Mdm Speaker: Order. Oath of Allegiance. The hon Member, present to take his seat, will please come forward when his name is called.
[(proc text) The following Member took and subscribed the Oath of Allegiance: (proc text)]
[(proc text) Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok) (proc text)]
Mdm Speaker:\tOrder. Questions for Oral Answer.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Bicycle Terminals at Key Locations in City and Downtown","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"1 Mr Darryl David asked\tthe Minister for Transport whether the Government will consider setting up dedicated bicycle terminals at key locations in the city and downtown with the necessary facilities to support those who would like to cycle from their home to the city.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Mrs Josephine Teo) (for the Minister for Transport): Mdm Speaker, congratulations and welcome to Mr Murali Pillai, and also, belated wishes to you, Madam, and all the mothers, \"Happy Mother's Day\".
In answer to the Member Mr Darryl David, there are currently more than 800 bicycle parking lots at eight Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) stations located in the city area. For the Downtown Line, which is the newest line to be operational, bicycle parking lots will be provided at a majority of the stations in the city area.
The Land Transport Authority (LTA) also plans to require bicycle parking standards for private residential, commercial and community developments, including those in the city area. Besides parking, developers will soon have to submit a Walking and Cycling Plan which factors in other supporting facilities for cyclists, such as showers and lockers.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Darryl David.
\tMr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for her reply. It is heartening to know that this is going to happen, but until the developers provide these facilities, I was wondering whether under the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) or LTA, we could consider providing those lockers, showers and facilities at the dedicated bicycle hubs or terminals. Many of us would like to try to cycle to work, but due to our weather, by the time we get there, whether we are caught in the heat or in a storm, we are drenched. Would the Government consider this?
\tMrs Josephine Teo: In response to the supplementary question, there are really two considerations. One is that at the sites where the MRT stations are located, we need to have the available space in order to carry out a plan like dedicated bicycle terminals. The second consideration is that when we provide bicycle facilities, we must bear in mind the objective, that is, first- and last-mile connectivity. That is why the intention is to involve building owners. Even if you have provided a bicycle terminal, the individual will still have to get to the destination. That, ultimately, is going to be a building with an owner. So, we prefer to require these owners to implement Walking and Cycling Plans so that facilities can be nearer to the destinations of the bicycle users.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Provision of Lockers for Storage of Personal Mobility Devices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Mr Ang Hin Kee asked\tthe Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will consider investing in lockers for storage of personal mobility devices (PMDs) and setting aside parking spaces/charging stations for parking of electric bicycles and bicycles at community clubs/centres/MRT stations to promote cycling and PMDs.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Mrs Josephine Teo) (for the Minister for Transport): Mdm Speaker, all new Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) stations are designed with more parking space for bicycles and electric bicycles, 100 to 300 lots, compared to 40 to 100 lots currently provided for stations with available space. For existing stations, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) is expanding the number of bicycle parking spaces progressively, starting with the stations with the most acute shortage. LTA will also be seeking powers to mandate bicycle parking standards for private residential, commercial and community developments.
At the moment, we have no plans to provide storage facilities for personal mobility devices. Users tend to carry the devices with them. We will, however, continue to monitor the trends.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Ang Hin Kee.
\tMr Ang Hin Kee (Ang Mo Kio): Madam, I read with great interest the Walking and Cycling Plans for new developments that developers have to put in place. For existing developers, are there items or schemes that the Ministry of Transport (MOT) may consider encouraging them to also do likewise, so that they can provide especially storage facilities? I have visited and met some personal mobility device users who tend to carry their devices, whether e-scooters or hoverboards, to training classrooms or gyms. They have to move around with those equipment because there is no other proper place to store them.
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Mdm Speaker, as I had explained earlier, for existing buildings, it is a little harder to require retrospectively the owners to make such provisions available. Within the building, there could already be constraints. I think it is quite clear to the building owners that as the number of users increase, as part of their friendliness towards the tenants in the building, they would want to make such facilities available. We will continue to monitor the trends. The priority is to require new buildings to do so and where opportunities arise and it is possible for us to encourage existing building owners to do likewise, we will do so.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Just a supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. For new Downtown Line stations, can I just confirm with the Senior Minister of State how many bicycle parking facilities will be made available at each station?
\tMrs Josephine Teo: I do not have the answer offhand. That is very detailed, but the Member could file a Parliamentary Question, we will provide it to him.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Sharing of Work Done by Religious Rehabilitation Group","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked\tthe Minister for Communications and Information and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs whether visitations to and sharing of the work done by the Religious Rehabilitation Group (RRG) can be embedded into the curriculum of every cohort of asatizahs as well as secondary and post-secondary madrasah students.
\tThe Minister for Communications and Information and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim): Madam, religious clerics or asatizahs registered under the Asatizah Recognition Scheme (ARS) are required to undergo the Continuing Professional Education (CPE) programme. Since 2013, the CPE includes a key module on counter-extremism by the Religious Rehabilitation Group (RRG). Through this module, the RRG shares with asatizahs its experience in rehabilitating and reintegrating former Jemaah Islamiyah members into society. Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS) and RRG will continue to update this module to ensure its relevance and aim for every asatizahs to attend it. Currently, 80% of our asatizahs are part of ARS and we will encourage the remaining 20% to come on board.
Many asatizahs have visited the RRG Resource and Counselling Centre (RCC) at Khadijah Mosque since its launch in 2014 to learn first-hand RRG's efforts in tackling extremist ideologies, especially those on social media platforms.
The RRG also engages our secondary and post-secondary madrasah students on the threats of radicalisation and extremism through platforms, such as learning journeys to the RCC and the Madrasah Pre-U Seminar. The Madrasah Pre-University Seminar is attended by all secondary and pre-University madrasah students and is held every two to three years. MUIS will continue to strengthen the madrasah curriculum with relevant content developed by the RRG.
Mdm Speaker: Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef.
\t\tAssoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): I thank the Minister for the response. Can I also ask whether we could encourage or make it part of the programme for our mosque committees, including the youth committees in our mosques, to attend and get to know about the work of the RRG? For the asatizahs mentioned earlier, are those who are qualified or trained overseas required to understand what RRG does?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Mdm Speaker, if they are registered under the ARS, as mentioned in my reply, whether they are overseas graduates or not, they will have to go through the CPE and that would include the component on the work of the RRG. To the Member's first question on whether or not we encourage mosques and youth groups to do so, we do that all the time. Mosques are free to arrange their own programmes. In fact, since the RRC was opened in 2014, there have been many, many visitors, not just from the religious fraternity but also from other groups, because we want to encourage a greater understanding across the whole cross-section of Singapore society.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Special Multigenerational Rates at Major Tourist Attractions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Ms Joan Pereira asked\tthe Minister for Culture, Community and Youth whether the Ministry will consider encouraging major tourist attractions to charge special rates for multi-generational Singaporean visitors to promote intergenerational bonding.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Culture, Community and Youth (Ms Sim Ann) (for the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth): Madam, currently, many places of interest in Singapore already offer special entry prices for seniors who are above 60 years of age and children below the age of 12. This encourages multi-generational outings. Examples of attractions that offer such tiered pricing include the Singapore Zoo and Singapore Science Centre. Some attractions, such as the Art Science Museum, have special promotions for those who visit as a family. We will encourage attractions to continue to develop ways to promote intergenerational bonding among Singaporean families.
For places of interest and facilities under the the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) family, we encourage multigenerational visitors through family-oriented programming. The museums run by the National Heritage Board (NHB), including the National Museum of Singapore (NMS) and Asian Civilisations Museum (ACM) already offer free entry to Singaporeans for the permanent galleries. Their exhibitions particularly lend themselves to intergenerational bonding. The National Heritage Board also organises the annual Singapore Heritage Festival and Singapore Night Festival which have family-friendly activities, such as performances and guided tours.
In the heartlands, ActiveSG members who are below the age of 18 and those 55 years and above enjoy special rates for entry to ActiveSG gyms and swimming complexes. Concessionary rates are also granted to senior citizens and their accompanying immediate family members using selected public sports facilities during specified hours on weekdays.
There are many other platforms to encourage intergenerational family bonding. These include a wide range of regular community events and free-access public spaces such as the Marina Barrage and popular parks such as Singapore Botanic Gardens and East Coast Park. The Families for Life Council also organises regular picnics at these and other heartland parks to encourage intergenerational family bonding.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Documentation and Legal Ownership of Excavated Artefacts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked\tthe Minister for Culture, Community and Youth with regard to heritage artefacts excavated by archaeologists or others in the last five years (a) whether all the artefacts have been properly documented and reported to the Government; (b) what is the legal ownership status of such artefacts; and (c) how are the artefacts stored and protected.
\tThe Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mdm Speaker, all archaeological materials unearthed on state land belong to the state. This includes most archaeological excavations conducted in recent years, such as the excavations at the National Gallery of Singapore in 2010 and Empress Place in 2015.
When commissioning archaeological excavations, the National Heritage Board (NHB) makes it a requirement for the agencies conducting the excavation works, such as the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS)-Yusof Ishak Institute, to document and submit reports on the archaeological finds to NHB.
Important archaeological materials from these digs that support the interpretation of Singapore's history have been accessioned into the National Collection managed by NHB on behalf of the Singapore Government. They are carefully documented and conserved at the Heritage Conservation Centre (HCC), when not on display. Remaining artefacts may be stored by partner agencies, such as the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute.
