kept open and inclusive. In line with this philosophy, HDB estates are not gated and remain accessible – not just to residents of the estates but members of the public. The openness and inclusiveness of our common spaces allow for spontaneous exchanges and citizen-led initiatives to happen. These contribute towards a common, lived experience, which is a key enabler in fostering deeper understanding and empathy within the community.
In using our common spaces, we must remain mindful of the diverse needs and interests across different groups. On occasions, there are conflicts and disamenities, which we have to manage, as we balance the interests of different groups within our community.
Today, our Town Councils manage and maintain the common spaces in public housing estates. Residents who wish to use the common spaces are required to apply to the Town Councils for permission. This allows the Town Councils to ensure safe and appropriate use and manage any disamenities to residents.
We note the Member's concerns that such arrangements may not be ideal to some residents. However, given Singapore's land constraints, we need to ensure fairness and efficient use of space in our housing estates, while creating a conducive and harmonious living environment.
Some interventions may seem harsh. But they are necessary to balance the interests of all residents. I would like to reassure the Member that such interventions are not taken lightly. Behind the scenes, Town Councils and relevant agencies have expended significant effort to communicate with affected parties and develop win-win solutions.
At times, despite the work done to bring parties together to resolve issues amicably, there are sometimes parties who may be unwilling to compromise. In such cases, Town Councils and relevant agencies may have no choice but to intervene directly, to ensure a conducive living environment for all. We will continue to engage residents and in the spirit of give-and-take, explore solutions that address the concerns of affected residents.
Cultivating mutual respect and good neighbourliness is now more important than ever before, as more people spend more time at home with the rise of remote work post pandemic. Good neighbourly behaviour and habits are essential in building a harmonious living environment and strengthening community resilience.
In conclusion, I thank Dr Syed Harun again for the opportunity to respond to his ideas and to set out our approach towards this topic of social cohesion in common spaces.
Common spaces are created to serve individual and community needs. Activating our common spaces and building a cohesive society is our collective responsibility. We will continue to design, build and maintain conducive common spaces and work with the community to provide meaningful programming for the community that enables social cohesion and integration.
I hope that, as a community, we can be considerate and kind to one another in the use of these spaces and embody gracious, inclusive and harmonious living.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 2(3)(a), I wish to inform hon Members that the Sitting tomorrow will commence at 12.00 noon. Order, order.
Adjourned accordingly at 4.48 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":"Checks on Storage Facilities and Operational Processes of Commercial Cord Blood Banking Service Providers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"17 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Health (a) how often are checks undertaken on the storage facilities and operational processes of commercial cord blood banking service providers; (b) whether the Ministry conducts unannounced checks on a regular basis; and (c) whether there are expectations of such service providers to pay compensation or restitution in the event that the claims or performance of their service are found to be lacking or untrue.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: All cord blood banks in Singapore are currently subject to scheduled inspections every two years to assess their compliance with regulatory requirements under the Healthcare Services Act. In addition, the Ministry of Health may conduct additional visits, including unannounced visits, if there are any specific areas of concerns and suspected lapses.
Consumers can seek recourse from their cord blood banking provider in the event of service lapses, depending on the service contracts that they have entered into.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Stepped-up Measures to Combat Phishing-related Crimes to Enhance Cybersecurity for Individuals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"19 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Home Affairs in view of the recent numbers of phishing scams as stated in the police advisory of 13 November 2023 and the amount of losses involved, whether there are any stepped up measures by the Ministry and the relevant agencies to combat the related crimes and to enhance cybersecurity of individuals.
Mr K Shanmugam: In this recent scam variant, WhatsApp users who were attempting to access their WhatsApp account on their computer had clicked on a fake \"WhatsApp Web\" phishing website. They had then scanned the QR code in the website via their WhatsApp account on their mobile device. In doing so, they inadvertently granted the scammers access to their WhatsApp account. The scammers then used the compromised WhatsApp account to impersonate the user, and reached out to the user's family and friends, and convinced them to transfer monies to the scammers' bank accounts or PayNow numbers.
To combat this scam variant, the Singapore Police Force (SPF) has been working with Meta to stop further abuse of compromised WhatsApp accounts, as soon as they are detected.
The SPF has also been working with online platforms, including Google, to introduce stronger safeguards to mitigate the risk of fraudulent takeover of online messaging accounts, such as through the pre-emptive detection and blocking of URLs linked to phishing sites.
The Online Criminal Harms Act, which will be progressively operationalised from this quarter, will allow the Government to direct online messaging platforms to disable access to accounts suspected to be involved in scams. The Government can also require designated online service providers to introduce upstream measures to safeguard against the misuse of online accounts.
Ultimately, however, the best defence against scams is a vigilant and discerning public. To this end, the Government has been running campaigns to encourage the public to adopt good cyber practices. For instance, the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore (CSA) recently launched the fifth edition of the National Cybersecurity Campaign, which aims to raise awareness and drive adoption of good cyber practices. The SPF and CSA also work with other agencies on more targeted campaigns, such as the SG Cyber Safe Students Programme, which supports schools in the conduct of cybersecurity lessons.
In addition, the SPF regularly highlights emerging scam variants and the measures that the public can take to protect themselves. Specific to the recent spike in phishing scams involving compromise of WhatsApp accounts, the SPF had issued several advisories which urged members of the public to adopt the three simple steps of \"Add\", \"Check\", \"Tell\".
First, \"Add\" security features, such as enabling two-step verification on your WhatsApp and other online messaging accounts. Turn on your notification settings to be alerted to changes to linked devices.
Second, \"Check\" that you are on the official WhatsApp website. Check your \"Settings\" for unauthorised linked devices and be wary of unusual requests from your contacts whose accounts may be compromised.
Third, \"Tell\" your family and friends about your scam encounters and report any fraudulent activity to your bank and to the Police immediately.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Use of SkillsFuture Credit Scheme and Achievement of Scheme's Policy Outcomes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"24 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Education (a) as of 2023, what is the utilisation of the SkillsFuture Credit (SFC) by Singapore citizens; (b) whether the SFC scheme has achieved its intended policy outcomes; and (c) whether there are any plans to further enhance the scheme.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Since launching the SkillsFuture movement, the training participation rate of individuals, including employer-sponsored training, has risen from 35% in 2015 to around 50% in 2022. This is in part supported by the SkillsFuture Credit (SFC) that encourages Singapore Citizens to take ownership of their learning and skills development.
In 2022, 192,000 Singaporeans used their SFC. This is an annual increase of around 12,000 per year, from 156,000 in 2019. This growth is a result of efforts by SkillsFuture Singapore to promote a culture of lifelong learning and help individuals make informed choices based on their training needs.
Given that mature workers require more support to pursue substantive reskilling and upskilling to stay employable, the Government is looking into providing a further substantial SFC top-up for mature, mid-career Singaporeans. More details will be announced later this year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Protection for Children at Childcare Centres from Unauthorised Access by Strangers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what enforcement measures are in place to ensure that children in infant and childcare centres are protected from unauthorised access by strangers or non-teaching personnel.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: To prevent any unauthorised personnel from entering preschools, all preschools are required to keep their premises secured. Every preschool must have procedures in place to check and record the entry and exit of all persons. Most preschools use electronic locks at the entrance and visitors are only allowed entry after checks.
Before any staff can be deployed in a preschool, including non-teaching personnel, the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) will check if they have any previous criminal offences involving children, or have been earlier barred from working in the preschool sector. Personnel assessed to pose a risk to children's safety are not allowed to be deployed in a preschool. Preschools are also expected to have their own procedures for recruiting suitable staff to work with or around children, which includes interviews and reference checks.
Non-teaching staff may be deployed to assist in the care and supervision of children during arrival, dismissal and naptime. However, preschools must ensure there are measures in place to ensure the safety of children. These could include briefing non-teaching staff on appropriate child management methods and safety protocols as well as having a teaching staff present, where practicable.
These measures are all part of our system of multi-layered safeguards, where ECDA, operators, centres and educators do our part to ensure children's safety in preschools.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulations on Input Prompts for Large Language Models to Prevent Disclosure of Confidential Data","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"26 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Communications and Information whether the Government has plans to develop in-house artificial intelligence capabilities to ensure that input prompts for large language models need not be processed by private firms not under the purview of the Government, or by cloud computing units located in foreign territories or under foreign jurisdiction or control.
27 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) when using large language models owned by private or foreign companies, how does the Government ensure that confidential data is not disclosed in the input prompts; (b) whether the Government has signed any non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) with these companies; (c) what are the companies that the Government has signed NDAs with; and (d) how does the Government monitor compliance with such NDAs by these companies.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Large language models (LLMs), such as those powering ChatGPT, have the potential to enhance the delivery of public services and the productivity of public officers. We adopt a risk-managed approach for LLMs, consistent with the existing public sector framework for the handling of classified information when using technologies, such as Internet-based applications and the commercial cloud.
Highly sensitive applications and data are not exposed to the Internet. Where use cases involve sensitive data, open-source models may be finetuned for use but must be deployed on Government servers and computers.
For use cases involving less-sensitive data, the artificial intelligence models may be owned and managed by commercial and private companies. Our contracts with these companies are governed by service agreements, which include clauses on data handling and security, such as the non-retention of data, and limitations on the use of data to train other products or models. Beyond contractual safeguards, the Government has also implemented technical measures to screen sensitive data, visual cues to remind users on data security practices and governance measures to enforce compliance.
We continuously reassess the adequacy of our measures as the technology evolves.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Alerts Communicated to Singapore Travellers Regarding Pneumonia Outbreak in China","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"28 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health in light of the pneumonia outbreak in China and considering the expected rise in overseas travel amongst Singaporeans during the winter season (a) what precautions and alerts regarding the outbreak are in place; (b) how are these communicated to travellers; (c) what measures are there to minimise the risk of travellers importing pneumonia-related illnesses into Singapore; and (d) whether the Ministry is stepping up on the monitoring of such illnesses locally.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: China underwent a surge in respiratory illnesses towards the end of 2023. This was to be expected after post-pandemic opening up, which was the experience of many countries, including Singapore.
These illnesses are typically caused by common respiratory pathogens, such as influenza, COVID-19, respiratory syncytial virus and Mycoplasma pneumoniae, which are also circulating in Singapore. What we need to watch out for are new pathogens and new variants of COVID-19, which the Ministry of Health (MOH) is actively monitoring with our international partners.
MOH issued public advisories on 2, 8 and 15 December 2023 to encourage the public to remain vigilant and to adopt necessary precautions during this period, including when travelling. This includes keeping up-to-date with vaccinations, practicing good personal hygiene, wearing a mask in crowded places and minimising social interactions if unwell.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extent to which Mandatory Plastic Bag Charge has Resulted in Reduced in Use of Plastics","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"29 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment to what extent has the mandatory charge for plastic bags at supermarket chains resulted in (i) a reduction in the amount of supermarket plastic bags being used and (ii) the promotion of wider recycling efforts, as evidenced by increased participation in recycling initiatives.\n\n\n
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Since its implementation on 3 July 2023, the mandatory disposable carrier bag charge has generally been well-received. The obligated larger supermarket operators have observed approximately 50% to 80% reduction in the number of disposable carrier bags that consumers have taken. We are heartened that the supermarket operators have also indicated that they intend to use the proceeds from the bag charge to support environmental or social causes.
The disposable carrier bag charge is a behavioural nudge which encourages the public to adopt sustainable habits, such as reducing the use of disposable carrier bags. We hope that the adoption of such sustainable habits will lead to wider behavioural change. However, as the bag charge was implemented less than a year ago, it may be too early to tell if it has also resulted in increased participation in other recycling initiatives. It is also difficult to directly attribute any changes in recycling habits to the bag charge, as the charge focuses on reducing usage rather than recycling.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of End of Global Inflationary Surge and Turn in Electronics Cycle on Singapore's Recovery Prospects","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what assessment has been made of the effects of (i) the end of the global inflationary surge over the past few years and (ii) a turn in the electronics cycle, on Singapore's economic recovery prospects and consumer confidence.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Ministry of Trade and Industry and the Monetary Authority of Singapore have projected that Singapore's gross domestic product growth will come in at 1.0% to 3.0%, while Consumer Price Index – All Items inflation will average 3.0% to 4.0% in 2024. These projections take into account global inflation trends and an expected recovery in the electronics cycle this year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Appeals for Individuals who Missed Out on COVID-19 Resilience Medal","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"31 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider a channel for appeal by individuals who missed out on the COVID-19 Resilience Medal.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: My response today will also address written questions filed by Mr Leong Mun Wai and Mr Yip Hon Weng, and oral Parliamentary Question filed by Dr Tan Wu Meng for a subsequent Sitting, on the recognition of healthcare workers for the COVID-19 Resilience Medal (CRM) and the appeal channel.
Overcoming the COVID-19 pandemic crisis was a national concerted effort, hence our approach in conferring the CRM was to be as inclusive as possible, with no quotas set.
To ensure that standards are met and the process is rigorous, the eligibility criteria is that the individual must have made substantial contributions on a sustained basis during the pandemic1 in:
(a) managing the public health crisis at the frontlines;
(b) supporting frontline operations, such as vaccination, testing, managing dorms or recovery facilities, and so on; or
(c) managing the consequences of COVID-19 on Singapore's economy, supply chains or social cohesion.
The individuals are nominated by their employing organisations based on these criteria. As the CRM is a national-level award, individuals with criminal records and Public Service officers with disciplinary records and within the debarment periods are also disqualified.
About 91% of 68,6002 healthcare workers in our public healthcare institutions are recipients of the CRM. The remaining did not receive the CRM mainly because they were not assessed as having contributed substantially or on a sustained basis toward the COVID-19 pandemic within the specified period of contribution. A very small number were disqualified due to their disciplinary records.
Outsourced workers, such as cleaners, porters and patient care assistants are also included in the nomination process. About 2,000 of them in our public healthcare institutions are CRM recipients.
The list of CRM awardees was published in the Government Gazette on the Prime Minister's Office website on 31 May 2023. From 31 May 2023 to end August 2023, the Ministry of Health (MOH) had received and reviewed numerous appeals for the COVID-19 Resilience Medal from the healthcare sector and added more awardees to the list.
Despite the rigorous process and inclusive approach, it is possible that some employers may have missed out nominating their staff. Individuals who feel they are deserving but have been missed out for the CRM can write to MOH and we will review their appeals with their employers accordingly.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Nominees must have been involved in COVID-19 work on a sustained basis between January 2020 and May 2022.","2 : Staff strength of the three healthcare clusters as at 31 May 2022."],"footNoteQuestions":["31"],"questionNo":"31"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of \"Long Island\" Project along East Coast Parkway on Maritime Anchorages in Singapore's Eastern Sector","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"33 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport in view of the Government's plans for the \"Long Island\" off East Coast Park (a) whether operations at any of the anchorages under the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore's Eastern Sector will be affected and, if so, what are the Government's plans for the relocation of affected anchorages; and (b) whether (i) operations of the Traffic Separation Scheme in the Straits of Singapore and (ii) vessel traffic transiting between the Straits of Singapore and Port of Singapore will be affected.
Mr Chee Hong Tat (for the Minister for Transport): The \"Long Island\" project will help to protect the East Coast from sea level rise and flooding, enhance our long-term water supply and cater to long-term land use needs. To facilitate these plans, anchorages in the Eastern Sector of the Port of Singapore will need to be reconfigured. The details will be studied further as part of upcoming technical studies, taking into consideration the sea space required for anchorages and fairways to support maritime operations, both during and after the development of \"Long Island\".
The Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore is also progressively rolling out initiatives to further enhance the efficiency of port calls, reduce idling time and optimise anchorage space utilisation. These include a Just-in-Time Platform to coordinate vessels' arrival and departure with the provision of maritime services, Active Anchorage Management System to efficiently allocate anchorage space to vessels and the simultaneous operation of marine services at terminals during cargo operations.
The \"Long Island\" project will not impact the Traffic Separation Scheme and navigational safety of vessels transiting between the Singapore Strait and the Port of Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons for Change of Main Contractor in HDB Projects Midway through Construction","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"34 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for National Development since 2010 (a) how many HDB projects have required a change of main contractor midway through construction; (b) how many such changes have been due to (i) unsatisfactory progress or (ii) the contractor's financial difficulties; (c) what is done to ensure work quality is maintained in such situations; and (d) what lessons have been learned regarding tender specifications and the selection of main contractors.
Mr Desmond Lee: From 2010 to 2023, 19 out of 383 Build-To-Order (BTO) projects awarded have required a change of main contractor midway through construction, either by termination or novation. These changes were due to unsatisfactory progress by the contractors, typically arising from financial difficulties.
To ensure that the quality of work is not compromised in such situations, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) requires the replacement contractor to (a) have a strong performance track record on other BTO projects, and (b) the necessary capacity to take over. HDB also connects the replacement contractor with existing sub-contractors for the affected project and works closely with the replacement contractor to ensure that critical milestones are met, without compromising safety and quality. Like in all other BTO projects, all flats are put through stringent and thorough quality checks before the keys are handed over to flat owners.
When selecting main contractors, HDB uses a rigorous tender selection process to minimise the risk of contract failure and to ensure the timely delivery of flats. All BTO project tenderers must be registered with the Building and Construction Authority under the required financial grade, meet the minimum credit rating and have prior experience with high-rise building projects. The Price Quality Method (PQM) is then used to score tender bids, according to price and quality attributes. This approach takes into account a contractor's current and past projects' performance, safety records, financial health assessments, CONQUAS assessment and safety scores.
To prevent contractors from overstretching their resources, contractors with better performance will be allowed to undertake more projects. In contrast, contractors who do not perform well in their current projects will be temporarily suspended from tendering for new BTO projects until they improve.
Although HDB assesses the financial health of contractors at the point of tender evaluation, it is also possible for contractors to subsequently run into financial difficulty down the line. Therefore, in order to identify contractors who run into financial distress, HDB monitors contractors' financial health through multiple indicators, such as the contractors' current performance, number of Security of Payment Act adjudication cases, adverse reporting from the ground, credit rating and promptness in payments to subcontractors and suppliers. Such information alerts HDB early to potential difficulties that contractors may face, so that HDB can engage the contractors early on the necessary steps to be taken.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Efforts to Alleviate Shortage of Hospital Beds and Nursing Staff in Public Hospitals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"36 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Health (a) whether there remains shortages of hospital beds and available nursing staff in public hospitals, relative to a year ago; (b) what is the progress of ongoing plans to increase hospital capacity; and (c) whether public hospitals are currently facing capacity constraints, even in non-crisis environments, and, if so, why.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Like most developed countries, Singapore continues to experience a capacity crunch post-COVID-19. This is aggravated by an ageing population. Hospitals are seeing more elderly patients with more complex conditions, who require much longer length of stays.
We will need to continue increasing our hospital capacity. We have also been building up our nursing workforce and the staffing situation in our public hospitals has improved relative to a year ago.
While hospital infrastructure projects were delayed due to the pandemic, we are progressively catching up. Tan Tock Seng-Integrated Care Hub has opened 300 beds since October 2023 while Woodlands Health Campus is expected to be in operation by middle of this year, with 360 beds in operation and almost 600 by end of the year. Plans for Eastern Integrated Health Campus and redevelopment of Alexandra Hospital remain on track to be completed by the end of the decade.
In addition, hospitals are tapping on facilities like Transitional Care Facilities and alternative care models like Mobile Inpatient Care@Home to expand overall capacity.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Full Utilisation of Grants by Recipients of Cultural Medallion Fund","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Ms Usha Chandradas asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) of the past 132 Cultural Medallion recipients, how many have fully utilised their entitlements to access cash grants from the Cultural Medallion Fund; (b) what percentage of such grant entitlements remain unutilised; (c) what is the number of recipients who have not utilised the grant at all; (d) whether there is a time limit for the utilisation of grants; and (e) how is the entitlement dealt with if a recipient is unable to or does not utilise their entitlement within their lifetime.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The Cultural Medallion (CM) is Singapore's highest national arts accolade, recognising individuals for their artistic excellence and contributions that have been important in shaping Singapore's arts and cultural landscape. To date, there are 135 recipients of this award, including three who were recently conferred the award in 2023. Although the Cultural Medallion Award was established in 1979, the CM Fund was only introduced later in 2001. It is available to all CM recipients, including those awarded before 2001. The fund aims to support the continuous development of our CM recipients' artistic practices and their commitment to nurturing the next generation of artists and audiences. It also seeks to positively impact the Singapore community through the projects undertaken by the recipients, both nationally and internationally.
Each CM recipient can access up to $80,000 from the CM Fund throughout their lifetime, to support arts-related projects that meet any of the following objectives. First, community outreach, such as workshops and community showcases. Second, for the CM recipient to develop their artistic practice and craft, such as through further studies and residencies. Next, to facilitate knowledge transfer and develop other local artists, including mentoring younger artists. And finally, for profiling and documentation of CM recipient's work, such as through publications, exhibitions or other showcases.
The Fund has supported many projects initiated by the recipients, ranging from the documentation and creation of new works to the development of other artists.
For example, Dr Tay Teow Kiat, a 1993 CM recipient, used the CM Fund to support the 10th Anniversary Opening and Closing concerts for the 2023 Singapore Chinese Music Festival. The Festival showcased Singapore's diverse music tapestry and provided a platform for our local composers to present their compositions. Likewise, Mr Djamal Tukimin, a CM recipient in 2017, used the CM fund to promote his literary works and translate them into English. This enabled him to reach out to more readers locally and internationally and deepen their understanding of Singapore's literary heritage and culture. The 1986 CM Recipient, Prof Wong Yoon Wah, and the 1996 CM recipient, Ms Dan Ying, used their funds to jointly organise The Southern Literary Journey. They held multi-lingual poetry events in Singapore and Malaysia, which provided opportunities to strengthen cultural ties between the two countries.
To date, 71% of the living CM recipients have partially or fully used their CM Funding. Of the CM recipients who had passed away and were eligible for the Fund, 59% had partially- or fully-utilised their CM Funding. The National Arts Council supports and works closely with the CM recipients to help them conceptualise their proposals and use the funds for their projects.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Incidence of Teenage Pregnancy and Support Extended to Pregnant Teens","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Health (a) of the four in 1,000 pregnant teenagers in the last five years, what is their average age; and (b) what assistance and counselling are provided to (i) teenagers who undergo abortions and (ii) those who proceed with childbirth.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: In the last five years, the average age of pregnant teenagers, defined as those aged 13 to 19, is 18 years old.
Our hospitals, particularly the KK Women's and Children's Hospital and National University Hospital, offer comprehensive support for pregnant teenagers, including antenatal care, screening for sexually transmitted infections and depressive symptoms, counselling services and educational resources. They will be cared for by a multi-disciplinary team involving doctors and nurses from the Obstetrics and Gynaecology team, as well as medical social workers. Apart from hospitals, support is also available by social service organisations in the community.
Pregnant teenagers who proceed with childbirth will be provided with emotional and practical support by the multi-disciplinary team. This includes information and resources regarding pregnancy, advice on financial assistance and following up with patients and the family to ensure compliance to antenatal and post-natal visits. Following childbirth, the teenage mother will follow-up with the multi-disciplinary team for review and counselling on contraceptive options.
Pregnant teenagers seeking an abortion in Singapore will undergo mandatory pre-abortion counselling with a trained counsellor. Unmarried teenagers below 16 years of age are required to undergo mandatory pre-abortion counselling at the Health Promotion Board Counselling Centre. The session will provide information on the abortion procedure, educate them on issues, such as responsible love, sexual behaviour and contraceptive methods, and provide advice on social support to prevent repeated unplanned pregnancies. Those who require further support and follow-up are also directed to the Family Service Centres or helplines.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Applications for Mediation of Disputes between Neighbours that Reached Community Mediation Centre","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"39 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for Law (a) in each of the past three years, how many applications for mediation of disputes between neighbours have been made to the Community Mediation Centre; (b) how many of such applications have led to actual mediations being conducted; and (c) what percentage of the mediations conducted led to amicable resolutions between the neighbours.
Mr K Shanmugam: In 2021 and 2022, the Community Mediation Centre (CMC) received about 1,900 and 1,400 applications respectively involving disputes between neighbours. In the period from January to November 2023, the CMC received about 1,200 of such cases.
Of the cases registered in 2021 and 2022, 404 and 300 cases were mediated respectively. Of the cases registered from January to November 2023, 195 of such cases were mediated as at end November 2023, with some cases pending mediation. As mediation at the CMC is currently voluntary, less than 30% of such cases proceed to mediation, although more than 80% of such mediated cases are amicably resolved.
40 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Manpower (a) over the last two years, what has been the take-up rate of Career Conversion Programmes (CCP) amongst full-time platform workers; (b) considering the irregular work schedule of platform workers, whether more flexible arrangements, such as timetabling and mode of learning, can be catered for those enrolled in the CCP; and (c) whether more places in the Place and Train programmes may be availed to platform workers.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower does not track the participation rate of platform workers in Career Conversion Programmes (CCP).
CCPs are full-time place-and-train or attach-and-train programmes that help jobseekers to make a career switch. This means that the jobseeker is placed on a full-time employment contract or attachment with the new employer and then put through a period of training to equip him or her for the new job. Upon successfully enrolling for a CCP, participants will need to commit to a dedicated period of training on the job or by external training providers. Provisions for flexible arrangements are subject to the agreement between the CCP employer and participant. For CCP participants seeking to undertake platform work concurrently, employers will have to assess whether there are flexible arrangements that can meet their business needs as well as participants' needs.
Platform workers who want to continue with platform work but are interested to pick up new skills can tap on SkillsFuture training programmes, many of which are offered in part-time modality. These include the SkillsFuture Career Transition Programme, which has both part-time and full-time options to cater to adult learners of different profiles.
Workforce Singapore (WSG) works closely with sector agencies and industry to refresh existing CCPs and introduce new CCPs based on the manpower needs of our economy. Presently, WSG offers close to 100 CCPs across around 30 sectors. Platform workers and any local jobseekers who are looking for a career switch can find more information and apply for CCPs on WSG's CCP portal.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Singapore’s GDP Produced by Singaporeans and Companies Owned by Singaporeans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"41 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Ministry is able to provide statistics on Singapore's Gross Domestic Product produced by Singaporeans and companies which are owned by Singaporeans for 2022; and (b) how much is the total taxable income attributable to these Singaporeans and companies which are owned by Singaporeans.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Department of Statistics does not compile statistics on gross domestic product produced by Singaporeans and Singaporean-owned companies.
Singaporeans accounted for around 62% of total assessable income under personal income tax, for the Year of Assessment 2023. Statistics on assessable income attributable to Singaporean-owned companies are not available as the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore does not track corporate taxpayers by their ownership status.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Strengthening Enforcement against Illegal Subletting of HDB Flats and Private Residential Properties","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"42 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development (a) in each of the last five years, what is the number of illegal subletting of HDB flats and private residential properties respectively; and (b) what measures are in place to strengthen enforcement of such offences.
Mr Desmond Lee: Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats are primarily meant for owner-occupation. Flat owners must obtain HDB's approval prior to renting out their flat.
In the past five years, HDB has taken action against 571 cases of unauthorised renting out of HDB flats or bedrooms. HDB takes a serious view of unauthorised renting out of flats and will take action against the owner. Depending on the severity and circumstances of the infringement, HDB may issue a written warning, impose a financial penalty of up to $50,000 or compulsorily acquire the flat from the owner.
To detect unauthorised renting of flats, HDB conducts inspections and investigates feedback from members of the public on suspected cases. Besides operating a dedicated hotline for the public to report unauthorised renting, HDB also publicises the range of actions that it has taken against flat owners for unauthorised renting, to maintain deterrence.
Owners of private residential properties are not required to seek approval from the authorities before renting out their properties.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cap on Number of Hours Spent on the Road by Private Hire Car or Taxi Drivers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"43 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry can consider imposing a limit on the number of hours that a private hire car driver or a taxi driver can drive consecutively; and (b) with the current maturity of driver assistance technology, whether the Ministry will work with taxi fleet operators and private hire car platforms to install technologies to monitor and be alerted if a driver is too tired to drive.
Mr Chee Hong Tat (for the Minister for Transport): We do not set a regulatory limit on the number of hours a taxi or private hire car driver can work continuously, as this is a personal decision for drivers to make. Instead, we work with tripartite partners to reinforce a culture of safe driving and promote good practices to prevent driver fatigue.
The Tripartite Workplace Safety and Health Council has a set of Guidelines on Fatigue Management which encourage drivers, including taxi and private hire car drivers, to limit their shifts to no more than 12 hours. All taxi and ride-hail platform operators provide guidelines for drivers to have sufficient rest and remind them through the taxi's Mobile Data Terminal or the ride-hail mobile application to take breaks after long shifts. Some operators have also deployed various forms of driver assistance technology and anti-fatigue system to promote safe driving.
All taxi and private hire car drivers undergo training on occupational health hazards as part of their Vocational Licence courses, during which they are recommended to take short breaks after every two hours of driving.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Increasing Number of Day Activity Centres and Residential Homes for Adult Persons with Autism","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"44 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Ministry will consider increasing the number of (i) day activity centres and (ii) residential homes, for adult persons with autism.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Ministry of Social and Family Development regularly reviews the capacity of our funded disability services, including day activity centres and adult disability homes.
We have been working with the sector to develop plans to better support adults with autism and their families, given the increase in awareness of autism and in the clarity of its diagnostic criteria. We will share more details in the coming months.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Consideration of Traits such as Age, Socio-economic Status, Ethnicity and Gender as Risk Factors for Suicide and Self-harm","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"45 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the projected timeline for the studies conducted by the Institute of Mental Health to understand the risk factors for suicide and self-harm, as well as the mitigating factors for the prevention and reduction of self-harm; and (b) whether these studies will consider age, socio-economic status, ethnicity and gender to obtain a more comprehensive overview of potential links between these factors for a more targeted approach in national mental health strategies.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Institute of Mental Health is currently conducting two research studies to understand the risk factors for suicide and self-harm, as well as the mitigating factors for prevention and/or reduction of self-harm.
The studies consider demographic factors, such as age, ethnicity, gender and socio-economic status, of suicide attempters and completers, among other risk factors measured.
Both studies are ongoing and results are projected to be ready by 2025.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Back-up Immigration Procedures in Event of Power Outage at Checkpoints","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"46 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Home Affairs what arrangements are in place for immigration procedures in the event of a power outage at any checkpoint.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) has multiple measures to deal with power disruptions at the checkpoints.
In the event of a power outage, ICA will activate its business continuity plans to minimise service degradation while keeping our borders secure.
Measures include activating backup power sources and uninterruptible power supplies. ICA may also recall off-duty personnel for additional manpower to assist with manual immigration clearance, communicate and advise travellers via various channels to arrive at the checkpoints early or to avoid non-essential travel and at the air and sea checkpoints, prioritise clearance according to travellers' departure times.