NHB typically does not have legal ownership of archaeological materials unearthed on private land. NHB has, nevertheless, worked closely with stakeholders to identify and protect important artefacts. An example from the past five years would be artefacts recovered from the Cathedral of the Good Shepherd, which are owned by the Roman Catholic Church. A number of artefacts recovered from the Cathedral are displayed at the Cathedral's Heritage and Resource Gallery. Selected artefacts are also displayed at the Indian Heritage Centre, managed by NHB, for the public to access and appreciate.
The legal ownership status of archaeological materials unearthed on private land is an area that NHB is studying as part of a broader review on archaeology in Singapore. The review will seek to better support the conduct of archaeology in Singapore, and address any gaps in our laws, regulations and norms. NHB will seek feedback from stakeholders, such as archaeologists, heritage experts and non-government organisations (NGOs) in its review.
Mdm Speaker: Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.
\tAssoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Minister for the reply. I have a few supplementary questions. The first is: what are the guidelines for the storage or protection of these artefacts for the partner agencies? Is the same process of protection and storage applied to territorial waters in archaeological finds that are discovered in territorial waters? And what happens when members of the public discover traces of archaeological finds, especially during property construction and renovation? Is the Ministry going to consider imposing legal obligations for stopping work and reporting the finds to the Government?
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. NHB will work very closely with the related agencies on the standard of protection and record keeping. I must say that right now, we are working with very good professionals who themselves have a great interest in protecting the artefacts and there is a close collaboration on ensuring that the artefacts are well kept and protected for all to appreciate in the future.
On maritime archaeological finds, this is generally supported by the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) through the Merchant Shipping Act. We are working closely also with MPA with regard to maritime archaeological finds. We place great importance on maritime artefacts. We display maritime artefacts in the Asian Civilisations Museum (ACM), for example. And with the support of philanthropists, such as the Khoo Teck Puat family foundation as well as Kwek Hong Png's family, we are able to have good displays for the public to appreciate such finds.
With regard to the public, as I have answered earlier on, this is an area that we are looking further into. We are looking at how we should improve our laws and regulations to not discourage the public from having an interest, but to embrace and engage the public who are interested in archaeology to cooperate with NHB. Ultimately, I think we share the same common purpose. It is to understand the history of Singapore through archaeology. And that history is really for the public, both present and future generations, to appreciate. So, we want to keep artefacts as evidence of history for the benefit of many generations to come.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Priority for Pioneer Generation Citizens Applying to Ballot for National Day Parade Tickets","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked\tthe Minister for Defence whether the National Day Parade Organising Committee will consider allowing greater priority for Pioneer Generation citizens when they apply to ballot for National Day Parade tickets.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Defence (Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman) (for the Minister for Defence): Madam, the National Day Parade (NDP) is a major event in the national calendar and receives tremendous support from Singaporeans. It is heartening that Singaporeans are eager to be part of the celebrations, with the number of ticket applications for NDP overwhelmingly exceeding the seats available each year. This year, we expect about 165,000 Singaporeans to be able to watch the two previews and the parade on the actual day, or three times more than past NDPs, at the Marina Bay Floating Platform or the Padang. This is facilitated by the larger seating capacity of the National Stadium as well as the additional preview session.
Indeed, the Pioneer Generation should be honoured and thanked for their sacrifices, achievements and immense contributions for building the Singapore we know and have today. However, as a national celebration for all Singaporeans, it is important that every Singaporean be given an equal chance to attend the NDP. We are mindful that preferential allocation of tickets would not be in line with this intent to include all Singaporeans as part of the nation's birthday. As it is, while the number of available tickets has increased, so will the number of applicants and it is inevitable that many will still be disappointed. To give greater priority to the Pioneer Generation, or about 450,000 Singaporeans, will lead to reduced chances for other Singaporeans.
So, the NDP Executive Committee (ExCo) endeavours to include as many Singaporeans as possible to experience NDP. As with previous NDPs, live telecast will also allow Singaporeans to watch the show at home. Singaporeans can also look forward to participating in NDP through the engagement efforts which the ExCo will unveil in the coming months.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.
\tMr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Mdm Speaker, I have a question for the Senior Minister of State. The feedback that I have is that many residents say that they have balloted many times for the NDP tickets but have never been successful. Would the Ministry consider, for those who have never ever successfully balloted before for an NDP ticket, just to give them the opportunity to experience NDP live in the stadium, can they be given, say, triple or double chances, just to give them the experience?
\tDr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman: Madam, I can appreciate where the Member is coming from. I think we all would like to give everybody the opportunity to experience NDP. It is going to be quite difficult to ascertain who has never ever had a chance to attend an NDP over the last 50 years of our Independence. It is going to be quite a difficult process to put in place in the first place. What we have done is that, since 2013, those who have been successful in balloting in one year are then taken off the register for the subsequent year. So, we try to give opportunities for those who have not balloted successfully in one year to ballot again the next year. Those who have been successful in that year will not be allowed to ballot again the next year.
So, that is the best we can do to try to limit access of one group who has succeeded in one year, and possibly expand the opportunities for the others. But I think Mr Lim Biow Chuan would probably appreciate that it is going to be very difficult to first ascertain what is that frame of number of people who have \"never ever\". And everybody would probably say \"I have never ever been successful\" because we cannot possibly ascertain that. Because everyone who ballots or applies for tickets can apply for one, two, four or six tickets. So, the success is by one person, but six persons would have gone. So, it will be very difficult to ascertain that. I think the system we have today is fair and we will continue to try to facilitate a fair system where everybody gets an equal chance of being balloted for the tickets.
Mdm Speaker: Miss Cheng Li Hui. Sorry, Mr Ang Wei Neng. You have a question?
\tMr Ang Wei Neng (Jurong): It is a supplementary question, Mdm Speaker for the Senior Minister of State. Instead of one year of barring, that is, if you are successful in one year and you cannot benefit next year, why not extend it to three or five years, for that matter? Is this a system's constraint or our own constraint?
\tDr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman: I guess the argument would go either way. One would say, \"Barring me for one year is sufficient. I try again. It is not that I am going to get the chance of getting successful one more time.\" But it is from feedback that we have put in place this system of barring them for one year. We can study it further; we can study the probability of one being successful even if we had blocked them for two or three years. The point we recognise is that we want to give Singaporeans the opportunity to get access to the NDP. This year, for example, more will get a chance because the capacity is bigger, and we will look into the system and facilitate as much as we can.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extending Compulsory Education to GCE \"O\" or \"N\" Levels","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked\tthe Acting Minister for Education (Schools) whether the Ministry will consider extending compulsory education up to GCE \"O\" or \"N\" levels in preparing our youths to meet future challenges.
\tThe Acting Minister for Education (Schools) (Mr Ng Chee Meng): Madam, the Ministry of Education (MOE) introduced Compulsory Education only at the primary level in Singapore in 2003, following the recommendations of the Committee on Compulsory Education. The committee had also deliberated whether secondary education should be made compulsory, and Parliament discussed this when the Compulsory Education Act was introduced. Legislating Compulsory Education does not ensure full enrolment in schools or solve the root problems of non-attendance, as these are often complex and multifaceted in nature.
Instead, MOE has taken a holistic approach by working with parents, schools, community self-help groups and relevant agencies, such as the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) and the Family Service Centres (FSCs), to support families and help all students attend school. This includes tracking and helping students who are at risk of dropping out of school or those who are already out of the school system.
We also focus on upstream efforts, such as ensuring that children attend primary school regularly, to get a good start in education. With a solid foundation in the early years, our children are well-placed to progress to and access a secondary and post-secondary education.
In addition, we recognise that regular school attendance is necessary but insufficient for real learning to take place. MOE, therefore, also invests in providing multiple pathways and a variety of programmes in our schools to cater to students of different learning needs, strengths and talents, so that every student is able to learn at a pace most suited to him or her and has the opportunities to develop his or her strengths and is well-prepared for further progression in education and work. The quality of their school experience helps to keep our students interested and engaged in school, to strive for excellence in their respective domains.
With these collective efforts, Singapore has achieved near-universal secondary education. Today, as it stands, less than 1% of each Primary 1 cohort does not complete secondary education. A legislative extension of compulsory education is unlikely to be effective in reducing this any further. To prepare our youths for future challenges, MOE will continue to support our children in their education at every stage by providing a quality education and meeting their needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Deferment of Income Tax Payment for Retrenched Citizens","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Mr Zainal Sapari asked\tthe Minister for Finance whether IRAS will allow Singaporeans who are retrenched due to the economic downturn this year to defer their income tax payment till they are able to find employment.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah) (for the Minister for Finance):\tMdm Speaker, under the existing Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) General Interbank Recurring Order (GIRO) scheme, taxpayers can pay their income tax by up to 12 monthly interest-free instalments. A taxpayer who faces financial hardship may apply to IRAS for longer instalment plans.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Zainal Sapari.
\tMr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol): I have one supplementary question. In serious cases of financial difficulty, will IRAS consider reducing or waiving the person's tax liability?
\tMs Indranee Rajah: Madam, I think that if a person has a serious financial hardship, what the person should do is approach IRAS and speak to them. As a general rule, IRAS does not waive income tax liabilities. You need to have some financial prudence and discipline but, at the same time, you also need to balance that where individuals generally want to pay but for some reason, their circumstances really, really do not allow them to. So, the best approach is to speak to IRAS.
Currently, they do have interest-free instalment plans. They would try, where possible, to exercise flexibility. But at the end of the day, we have to do two things: maintain the fiscal prudence and discipline in tax recovery for the state and, where possible, balance that with compassion on the part of individuals.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Private Insurers Offering Riders for Basic Standard B1 Integrated Shield Plans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"9 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked\tthe Minister for Health (a) whether private insurers can be incentivised to offer riders for basic standard B1 Integrated Shield Plans to cover Singaporeans with pre-existing medical conditions; and (b) whether the Ministry will study the possibility of establishing a reinsurance risk pool across private insurers' basic standard B1 Integrated Shield Plans so as to lower premiums and facilitate extension of coverage to pre-existing medical conditions.
\tThe Minister of State for Health (Mr Chee Hong Tat) (for the Minister for Health): Mdm Speaker, the Ministry of Health's (MOH) focus is to provide affordable basic health insurance to all Singaporeans. This is done through MediShield Life which offers adequate protection for the vast majority of subsidised patients. Its claim limits are sized to fully cover 90% of hospital bills for patients staying in B2 or C class wards. MediShield Life also provides lifelong coverage for Singaporeans with pre-existing conditions. This is made possible by the Government bearing most of the cost of extending MediShield Life coverage to these Singaporeans.
Like all Integrated Shield Plans (IPs), Standard IP is an optional private insurance. Currently, IP insurers are allowed to offer riders for coverage of pre-existing conditions. The premiums for these riders are set by the insurers based on commercial and actuarial considerations. As the Government's focus is on providing basic health insurance for all Singaporeans through MediShield Life, we do not have any plans to incentivise insurers to offer such riders. We have to be prudent in extending subsidies and incentives beyond MediShield Life, as the cost increases will ultimately be borne by taxpayers.
On Dr Tan Wu Meng's suggestion to establish a reinsurance risk pool, MOH will explore this proposal with the industry players. I thank the Member for his suggestion.
Mdm Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): I thank the Minister of State for his answer. If I may ask three supplementary questions. Firstly, would the Minister of State agree that different pre-existing medical conditions have different implications for risk? Secondly, would the Minister of State agree that in an ideal insurance market, pre-existing conditions will have an incremental price for coverage, rather than the insurer refusing to provide cover at all, which is the case that many of my residents have told me when they sought to obtain additional cover beyond MediShield Life? Thirdly, would the Minister of State give his view on whether the Ministry has a role in preventing market failure within the private healthcare insurance industry?
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. For his first question on whether different pre-existing medical conditions will have different risk implications, the answer is yes.
The second question is whether we would look at allowing insurance companies to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions and charge different premiums. I would like to clarify that since MediShield Life was launched on 1 November 2015, we have allowed IP insurers to offer risk-loaded policies where individuals with pre-existing conditions can obtain coverage by paying additional premiums. The premiums will be calculated based on commercial and actuarial considerations, according to the different risks which different pre-existing conditions carry. Importantly, I think it is also useful for us to remember that pre-existing conditions today are already covered by MediShield Life, which is the basic health insurance that we have provided for all Singaporeans, for life.
As for the third question, I think the Member is asking about whether we would look at measures if there is market failure. Certainly, we would study this carefully with the industry and to make sure that the insurance scheme is working well for Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Integrated Shield Plan Coverage for Inpatient Hospice Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"10 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked\tthe Minister for Health (a) which private insurers cover admission to inpatient hospices as part of their Integrated Shield Plans; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider requiring all private Integrated Shield Plan insurers to cover inpatient hospice admission, just as they presently cover restructured hospital admissions.
\tThe Minister of State for Health (Mr Chee Hong Tat) (for the Minister for Health): Mdm Speaker, hospice care, or end-of-life care, is available in an inpatient hospice or in the home setting. Together with MediShield Life, the Integrated Shield Plans (IPs) are designed mainly to cover large hospital bills. Hospice care is covered under some riders, such as Great Eastern's Total Health Riders or AXA's Home Care Riders. So, we do have some riders that are covering hospice care today. The Ministry of Health (MOH) does not require IPs to cover hospice care, as an expansion of IP benefits will, inevitably, result in higher premiums for all policyholders.
In assessing whether palliative care should be covered by IPs, we also need to look at whether the services are affordable for most Singaporeans. Based on data collected by MOH, hospice care is affordable through a combination of Government subsidies, charity dollars and MediSave. About eight out of 10 inpatient hospice bills did not require out-of-pocket cash payment while about nine in 10 home palliative care patients did not have to make out-of-pocket cash payments for their care. Needy patients who require further assistance can receive financial support through MediFund.
MOH regularly reviews the amount of Government subsidies and MediSave used for hospice care to ensure it remains affordable for patients and also sustainable for providers. We are also working with community partners to enhance accessibility to palliative care services by increasing capacity for palliative care across the inpatient, home and community settings.
Mdm Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): I thank the Minister of State for his answer. Would the Minister of State agree that there is a group of patients who may fall into what some of us term the \"sandwich class\", who might not qualify for as many subsidies as lower-income patients but, at the same time, would still want to take advantage of the benefits provided by their IPs purchased from the private sector when they were healthy?
Would the Minister of State agree that, at the moment, the present system makes it somewhat unfortunate that these patients can access their IP benefits in a restructured hospital but cannot, should they choose to seek end-of-life care at an inpatient hospice?
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. Today, Government subsidies for hospice care, both inpatient hospice care as well as home hospice care, are extended up to the 67th percentile. In addition to Government subsidies, the other important source of support for our patients would be charity dollars. This is an area where we work closely with voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) and charities, and they bring more than financial support. They also bring care and concern, and service from the heart, which is very important for end-of-life care.
The point about IPs and riders, we do have riders that are available, as I explained in my answer. The important point is that this is something which we will have to regularly review. We just started MediShield Life from 1 November last year. It is important for us to focus the scheme on the original intent in which it was set up to do, which is to cover large hospital bills. This is something we can review on an ongoing basis to make sure that MediShield Life is able to meet the needs of Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Aligning Definition of \"Animals\" in Two Legislation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked\tthe Minister for Home Affairs whether the Ministry will consider updating and aligning the definition of \"animals\" in the Road Traffic Act with the definition in the Animals and Birds Act to ensure that there is alignment of legislation across the statutes.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Desmond Lee) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Madam, the definitions of \"animals\" in the Road Traffic Act and the Animals and Birds Act are not scoped in the same way. The objectives of the two Acts are different.
The Animals and Birds Act seeks to prevent the introduction and spread of diseases through animals, control the movement of animals, prevent cruelty to animals, and safeguard the general welfare of animals in Singapore. On the other hand, the primary intent of the Road Traffic Act is to ensure the safety of road users, including motorists, cyclists and pedestrians.
The specific provision in the Road Traffic Act relating to animals had been confined to farm animals of commercial value. The original intent of that legislation was to ensure restitution to their owners should an accident occur.
The question is whether we should now mandatorily require all motorists to stop, should they hit an animal. The primary requirement must be safety. They should stop, if it is safe to do so. If the motorist requires assistance in relation to attending to the animal, he can contact the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore (AVA) or Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA).
The Ministry of Home Affairs intends to review the definition of \"animals\" in the Road Traffic Act and also consider any amendment in the context of road safety, especially the safety of the motorists and other road users. In response to the Member's question, yes, we will review.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Placement of Post-retirement Officers in New Jobs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Mr Desmond Choo asked\tthe Minister for Home Affairs (a) in the past three years, how many post-retirement officers has the Career Transition Office helped to place in new jobs; (b) of these officers, what is the percentage breakdown in terms of junior and senior officers; and (c) what types of jobs have they been placed in.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Desmond Lee) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Madam, the Singapore Police Force set up a new unit, the Career Transition Office (CTO), which the Member mentioned in April 2016. This Office brings together all the existing efforts and programmes to help retiring officers. As the unit is newly set up, there are no statistics available as yet on its work.
The new CTO will give greater focus in our efforts to help retiring Police Officers secure good jobs after they leave the Police Force. Even before the CTO was set up, the Police Force has for many years been organising training programmes in areas, such as resume writing, job interview techniques and entrepreneurship skills, to help our retiring officers in their job search. In addition, Police would also share job opportunities from other Government agencies and Ministries when these Ministries and agencies approached Police to recruit retiring Police Officers. Over the past three years, about 300 Police Officers have received training for their post-retirement job search.
With the Police CTO, we will be able to do more. Efforts to help retiring Police Officers will be stepped up and done more purposefully. The Office will proactively source for suitable job opportunities for retiring Police Officers. The office will also provide career counselling to prepare our officers psychologically for the job search and the transition from uniformed to civilian life; equip them with new skills that are in demand; and actively reach out to prospective employers where our officers' experience and knowledge would be valued, for example, companies which need professionals with expertise in contingency and security planning, regulatory compliance and enforcement. The office will also collaborate with partners such, as the Workforce Development Agency (WDA) and the Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) to tap on their experience in these areas.
Besides the Police, other Home Team departments will also structure similar services for our retiring officers.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
\tMr Desmond Choo (Tampines): I thank the Senior Minister of State for his comprehensive answer. One supplementary question. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State what is the percentage of retired officers who have been re-employed within the Home Team? Among those who are not offered re-employment, what are the key reasons and how would the new CTO assist them?