Together with the Home Team Science and Technology Agency, ICA is also piloting immigration clearance via mobile devices as an added measure to manage power-related incidents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cap on Number of Occupants in HDB Rental Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"47 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB plans to cap the number of occupants in HDB rental flats over the longer term.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Government does not restrict the number of family members who can live together under one roof, whether in rental or owned flats, as household sizes and circumstances vary across families. For unrelated persons renting Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats, an occupancy cap is imposed to minimise potential disamenities to neighbours.
Public rental tenants with very large families comprising more than one family nucleus can apply to rent more than one flat, and HDB will continue to facilitate such requests. Under the ComLink Rental Scheme, HDB also works closely with the Ministry of Social and Family Development and selected Family Service Centres to offer 3-room rental flats to large families with children on a case-by-case basis.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Financial Support Options for Unlisted Implants","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"48 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) in cases where a custom or unlisted implant is necessary for treatment and the only alternatives are invasive procedures or no treatment, what additional financial support options exist beyond (i) MediShield Life (ii) MediSave and (iii) Integrated Shield Plans; and (b) whether financially challenged patients who are unable to cover the implant costs even with existing schemes can access MediFund for assistance in such circumstances.\n
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Implants are unlisted if they have not been registered with Health Sciences Authority (HSA); or have not yet been assessed for listing by the Agency for Care Effectiveness; or they have been assessed, but are found to be non-clinical or not cost-effective.
If they have not been assessed, they will continue to be subsidised at up to 50%, capped at $1,000. Implants that have already been assessed to be non-clinically- or cost-effective, or that are not registered with HSA, will not be eligible for subsidies. However, patients may continue to claim for these implants from MediShield Life, Integrated Shield Plans and MediSave.
Subsidised patients who face financial difficulties can approach the institution's Medical Social Workers to apply for financial assistance, such as MediFund.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Possible Breach of Disclosure Rules for Listed Companies by Cord Blood Banking Firm for Issues Related to Irregular Storage Temperatures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"50 Ms Hany Soh asked the Prime Minister whether MAS is investigating possible breaches of disclosure requirements by a listed cord blood banking company for not making any relevant disclosures or announcements on issues related to storage temperatures of its cord blood unit storage tanks or audits by the Ministry of Health prior to 30 November 2023.
Mr Lawrence Wong (for the Prime Minister): Under the Securities and Futures Act 2001 (SFA) and the Singapore Exchange's (SGX's) listing rules, a listed company and its directors must ensure timely disclosure of information that may materially affect the price or value of its listed securities. Failure to do so is a breach under the SFA if it is committed intentionally, recklessly or negligently.
Where there is suspected non-disclosure of material information, SGX Regulation (SGX RegCo) will pose queries to the company concerned, review the matter and refer potential breaches of the SFA to the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). In the case of Cordlife Group Limited (Cordlife), SGX RegCo posed queries to the company on 6 December 2023 after two announcements were made by the company disclosing developments impacting its business operations. The company's responses were published on 10 December 2023. SGX RegCo is currently reviewing the information it has received from Cordlife. It will then make an assessment of any potential breach of the SFA and follow-up with MAS, as appropriate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulation of Educational and Behavioural Therapy Service Providers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Health whether the Government will consider regulating providers of educational and behavioural therapy services under the Allied Health Professions Act 2011 to ensure that they are suitably trained and qualified to practice.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Currently, the Allied Health Professions Act provides for the registration of five allied health professions: Diagnostic Radiographers, Occupational Therapists, Physiotherapists, Radiation Therapists and Speech Therapists.
Other professions who work in healthcare institutions, such as psychologists, including those who provide behavioural therapy services, have existing safeguards in place as they are subject to the clinical governance framework of the healthcare institutions and existing healthcare legislations, such as the Healthcare Services Act in healthcare settings.
In non-healthcare settings, such as the early intervention programmes funded by the Ministry of Social and Family Development, operators may employ therapists, psychologists and other professionals to provide therapy services. Where necessary, the funding agreements specify the minimum qualifications and training required, before staff can be deployed to provide such services.
We will continue to perform risk assessments of various allied health professions to consider if these professions will need to be registered.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Dialect Usage on Free-to-air Radio and Television Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"52 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) what are the reasons for the ongoing restriction of dialects on free-to-air (FTA) radio and television; and (b) considering the elderly's potentially limited access to pay TV and Internet for entertainment, whether the Ministry will consider fully lifting the dialect usage restrictions for FTA services.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Government's longstanding policy is to promote the use of Mandarin, as one of our four official languages. Free-to-Air (FTA) TV and radio cater to a wide range of audiences and are, therefore, required to offer Chinese services in Mandarin.
Nonetheless, dialect content remains available. Mediacorp's Channel 8 provides a dedicated belt of dialect programmes every Friday morning. Its radio station, Capital 95.8FM, offers daily news bulletins in various dialects. Dialect is also allowed for operatic performances or when the Mandarin terms are not commonly used. Dialect content is available on other platforms as well, such as Mediacorp's meWATCH, online platforms like YouTube, videos and music albums in retail stores, as well as through outdoor and theatrical performances.
There are currently no plans to allow more dialect programmes on FTA TV and radio. A Ministry of Communications and Information study in 2023 found that almost seven in 10 respondents chose Mandarin as the language that they can read or listen in. A very small number chose dialect exclusively. In addition, more than half of the respondents across all age groups felt that the amount of dialect content on FTA TV and radio should remain at the current level.
That said, we will continue to monitor Singaporeans' views and demand towards dialect content and are prepared to lift the restrictions when the need arises, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic to facilitate health-related information dissemination.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Subsidy Recovery Regime on Prices of non‐PLH Flats in Same Area and Prospect of Subsidy Priced into Selling Price of Resale PLH Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"53 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for National Development with a new subsidy recovery threshold of 8% established for Prime Location Public Housing (PLH) flats at the December 2023 HDB BTO exercise, whether the HDB has done any study to ascertain the inflationary and behavioural impact of the subsidy recovery regime on (i) prices of non‐PLH flats near PLH flats and (ii) the prospect of the subsidy priced into the selling price of PLH flats upon resale.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Prime Location Public Housing (PLH) model seeks to ensure that new public housing in prime locations remains affordable, accessible and inclusive for Singaporeans.
To ensure affordability, we price Build-To-Order (BTO) flats with significant market discounts. On top of these market discounts, flats offered under the PLH model are priced with additional subsidies. To maintain parity with other BTO flat owners who are not accorded these additional subsidies, PLH flat owners who buy their flats from the Housing and Development Board (HDB) will have to return to HDB a percentage of the resale price or the valuation of the flat (whichever is the higher) upon the sale of their flats. The subsidy recovery rate is broadly commensurate with the extent of additional subsidies provided. For PLH projects launched in the December 2023 BTO exercise, the subsidy recovery rate was eight percent.
The PLH model also has additional features to moderate resale PLH flat prices, so that these flats are kept affordable for a wider group of Singaporeans over time. These include tighter ownership conditions, such as a 10-year minimum occupation period and the ringfencing of resale flat buyers to those who meet the prevailing BTO eligibility conditions. Taken together, the additional subsidy at initial flat purchase and tighter ownership and resale conditions aim to keep HDB estates in prime locations affordable, accessible and inclusive for Singaporeans.
The resale prices of non-PLH and PLH flats will depend on various factors including homebuyers' preferences; market conditions, such as the prevailing economic outlook; supply; demand; and financing conditions. HDB resale flats are transacted based on market prices negotiated and mutually agreed upon between buyers and sellers. After the first batch of PLH flats are available for resale in about 15 years' time, the bulk of the resale flat supply will still comprise non-PLH flats for many more years to come. These non-PLH flats will generally be older as PLH projects tend to be launched in more central towns with a high proportion of older flats. The supply of new flats will also continue to provide prospective buyers with additional housing options, on top of resale flats. The wide range of new and resale flats, catering to different budgets and needs, would also have the effect of supporting stable prices in the resale market.
Future PLH flat sellers who attempt to price the subsidy recovery into their asking prices may face greater difficulty selling their flats. This is because the prospective buyers will also have to consider the tighter ownership and resale conditions that will be similarly imposed upon them. In addition, they must meet the prevailing BTO eligibility conditions, such as income ceiling and non-ownership of private property in the last 30 months. These PLH features will help to moderate resale PLH flat prices.
Together, these features seek to keep the resale market on an even keel. We will continue to keep a close watch on the housing market and review our policies where necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of Lung Cancer Screening Recommendation Guidelines to Cover More Individuals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry will consider extending the lung cancer screening recommendation guidelines to cover non-smokers and those with a family history of lung cancer; (b) whether lung cancer screening will be subsidised; and (c) whether there are plans to raise public awareness on the importance of lung cancer screening.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Screening tests are recommended based on scientific evidence of their effectiveness and the potential benefits and harms. Lung cancer screening is conducted through Low-dose Computerised Tomography (LDCT). Use of this test has to be balanced against unnecessary exposure to radiation and the financial cost of screening.
As such, LDCT screening is only recommended for very heavy smokers or ex-smokers, who are at high-risk of lung cancer. LDCT screening for lung cancer is not recommended for the general population, nor for non-smokers and those with a family history of lung cancer.
Today, LDCT scans are ordered if needed, during Specialist Outpatient Clinic (SOC) consultations. Patients who are referred to SOCs and are assessed to require LDCT scans are eligible for means-tested subsidies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singaporeans Above Age 21 Who Are Not on Electoral Register","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"55 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Prime Minister (a) how many Singaporeans aged above 21 years old are currently not on the electoral register; and (b) of which, what is the respective number of these Singaporeans who are (i) former convicts and (ii) Singaporeans with an overseas address registered on their NRIC.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): As at 1 December 2023, there were 314,599 Singaporeans aged 21 years and above who were not in the Registers of Electors. This is about 10% of Singaporeans aged 21 years and above and comprises non-voters from previous elections who have yet to restore themselves to the Registers and those who turned 21 after the last revision of the Registers in July 2023.
Based on the latest data from the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority, there were some 30,000 overseas Singaporeans who had an overseas address on their National Registration Identity Cards but whose names were not in the Registers of Electors because they did not furnish a valid local contact address. A proportion of those whose names are not in the Registers are likely to be Singaporeans overseas who, while they still have a local address, have not voted at an election and have not applied to restore their names to the Registers.
The Elections Department does not track how many of those not in the Registers of Electors are former convicts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Lifts in HDB Flats Fitted with Lift Monitoring Devices that Rely on 3G Modems","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"56 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for National Development (a) currently, how many and what proportion of lifts in HDB flats are fitted with lift monitoring devices that are using 3G modems; (b) what will be the impact on lift monitoring when the 3G network is retired on 31 July 2024 if such lifts are not retrofitted with 4G or 5G modems; and (c) how is the Ministry assisting town councils, management corporation strata titles and companies that provide lift monitoring services to prevent any negative impact on lift monitoring after 31 July 2024.
Mr Desmond Lee: All lifts in \tHousing and Development Board (HDB) blocks are installed with Lift Monitoring Devices (LMDs) to monitor the lifts' performance and operating status. About 23,000 lifts, which constitute about 85% of all HDB lifts, are fitted with LMDs that use the 3G network. LMDs in HDB blocks completed from October 2022 onwards have been equipped with 4G capabilities.
In 2021, HDB launched the LMD Enhancement Programme as part of efforts to enhance the reliability of lifts in HDB estates. Under this programme, HDB will replace all LMDs that are still operating on the 3G network with LMDs that operate on the 4G network to enhance connectivity, data processing capability and cybersecurity. HDB is working with the vendors to accelerate the replacement works for the remaining lifts and targets to complete the programme by end-2025.
LMDs on 3G networks will continue to be supported until they are all replaced under the LMD Enhancement Programme. The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) requires network operators to ensure that remaining 3G enterprise subscribers successfully migrate to the 4G or 5G networks before the 3G networks are retired.
The Ministry of National Development and HDB are working with the Ministry of Communications and Information, IMDA and the mobile network operators to manage the transition to 4G-enabled LMDs alongside the retirement of 3G networks. HDB has been progressively rolling out the LMD replacements and will engage the respective Town Councils on the scheduling of replacement works in their towns in due course.
For lift monitoring systems installed in privately-owned buildings, such as condominiums or other non-residential buildings, building owners or their managing agents should approach their system vendors to transit to 4G-enabled LMDs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Protection for Healthcare Workers who Complain about Abuse under Tripartite Framework","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"57 Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Health how does the Tripartite Framework for the Prevention of Abuse and Harassment in Healthcare protect workers who complain about abuse or harassment from adverse consequences such as reprisals.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Tripartite Framework for the Prevention of Abuse and Harassment in Healthcare recommends that every public healthcare institution set up a staff protection function to review reported abuse and harassment incidents and help ensure the well-being of the staff involved, such as the provision of mental health support.
To protect the healthcare worker, additional measures may be taken to discontinue exposure to the abuser and possible reprisals in the course of their work. Staff may be provided time-off and re-assigned to other duties temporarily. Public healthcare institutions may also take action against those who continue to display abusive behaviour toward healthcare workers. These include warnings, discharging abusive patients who do not require urgent care and temporarily barring abusive next-of-kin and visitors from the premises of the healthcare institution.
Public healthcare institutions will also assist healthcare workers in making a Police report, if necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Successful Applicants for Startup SG Founder Programme Who Are Persons with Disabilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"58 Mr Ong Hua Han asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) in each of the past three years, how many successful applicants for the Startup SG Founder programme have been persons with disabilities; and (b) whether Enterprise Singapore will consider working together with its Accredited Mentor Partners to increase this number.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Startup SG Founder scheme offers a grant for first-time entrepreneurs with innovative business ideas. It also provides mentorship support through the Accredited Mentor Partners (AMPs) programme.
Applications for the scheme are evaluated based on the merit of the proposed business plan and the founding team, together with other eligibility criteria. Enterprise Singapore and AMPs do not require applicants to disclose whether they have disabilities. We welcome persons from all eligible backgrounds, including persons with disabilities, to apply for the scheme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Deployment of Technologies to Enforce against Excessive Vehicular Noise","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"59 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether NEA is able to deploy advanced technologies to enforce against excessive vehicular noise on the roads.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Excessive vehicle noise is caused by a variety of factors, including vehicle design, illegal modifications, poor maintenance and inconsiderate driver behaviour. The National Environment Agency (NEA) sets noise emission standards for new vehicles, as well as for vehicles that are in use, to ensure that vehicles are well-maintained and do not emit excessive noise.
Unlike speeding offences, which can be visually captured using speed cameras, it is challenging to accurately measure and attribute the source of the noise to a specific vehicle on the road, due to interference from surrounding vehicles and other sources of noise. The current approach is to pull aside suspected noisy vehicles for separate noise emissions testing during enforcement operations.
To strengthen enforcement, NEA has been monitoring and studying developments in technologies that could overcome these challenges. NEA will consider the effectiveness of deploying such technologies on our roads in the future.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Transfer of Samples from Private Hospitals to Singapore Cord Blood Bank","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"60 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry will consider expanding the family cord blood banking service of the Singapore Cord Blood Bank to those in private hospitals; and (b) whether arrangements can be made to transfer cord blood samples to the Public Donation inventory for families who have registered under the family cord blood banking service but have not kept up with the required payments.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Family cord blood banking services of the Singapore Cord Blood Bank (SCBB) have always been available to parents who choose to deliver their babies in the private hospitals.