\tMr Desmond Lee: Madam, over the last three years, and this is before the CTO was set up, on average, about 110 or so Home Team uniformed service officers retired. Of these, about 60 would be from the Police Force. About 60% of these retiring officers each year would be re-employed within the Home Team, whether it is back within the Police Force or other parts of the Home Team. The remaining 40% either did not take up the offer or were not offered re-employment for various reasons. Some, for example, would prefer to strike out on their own and do something different.
The CTO endeavours to serve every single retiring officer to provide them with skills, provide them with job offers and to make sure that they are taken care of after retirement.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Raising Annual Income Criteria for Legal Aid","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked\tthe Minister for Law (a) whether the Government will review the current annual disposable income criteria for a person to qualify for legal aid; (b) what are the reasons for applicants failing to qualify for legal aid; and (c) among applicants who qualify for legal aid, what are the broad categories of their cases.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Law (Ms Indranee Rajah) (for the Minister for Law): Madam, legal aid is an important aspect of access to justice in Singapore. To qualify for legal aid in civil matters, under the Legal Aid and Advice Act, applicants will have to satisfy a means test.
The means test is satisfied where the applicant's disposable income is not more than $10,000 per year and he or she has not more than $10,000 of disposable capital. The Ministry of Law regularly reviews the means test to ensure that those who are unable to afford to hire a lawyer can still obtain legal advice or representation. In 2013, the Act was amended to allow approximately 25% of Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents to qualify for legal aid under the means test, up from 17% previously. At the same time, the Director of Legal Aid was also given a new discretion for family proceedings which involve children or protection orders to ensure that the most vulnerable persons in a family dispute are eligible for legal aid. We will continue to monitor and review the criteria for the means test regularly.
For applicants who satisfy the means test, legal aid will be granted if the Legal Aid Board is satisfied that the applicant has reasonable grounds for taking, defending, continuing or being a party to the proceedings. The applicants who were granted legal aid were helped in a wide range of civil matters. Around half of the cases were matrimonial matters such as divorce and applications for custody of children, and a further 15% to 20% of cases involved property or estate matters or claims. A more complete list of services offered by the Legal Aid Bureau can be found on its website.
Mdm Speaker: Dr Lim Wee Kiak.
\tDr Lim Wee Kiak (Sembawang): Madam, let me thank the Senior Minister of State for her reply. I would like to ask one supplementary question regarding those who are rejected based on their failing the means test. What are the avenues for appeal, and can they appeal to Legal Aid for help and whether\t there are any other avenues that they can go to?
\tMs Indranee Rajah: Madam, if an applicant has made an application and has been rejected, one has to ask the reason why. If it is because the person has failed the means test, then it would be really quite difficult for the Legal Aid Bureau to accede because the parameters are set, and the Legal Aid Board cannot waive those parameters of their own accord.
However, if it is a means issue and you do not fall within the legal aid means test, there are other possibilities. Provided that the person cannot afford his or her own lawyer, he or she could be referred to the Pro Bono Services Office of the Law Society where, on a case-by-case basis, the Law Society may accede to a request for assistance where it is not legal aid as such, but they would try to find lawyers who may be willing to do it at an affordable rate. So, the Pro Bono Services Office is one option.
There is another option. This is located in the State Courts itself. It is called the Community Justice Centre. It is a charitable organisation but it is working on this joint project with the State Courts where lawyers contribute their time and service on a discounted basis. You can go to the first floor of the State Courts, take a left turn, the office is there. They will direct you to the place to go accordingly.
So, these are for people who fall through the gap, if you like, where they cannot easily afford their own lawyer but, at the same time, do not meet the means test for legal aid.
If the reason for rejection happens to be that they do not meet the merits test, then that would be really quite difficult because, obviously, they do not have a good case. It would not be useful to pursue the claim when there is no merit.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Increasing Parking Duration for Class 2 Label Scheme Vehicles in Lots for Handicapped","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Ms Joan Pereira asked\tthe Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Ministry can consider increasing the parking duration for Class 2 Label Scheme drivers on parking lots for the handicapped, from 60 minutes to two hours.
\tThe Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): Madam, the Carpark Label Scheme was introduced to assist persons with physical disabilities to board and alight from a vehicle. Class 1 labels allow drivers with physical disabilities who drive to park in accessible parking lots. Class 2 labels allow caregivers to park temporarily at the accessible lots for 60 minutes so that they can assist passengers with physical disabilities to board and alight. Once their passengers alight and are in a safe place, the caregivers are to vacate the accessible parking lots and move their vehicles to standard lots.
There have been some suggestions to lengthen the 60-minute duration for Class 2 label holders. We have considered these suggestions. In deciding on the allowable duration for Class 2 label holders, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) and the Ministry of National Development (MND) have to take into account the needs of all Class 1 and Class 2 label holders for accessible parking lots. With our ageing population, the number of Class 2 labels issued has also been increasing significantly. We believe that 60 minutes provide a reasonable amount of time for caregivers to ensure that passengers with physical disabilities alight and are in a safe place. Lengthening the time would make it more challenging for other label holders to seek accessible parking lots.
Mdm Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
\tMs Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Madam, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his detailed reply. I have one supplementary question. Would the Ministry consider granting a separate licence, maybe Class 2A, that will allow the holder a longer parking duration time? This could be given on a case-by-case basis, with emphasis on elderly caregivers looking after persons with multiple disabilities.
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Madam, I thank the Member for the supplementary question. As I mentioned in my answer earlier, Class 2 labels cater to the caregivers of the disabled person, where it allows caregivers to park at an accessible parking lot for up to 60 minutes. We have received several suggestions from members of the public as well, and we would just like to share that in deciding whether to extend or not, we have to look at the needs and demand of all label holders because they are all sharing this shared space.
We believe that the 60 minutes given is a reasonable time for the caregivers to board and alight the persons with disabilities, bring that person to a safe place and, following that, go back to the vehicle to park it at the standard lots. We feel that extending the time will create a challenging process and increase the time taken for label holders to find accessible lots.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regular Water Rationing Exercises","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked\tthe Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether the Ministry will consider having water rationing exercises twice a year to instil in our citizens and residents the importance of water and inculcate responsible water usage behaviour in view of the persistent drought and diminishing water levels in Linggiu Reservoir.
\tThe Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Mdm Speaker, I share the Member's view that we need to inculcate responsible water usage among our residents. While we have planned ahead to ensure that our water supply is adequate, we need to enhance our resilience against the uncertainties brought about by climate change. Encouraging prudent use of water is an important thrust of our effort.
We believe that good habits are best cultivated when young. As such, the Public Utilities Board (PUB) collaborated with five schools to conduct water rationing exercises this year during the Singapore World Water Day celebrations. Our aim is to reinforce the value of water among our students, starting from young, and inculcate the habit of saving water early. We plan to do this again and we encourage more schools and other organisations to join us next year.
In addition, PUB has worked with the Ministry of Education to include water conservation topics in the social studies syllabus for Primary 3 students. It also devised a \"Time to Save\" programme where primary school students learn and practise water conservation.
As for the wider community, PUB has been carrying out extensive outreach and educational programmes. We have also mandated water efficiency labelling and minimum standards to help consumers make more informed purchasing decisions and adopt more water-efficient fittings and appliances. Moving forward, PUB will be carrying out studies to gain a deeper understanding of households' water usage patterns so as to better design and implement outreach programmes. For example, PUB is working with the Housing and Development Board (HDB) and the Infocomm Development Authority (IDA) on the Smart Enabled Homes Trial in Yuhua estate for 2016-2017, and this will provide households with hourly water consumption data and water saving tips, and alert them on anomalies in water usage. Given these outreach programmes, both at schools and in the community, it may not be necessary to conduct water rationing exercises with households at the moment.
The responsibility of water conservation does not fall on households alone. Businesses must also play a part. We have mandated the submission of Water Efficiency Management Plan (WEMP) for large water users in the non-domestic sector. Through these plans, businesses can better understand their water usage and establish water management systems to enhance their water efficiency. PUB will study the data collected from these plans and explore the potential for water efficiency benchmarks and good practice guidelines for the different sectors.
All of us have to do our part to conserve water. This way, our water resources can last longer. Every effort counts and, collectively, the amount of water saved can be significant.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ban on Styrofoam Packaging in Hawker Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"16 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked\tthe Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether NEA will consider imposing a ban on the use of styrofoam packaging in hawker centres in view of its detrimental effects on the environment.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for the Environment and Water Resources (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources): The majority of our hawker stalls use reusable crockery. However, disposable wares made of polystyrene foam, commonly known as styrofoam, are still used by some hawkers to serve food and pack food for takeaways, due to its good thermal insulation and convenience.
Polystyrene foam packaging is of concern in some countries where waste is landfilled, as it is non-biodegradable, and consequently, remains in the landfill for a long time. In Singapore, however, all incinerable waste, including polystyrene foam packaging, is incinerated safely at waste-to-energy incineration plants, which are fitted with pollution control equipment.
Nevertheless, we recognise that there are benefits in switching from polystyrene foam packaging to more environmentally-friendly options, such as using reusable crockery for dining in and having consumers bring their own containers to pack food for takeaways. The use of reusable crockery also avoids the problem of disposable plates being blown off tables and helps reduce the overall waste volume.
My Ministry will continue to look into ways to discourage the use of disposable tableware in hawker centres. However, this would have to be weighed against practical challenges, such as the cost of alternatives and greater inconvenience to hawkers and consumers.
Mdm Speaker: Miss Cheng Li Hui.
\tMiss Cheng Li Hui (Tampines): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I would like to know what the costs and benefits of using the alternative materials are, since cost was mentioned, and when is the Ministry targeting for hawkers to be using the alternatives?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: We have done a cost-benefit analysis internally for some of the commonly used disposable wares, as well as using reusable crockery. Basically, for commonly used disposable wares in the hawker centres, the cost of the other types of disposable wares, for instance, plastic containers or coated paper box or even the \"tze char\"\tpaper box, they are about two to three times higher in cost than the clamshell polystyrene foam packaging. But using reusable crockery, including taking into account the cost of manual collection and washing of reusable crockery, is actually more cost-effective and relatively cheaper, compared to using styrofoam packaging. As I have said, we do not face this problem about Styrofoam packaging being landfilled as it is incinerated.
We are working with the hawkers, through the hawker associations and stalls to discourage them from using disposable wares, including polystyrene foam packaging, as much as possible. But we need to take into account the cost of alternative options, as well as manpower constraints for these hawkers and the inconvenience that may be caused. As much as possible, we will encourage them to not use disposable wares, particularly for dining in.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Applications for Early CPF Withdrawal","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"17 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked\tthe Minister for Manpower (a) what is the definition of \"severely impacted life expectancy\" to apply for an early withdrawal under the CPF Medical Grounds Scheme; (b) whether the definition can be brought in line with the Life Insurance Association's Critical Illness Framework or the equivalent for transparency reasons; and (c) what is the reduced Retirement Sum for calculating the withdrawal amount and how is it derived.
\tThe Minister for Manpower (Mr Lim Swee Say): Mdm Speaker, Central Provident Fund (CPF) members with serious medical conditions can apply for an early withdrawal of CPF savings under the CPF Medical Grounds Scheme. The four criteria are: having a terminal illness, permanent incapacitation, suffering from an unsound mind, and having a severely impaired life expectancy.
It is not appropriate to adopt the Critical Illness Framework of the Life Insurance Association as the definition for severely impaired life expectancy, as suggested by the Member. This is because not all their listed medical conditions would result in a severely shortened life expectancy, for example, loss of hearing or loss of speech. Conversely, there may be medical conditions which are not on their list but could still result in a severely shortened life expectancy. We, therefore, require members who wish to make withdrawals on any of these four grounds to have their medical conditions certified by doctors either from public medical institutions or on the CPF Board's panel. In the last two years, the CPF Board approved about 1,000 applications each year.
CPF members who are terminally ill will be able to withdraw all their retirement savings in one lump sum. Members who are permanently incapacitated, suffer from an unsound mind or have a severely impaired life expectancy will be able to make a lump-sum withdrawal from their retirement savings after setting aside a reduced Retirement Sum. Currently, it is $40,300, which is about half the current Basic Retirement Sum.
Mdm Speaker: Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.
\tAssoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Minister. Is there an existing list of ailments that lead to severely limited life expectancy available for the public to consult so that they know how to apply for the scheme?
My second question is: is this application process accessible to people from all walks of life, especially the elderly who cannot understand English well, and what may be done to make this scheme more accessible to them?
The third question is regarding the $5,000 cap for the fourth criterion. How long ago was this cap of $5,000 established and whether there were considerations to increase the cap, given the higher cost of living these days?
\tMr Lim Swee Say: Mdm Speaker, firstly, whether there is a list, the answer is no, because it is not possible to have a complete list. Any member who wishes to apply for the scheme, all they need to do is to go and see a doctor on our panel. We have a standard form for the doctor to do the certification. CPF Board will basically abide by the assessment of the medical expert.
The second question was about accessibility. Every year, we have 1,500 applications. So far, we have not heard of any feedback on lack of accessibility. When members need to use their money in the CPF prematurely, they will come to the CPF Board. They do not wait for us to reach out to them. Firstly, we do not know who they are; secondly, once they need the money, based on our experience, they will come. Therefore, we do not think accessibility is an issue.
The last point is about the $5,000 cap. If I understand the Member's point correctly, he is asking whether we should raise the $5,000 cap. I would hesitate to do so because how the cap works is this. A member, having set aside the reduced Retirement Sum and if the balance is less than $5,000, then they do not qualify under the scheme because the amount is too small. So, in other words, if we were to raise the sum, more and more of them will be deprived of this concession. Therefore, for now, I will just keep it at the $5,000 mark.
Mdm Speaker: Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.
\tAssoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: Just to clarify. For successful applicants for withdrawal of CPF on medical grounds, they can either withdraw the higher of up to $5,000 or the savings after setting aside. So, the cap is actually the higher amount that they can withdraw. Therefore, it is not that they will be unsuccessful if they have less than $5,000 in their CPF.
\tMr Lim Swee Say: Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for the clarification. On balance, it is about allowing them to withdraw more in lump sum versus keeping some of them for their monthly withdrawal. Our assessment is that for members who are able to meet the reduced Retirement Sum, which currently is set at $40,300, just to put it into perspective, they would be able to withdraw a monthly sum of only $550 which is derived from the Department of Statistics Household Expenditure data for lower-income households. The amount of $550 will be just sufficient to meet their basic requirements.
Another piece of information is that at $550, the amount of $40,300 can last about seven years. It is not all that long. In other words, on the part of CPF, we really have to strike a balance between allowing the member to draw more as a lump sum versus having some of these savings to support their monthly expenditure. On balance, we think $5,000 at this moment, is about the right amount.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enforcement Powers for Fair Employment Breaches","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"18 Mr Leon Perera asked\tthe Minister for Manpower what enforcement powers does the Ministry deploy when investigating referrals from TAFEP about employers who may be engaging in discriminatory HR practices that are not related to nationality but to other attributes, such as age and gender.
\tThe Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Teo Ser Luck) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mdm Speaker, we have employment laws that enforce against employers with discriminatory practices on age and gender. Under the Retirement and Re-employment Act (RRA), an employer cannot dismiss an employee on the grounds of age. The Employment Act (EA) and Child Development Co-Savings Act (CDCA) also protect female employees from being dismissed without sufficient cause during any stage of their pregnancy.
The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and the Tripartite Partners also expect employers to implement fair and non-discriminatory employment practices in accordance with the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TAFEP). This is why TAFEP, as the advocate and champion for fair employment practices, takes an active role in looking into complaints of such unfair employment practices and refers cases to MOM for enforcement, if found to be true.
MOM takes a serious view of all forms of employment discrimination and, if employers are found to have engaged in such unfair employment practices, MOM will take appropriate enforcement actions under the RRA, EA or CDCA. MOM can also suspend their work pass privileges under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act. Any employee who feels discriminated against can approach TAFEP for assistance.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
\tMr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Minister of State for his detailed and comprehensive answer. I just have a few supplementary questions.
Firstly, has MOM had cases referred by TAFEP or from any other source where employers were allegedly engaged in discrimination for personal attributes, other than age or gender, for example, physical appearance or any other kind of personal attributes? In such cases, what were the tools of enforcement used?
Secondly, have there been any cases of employers who have not been amenable to persuasion or pressure from MOM in such cases and are recalcitrant and refuse to actually amend their discriminatory practices in any way?
\tMr Teo Ser Luck: I thank the Member for the questions. So far, we have received complaints of other attributes besides nationality, age and gender. We have received complaints based on attributes, such as race, language, religion, family status and others. Most of the time, we will investigate, gather the evidence and I am encouraged that most of the companies rectified their employment practices.
For complaints related to attributes besides nationality, for example, age and gender, the number has remained stable. Age- and gender-related complaints accounted for about 20% of total complaints in 2015. We are monitoring the situation and will work with TAFEP closely. Whenever there is a complaint and a need to investigate, we will do so.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.
\tMr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): I wanted to ask the Minister of State, bearing in mind that we have the RRA, the EA, as well as the CDCA, would MOM look at implementing specific workplace-related anti-discrimination laws as a final option, if and when cases of discrimination do increase in the coming years?
\tMr Teo Ser Luck: We are monitoring the situation closely. So far, the number of complaints has remained stable. What we will do is to continue to educate and create greater awareness. TAFEP, as an advocate for fair employment practices, is enhancing and strengthening its educational efforts. We believe that this approach has worked so far as most employers engaged by TAFEP did rectify their employment practices.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Green Rebate for Tesla Electric Car","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"19 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked\tthe Minister for Transport whether the Tesla Model 3 electric car will be entitled to a rebate under the Carbon Emissions-based Vehicle Scheme (CEVS).
\tThe Minister for Transport (Mr Khaw Boon Wan):\tMadam, Tesla Motors has just launched the Tesla Model 3 in the United States on 31 March 2016, and only a prototype was displayed. When it is ready to be sold in Singapore, the importers will have to submit its electrical energy consumption information for the Land Transport Authority (LTA) to assess if it will attract a rebate or a surcharge. If it is as energy efficient as a new Tesla S, a new Tesla 3 car would be entitled to the maximum rebate under our current Carbon Emissions-based Vehicle Scheme (CEVS).