Should the parents subsequently choose to discontinue SCBB's family cord blood banking services, the Ministry of Health encourages them to donate the cord blood units to the public inventory if the units meet the public donation criteria.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cases of Abuse Committed against Persons with Special Needs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"61 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many cases of abuse committed against persons with special needs have been reported and investigated over each of the last five years; and (b) whether the Ministry is looking into enhancing measures to identify abuse committed against persons with special needs, in particular, those who are low-functioning.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Singapore Police Force does not track the number of abuse cases committed specifically against persons with special needs.
Our criminal laws already provide enhanced protection for vulnerable persons against physical and sexual harm. For vulnerable persons, who can include individuals with special needs or any other physical or mental infirmity, disability or incapacity, enhanced penalties of up to two times the maximum prescribed penalty for the offence may apply under section 74A of the Penal Code. We also have specific offences to protect individuals with mental disabilities. For example, section 376F of the Penal Code makes it an offence to procure sexual activity with a person with mental disability. They complement other laws that protect vulnerable individuals, such as the Children and Young Persons Act, Women's Charter, Vulnerable Adults Act and the Mental Capacity Act.
The Government also has a range of upstream measures to detect cases of abuse. For example, frontline professionals, such as those in schools, healthcare institutions and social service agencies are trained to identify and detect abuse or neglect. Members of the public are also encouraged to report suspected abuse or neglect via the National Anti-Violence and Sexual Harassment Helpline.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extent of Use of School Fields under Dual-Use Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"62 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what is the mean and median utilisation rate of school fields under the Dual-Use Scheme run by ActiveSG; (b) which school fields have the lowest utilisation rates; and (c) what are the reasons for the low utilisation rates.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Under the Dual-Use Scheme (DUS), there are free-to-play school fields and bookable school fields. No booking is required for free-to-play school fields, that is, members of public can access the facility spontaneously and at no cost. All bookable school fields under the DUS were almost fully-utilised in 2023.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Time between HDB Flat Key Collection Appointment Notification and Appointment Date","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"63 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development in the last five years (a) what is the average amount of time from the time HDB notifies flat buyers of their key collection appointment to the appointment date itself; (b) what is the number and percentage of key collection deferral requests beyond one month from the date of the original appointment and the average penalty interest charged; and (c) what is the number and percentage of flat applications cancelled as a result of non-collection of keys.
Mr Desmond Lee: Over the past five years, on average, key collection appointments have been scheduled around 10 calendar days after the Housing and Development Board (HDB) notifies flat buyers on their appointments. Under the Agreement for Lease, flat buyers must collect their keys within one month of the notification of key collection. Flat buyers may rearrange their key collection appointment to a convenient date and time, subject to availability, within this one-month period.
Over 80% of flat buyers collected their keys within the one-month period. Around 12%, or about 9,700 flat buyers, collected their keys beyond the one-month period and were liable to pay late completion interest. For flat buyers who face genuine difficulties in collecting their keys within the one-month period, HDB may grant a deferral for key collection and waive the late completion interest as needed. The late completion interest charged depends on various factors, such as the flat price and balance purchase price payable at key collection.
HDB exercises understanding and flexibility to accommodate the unique circumstances of each flat buyer, to facilitate the completion of the key collection process. However, there remain some flat buyers who are unable to complete key collection, even after multiple deferments. For this group, which comprised 2%, or 1,700 flat buyers, in the past five years, HDB will ultimately have to cancel their flat application. For such cases, HDB may waive the forfeiture fees and assist flat buyers in securing alternative housing as needed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Inclusion of Security Professionals Working in Healthcare Settings in Framework for Prevention of Healthcare Personnel Abuse","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"64 Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Health whether the Government will consider extending the coverage of the Tripartite Framework for the Prevention of Abuse and Harassment in Healthcare to include security professionals working in healthcare settings.\n\n
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Tripartite Framework for the Prevention of Abuse and Harassment in Healthcare covers all staff who are working within the healthcare institutions' premises. It will therefore include security professionals and other contract staff and employees of contractors providing services in a healthcare setting.
The public healthcare clusters have committed to adopting the Framework. The Tripartite partners strongly encourage other healthcare institutions, such as community care organisations, private hospitals and clinics, to adopt the zero-tolerance policy and adapt the guidelines for their operating environment as soon as they can.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessment Criteria for Closure of SingPost Branches","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"65 Mr Derrick Goh asked the Minister for Communications and Information regarding the closure of Singapore Post's only branch in Nee Soon (a) how does the Infocomm Media Development Authority assess the appropriateness of a SingPost branch closure; (b) what is the Government's expectation of the postal physical footprint of SingPost branches across Singapore; and (c) how can SingPost better balance business viability with the basic needs of residents who still require access to physical postal services.
Mrs Josephine Teo: In the past, consumers and businesses relied on post offices as physical touch points to buy stamps and mail letters and parcels. Today, most post and parcel transactions are already served through automated means and do not need to be done over-the-counter at post offices. For example, postage labels can be purchased at self-service automated machines (SAMs) and parcels can be dropped off or picked up at POPStations.
In addition, about 80% of transactions at post offices today are for non-postal services, such as passport collection and payment of bills, which can be completed through alternative means. Overall, the total number of transactions at post offices has also declined by 35%, from 10.3 million in FY2019 to 6.5 million in FY2022. These trends have been similarly observed at Yishun Central Post Office.
As I shared in Parliament in October last year, with the evolving post and parcel landscape, and changing business and consumer needs, SingPost has been reviewing its costs and operations as part of its business transformation.
This is so that it can better balance commercial sustainability while serving the public's postal needs. The closures of some of SingPost's post office network is part of this review and SingPost is required to ensure that the postal needs of the community will continue to be met through alternative means, such as the SingPost mobile app, SAM kiosks, POPStations and PO boxes.
I understand Mr Derrick Goh's concerns about the impact of the closure of the Yishun Central Post Office on his residents. As with other post office closures, SingPost will notify the public at least one month ahead of closure. Customers will also continue to have access to a SAM kiosk and POPStation near to the original post office.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Income Criterion to be Satisfied at Point of Application for HDB Flat under Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"66 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for National Development whether the current criterion for applicants under the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS) to satisfy the monthly household income requirement of $7,000 or below based on the income declared in the sales application to buy a flat can be modified to require that applicants satisfy the income requirement at the point of application for a PPHS flat.
Mr Desmond Lee: In August 2021, the household income ceiling of $7,000 was introduced as an eligibility condition for the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS), to ensure that these flats are allocated to families who have less income at their disposal to rent on the open market, while waiting for their new flats.
We assess applicants' eligibility for PPHS based on their incomes at the point of sales application for their new flat. This is so that an increase in income after sales application does not disqualify an applicant from PPHS. On the other hand, those whose incomes have fallen to $7,000 and below after their sales application may approach the Housing and Development Board (HDB) and HDB will review their PPHS applications on a case-by-case basis.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on CPIB Investigation into Minister for Transport","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"67 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Prime Minister whether he can provide an update on the CPIB investigation of the Minister for Transport.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): I understand that there is much public interest in this matter. I want to give my assurance that this case will be put through the due legal process.
The Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau has completed a robust and thorough investigation and the matter is currently being reviewed by the Attorney-General's Chambers. It would therefore not be appropriate to comment on the matter at this juncture.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Incidents of Disinvitation of Speakers and Cancellations of Events at Autonomous Universities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"70 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Education whether he can confirm that incidents of disinvitations of speakers and cancellations of events at the autonomous universities are not due to advisory or instructions transmitted by the Ministry.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The autonomous universities (AUs) manage their own events, including deciding which speakers they wish to invite. As common spaces for learning, AUs are aware that they must respect Singapore's wider social norms and act in line with national interests. Where necessary, the Ministry will advise the AUs to uphold these principles.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Incentivising Families to Use Public Transport, Taxi and Private Hire Cars as Attractive Alternative to Car Ownership","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"73 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will consider incentivising families to use public transport, including taxi and private hire cars, so that it will be a more attractive alternative to car ownership.
Mr Chee Hong Tat (for the Minister for Transport): Our trains and buses, as well as stations and interchanges, are accessible and equipped with family-friendly features to encourage families to use public transport.
Families can also use point-to-point services, such as a taxi or a private hire car, as well as car-sharing services to meet their commuting needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Male Permanent Residents who Lost Residency Status for Not Serving Full-time National Service","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"74 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Defence what is the current total number of male Permanent Residents (PRs) who renounced or lost their PR status without serving full-time National Service when required to and have subsequently been granted the right to work or live in Singapore.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: Citizens and Permanent Residents (PRs) who are liable for National Service (NS) must fulfil their duties or be subject to penalties if they do not do so. Over the past decade, no PR who evaded his NS duties by losing his PR status after enjoying significant benefits has been granted the right to work or live in Singapore thereafter.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Training for Healthcare Workers on Managing Difficult Situations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"75 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Health in light of the launch of the framework for protection of healthcare workers from abuse and harassment, what is being done to provide healthcare workers with training on managing difficult situations.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Tripartite Framework for Prevention of Abuse and Harassment in Healthcare recommends that healthcare institutions provide both formal and informal training for healthcare workers, to manage difficult situations and potential conflicts.
Some public healthcare institutions already equip their staff with such training, for example, effective communication skills and techniques to de-escalate tense situations, or self-defence techniques to protect themselves against physical abuse.
Healthcare institutions should also provide mental health support training for supervisors to better support staff who have been abused or harassed, for example, how to recognise signs of mental trauma so that affected staff can be referred for counselling or further support.
The Ministry of Health will work with healthcare institutions to make more of such training available to healthcare workers as they implement the framework.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Upgrade for Green Link Determining System to Balance Demands between Motorists and Pedestrians","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"76 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Transport whether an update can be provided on the upgrade to the Green Link Determining (GLIDE) system to adjust traffic signal timings dynamically to balance traffic demands between motorists and pedestrians.
Mr Chee Hong Tat (for the Minister for Transport): The Green Link Determining (GLIDE) system allows the Land Transport Authority (LTA) to adjust traffic light timings dynamically and optimise motorist and pedestrian flows based on detector loops that can sense vehicular traffic flow and buttons that pedestrians can push when they wish to cross the road.
LTA is exploring improvements to the system through collaborations with industry and research partners. These will need to be rigorously tested before they are assessed for deployment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assistance for Parents Following Return of a Child to Biological Family After Being Placed in Place of Safety or Foster Home","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"77 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what assistance is provided to parents following the return of a child to his or her family after being placed in a place of safety or foster home; and (b) for each year in the past five years, what is the median number of months such assistance is provided to these families.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: As mentioned in responses to related Parliamentary Questions in October and November 2023, case officers work with community partners to provide support for the child and the child's family for 12 months or more after the child is returned to their family. The exact duration and type of support provided for each family would depend on the case circumstances and the needs of the family. In addition to regular safety checks and monitoring, families could be referred to community agencies for case management, counselling, parenting support and may receive financial and employment assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Factors Contributing to Companies Being Open to Shift from Transporting Workers on Lorries to Other Modes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"78 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Transport for the companies that LTA is engaging with in its study on transporting workers, what are the factors that contribute to these companies being able and open to shift from transporting workers on lorries to buses or other modes of transportation.
Mr Chee Hong Tat (for the Minister for Transport): In our engagements, stakeholders have shared that some of their considerations include the availability of drivers and buses, regularity of the trips, distance of the destinations and the number of workers to be transported for each trip.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessment of Maintenance Fee Proposed by Condominium Developer","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"79 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for National Development (a) what criteria does the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) use when approving the proposed maintenance fee put forward by a condominium developer; (b) whether the advertised maintenance fee during a condominium sales launch has to be approved by BCA; and (c) what safeguards are available for consumers when the eventual maintenance fee is significantly higher than what was earlier marketed.
Mr Desmond Lee: Condominiums in Singapore vary in size, mix and typology of units, as well as the types of amenities and facilities. Hence, maintenance costs of essential services will vary across developments. Developers typically decide the maintenance charges for new condominiums based on the projected maintenance costs for the development. They are required to seek approval from the Commissioner of Buildings on the maintenance charges prior to collection and typically do so just before handing over the strata lots to purchasers.
Prior to approving the maintenance charges, the Building and Construction Authority verifies that the charges are related to the maintenance and management of the common property within the condominium and checks that they are reasonable and substantiated by quotations from service providers and vendors.
For new strata-titled condominiums, the developer is required to hand over the management, including the maintenance funds collected, to the management corporation after the first annual general meeting (AGM). From the first and subsequent AGMs, unit owners can collectively determine the reasonable services required for their condominiums and assess if rate adjustment is warranted.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Political Office Holders' Salaries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"80 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Prime Minister (a) whether the targeted review of political appointment holders' salaries in 2023 was carried out; (b) if so, who are the members of the Committee conducting the review; (c) what are the terms of reference given to the Committee; and (d) when will the Committee's report be released.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): As Member Mr Alex Yam had earlier filed a similar Parliamentary Question (PQ) for Written Answer, our response to the two PQs are similar.
The recommendations from the last political salaries review were announced in 2018. The salary review Committee recommended a review of the political salaries framework about every five years, or when necessary. The Government did not make any changes to political salaries following the 2018 review as the salary structure remained valid and there were economic uncertainties in the previous few years.
A review of the political salaries was due in 2023. However, the government decided to defer the review as we have other pressing issues to deal with. In 2023, the global geopolitical situation has become more uncertain, with conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine and continuing heightened geopolitical contestation.
On the economic front, significant uncertainties and downside risks in the global economy remain, impacting our local economy and our wage and inflation outlooks. Hence, we decided to focus on dealing with these key challenges at hand and defer the review of political salaries for now.
The Government will review the political salaries framework and benchmark in due course to ensure that they remain relevant and up to date.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of Efforts to Attract More Singaporeans to Join Healthcare Industry","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"81 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health (a) whether current measures to attract more Singaporeans to join the healthcare industry, especially in the public sector, have been effective; and (b) what is the breakdown on manpower growth in the industry for (i) clinical and (ii) non-clinical roles.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry adopts a multi-pronged approach to attract Singaporeans to join the healthcare industry, which includes engaging students early to pursue healthcare careers, offering Career Conversion Programmes to attract mid-careerists, redesigning jobs in healthcare and keeping remuneration competitive. We complement this local core with foreign healthcare workers, including nurses and support care staff.
In the last five years, we have grown our national healthcare workforce from about 100,000, to over 120,000. Clinical and patient-facing manpower grew from 85,000 to 98,000. Non-clinical manpower grew from 19,000 to 22,000. Amongst them, about 80% are Singapore residents. Today, one in 20 students choose to enrol in a healthcare course and hence, we are getting our fair share of the local talent pool that will help maintain a majority of Singaporeans amongst our healthcare workforce.
That said, we will have to continue to build up both the local and foreign manpower pipelines, in order to meet the growing demand for healthcare services in Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for New MRT Line to Serve Residents in Fernvale, Seletar and Jalan Kayu Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"83 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Transport whether there is any feasibility study on a new MRT line to serve residents in the Fernvale, Seletar and Jalan Kayu estates.
Mr Chee Hong Tat (for the Minister for Transport): When considering whether to build new Mass Rapid Transit lines, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) reviews public transport plans by looking at existing and future land use developments, current public transport options and engineering considerations. Studies by LTA are ongoing and updates will be provided when ready.