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): I thank the Minister for his answer. I would like to ask: why is it that there was such a hoo-ha about the Tesla in the previous case? Why is it that there was no rebate?
\tMr Khaw Boon Wan: I suppose Tesla, being a sexy and iconic product, attracts attention. But I think what was lost in the debate was that that particular unit was a second-hand Tesla. In other words, if it were a new Tesla Model S, it would have enjoyed the maximum rebate of $30,000. But for all imported second-hand cars, whether electric or otherwise, we have a duty to require the second-hand car to be retested to find out what exactly is the fuel consumption or the CO2 emission rate, so that we can apply the rebate or surcharge properly.
As an engineer, the Member would know that the condition of a car, after being used for a while, depends very much on how well you maintain it and how well you use it. And its fuel efficiency can vary quite a lot.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"More Financial Incentives and Charging Points to Encourage Electric Car Usage","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"20 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked\tthe Minister for Transport (a) what is the Ministry's position on use of electric cars in Singapore; (b) whether there are plans to offer financial incentives to encourage more motorists to use electric cars; and (c) whether the Ministry will install more charging points for electric cars.
\tThe Minister for Transport (Mr Khaw Boon Wan): Madam, we encourage the use of vehicles that are more environmentally-friendly, or green, including electric cars. And that is why we incentivise low carbon emission cars through the Carbon Emissions-based Vehicle Scheme (CEVS), which we have just had a discussion earlier. CEVS is outcome-based and neutral with respect to the type of technology used.
The Land Transport Authority (LTA) and the Economic Development Board (EDB) had earlier issued a Request for Information (ROI) to invite proposals for a nationwide electric car-sharing programme. Besides trialling electric car-sharing services, the programme will also see the installation of 2,000 charging points across Singapore. The proposals are in the final stages of evaluation.
All that said, the greenest form of transport is public transport. So, do follow my example. If you cannot be a 100% public transport user, at least be a part-time public transport user. It is a little bit like being vegetarian. If you cannot do 100% like me, even 初一,十五, just twice a month, is good. [Laughter.] So, at least one day a week, I use public transport throughout the day. And sometimes, I do it two days a week. The greenest form of transport is public transport. Even though electric cars produce no tail-pipe emissions, the process of generating the electricity they consume emits carbon dioxide. We must move towards a car-lite Singapore.
Mdm Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Madam, I would like to ask the Minister on the 2,000 charging points, whether it is only for those in the car-sharing scheme, or any member of the public can use the charging points. I think not everybody would like to join the car-sharing scheme.
\tMr Khaw Boon Wan: My favourite Member of Parliament has caught me on this tiny little detail! I am not sure, I got to check. I suppose it will apply to the trial participants of the car-sharing scheme, but as the facilities are out there and if other people would like to use them, they may charge them for its usage. I do not know. They may charge the battery, as well as charge the user, I think.
Mdm Speaker: Ms Sun Xueling.
\tMs Sun Xueling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): A supplementary question. I understand that London launched the world's first fully electric-powered double-decker bus in March this year. Would the Ministry of Transport (MOT) consider using electric vehicles for public transport?
Mdm Speaker: Minister, question about London introducing the new electric bus.
\tMr Khaw Boon Wan: My apologies. I thought we have moved on to the next Parliamentary Question. Can the Member please repeat the supplementary question?
\tMs Sun Xueling: I understand that London launched the world's first fully electric-powered double-decker bus in March this year. Would MOT consider using electric vehicles for public transport?
\tMr Khaw Boon Wan: The answer is yes. Eventually we will try to make use of all this new technology. I covered those points during my reply in the Committee of Supply debate, that driverless vehicles and the use of greener fuel like electricity, should all be explored. In fact, besides the trial project involving 2,000 charging points and car-sharing, we have two other trials which are going on. One is for buses; one is for taxis, and commercial trucks. We certainly intend Singapore to be among the early adopters, if not among the early pioneers on the use of such technology because we are a city, compact and, especially for electric vehicles, you can cover a long distance with a single charge. I read that for Tesla Model 3, they are talking about covering almost 400 kilometres with one charge. At that rate, you can drive all the way to Kuala Lumpur.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Approval for Subletting of HDB Flats within Minimum Occupation Period","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"21 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked\tthe Minister for National Development (a) over the last three years, how many HDB flats have been approved annually for subletting within the Minimum Occupation Period; (b) what is the duration of the subletting approved by HDB; and (c) how many applicants have been allowed to renew their sublettings after the first approval.
\tThe Minister for National Development (Mr Lawrence Wong): Madam, flat owners have to fulfil the Minimum Occupation Period (MOP) before they can sublet their flats. However, some may have specific reasons to sublet their flats within the MOP, for example, because of full-time work assignments overseas. In such cases, they will have to put up an application to the Housing and Development (HDB), which will then assess the request on a case-by-case basis. Each approval to sublet within the MOP is for short periods of one or two years. And when these flat owners reoccupy the flat, they will have to make up for the period of subletting to fulfil the MOP.
Over the last three years, HDB granted an average of 785 approvals each year to flat owners to sublet their flats within the MOP and this is about 2% of the total subletting approvals each year. Of these approved cases for subletting, an average of about 110 cases were granted an extension each year.
Mdm Speaker: Dr Lim Wee Kiak.
\tDr Lim Wee Kiak (Sembawang): Let me thank the Minister for his reply. Frequently, during block visits or even during coffeeshop walks itself, I always hear residents complaining to me that certain units may have been bought by certain residents. When they quote Permanent Residents who bought the units, but never stayed in the unit which has been rented off from day one, I am sure there have been some stories like that coming in, sort of complaints. How many of these cases have come to the Ministry of National Development (MND), and how many of them have been convicted, or, if they are caught, what are the consequences for these owners who flout this MOP ruling?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Madam, if there are indeed cases of infringement, people who have flouted the MOP rulings, and residents suspect that their neighbours may be doing so, please alert HDB and HDB will certainly take enforcement action. Many times, when these cases or when we have had people making representations and we go to check, they are, in fact, legitimate subletting approved by HDB. But if there are cases where Members in the House have feedback from their residents, please encourage them to let HDB know, and we will not hesitate to take enforcement action.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Just a supplementary question for the Minister. The Minister identified individuals who essentially take up assignments overseas as one of the reasons which the Ministry assesses when they grant deviations from the MOP policy. What are some of the other common reasons which the Ministry assesses before it allows for the deviation of this policy?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: We look at every case on its own merits. In fact, the most common reason for allowing is for work overseas. That is usually the most common reason why HDB would agree to a request to subletting within the MOP period, that means, the person having bought an HDB flat, for some reason, employers request them to work overseas and then that is a valid reason.
There may be other reasons like family circumstances, parents or somebody who has fallen sick for extended periods of time, a resident would appeal on a sympathetic or compassionate basis to want to move to take care of an elderly father or mother and would like to do that for a year or so. So, there could be various other reasons like these. And, like I said, we will look at it case-by-case and, if it is valid, HDB would want to support and provide room and leeway for the residents to be able to do so, on the condition, as I have said, that they would then have to make up for that period after they return to their flat.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Recent Spate of Fires at Coffee Shops","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"22 Mr Yee Chia Hsing asked\tthe Minister for National Development whether the Ministry is looking into the root cause of the recent HDB coffee shop fires and whether warranties for floor tiles of units above the affected coffee shops can be provided to these residents.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee) (for the Minister for National Development): Madam, there are various possible causes for these fires. These include excessive open flames from cooking stoves, poor housekeeping of stalls or poor maintenance of the exhaust system.
The Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) investigates the cause of all reported fires and may, if necessary, introduce new guidelines to enhance fire safety at the coffeeshops.
If residential units are affected by fire in the coffee shops, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) will inspect these flats and assess what damage may have been caused.
Under HDB's tenancy agreement or memorandum of lease with coffeeshop tenants or lessees, the tenant or lessee is liable for any damage arising from acts of negligence. Should a fire break out, HDB will require the tenants or lessees of the coffee shops to follow up with the necessary repairs, including to the floor tiles of units above the affected coffee shops.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Yee Chia Hsing.
\tMr Yee Chia Hsing (Chua Chu Kang): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer. I have two questions. One, which agency is responsible for ensuring the proper maintenance of the exhaust system? Two, many residents want to have more coffee shops, but few residents understand the inconvenience of staying above the coffeeshop units. Some of the visible damage is repaired post the fire incident but residents have actually given feedback that, for example, the floor tiles, it may not be visible right after, and the cracks may appear like six months or a year after. Will they then still be able to claim from the coffee shop tenant?
\tMr Desmond Lee: On the first question, it is the responsibility of the tenant of the coffee shop, the lessee, to make sure that their exhaust duct is kept clean. SCDF has guidelines and if they are found not to be complied with, action will be taken.
As for the second question, I do not think the Member is referring specifically to popping tiles which occur after a fire has broken out. That will be a clear nexus. But if he is referring to other circumstances where these things occur after a period of time, then you need to look at whether it is within the warranty period. If it is, then they can be replaced. But if it is many, many years, even a decade down the road, and these things occur, we need to really look at what the cause of it is.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Progress of Public-Private Partnership Projects","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"23 Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked\tthe Minister for Health what is the Ministry's progress on initiatives pertaining to public-private partnerships and whether there are plans for a wider rollout.