At present, residents in Fernvale, Seletar and Jalan Kayu can access the North-South, North-East and Circle lines via bus and Light Rail Transit. They will also be served by the upcoming Cross Island Line.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Limit Charges on Cashier's Orders to Assist Elderly and Digitally Illiterate Who Withdraw Their Own Savings in Cashier's Orders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Don Wee asked the Prime Minister (a) whether MAS can regulate the amount of bank charges levied on cashier's orders made to the account holders' own names for withdrawal of money from their bank accounts; (b) if so, what is the ceiling limit for these charges; and (c) what assistance will be provided to the lower‐income elderly, including the illiterate and digitally illiterate, who may have to pay such charges to withdraw their own savings in the form of cashier's orders.
Mr Lawrence Wong (for the Prime Minister): Cashier's orders are typically used for large transactions, such as property and vehicle purchases, where certainty of payment is critical. Issuing cashier's orders involves additional processing compared to regular cheques, and banks charge a fee – currently $3 to $15 depending on mode of application – to cover these costs.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore generally does not set limits on the fees charged by banks for their products and services, but expects banks to clearly disclose the fees and deal fairly with their customers. For the first cashier's order payable to the account holder's own name, some of the major retail banks would waive the fees. Some other banks that do not automatically waive the fees would consider doing so on request from customers with financial difficulties, including lower-income elderly.
For consumers who wish to transfer their funds to an account in another bank, there are alternative methods of funds transfers, such as via automated teller machines or Internet banking services, that can be used free of charge.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Review of Political Office Holders' Salaries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Alex Yam Ziming asked the Prime Minister whether he will be proceeding to review political salaries.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): The recommendations from the last political salaries review were announced in 2018. The salary review Committee recommended a review of the political salaries framework about every five years, or when necessary. The Government did not make any changes to political salaries following the 2018 review as the salary structure remained valid and there were economic uncertainties in the previous few years.
A review of the political salaries was due in 2023. However, the Government decided to defer the review as we have other pressing issues to deal with. In 2023, the global geopolitical situation has become more uncertain, with conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine and continuing heightened geopolitical contestation. On the economic front, significant uncertainties and downside risks in the global economy remain, impacting our local economy and our wages and inflation outlooks. Hence, we decided to focus on dealing with these key challenges at hand and defer the review of political salaries for now.
The Government will review the political salaries framework and benchmark in due course to ensure that they remain relevant and up to date.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Fair and Competitive Base Interest Rates for Saving Accounts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Prime Minister whether the Monetary Authority of Singapore will consider taking steps to ensure that the current base interest rate for bank savings accounts standing at 0.05% per annum for all three local banks is fair, competitive and in tandem with the prevailing high interest rate environment.
Mr Lawrence Wong (for the Prime Minister): Deposit rates are set competitively in the market. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) does not directly intervene in the pricing of bank deposits, but expects banks to treat their depositors fairly and clearly disclose information on the available deposit options and the corresponding product features.
Apart from basic savings accounts, banks offer a range of other savings and fixed deposit products with higher interest rates. For example, based on the latest public information, depositors can earn interest of between 3.1% and 3.4% per annum on fixed deposits if they meet requirements, such as tenor and minimum deposit amounts, which could be as low as S$1,000. Some banks also offer accounts that provide higher interest if customers credit their salary or CPF LIFE payouts to the account and conduct other transactions with the bank. Besides bank deposits, consumers can also access alternatives like Singapore Savings Bonds, Singapore Government Securities and Treasury Bills that currently pay in excess of 3%.
MAS will continue to monitor banks' deposit products and processes and work with the industry to ensure that information on the wide range of deposit options are effectively communicated to all bank customers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Revision of Metrics for Ensuring Appropriate Level of Household Indebtedness Given High Interest Rates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Prime Minister (a) whether the persistently high interest rates after early 2022 necessitate a revision of the metrics that the MAS is using to ensure an appropriate level of indebtedness for Singaporean households; and (b) whether the Government plans to collect more stratified data points on debts and debtors, including the types of non-performing loans and the debtors' income levels and ethnicity, so as to develop a holistic preventive and rehabilitative strategy to help those struggling with debt.
Mr Lawrence Wong (for the Prime Minister): The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) shares the concern that the higher interest rates globally and in Singapore could result in more indebtedness for households and more strain on their family finances. As such, MAS' regulatory requirements and the monitoring of household credit directly take into account changes in interest rate conditions and household incomes as key factors for debt sustainability.
MAS requires financial institutions (FIs) to implement specific safeguards to mitigate the risk of consumer over-indebtedness, particularly in relation to two common forms of consumer loans: firstly, mortgages, which form the largest component of a household's debt; and, secondly, unsecured credit cards which have interest rates that are typically higher than 26% per annum. Such safeguards ensure that debt taken on by a borrower is in line with income. Specifically:
(a) For property loans, the total debt servicing ratio and mortgage servicing ratio frameworks limit an individual's borrowing by capping their monthly mortgage repayment at a prescribed percentage of their income. The monthly repayment is calculated using the higher of a prescribed medium-term interest rate or the highest interest rate offered by the FI during the tenure of the property loan. In September 2022, MAS increased the medium-term interest rate by 0.5 percentage point to 4%, to ensure that individuals continue to borrow prudently as interest rates rise. The Housing and Development Board also uses a similar mortgage servicing ratio framework in relation to mortgage loans it offers.
(b) For unsecured credit cards, FIs may extend such facilities only to individuals with a minimum annual income of S$30,000. The total amount of unsecured borrowings across FIs is capped at the individual's annual income and facilities are suspended if the borrower is 60 days past due on his payments with the FI.
MAS closely monitors household debt holistically for financial stability purposes. The range of metrics MAS tracks assesses the borrowers' debt servicing burden relative to their income. From the data we track, household and individual credit quality has remained stable and we are not seeing a deterioration in the proportion of households falling behind or defaulting on their payments. MAS had also provided further details on household and individual debt trends in its reply to a Parliamentary Question in November last year. [Please refer to \"Trend of Household and Individual Debts and Profile of Debtors\", Official Report, 22 November 2023, Vol 95, Issue 117, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Deviation in Size of Constituencies Made by Electoral Boundaries Review Committee","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Prime Minister (a) whether the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC) has allowed the size of each constituency to deviate by up to 30%, instead of 20% previously, from the mean size of constituencies since 1980 and, if so, why; (b) whether the terms of reference to EBRC should include an instruction to \"ensure more equal representation\"; and (c) if not, will such an instruction be re-inserted into the terms of reference for subsequent EBRCs.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): Since 1980, the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC) has adopted a planning norm of ±30% variation in the average number of electors per Member of Parliament in its review of electoral boundaries.
This approach balances the considerations for fair representation, with the need for more adjustments to the electoral boundaries arising from population shifts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Collaborating with Messaging Service Providers to Prevent and Track Phishing Scams","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Home Affairs in light of the recent phishing scams involving at least 237 victims since November 2023 with total losses amounting to at least $606,000 as stated in the Police advisory of 13 November 2023 (a) whether the Ministry can provide insights on the collaboration with messaging service providers to ensure better security features and user education to prevent such scams; and (b) how is the Ministry planning to enhance international cooperation in tracking and apprehending scammers operating from overseas.
Mr K Shanmugam: In this recent scam variant, WhatsApp users who were attempting to access their account on their desktop had clicked on fake \"WhatsApp Web\" phishing websites. They then proceeded to scan the quick response (QR) code in these phishing websites via their WhatsApp account on their mobile device. In doing so, they inadvertently granted the scammers access to their WhatsApp account. The scammers then used the compromised WhatsApp accounts to impersonate the users, reach out to their family or friends and convinced them to transfer monies to the scammers' bank accounts or PayNow numbers.
To combat this scam variant, the Singapore Police Force (SPF) has been working closely with Meta to stop further abuse of the compromised WhatsApp accounts as soon as they are detected. SPF has also been working with online platforms, including Google, to introduce stronger safeguards to mitigate the risk of fraudulent takeover of online messaging accounts, such as through the pre-emptive detection and blocking of URLs linked to phishing sites.
In addition, SPF has worked with various stakeholders to issue advisories to the public to raise awareness of the latest scam variants and educate them on the precautionary measures that they can take to protect themselves. For example, in November 2023, the Ministry of Communications and Information disseminated an advisory on phishing scams involving the compromise of WhatsApp accounts via the Gov.sg's WhatsApp channel.
The Online Criminal Harms Act, which will be progressively operationalised from the first quarter of 2024, will allow the Government to direct online messaging platforms to disable access to accounts suspected to be involved in scams. The Government can also require designated online service providers to introduce upstream measures to safeguard against the misuse of online accounts.
The Member asked about international cooperation in tracking and apprehending scammers operating from overseas. The Ministry of Home Affairs recently provided a written reply to a Parliamentary Question in November 2023 on this issue. [Please refer to \"Collaborations with Foreign Counterparts Against Scams\", Official Report, 7 November 2023, Vol 95, Issue 116, Written Answers to Questions section.]
Ultimately, the best defence against scams is a discerning public. We urge the public to adopt precautionary measures through the three simple steps of \"Add\", \"Check\", \"Tell\".
First, \"ADD\" security features, such as enabling two-step verification on your WhatsApp and other online messaging accounts. Turn on your notification settings to be alerted to changes to linked devices.
Second, \"CHECK\" that you are on the official WhatsApp Web website. Check your “Settings” for unauthorised linked devices and be wary of unusual requests from your contacts whose accounts may be compromised.
Third, \"TELL\" your family and friends about your scam encounters and report any fraudulent activity to your bank and to the Police immediately.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Categorising of Import and Sale of Vapes and Associated Products as Serious Offences under Organised Crime Act 2015","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the import and sale of vapes and associated products can be categorised as a \"serious offence\" under the Organised Crime Act 2015 to enable Government authorities to target organised criminal groups involved in such activities.
Mr K Shanmugam: For an offence to be listed as a serious offence in the Schedule of the Organised Crime Act (OCA), it must pose a serious threat to public safety and security in Singapore. The offence must also be one that is associated with organised crime in Singapore. Offences in the Schedule include murder, drug-trafficking and unlicensed moneylending.
Based on these criteria, the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Health Sciences Authority are assessing the Member's suggestion of including offences involving vapes and associated products under OCA.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Consideration of Criminal Records for Previous Convictions under Section 377A of Penal Code Given Repeal of Section","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Home Affairs what is the outcome of the Ministry's consideration of how criminal records of those previously convicted under section 377A of the Penal Code for consensual, private, homosexual acts between adults can be rendered spent now that section 377A has been repealed.
Mr K Shanmugam: In November 2022, Parliament repealed section 377A of the Penal Code 1871, which criminalised sexual activities between males.
Under the Registration of Criminals Act 1949, or RCA, section 377A is a registrable offence. This means that a person who was convicted of this offence will have a criminal record, unless it is rendered spent.
A person's conviction is automatically rendered spent after five years of being crime-free, unless the individual is disqualified under certain conditions as prescribed in RCA, such as if the sentence imposed exceeds three months' imprisonment or a $2,000 fine. If the person's conviction record cannot be automatically rendered spent, he can make an application to the Commissioner of Police to have his records treated as spent.
Individuals who had previously been convicted under section 377A can access https://eservices.police.gov.sg/content/policehubhome/homepage/enquiry.html to check whether their records have been rendered spent. Those whose records under section 377A have not been rendered spent, may apply to the Commissioner of Police to have their records treated as spent. In considering the application, the Commissioner will have regard to the facts of the case, including whether it was a private activity and whether it was between consenting adults.
Individuals who wish to make an application to the Commissioner of Police to have their section 377A convictions rendered spent, should submit their application via email to SPF_Spent_Application@spf.gov.sg, with the following details: (a) personal particulars; (b) contact information; and (c) reasons for consideration to treat the section 377A conviction record as spent.
Questions may be directed to: SPF_Spent_Application@spf.gov.sg.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Dependant's Pass Holders and Long-Term Visit Pass Holders who are Not Spouses or Children of Singapore Citizens","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Home Affairs for each year since 2018, what is the number of persons in Singapore on (i) Long-Term Visit Pass who are not spouses or children of Singapore Citizens and (ii) Dependant's Pass, respectively.
Mr K Shanmugam: From 2018 to 2023, there was an annual average of about 100,000 Long-Term Visit Pass holders who were not spouses or children of Singapore Citizens. This includes foreign parents of Singapore Citizens, and foreign spouses, children and parents of Permanent Residents and Work Pass holders; and about 150,000 Dependant's Pass holders.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics of Internet Banking Scams Caused by Compromises to Smartphones by Malware","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) since 2022, how many of the reported Internet banking scams are caused by compromises to smartphones by malware; and (b) what is the percentage breakdown of the operating systems used in the compromised smartphones.
Mr K Shanmugam: From January 2022 to November 2023, the Police received about 2,000 reports of victims having downloaded malware onto their phones. The cases reported involved compromise of Android devices. Police have yet to detect cases involving iOS devices.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Efficiency and Efficacy of Screenings at Airport Checkpoints","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how does the law enforcement agencies (Home Team) balance between efficiency and efficacy in its screenings at airport checkpoints; and (b) what has been the detection rate of offences arising from such screenings in the last three years.
Mr K Shanmugam: We take a risk-managed approach as we seek to balance security checks and efficient clearance. Security screenings are calibrated based on relevant information and data, such as the prevailing security environment and specific threat assessments. In addition, we have to comply with international standards set by the International Civil Aviation Organization.
The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) also conducts pre-arrival risk assessment of travellers, based on advance passenger information provided by the airlines. Those assessed to be of higher risk will be subjected to more stringent checks upon arrival.
In the last three years from 2021 to November 2023, more than 300 items of security threat, such as slingshots, knuckle-dusters and gravity knives, were detected at our air checkpoints. During the same period, ICA refused entry to about 25,000 arriving travellers.
Border control is a key defence to keep Singapore safe and secure. We try to achieve an optimal balance between efficiency and efficacy and ask for the public's understanding when clearance sometimes takes longer than usual.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulatory Supervision over Singapore Palestine Film Festival","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what regulatory supervision is being exercised over the Singapore Palestine Film Festival scheduled to take place from 12 to 21 January 2024; (b) what are the permissible limits for holding events that touch on the presently hostile conflict; and (c) how is the balance struck between allowing Singaporeans to gain an increased understanding of the situation and preserving the racial and religious harmony that is enjoyed in Singapore.
Mr K Shanmugam: Films that are proposed to be screened at film festivals, like the upcoming Palestine Film Festival and the Israel Film Festival back in October, have first to be classified by the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA). IMDA, in consultation with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), has assessed that the films proposed for the Palestine Film Festival later this month do not promote violence or enmity against any group and can be screened with the appropriate age ratings.
Beyond these, the Government's position is that permits will not be given for public events and assemblies on the Israel-Hamas conflict. This is due to safety and security concerns. The developments relating to the Israel-Hamas conflict are emotive and contentious, and tensions are high.
We recognise that there is a strong desire among some Singaporeans to express their views and do something on the Israel-Hamas conflict.
There have been several public dialogues and forums on the conflict, which provide spaces for Singaporeans of all races and faiths to express their views and concerns. Academic institutions, such as our universities and think tanks, have also organised discussions on the conflict, such as the “2023 SR Nathan Distinguished Lecture” featuring prominent statesmen, scholars and public intellectuals organised by the NUS Institute of South Asian Studies and Middle East Institute.
Singaporeans want to do something constructive. The Government supports that. The Government has supported several public fundraising events organised by charities, such as the Singapore Red Cross Society and the Rahmatan Lil Alamin (Blessings to All) Foundation, and Singaporeans have contributed generously. As of November 2023, Singaporeans have contributed a total of more than $7 million in cash and in-kind donations to support relief efforts in Gaza. Such donation drives done with the relevant permits will be a good way of helping those who are suffering. The donations should be for humanitarian purposes, to help civilians affected by the conflict and not for military or terror use.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Frequency of Anti-scam Campaigns Appearing on Media Platforms","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the frequency that Singapore's anti-scam campaigns appear in (i) local daily newspapers, (ii) local television during prime time, (iii) local television outside of prime time, (iv) social media and (v) other media platforms; and (b) whether the Government will consider increasing the frequency of short television advertisements explaining the latest scam tactics in a manner that is easy to understand and, if not, why not.
Mr K Shanmugam: In January 2023, the Singapore Police Force (SPF) and the National Crime Prevention Council launched the national anti-scam campaign, \"I can ACT against scams\". In this omni-channel campaign, SPF has been disseminating anti-scam messages and advisories on both traditional and online media platforms, in various formats and at different frequencies, typically with more publicity when there are emerging scam variants to highlight.
SPF has also been disseminating on its own, anti-scam messages through local television advertisements (both during and outside prime time), social media platforms and anti-scam posters in various public locations, including bus stop panels and digital display panels in the lifts of Housing and Development Board flats, shopping centres and Mass Rapid Transit platforms. Since November, SPF has also been working with SPH Media to publish a column on scams in local newspapers in the four vernacular languages. These columns are published twice each month and feature information on measures that one can adopt to protect himself and his loved ones.
SPF also works with private entities, including banks, e-commerce platforms and telcos, to disseminate anti-scam messages. In addition, SPF regularly issues scam-related Police news releases on the SPF's website and social media platforms. There were 177 such news releases issued last year. Our local newspapers, including The Straits Times, would typically also carry them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of and Assistance for Non-native English Speakers Filing Court Applications via Integrated Family Application Management System","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Law (a) for the past three years, what is the percentage of applicants who have filed Court applications via the Integrated Family Application Management System and are non-native English speakers; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider simplifying the application process or render assistance to such applicants whose English is not their first language.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Integrated Family Application Management System (iFAMS) is an online case application and management system that was designed to meet the needs of self-represented persons (SRPs) involved in proceedings in the Family Justice Courts (FJC). iFAMS simplifies the application process so that SRPs can prepare and file Court applications for maintenance, protection orders and simplified deputyship without having to engage a lawyer.
The percentage of non-native English speakers amongst applicants who have filed Court applications via iFAMS from 2020 to 2022 is set out in Table 1 below.
The data for 2023 is not yet available.
SRPs whose first language is not English can seek help with filing iFAMS applications at several locations, including the FJC Registry, the ServiceSG Centres at Our Tampines Hub and One Punggol, any Protection Specialist Centre and the HELP Family Service Centre.
The Judiciary regularly reviews and seeks to improve the assistance available to SRPs who face difficulties filing applications via iFAMS and welcomes feedback on specific difficulties that court users face.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tourist Arrivals from China and Amount of Tourism Receipts in 2023","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what are the number of tourist arrivals and the amount of tourism receipts from China in 2023; (b) what are the reasons for how those figures compare to the 3.63 million tourist arrivals and $4.12 billion of tourism receipts from China in 2019; and (c) whether any studies have been conducted on the potential impact of the 30-day mutual visa exemption arrangement on Chinese tourist arrivals and spending in Singapore.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: There were 1.23 million visitor arrivals from mainland China between January and November 2023. Mainland Chinese visitors spent S$1.12 billion in tourism receipts between January and June 2023. Corrected for the same period, these represent 37% and 56% of 2019's visitor arrivals and tourism receipt figures respectively1.
In 2023, mainland Chinese travellers showed a preference for domestic over outbound travel in general and flight connectivity between China and Singapore was still recovering to pre-pandemic levels. As of December 2023, weekly flight passenger services2 between China and Singapore have recovered to 78% of 2019's figures. As outbound travel from China and flight connectivity continue to pick up, the recovery of Chinese visitor arrivals and spending in Singapore should follow suit.
The Ministry of Trade and Industry and the Singapore Tourism Board, together with other relevant agencies, had assessed that the 30-day mutual visa exemption arrangement with China will increase Singapore's attractiveness as a tourist destination for Chinese visitors and boost visitor arrivals and spending in Singapore across the retail, F&B and related sectors in the tourism industry.
Equally important, the longer visa exemption will also make it more convenient for Singaporeans to travel for leisure into China and Singapore businesses to explore opportunities and network with their counterparts to grow their business in the Chinese market.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : As of 8 January 2024, visitor arrivals data for December 2023 and tourism receipts data between July and December 2023 are not available yet. The comparisons between 2019 and 2023's visitor arrivals and tourism receipts are adjusted to compare data across the same months in each year.","2 : A flight passenger service refers to a roundtrip."],"footNoteQuestions":["15"],"questionNo":"15"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Prevent Installation of Illegal Vehicle Licence Plates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Transport (a) what enforcement measures are in place to prevent vehicle owners from installing illegal vehicle licence plates; and (b) how will the Ministry address cases where owners can switch between compliant and non-compliant vehicle licence plates with ease.
Mr Chee Hong Tat (for the Minister for Transport): Registered vehicle owners must ensure that their vehicle licence plates comply with requirements set out in the Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Registration and Licensing) Rules. It is an offence to display vehicle licence plates that do not conform to the prescribed specifications. For first-time offenders, it carries a fine of up to $1,000, or imprisonment of up to three months, or both. The penalties are doubled for repeat offenders.
Vehicle licence plates are checked during periodic inspections at authorised inspection centres for all vehicles. In addition, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) enforces the rules against errant vehicles through conducting regular patrols and receiving feedback from members of public and other agencies.
From January to October 2023, LTA has taken enforcement actions against more than 2,000 vehicles with licence plate offences.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Estimated Costs to Fit Automated Ramps and Assistive Mechanisms in New Buses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry has conducted an estimate of the cost for new buses to be fitted with (i) ramps that can be automatically lowered for commuters in wheelchairs instead of ramps that need to be manually operated by the bus driver and (ii) kneeling mechanisms that allow the body or entrance door of buses to be lowered to facilitate boarding by the elderly or people with disabilities; and (b) if so, what is the estimate of these costs.
Mr Chee Hong Tat (for the Minister for Transport): It can cost up to $8,000 to include an automated ramp on each new bus.
Since 2018, we have introduced the bus kneeling mechanism, which costs about $5,000 per bus, as a standard feature on all new public buses. To date, about 70% of our fleet has been equipped with this mechanism.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Requests from MCSTs to Build Covered Linkways to Their Developments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Transport in each of the last five years (a) how many requests have been received by the Land Transport Authority from residential Management Corporation Strata Titles (MCSTs) to construct covered linkways to the boundary of their development; (b) how many such requests resulted in the installation of the linkways; and (c) for instances where linkways are constructed, what is the mean time between the initial request and the commencement of work.
Mr Chee Hong Tat (for the Minister for Transport): Over the last five years, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has received 86 requests from condominiums for covered linkways to transport nodes, of which 28 were approved.
After the request is approved, it takes approximately six to 10 months for LTA to conduct technical feasibility studies and site investigations and obtain approvals from relevant agencies before commencing works.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Mean and Median Time between Trips for Private Hire and Taxi Drivers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry has data on the (i) mean and (ii) median time between trips for private hire drivers and taxi drivers respectively; and (b) whether the data shows an increasing trend in the time between trips for both classes of drivers over the last three years.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Taxi and private hire car drivers choose their working hours and break times and whether to accept bookings. As such, time between trips is not a meaningful indicator and is not tracked.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Enhance Waste Reduction and Recycling Efforts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in view of concerns that Semakau Landfill is nearing its capacity limits, what measures is the Government taking to enhance waste reduction and recycling efforts, particularly in terms of repurposing incineration ash for construction or land reclamation as studied by local universities.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: More than half the available space on Semakau Landfill has been filled and it is expected to run out of space by 2035 at the current waste disposal rates. As indicated in the Ministry's replies to recent Parliamentary Questions, there are ongoing efforts to extend the lifespan of the landfill well beyond 2035, including regulatory measures on key waste streams, as well as research and development into repurposing of waste residues, such as incineration ash.
For example, the National Environment Agency is working with the Maritime Port Authority of Singapore, the National University of Singapore and other partners to study the feasibility of recovering and processing landfilled incineration ash and other non-incinerable wastes from Semakau Landfill as alternative reclamation fill material for use at Tuas Port Phase 3. Preliminary indications on its feasibility are expected in the coming months. If successful, this project will help to extend the lifespan of Semakau Landfill.
Notwithstanding these efforts, we need to press on towards achieving our Zero Waste vision by moving upstream to each do our part to reduce waste and recycle right.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Prevent Travellers from Transmitting Bedbug Infestations Upon Arrival in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in view of the global resurgence of bedbug infestations, what measures are in place to detect and prevent travellers from transmitting such infestations upon their arrivals in Singapore. \n\n
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: So far, the National Environment Agency (NEA) has not detected any upward trend in reports regarding bedbug infestation in Singapore. Nevertheless, it is important for businesses and residents in Singapore to exercise vigilance.
While bed bugs are not known to transmit diseases to humans, they can cause discomfort, itching and allergic reactions in some people. Travellers returning to Singapore should exercise caution and personal responsibility to ensure that bed bugs are not inadvertently brought back into their work and living environments here.
In addition, NEA has issued advisories to organisations, such as the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore, Changi Airport Group, the Singapore Tourism Board and the Singapore Hotel Association, to provide guidance on what they can do to prevent an infestation of bed bugs in premises under their purview. This includes performing thorough checks and cleaning of areas where infestations could occur, such as beds, furniture and areas where luggage is placed, transported or stored. Premises owners are also encouraged to engage professional pest control operators to eradicate bed bug infestations, should they occur.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Grant Credits on Electricity Bills for Households That Are Actively Recycling","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the Ministry can consider introducing an innovative tracking and reward system that will grant credits on the household electricity bill to residents who are recorded by the system as being consistent and active in responsible recycling.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: I thank the Member for the suggestion. My Ministry will continue to implement initiatives that cultivate recycling habits in households. This includes the upcoming Beverage Container Return Scheme, which will encourage the recycling of plastic and metal beverage containers by providing a deposit refund when empty beverage containers are returned at designated return points.
We have no plans to grant credits on the household electricity bill to residents who recycle right. It could be technically challenging to implement and sustain a system that accurately tracks and rewards the practice of recycling right by households. Nonetheless, we are supportive of the various ground-up efforts that offer incentives to nudge households towards recycling right, such as SG Recycle's paper recycling machines, ALBA's STEP UP mobile application and Cash-for-Trash recycling stations by Public Waste Collectors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Gas Flaring Activities in Light of Studies Suggesting Harmful Effects of Toxic Pollutants Released","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment having regard to recent international studies released alongside the 2023 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28) suggesting that gas flaring leads to toxic pollutants being released in the air which, in turn, endanger the health of people living near and far, whether gas flaring activities in Singapore should be reviewed.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Gas flaring refers to the controlled combustion of gases, most commonly in the oil and gas sector. We are aware of reports highlighting the impact of gas flaring from oil and gas drilling activities on air quality and human health.
There are no oil and gas drilling activities in Singapore. In Singapore, gas flaring takes place primarily at refineries and petrochemical plants as a safety measure, to prevent the dangerous build-up of gases during process upsets or to burn off excess gases that cannot be recovered and stored. Such flaring is typically much shorter in duration and involves smaller volumes of gas than in the case of flaring from oil and gas drilling activities.
Gas flaring is required to be carried out efficiently to minimise the emission of dark smoke and avoid affecting air quality and public health. The National Environment Agency will take enforcement action against plants with flares that produce dark smoke more than three times a day, or when the dark smoke lasts five minutes or more within any one-hour period.
Singapore's ambient air quality is monitored through a network of air monitoring stations, including in the western region of Singapore, where there are industries that may need to conduct gas flaring. Primary pollutants generated from gas flaring, such as particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide, are tracked under the basket of pollutants in the Pollutant Standards Index. The overall ambient air quality in the west region has remained in the \"Good\" to \"Moderate\" range since 2020.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Corporal Punishment Meted Out on Boy Pupils and Necessity of Retaining Such Punishment in Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Education (a) in each of the past five years, how many boy pupils have been meted corporal punishment in schools with caning on the palms of their hands or on their buttocks over the clothing under regulation 88 of the Education (Schools) Regulations; and (b) whether there is a need to retain such punishment in schools.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Between 2019 and 2023, the number of male students caned in schools remained stable.
In schools, caning is carried out as an educative and disciplinary measure for serious offences committed by male students when other corrective actions have been exhausted. Paired with counselling, it serves as an effective deterrent to further student offences and contributes to a safe school environment conducive to learning.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Median Annual Salary of Flexi-adjunct Teachers in Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the median annual salary of flexi-adjunct teachers in the past five years; and (b) how does this compare with the median annual salary of regular full-time teachers.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Flexi-adjunct teachers (FAJTs) supplement our teaching force to help schools meet short-term manpower needs.
FAJTs are remunerated on an hourly rate according to payment tiers, which are based primarily on their teaching experience. FAJTs are not eligible for bonuses and retention payments, which make up a significant portion of the annual remuneration package for full-time teachers.
The annual remuneration package for FAJTs is designed to be lower than that of full-time teachers with equivalent experience. For example, the maximum remuneration for an FAJT at the highest payment tier is less than 60% of the median annual remuneration of classroom teachers with comparable experience.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"New Sports to be Added under Strategic Partnership CCA Programme in 2024 and 2025","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Education (a) what new sports are being planned to be added in 2024 and 2025 under the Strategic Partnership CCA Programme; (b) whether football specifically can be added; and (c) whether international schools can be included in the programme.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth are exploring with partners to add a few more sports to the programme and will announce them when ready. These sports are those not commonly offered in schools, such as athletics and water polo. As Strategic Partnership Co-Curricular Activities (CCA) Programme is still in its early development stages, international schools are not currently included.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Self-employed Persons Receiving Financial Support from Social Assistance Schemes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Social and Family Development for each year since 2019 (a) what is the number of self-employed persons who applied for and received financial support from social assistance schemes; (b) what is the monetary quantum disbursed (i) on average and (ii) as a proportion of the applicant's yearly net trade income; and (c) what are the three most common types of schemes that rendered such support.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: We generally do not collect information on clients' occupation for our social assistance schemes, as such information is not used in our assessments.
However, during COVID-19, there were schemes that catered specifically to self-employed persons. Around $390 million of support was provided to about 50,000 taxi and private hire car drivers via the Special Relief Fund and COVID-19 Driver Relief Fund. About 200,000 persons received assistance under the Self-Employed Person Income Relief Scheme, which provided a payment of $9,000 each to eligible individuals. We do not have readily available data on the disbursement quantum as a proportion of applicants' income.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Complaints against Day Activity Centres and Long-term Care Facilities, and Cases Referred to Police","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in each of the past five years (a) how many complaints or reports have been made against (i) day activity centres and (ii) long-term care facilities; (b) how many of such complaints or reports have been investigated by the Ministry; and (c) how many of the investigated cases have been referred to the Police for further investigation.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: From 2019 to 2023, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) received an average of about 30 service-related complaints or reports each year against day activity centres (DAC)1 and MSF-funded adult disability homes (ADH)2, sheltered homes (SH)3 and welfare homes (WH)4 .
MSF investigates all complaints and reports and refers cases to the Police for further investigation when it suspects that an offence may have been committed. Of the cases in the past five years, three were referred to the Police for further investigation.