\tThe Minister of State for Health (Mr Chee Hong Tat) (for the Minister for Health): Mdm Speaker, the Ministry of Health (MOH) recognises the private sector's role in meeting national healthcare needs. We have forged closer collaboration between the public and private sectors in recent years.
In primary care, MOH introduced the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) in 2012 to strengthen our partnerships with general practitioners (GPs) and dental clinics in providing subsidised primary care for Pioneers and about half of Singaporean households. We now have about 900 GP clinics and 650 dental clinics participating in CHAS. Last year, 650,000 Singaporeans benefited from CHAS subsidies at these clinics. Under CHAS, our Regional Health Systems are working with the private sector to set up Family Medicine Clinics, which focus on chronic disease management.
Our GP partners have also stepped up their effort in times of need. More than 600 clinics supported the rollout of the Haze Subsidy Scheme when Singapore was faced with severe haze in 2013 and 2015.
For hospital care, MOH has worked with the private sector to provide subsidised care to our patients. One example is the Emergency Care Collaboration with Raffles Hospital since 2015. Patients can be sent to Raffles Hospital for emergency care, followed by inpatient or specialist outpatient care if required. Charges for Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents are similar to what they would pay at our public hospitals. Another example is the collaboration with Parkway Hospitals to receive dengue patients from Changi General Hospital and Tan Tock Seng Hospital (TTSH).
For intermediate residential care, our acute hospitals have been in close collaboration with our Community Hospitals run by voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) on several fronts. One example is the collaboration between TTSH and Ren Ci Community Hospital (RCCH) to jointly develop clinical governance standards, care pathways, manpower capacity and capability to facilitate the transfer of patients between the institutions.
For long-term care, MOH has been working with the private sector to increase capacity to meet the needs of our ageing population. We have a portable subsidy scheme with up to 75% subsidy at participating private nursing homes. We work with private and VWO operators to operate aged care facilities, such as nursing homes and eldercare centres. We are also partnering VWO operators to enhance palliative care services. For example, we are providing funding support for the development of the new Assisi Hospice, which is expected to be completed by the end of this year. And as part of this development, we are working with Assisi Hospice to expand its capacity for its inpatient, home and day hospice services so that more end-of-life patients can benefit.
As part of our healthcare transformation plans, MOH will continue to explore opportunities to work together with the private sector to provide quality subsidised care for Singaporeans.
Mdm Speaker: Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef.
\t\tAssoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): I thank the Minister for the response. Can I just find out pertaining to the Raffles Hospital and public hospital collaborations so far, what has been the feedback from patients as well as their caregivers, and whether there is a discussion or review to extend the programme beyond office hours as well as to other emergency departments also?
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for her question. The collaboration with Raffles Hospital started since 2015. And during the first few months of the collaboration, there were some teething issues, including how to work with the SCDF paramedics so that they know how and where to send the patients to. But since then, the arrangement has worked out well. We have got good feedback from patients on their experiences at Raffles Hospital. This is feedback that we collected through surveys.
The arrangements with Raffles Hospital can also give us some good learning points that we can extend to other partnerships between public and private hospitals. And I think we can look at some of the suggestions that the Member has brought up, with the intent of seeing how we can work in collaboration with the private sector to provide good quality subsidised care for Singaporeans.
Mdm Speaker: Order. End of Question Time.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Bretton Woods Agreements (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act (Chapter 27 of the 2012 Revised Edition)\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for National Development (Mr Lawrence Wong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Income Tax (Amendment No. 2) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah) (for the Minister for Finance): Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The Income Tax (Amendment No 2) Bill 2016 covers two sets of amendments. The first set of amendments allows Singapore to implement the Common Reporting Standard (CRS), an internationally agreed standard for automatic exchange of financial account information. The second set of amendments gives effect to the changes announced in the 2016 Budget Statement to the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) scheme.
The draft Bill on the first set of amendments was released for public consultation from 1 to 18 March 2016. The Ministry of Finance (MOF) has evaluated all the feedback received and, where relevant, accepted the suggestions.
Madam, let me explain each of the two sets of amendments in turn. The first, in relation to the implementation of the CRS.
Singapore is firmly committed to upholding internationally accepted standards for the exchange of information under the CRS. Members might recall that in 2014, the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax purposes, of which Singapore is a member, and the Group of 20 (G20) major economies, endorsed automatic exchange of information (AEOI) under the CRS as a global standard, and asked all members to commit to a timeline of 2018 or earlier for implementation. The CRS sets out the financial account information to be exchanged, the financial institutions (FIs) required to report, the different types of accounts and taxpayers covered as well as the customer due diligence procedures to be followed by FIs.
Singapore had announced in November 2014 that we would implement the CRS to commence AEOI by 2018. To date, more than 90 jurisdictions, including major financial centres, such as Dubai, Hong Kong, Luxembourg and Switzerland, have also endorsed the CRS and committed to implementation timelines of 2017 or 2018. The proposed amendments in this Bill will enable FIs to put in place necessary processes and systems to collect CRS information from 1 January 2017, in order to meet our timeline to commence first exchange of information under the CRS in 2018.
Clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill make amendments in relation to existing provisions in the Income Tax Act, which had previously been introduced in 2013 to implement the Singapore-United States Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act Inter-governmental Agreement (FATCA IGA). The provisions introduced in 2013 provide the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) the necessary information-gathering powers to fulfil Singapore's role in facilitating FATCA-compliance under the Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA). These powers include the routine collection and transmission of relevant information as well as enforcement powers to sanction non-compliance. The amendments in this Bill make clear that these existing provisions are also applicable to any other AEOI agreement that is in accordance with the CRS. This will enable Singapore to sign Competent Authority Agreements (CAAs) with other jurisdictions to implement AEOI under the CRS.
Second, the amendments in clause 8 empower FIs to collect and retain the CRS information for all non-Singapore tax residents, instead of only from tax residents of jurisdictions with which Singapore has an AEOI agreement. This is known as the \"Wider Approach\". The Wider Approach is an effective approach preferred by our FIs because it removes the need for them to repeatedly review whether the accounts are reportable each time Singapore enters into a new Competent Authority Agreement. The Wider Approach has been adopted by many jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom (UK), Sweden, Japan and Korea.
Mdm Speaker, I wish to make it clear that while FIs are empowered to collect and retain the CRS information for all non-Singapore tax residents from 1 January 2017, they will only need to transmit to IRAS the information relating to tax residents of jurisdictions with which Singapore has signed a Competent Authority Agreement, for IRAS to implement AEOI under the CRS accordingly. Clause 9 of the Bill provides for this.
The amendments also ensure effective implementation of the CRS, including vesting in IRAS the necessary administrative powers to do so. The changes include mandating the electronic filing of returns and information and are provided for in clauses 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Bill.
Next, Madam, I will deal with the changes to the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) scheme. These were announced in the 2016 Budget Statement. The key changes are as follows.
First, as we move towards more targeted measures under the Industry Transformation Programme as announced during the recent Budget, the PIC cash payout rate will be lowered from 60% to 40% for qualifying expenditure incurred on or after 1 August 2016.
Second, to streamline and expedite processing of PIC cash payout applications, electronic filing of PIC cash payout applications will be made mandatory from 1 August 2016. The PIC changes are provided for in clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, I stand in support of the Bill. I will focus my speech on the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) Scheme.
The PIC scheme was introduced to encourage productivity and innovation activities in Singapore. It provides support to businesses that make investments to improve their productivity. There is no doubt that the PIC scheme has been a success. As stated by Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah in March, since its inception until January this year, 102,000 companies, or 70%, of all active companies in IRAS' records for the Year of Assessment 2014 have benefited in one way or another from the PIC scheme. This is a pretty impressive statistic.
However, as with any scheme, there are bound to be loopholes and people are bound to try and exploit and abuse the scheme.
As previously mentioned also by Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah, IRAS does conduct rigorous compliance programmes to review and audit PIC claims. However, only 30% of claims from years of assessment 2011 to 2015 have been investigated or audited and about 2.1% of these claims investigated required clawback. For years of assessment 2011 to 2014, IRAS has clawed back $11 million.
While the percentage requiring clawback seems low, it does represent a significant number of people trying to cheat the system or submitting inaccurate claims, perhaps unintentionally, and $11 million does seem like a sizable amount of money. Quite clearly, if we investigate and audit the remaining 70% of claims, we will uncover even more cases and have to claw back even more funds.
But what alarms me more are the other figures published in a The Straits Times' article, and I quote, \"IRAS has rejected or clawed back the sums paid out to about one in three cash payout claims filed by the self-employed as the claims were inaccurate or false. The sums not given out or recovered from these dubious claims amounted to about $358 million in the last five years.\"
This means that IRAS is either spending a lot of resources weeding out inaccurate or false claims or spending a lot of resources trying to claw back funds already paid out. Either way, this $358 million figure points to a real need to strengthen the system.
While we are phasing out the PIC scheme, I understand that, on the ground, PIC consultants are going all out, doing whatever it is possible to source for clients and make as many claims as possible and whilst stocks last. Quite understandably, they are doing this.
This makes it even more important for us to strengthen the system and strengthen it in the right way. The fact is that many people are still trying their luck. We need to strengthen the system so that fewer people want to even try their luck. We need to strengthen the approval process and make sure people know that it is being strengthened.