29 Ms Usha Chandradas asked the Minister for Health (a) whether advertisements for aesthetic treatments are regulated; (b) whether any safeguards have been or will be put in place to ensure that the public is protected from misleading advertising of aesthetic treatments by non-medical professionals, such as social media influencers; and (c) whether remedies are available for members of the public who receive aesthetic treatments from registered and unregistered service providers due to misleading advertising and who suffer loss or injury as a result.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Aesthetic procedures by licensed healthcare providers are medical procedures, regulated under the Healthcare Services Act 2020 (HCSA). Likewise, advertising of aesthetic procedures is also regulated under the Healthcare Services (Advertisement) Regulations 2021 (HCSAR), where there are various safeguards to ensure that the advertised contents are accurate, truthful and do not induce unnecessary consumption of the healthcare services.
To illustrate, under HCSAR, non-medical professionals, including social media influencers, are not allowed to advertise any licensable healthcare services, unless they possess an HCSA licence. Anyone who advertises healthcare services without a valid licence may be liable, on conviction under HCSA, to a maximum fine of $20,000 and/or a jail term of 12 months.
Patients who have any concerns with regard to the illegal advertisements on medical aesthetic procedures can lodge a complaint with the Ministry of Health for investigations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Health Risks of High Caffeine Consumption on Young People","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Health with regard to the health risks of high caffeine consumption on young people, whether the Ministry will consider introducing measures to restrict the sale of energy drinks with high caffeine content, such as those that may have 200 milligrammes (mg) of caffeine per can in comparison to a cup of coffee that has around 80 mg to 100 mg of caffeine, to young persons.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Internationally, there is currently no recognised health-based guidance value, such as an acceptable daily intake, for caffeine. There are also no international standards, either by the United Nations or World Health Organization, on the amount of caffeine allowed to be added to food. This likely reflects the inconclusive evidence for a common maximum threshold based on the negative effects of caffeine.
The effects, both good and bad, differs across individuals, depending on one's sex, age, weight and differences in susceptibility. As a result, the Food Regulations in Singapore do not impose maximum limits on caffeine that are added to beverages. Caffeine should be consumed in moderation and individuals are advised to moderate their intake if they experience side effects.
The Health Promotion Board has published information on caffeine effects on Health Hub and the Ministry of Health will continue to monitor the developments internationally on this front.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reports of Incidents Involving Transportation and Escorting of Elderly Patients","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Health (a) how many incidents involving the transportation and escorting of elderly patients have been reported in the past three years; (b) in those incidents involving gig-platform services for transporting these elderly, who bears the responsibility; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider tightening regulations to enforce service quality and training standards for companies offering such services.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Over the past three years, 10 safety incidents involving medical escort and transport of seniors by service providers and transport vendors appointed by the Ministry of Health (MOH) and the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) have been reported. Service providers appointed by MOH are required to adhere to service standards and requirements. These service providers are also required to conduct training to ensure that staff and volunteers are able to carry out their roles safely. MOH and AIC did not receive reports on similar incidents involving gig-platforms services during the same period.
MOH will continue to review our policies and regulations to ensure the safety and well-being of clients of our eldercare services.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulation and Supervision of Cord Blood Banking Industry","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Mr Alex Yam Ziming asked the Minister for Health (a) how is the cord blood banking industry regulated and supervised; and (b) what guarantees or recourse are there for consumers who make use of these services should there be service lapses.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Some parents elect to store their children's cord blood during delivery. Cord blood banking service is a licensable healthcare service regulated under the Healthcare Services Act, which covers the activities on the handling, processing and storage of cord blood obtained from an individual and intended for clinical use.
All cord blood banks in Singapore are subject to inspections once every two years to assess their compliance with regulatory requirements. Targeted audits may also be conducted to review any specific areas of concerns.
If a cord blood bank is found to be non-compliant, the Ministry of Health can take regulatory action. This includes modifying any licence condition, shortening the licensing term, or enforcement actions, such as imposing financial penalties or prosecution. The penalties include fines of up to $20,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or both. Consumers can seek recourse from their cord blood banking provider in the event of service lapses, depending on the service contracts that they have entered into.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Women and Men Who Have Undergone Fertility Screening at Public and Private Hospitals in Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry has data on the number of women and men who have undergone fertility screening at (i) public hospitals and (ii) private hospitals respectively in each of the past five years.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry of Health does not track the number of women and men who have undergone fertility screening at public and private hospitals.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Patients Affected by Reduced Subsidy Levels from Introduction of Use of Residential Property Annual Value for Means Testing","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"34 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health since September 2022 (a) how many restructured hospital patients have had their subsidy levels reduced due to the introduction of the use of residential property Annual Value for means testing; (b) of these, how many have made appeals for a restoration of their previous subsidy levels; (c) how many have been granted higher subsidies upon appeal; and (d) what are the reasons for granting these appeals.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry of Health does not track the numbers that the Member asked for. There will always be a time lag between the revision of annual values of residential properties for taxation purposes and the revision of annual value thresholds to determine subsidy levels. The Government has increased the annual value thresholds used for healthcare subsidy schemes with effect from 1 January 2024 to ensure that Singaporeans with greater needs continue to receive support.
Patients who face difficulties in paying their medical bills after subsidies, insurance and MediSave can apply for financial assistance schemes, such as MediFund, where their circumstances will be holistically assessed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Healthcare Workers Receiving COVID-19 Resilience Medal","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"35 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Health (a) whether all doctors, nurses and other frontliners, especially those who served in the pandemic wards, received the COVID-19 Resilience Medal; and (b) if not, how many did not receive the COVID-19 Resilience Medal and for what reasons.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The question has been addressed in the oral reply to Question No 31 on the Order Paper for 9 January 2024. [Please refer to \"Appeals for Individuals who Missed Out on COVID-19 Resilience Medal\", Official Report, 9 January 2024, Vol 95, Issue 118, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Considerations in Inclusion or Removal of Treatments in Cancer Drug List","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"36 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the considerations that the Ministry takes into account when deciding the treatments to be included in the Cancer Drug List; and (b) what factors typically lead to the inclusion or removal of a particular drug from the List.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The key factors that the Agency for Care Effectiveness considers are that treatments should be both clinically-effective and cost-effective, in order to be included in the Cancer Drug List (CDL).
For treatments that are already assessed and on CDL, they will remain on the list unless there are specific reasons to remove them, such as if the company defaults on contractual agreements with the Ministry of Health or upon company request or safety recalls.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Use of Protective Construction Hoardings as Medium for Display of Public Artworks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"37 Ms Usha Chandradas asked the Minister for National Development (a) how does the Ministry determine whether protective construction hoardings in public areas are eligible to be turned into public artworks, such as murals; (b) what are the criteria for determining the selection of artists to create these artworks; (c) what are the criteria for determining the kinds of artwork that can be displayed on these hoardings; and (d) whether there are plans to include artworks on more construction hoardings in public locations around Singapore.
Mr Desmond Lee: To soften the impact of construction works on the surrounding areas and maintain the attractiveness of our streetscapes, the Urban and Redevelopment Authority (URA) encourages developers to apply creative treatment to their construction hoardings.
The design of the hoardings can be based on historical or precinct themes or greenery, such as vertical walls covered by live vegetation. Developers have the flexibility to choose their preferred designs, including artists and artworks. URA is refining a set of Design Guidelines and Good Practice Guide for Creative Hoarding and will make this publicly available when ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of Joint Singles Scheme Operator-Run Pilot in Mitigating Conflicts among Co-tenants in HDB's Public Rental Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"38 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for National Development in relation to the Joint Singles Scheme Operator-Run (JSS-OR) pilot under HDB's Public Rental Scheme (PRS) for flats, what is the Ministry's assessment of the current effectiveness of JSS-OR in mitigating conflicts among co-tenants which conflicts have been identified as the primary impediment discouraging homeless individuals from accepting PRS offers.
39 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for National Development in relation to the Joint Singles Scheme Operator-Run pilot under HDB's Public Rental Scheme for flats (a) what is the adoption rate of public rental flats by the homeless demographic (i) before the pilot's implementation and (ii) after its expansion in September 2023; and (b) over the next two years, what are the key performance indicators set for the expanded pilot.
Mr Desmond Lee: We launched the Joint Singles Scheme Operator-Run (JSS-OR) pilot in December 2021 to allow low-income singles to apply for a public rental flat without having to first find a flatmate. The Housing and Development Board (HDB) appoints a social service agency (SSA) as the operator for each site to manage the flat-sharing arrangements and mediate conflicts between tenants. In September 2023, the pilot was expanded to another three sites able to accommodate 1,000 tenants in total. HDB has assisted a total of 590 JSS-OR tenants so far.
In assessing the JSS-OR model, we will review the take-up rate, the resolution rate for co-tenant conflicts and feedback from tenants and operators.
Thus far, the JSS-OR pilot has been progressing well. The model has generally been effective in mitigating co-tenant conflicts. Unlike the Joint Singles Scheme (JSS), in which co-tenants may face difficulties resolving conflicts on their own, the on-site SSA operators can mediate conflicts early and, where necessary, change the flat sharing arrangements. As such, almost all co-tenant disputes reported to the operators have been resolved.
HDB will continue working closely with the Ministry of Social and Family Development and other partners in the Partners Engaging and Empowering Rough Sleepers network to assist homeless persons in securing stable housing, which includes public rental housing for those with no other housing options and no family support.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Prepare Low-income Tenants of HDB's Public Rental Scheme for Eventual Home Ownership","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"40 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for National Development in relation to the Joint Singles Scheme Operator-Run pilot under HDB's Public Rental Scheme for flats where a significant proportion of tenants are low-wage workers or self-employed persons earning less than $1,500, what are the Ministry’s plans to prepare this demographic for eventual home ownership.
Mr Desmond Lee: All single Singaporeans, including singles in public rental housing, can benefit from housing grants for singles of up to $40,000 when they purchase a Build-To-Order (BTO) flat, or up to $95,000 when they purchase a resale flat. Public rental tenants can also get personalised guidance from the Housing and Development Board's (HDB's) Home Ownership Support Team to plan for and buy a flat.
Tenants under the Joint Singles Scheme Operator-Run pilot receive support from the social service agencies appointed as the operators. Besides managing the flat-sharing arrangements, the operators also check in on the tenants regularly and ensure that they are supported by national and local schemes, such as for assistance on financial or employment issues, as needed. This supports tenants towards attaining stability, self-reliance and social mobility.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of Lift Upgrading Programme to HDB Blocks after Main Upgrading Programme but Still Without Direct Lift Access to Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"41 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether HDB can provide an update on whether it is extending the Lift Upgrading Programme to HDB blocks that have undergone the Main Upgrading Programme but still do not have direct lift access to flats; (b) if not, what factors impede this and how will the Ministry address them; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider subsidising stair lifts for wheelchair-bound residents living in such HDB blocks.
Mr Desmond Lee: To date, households in more than 5,000 Housing and Development Board (HDB) blocks have benefited from the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP). Currently, around 99% of all blocks have direct lift access on every floor. There are nine blocks that underwent lift upgrading under the Main Upgrading Programme but are still without direct lift access on every floor level due to technical constraints. For such blocks, residents need to climb about one flight of stairs from the lift landing to get to their units, as compared to three or four flights of stairs prior to lift upgrading.
Over the years, HDB has piloted and adopted different design approaches and innovative solutions to bring direct lift access to more blocks through LUP. Some examples of the solutions that have been successfully implemented include machine room-less lifts, home lifts and bubble lifts. However, there are some blocks where LUP remains unfeasible due to high cost or technical constraints.
HDB has studied installing wheelchair stair lifts and assessed that this is not feasible for large-scale adoption. Staircases within HDB blocks need to be kept clear for fire escape and retrofitting a stair lift will encroach into and impede the evacuation route in the event of a fire. Moreover, such stair lifts may potentially cause injury if not operated properly.
For blocks without direct lift access, HDB will continue to explore new technologies and adopt them where feasible. Residents who are in need of direct lift access due to medical conditions or mobility reasons can apply for the Lift Access Housing Grant of up to $30,000 to help them buy another flat with direct lift access.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of Retirement Date of 3G Network Pending Upgrading of Town Infrastructure to 4G- or 5G-Compatible Devices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"42 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for National Development in light of the announced retirement of the 3G network (a) whether the Government has considered the implications on existing town infrastructure, such as lift management devices in elevators, that are using the 3G network; and (b) whether the Government will consider an extension of the retirement date if Town Councils are found to be behind in the upgrading of said infrastructure to 4G- or 5G-compatible devices.
Mr Desmond Lee: All lifts in the Housing and Development Board (HDB) blocks are installed with Lift Monitoring Devices (LMDs) to monitor the lifts' performance and operating status.
In 2021, HDB launched the LMD Enhancement Programme as part of efforts to enhance the reliability of lifts in HDB estates. Under this programme, HDB will replace all LMDs that are still operating on the 3G network with LMDs that operate on the 4G network to enhance connectivity, data processing capability and cybersecurity. HDB is working with the vendors to accelerate the replacement works for the remaining lifts and targets to complete the programme by end-2025.
LMDs on 3G networks will continue to be supported until they are all replaced under the LMD Enhancement Programme. IMDA requires network operators to ensure that the remaining 3G enterprise subscribers successfully migrate to the 4G or 5G networks before the 3G networks are retired.
The Ministry of National Development and HDB are working with the Ministry of Communications and Information, Infocomm Media Development Authority and the mobile network operators to manage the transition to 4G-enabled LMDs alongside the retirement of 3G networks. HDB has been progressively rolling out the LMD replacements and will engage the respective Town Councils on the scheduling of replacement works in their towns in due course.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Details of HDB Flats Rented Out by Flat Type in Last Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"43 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development in each of the last five years, including the latest available data in 2023, what is the number of HDB flats that are rented out by flat type, as further broken down into (i) rental of whole flats, (ii) rental of bedrooms and (iii) the average number of registered occupants.
Mr Desmond Lee: As of November 2023, there were about 58,000 Housing and Development Board (HDB) whole flats rented out. This constituted about 5% of the approximately one million sold HDB flats island-wide. There were also about 110,000 HDB flats which remain occupied by their owners, but which had bedrooms rented out. This constituted about 11% of all HDB sold flats. More than 90% of these flats, which had been wholly or partially rented out were 3-room, 4-room, and 5-room flats.
The number and proportion of flat types rented out and the average number of occupants in each flat type are shown in the tables below:
Over the past five years, the proportion of flat types rented out and the average number of occupants in each flat type has been stable, for both HDB whole flat and bedroom rentals.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"HDB and Private Residential Units Tenanted to Six Unrelated People Not from Same Family Unit","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"44 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many (i) HDB flats and (ii) private residential units are presently tenanted to six unrelated people who are not from the same family unit; (b) what is the profile mix of the tenants of such units by (i) citizenship, (ii) age group and (iii) occupation; and (c) whether the temporary easing of the rental occupancy cap until end-2026 will significantly affect rental prices inadvertently.
Mr Desmond Lee: This Question has been addressed in the oral reply to the Parliamentary Questions on the Temporary Relaxation of Occupancy Cap, on 9 January 2024. [Please refer to \"Rationale for and Impact of Increased Rental Occupancy Cap for HDB Units\", Official Report, 9 January 2024, Vol 95, Issue 118, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Resiliency of Key Telecommunication Networks and Services against Massive Outages","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"45 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for Communications and Information in view of the recent Optus network outage in Australia (a) what is the assessment of the resiliency of Singapore's key telecommunication networks and services; and (b) what measures have been implemented to prevent such massive network outages in Singapore.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Telecommunication networks and services are essential to the public and businesses, enabling communication and connectivity between people and businesses. Singapore's key fixed and mobile telecommunication networks are required to be designed for resilience with high availability, on par with international standards. Key telecommunication service providers are also required to uphold service quality standards, such as: (a) providing nationwide outdoor service coverage of at least 99% for mobile services; and (b) ensuring network availability of at least 99.9% for fibre broadband services. They have consistently met these requirements.
These providers are also required to conduct continuous regular audits in areas like their infrastructure, processes and business continuity plans to ensure that the resilience of their networks is on par with industry standards and international best practices, for example, those set by global bodies, such as the International Telecommunication Union and International Organization for Standardization. They have consistently achieved a high level of compliance for past audits for both fixed and mobile networks.
To achieve a high level of resilience, critical network components of each fixed and mobile network are built with failover capabilities and diversity, to minimise widespread service disruptions. At the system level, resilience is further achieved through a diversity of networks, with multiple service providers offering a variety of mobile, broadband and public wi-fi services.
Should service disruptions occur, telecommunication service providers are expected to restore services quickly, undertake rectification measures to prevent recurrences and offer appropriate measures, such as fee waivers, to mitigate the impact on affected users. Financial penalties may also be imposed on telecommunication service providers found responsible for the service disruptions.
That said, regulations and penalties cannot fully eliminate the possibility of service disruptions. Businesses and end users should plan and prepare for contingencies by leveraging upon the diversity of networks or service providers, based on their needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proportion of Students Who Have Undergone Code for Fun Enrichment Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"46 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Communications and Information for each year since the Code for Fun enrichment programme was launched in 2019 (a) what proportion of each cohort of primary school and secondary school students respectively have undergone the programme; (b) for students who did not undergo the programme, how does the Ministry ensure that they can attain the foundational digital quotient; and (c) what are the Ministry's plans to update the programme and its delivery to contribute to developing an artificial intelligence-ready workforce.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) and Ministry of Education (MOE) introduced the Code for Fun (CFF) enrichment programme in 2014 to expose primary and secondary school students to coding and computational thinking. Since 2020, it has been mandatory for all upper primary school students to go through CFF or a comparable coding programme. While CFF remains an optional programme at the secondary school level, almost two-thirds of secondary schools offered the programme in 2023, up from 48% in 2021. More than 50,000 students are reached through these programmes every year.
As technology continues to evolve quickly, IMDA and MOE review CFF regularly to ensure that the programme is relevant and up to date. As part of its programme design, CFF covers emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI). We are working towards introducing new content on AI and data literacy in the refreshed CFF for 2025.
MOE provides opportunities for students to develop knowledge of digital and AI literacies, as well as emerging technologies through formal curriculum, STEM-related co-curricular activities and other enrichment programmes. More information is available in MOE's responses to the Parliamentary Questions on Incorporating Artificial Intelligence into the Curriculum on 3 July 2023; and Plans to Ensure Singaporeans' Readiness in Technology-driven Economy on 6 January 2020. [Please refer to (a) \"Incorporating Artificial Intelligence into School Curriculum\", Official Report, 3 July 2023, Vol 95, Issue 105, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section; and (b) \"Plans to Ensure Singaporeans' Readiness in Technology-driven Economy\", Official Report, 6 January 2020, Vol 94, Issue 115, Written Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"National Artificial Intelligence Strategy 2.0 vs Energy and Environmental Sustainability","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"47 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Communications and Information with regard to the National Artificial Intelligence (AI) Strategy 2.0 (a) how does the Government plan to balance the increased computing power necessary for AI developments with Singapore's energy sustainability goals; and (b) what initiatives or strategies are in place to ensure that the infrastructure and computing power needed for AI growth remain environmentally sustainable.
Mrs Josephine Teo: An important enabler of our National Artificial Intelligence Strategy (NAIS) 2.0 strategy is artificial intelligence (AI) compute power housed in data centres (DCs) in Singapore. The Government is committed to anchoring the necessary compute power and growing the DC sector in a sustainable manner, consistent with our international climate commitments.
One key strategy is to improve the energy efficiency of DCs and facilitate the deployment of efficient cooling solutions. For example, AI compute infrastructure typically relies on liquid cooling, which is more energy-efficient than air cooling for such intensive workloads. Other measures include: (a) supporting DC operators to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the Economic Development Board's Resource Efficiency Grant for Emissions; (b) developing sustainability standards, such as the Infocomm Media Development Authority's (IMDA)'s Tropical DC Standards that enable DCs to operate safely at higher temperatures and use less energy for cooling; and (c) reviewing Building and Construction Authority (BCA)-IMDA's Green Mark for DCs certification scheme to update the energy-efficiency criteria.
Beyond sustainable AI compute infrastructure, it is important to invest in the development of green computing methods. These methods include (a) coding and algorithm optimisation, (b) software-hardware optimisation, and (c) developing standards for low-data, low-energy AI models. The Government will continue to deepen international and domestic partnerships with the research community and industry partners on this front.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Workers Facing Highest Risk of Displacement from Artificial Intelligence and Reskilling Programmes Available","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"48 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) which categories of workers has the Ministry assessed to face the highest risk of displacement as a result of artificial intelligence (AI); (b) what are the projected numbers for each such category; and (c) what expanded programmes are being instituted to scale up reskilling and encourage workers to switch careers before they face job displacement due to AI.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Artificial intelligence (AI) development is changing every day and its impact on the workforce is not fully predictable. As with other technologies, the Government's consistent approach has been to maximise the potential of our businesses and workers to harness AI as an opportunity, through supporting their efforts to adapt. This has helped our economy to expand and our workers to enjoy improved employment outcomes.
In particular, Jobs Transformation Maps specific to sectors, will help employers and workers understand and prepare themselves for the future of work that is influenced by AI. Through SkillsFuture courses as well as Workforce Singapore's job redesign and career conversion programmes, workers can upskill and reskill to work in roles that may be transformed by AI.
For those who wish to transit to AI tech roles, IMDA's TechSkills Accelerator supports fresh and mid-career workers to be equipped with relevant skills. Singapore's educated and skilled population is well-placed to take advantage of AI, as we have done so in previous waves of technological change. The Government will continue to work with our tripartite partners to support our workforce.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breaches of Singpass in Last Five Years and Steps to Enhance Its Security","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"49 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) whether there have been any security breaches of Singpass in the last five years; and (b) how can the security of Singpass be continually strengthened to remain trusted yet easily accessible.
Mrs Josephine Teo: There were no cybersecurity breaches of the \tSingapore Personal Access (Singpass) system detected in the last five years. The Government Technology Agency (GovTech) continually strengthens the Singpass system against potential breaches. In addition to cybersecurity testing conducted by the Government, crowdsourced vulnerability discovery programmes are applied to Singpass. These include the Vulnerability Reward Programme, Vulnerability Disclosure Programme and the Government Bug Bounty Programme, which run at different time periods and draw on different pools of cybersecurity experts.
Beyond technical cybersecurity breaches, the human user is often the weakest link. That is why we are taking measures to make it harder for scammers to use phishing and other social engineering methods to gain control of a user's Singpass account. For example, for transactions identified to be of higher risk, we require more than the standard two-factor authentication of a password and one-time password. The account is protected by additional factors, such as facial verification.
Secure online transactions and a safe cyberspace need everyone to play their part. We are constantly improving and testing Singpass' defences to guard against cybersecurity and scam threats. We call upon banks and telcos to enhance their defences and strengthen the cybersecurity ecosystem. Users need to arm themselves with knowledge of scam tactics, social engineering and phishing to avoid being scammed. A vigilant and discerning public is our best defence against scams.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Complaints of Unsolicited Marketing Communications Received and Effectiveness of Spam Control Act","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"50 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) in each of the past five years, how many complaints relating to unsolicited marketing communications have been received; (b) of these, how many have been successfully taken to task under the Spam Control Act; and (c) whether there is a need to review the Act to ensure its effectiveness.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Our regulatory regime to combat unsolicited communications consists of the Do Not Call (DNC) Provisions within the Personal Data Protection Act 2012 (PDPA) and Spam Control Act 2007 (SCA). They cover different areas.
The PDPA's DNC Provisions cover the sending of unsolicited marketing messages communicated via voice, text and fax messages to Singapore telephone numbers. There has been a significant reduction in the number of DNC complaints received by the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) over the past five years, as reflected in Table 1 below.
SCA complements the DNC Provisions by setting out requirements in relation to the sending of unsolicited marketing emails. SCA adopts a civil-based regime for the enforcement of its requirements, where aggrieved parties can take direct legal action against senders. Given the civil-based regime, there is no specific enforcement authority. Consequently, PDPC does not track individual cases.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Loans of Artworks, Artefacts and Antiques from National Collection to Non-museum Entities for Display","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"51 Ms Usha Chandradas asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) how many artworks, artefacts and antiques from the National Collection are presently on loan for display to entities which are not museums; (b) what are the criteria for determining the kinds of entities that are entitled to such loans; (c) whether accompanying wall text or explanatory statements of all such loans are required to be displayed at all times; and (d) if not, what are the criteria for determining whether wall text and explanatory statements should accompany the display of such loans.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Loans are a common practice among museums to facilitate greater access to its collections for display to the wider public, as well as for research purposes. This helps the wider public gain a better appreciation of our culture and heritage. There are currently 283 objects from the National Collection which are on loan to non-museum entities, including the Istana and various Ministries, for display in their buildings. This forms less than 1% of our entire National Collection.
The National Heritage Board (NHB) assesses such loans to non-museum entities based on their ability to enhance the profile of the National Collection and our Singapore culture and heritage. Such loans must be used for non-commercial purposes and the objects loaned must be displayed appropriately and respectfully. NHB also considers the security and the environmental condition of the proposed display space of the loan object. Additionally, NHB assesses the suitability of the object's condition for display in the proposed space and for the duration of the loan.
NHB requires all borrowing institutions to minimally display a label text showing the title of the object, its artist (if applicable), its donor (if applicable) and a credit line to acknowledge the museum which manages the object on behalf of NHB.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Group and Individual Booking of SportSG Sports Facilities and Steps to Prevent Profiteering and Monopolisation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"52 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether SportSG prioritises groups over individuals for the booking of its sports facilities; (b) how can the booking system be improved to facilitate easier booking by individuals; and (c) how does SportSG prevent the profiteering and monopolisation of group bookings.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The Government has steadily increased and enhanced its provision of sports facilities for both public use and national team training over time, as part of its Sports Facilities Master Plan. To support the training of national teams and athletes, National Sports Associations are accorded priority in the booking of sports facilities. Sport Singapore (SportSG) also facilitates bookings by public agencies to deliver community sporting programmes, such as the Ministry of Education's school programmes and events. Apart from this, in all other cases, including for individuals and other groups, bookings are done through the online booking system.
SportSG has been enhancing its online booking system to improve the booking experience by ActiveSG members. We have also introduced another avenue for individuals to play sports regularly through the ActiveSG Sport Interest Groups. Individuals can join the Interest Groups and take part in the selected sport without having to separately make a booking for the sport facility. From 17 January 2024, ActiveSG members can sign up for these interest groups via the ActiveSG app.
The Government takes a strong view against the profiteering of bookings for public sports facilities. SportSG has adopted a number of enhanced measures to combat such practices. These are detailed in the oral reply to a Parliamentary Question on 4 July 2023. [Please refer to \"Strengthening ActiveSG's Booking Software System\", Official Report, 4 July 2023, Vol 95, Issue 106, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Own Account Workers by Occupational Categories and Gross Monthly Income Tiers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"53 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Manpower for each year from 2019, what is the breakdown of own account workers by occupational categories and the prevalence of each category, for the following gross monthly income tiers of (i) below $2,000, (ii) $2,000 to $3,000 and (iii) $4,000 to $5,999.
Dr Tan See Leng: The percentage of own account workers by occupation and by gross monthly income tiers of (i) below $2,000, (ii) $2,000 to $3,999 and (iii) $4,000 to $5,999, for each year from 2019 can be found in Table 1 below.
54 Mr Ong Hua Han asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether there are persons with disabilities who are covered under the Home Protection Scheme (HPS) currently; and (b) whether the Central Provident Fund Board will consider extending HPS to cover all persons with disabilities holding employment at the time of application to ensure that their homes are protected in the event of future total permanent loss of physical functions.
55 Mr Ong Hua Han asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the current number of rejected applications for Home Protection Scheme (HPS) coverage due to applicants not meeting the good health requirement; and (b) what pre-existing medical conditions have been deemed serious such that HPS coverage will not be offered.
Dr Tan See Leng: In line with industry practice, eligibility for the Home Protection Scheme (HPS) coverage is individually assessed based on the overall severity, prognosis and control of the medical condition as well as the individual's health risk profile. This approach ensures the affordability of premiums for the majority of members and the viability of the scheme.
HPS currently already provides coverage for members with pre-existing health conditions, including persons with disabilities, after being assessed to be generally in good health.
In the last three years, about 1.2% of HPS applications were not approved due to serious pre-existing medical conditions. Generally, members who are currently receiving treatment for serious medical conditions, such as cancer, stroke and kidney failure, are not eligible for HPS.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of Matched Retirement Savings Scheme to Cover Seniors Aged Above 70","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"56 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Manpower (a) why does the Matched Retirement Savings Scheme not cover seniors aged above 70; and (b) whether there are any plans to extend the scheme to cover seniors above 70, especially those who are still working.
Dr Tan See Leng: As part of the retirement adequacy measures announced at the National Day Rally and in the Forward Singapore report, the Government will be enhancing the Matched Retirement Savings Scheme. Details will be announced at Budget 2024 and the Ministry of Manpower's Committee of Supply debate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Seniors Aged Above 65 with No Qualified Family Member to Sponsor Work Permit Application for Migrant Domestic Worker","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"57 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Manpower in each of the last five years for Work Permit applications under the Sponsorship Scheme for a migrant domestic worker (a) how many seniors aged above 65 have tried applying for a Work Permit but have no qualified family members to sponsor their application; (b) how many are rejected; and (c) how many have had to move to a nursing home due to the rejection.
Dr Tan See Leng: For the five-year period from 2018 to 2022, less than 1% of the migrant domestic worker (MDW) applications under the Sponsorship Scheme, or fewer than 150 applications annually, were rejected due to a lack of eligible sponsors.
The Ministry of Manpower does not collect data on the number of seniors who move to nursing homes because they were unable to hire an MDW.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Accommodation Type for Employment Pass, S Pass and Work Permit Holders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"58 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Manpower for each of Employment Pass, S Pass and Work Permit pass holders, excluding migrant domestic workers, what is the current breakdown in accommodation type by (i) private residential properties, (ii) HDB flats, (iii) purpose-built dormitories and (iv) others.
Dr Tan See Leng: Sixty percent of Employment Pass holders live in private residential properties; 30% live in rented Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats, with the rest in other accommodation types. About 20% of S Pass holders live in private residential properties, 70% live in rented HDB flats and the rest in dormitories and other accommodation types. Ten percent of Work Permit holders live in private residential properties, 30% of them live in rented HDB flats, with the majority in dormitories and other accommodation types. These figures exclude migrant domestic workers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":6019,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240109/vernacular-Grace Fu Ministerial Statement 9 Jan 2024 - Chinese (MSE).pdf","fileName":"Grace Fu Ministerial Statement 9 Jan 2024 - Chinese (MSE).pdf"},{"vernacularID":6020,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Don Wee","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240109/vernacular-Don Wee SIRB 9 Jan 2024_Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Don Wee SIRB 9 Jan 2024_Chinese.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}