We need to urgently investigate and audit more claims. We need to send a deterrent message to companies that if they try to cheat the system, they will get caught and the penalties are severe.
We need to increase the odds significantly and the current odds are in favour of the cheaters as there is only about a one in three chance of their claim being audited.
Will the Ministry also consider cutting down on providing grants to low productivity yield projects like websites or app designs? And will the Ministry consider giving out the grants in disbursements for innovation projects that need to show payoff, in terms of productivity gains and projection of sales? All of which requires information filing one year from implementation. Ultimately, we need to safeguard taxpayers' money.
We also need to take a stronger stand when it comes to PIC consultants. A PIC consultant is a person or a business entity that provides advice or assistance to businesses on PIC matters for a fee. A PIC consultant is expected to be knowledgeable about the PIC scheme and be familiar with the correct procedures when submitting PIC cash payout claims for his clients. I am sure we have all seen their claims and guarantees of cashing in on the PIC scheme and I have met numerous residents telling me stories of how they have been approached by the consultants. We need to make changes to ensure that consultants are no longer able to cheat the Government and also the companies.
The amendment in the Bill requiring the use of the electronic service is a step forward. It will help end the abuse of the system where companies sign blank PIC forms and pass them to the consultants. As we now streamline the application process, I question the need for PIC consultants to submit the application forms on behalf of their clients or applicants. Can the Ministry clarify why we continue to allow this and whether there are plans to phase this out?
I appreciate that some companies need help for PIC matters. But can IRAS not handle these enquiries directly? IRAS already states on its website that companies can contact them for assistance or clarification on PIC matters. There are even separate phone numbers for companies and the self-employed. And if the enquiry contains confidential information, they can email IRAS via myTax Mail for added security. With all these in place, is there a need for consultants to help provide advice and submit applications? I ask that this be reviewed also because I have met residents at my Meet-the-People Sessions who have been cheated by the consultants.
Madam, the PIC scheme has benefited many and as I had shared during the Committee of Supply debates, I am concerned that we are ending it. However, I am more concerned that as we get closer and closer to the end date, more and more people will try to cash in. This Bill does help to strengthen the system. But I sincerely believe that we need to do more.
Mdm Speaker, my request for the Government to review the above notwithstanding, I support the Bill.
Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Mdm Speaker, I wish to declare my interest as the Chief Executive Officer of the Wealth Management Institute. According to Oxfam International, lost tax revenue from money salted away offshore costs governments more than $150 billion a year. This is estimated to be enough to eliminate extreme poverty across the globe twice over. I commend the Singapore Government for its strong efforts in the anti-money laundering regime and its active cooperation with other jurisdictions through the exchange of information for tax purposes to facilitate tax compliance.
International clients should choose to bank in Singapore on the strengths of our broad and deep capabilities in financial products and services, strong regulatory regime and rule of law, and not because they think they can abuse our laws to evade paying tax.
I support the proposed amendments to the Income Tax (Amendment No 2) Bill to allow Singapore to implement the Common Reporting Standard (CRS) with effect from 1 January 2017, a move that improves our international tax compliance. This is in line with Singapore's commitment to commence automatic exchange of financial account information (AEOI) in 2018.
Madam, whilst this remains the goal that Singapore must pursue, we should be under no illusions about the complexity of CRS implementation. The way forward will be difficult and will require us to navigate obstacles with great skill, cleverness and caution. I would like to highlight four areas of concern.
First, we should be mindful of the impact of CRS on Singapore's competitiveness as an international financial centre. Many industry participants are concerned that an overly enthusiastic response at this early implementation stage, imposing more than the required obligations on Financial Institutions (FIs) may hurt the competitiveness and growth of our wealth management industry. It is important to observe the pace adopted by other jurisdictions and consider a measured approach at a prudent pace. Not all countries have signed up, and those which have signed may implement Competent Authority Agreements (CAAs) at a different pace. Could the Minister share the impact on Singapore's competitiveness if other financial centres adopt a different approach? How can we ensure a level playing field among all major financial centres, including Dubai, Hong Kong, Luxembourg and Switzerland, to minimise regulatory arbitrage?
Second, the implementation of CRS and AEOI will add significant compliance costs to FIs. To avoid FIs being overwhelmed by the administrative burden of CRS implementation and the complexity of system enhancements, they will need clear guidance to enable a consistent interpretation of requirements. The industry expects the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) to issue guidance notes that set a reasonable industry standard that strives to balance responsible global compliance with reasonable expectations of responses from FIs. Burdensome complexity brings with it the risk of non-compliance and its accompanying cost of penalties.
Madam, the guidance must be sufficiently meaningful so as to enable FIs to determine tax residency consistently across banks. For example, it is common for FI clients to maintain multiple residences or they may travel so frequently that they have no tax residency status. Another example is how will information that Singapore receives on offshore income of Singapore resident taxpayers be used, collected and shared? Different FIs may hold differing reading of the same individual's tax status. So, I would like to ask the Minister how we could take a more nuanced approach that would provide greater clarity for industry players to deal with issues of tax residency.
FIs should be expected to do the necessary due diligence to establish the clients' tax residency. But, to a large extent, FIs will have to rely on their clients' declarations or what their clients declare to them. Is that good enough, or will the FIs be expected to corroborate those declarations, and how far are they expected to go to do so? To what extent will FIs be culpable for inaccurate declarations?
Third, we must ensure that a robust process is in place to determine the readiness of bilateral partners of CAAs before bilateral information exchanges commence. Not every country is as ready as we are to deal with transparency, and we have a duty to the clients we serve to safeguard their privacy against abuse.
Tax information can be misused for a variety of nefarious ends, including criminal enterprise, political corruption and social chaos. We have heard of cases where tax information is misused to achieve political objectives or leaked to criminals.
I would like to ask the Minister to provide assurance that our authorities are, indeed, in a strong position to determine that our CRS partners have strong rule of law, the ability to ensure the confidentiality of information exchanged and prevent its unauthorised use before signing CAAs for information exchanges. Also, how do we ensure there is full reciprocity with AEOI partners in terms of information exchanged?
Even if we do all this well, it is still important for us to communicate skillfully and clearly to international clients who bank in Singapore how rigorously we will safeguard their interests, so that they are assured that their information will not fall into the wrong hands. To this end, I would like to ask the Minister to lay out clearly how Singapore will prioritise the countries that we sign CAAs with, together with estimated timelines. One input that the Government may consider referencing is published corruption indices by independent international organisations, such as Transparency International, which will be well-known to all stakeholders.
Last but not least, Madam, with the advent of information exchanges for tax compliance, we need clarity on an individual's right to privacy protection under our laws. In my speech in 2013, I spoke on the amendment that gives IRAS the right to access information protected under the Banking Act and the Trust Companies Act for Exchange of Information, without having to first obtain a Court Order.
Madam, at the time, I voiced concerns that this amendment may undermine the confidence that clients and investors have in Singapore's banking privacy laws. I was assured by the then Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo that robust safeguards have been put in place by IRAS, including the need for foreign jurisdictions to explain why the request is being made, identify the taxpayer under investigation or assessment, and declare that it has pursued all available means in its own jurisdiction to obtain the information.
Yet, in less than three years, we are asked to consider a regime that automates the exchange of sensitive information. How will FI clients regard the rigour with which we safeguard the integrity of their tax information and the individual's right to privacy?
Mdm Speaker, in conclusion, I support Singapore's role in the vanguard of international cooperation to facilitate tax compliance. However, we need to guard against regulatory arbitrage, implementation complexity and systemic leakage and misuse of information exchange. FI clients must ready themselves for a new age of unprecedented transparency and big changes to tax regimes, as governments work hard to get what is due their peoples. In this, wealth managers can be the authorities' greatest allies in educating and advising their clients, to bring them on board, and we should work together towards a common cause.
Mdm Speaker: Senior Minister of State.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Madam, I wish to thank the Members, Mr Louis Ng and Ms Foo Mee Har, for their support for the Bill.
Ms Foo Mee Har raised three points: the protection of taxpayers' confidentiality and considerations for the Singapore Government when determining AEOI partners; second, ensuring a level playing field with competitor jurisdictions, such as Switzerland and Hong Kong; and third, whether there will be more detailed guidance provided to the FIs.
As AEOI entails the transmission of information between jurisdictions, Singapore will consider entering into bilateral AEOI arrangements only with appropriate partners, subject to three conditions.
First, and as pointed out by Ms Foo Mee Har, there must be a level playing field amongst all major financial centres, including Hong Kong and Switzerland, to minimise regulatory arbitrage. These financial centres have endorsed AEOI under the common reporting standard and are committed to implementation timelines of 2017 or 2018.
Second, and as also highlighted by Ms Foo, it is critical that we protect taxpayers' confidentiality. This is why we will engage in AEOI only with jurisdictions that have strong rule of law and the ability to ensure the confidentiality of information exchanged and prevent its unauthorised use. CRS includes specific rules on confidentiality and data safeguards that must be in place before information is exchanged.
The Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes has also set up an expert panel to review jurisdictions' implementation of these safeguards to ensure that AEOI takes place in a secure environment. Singapore will take into consideration the outcome of such reviews when we consider which jurisdictions to engage in AEOI with.
Third, there must be full reciprocity with AEOI partners in terms of information exchanged. These conditions are necessary to make sure that we continue to respect the legitimate expectations for confidentiality even as we implement AEOI to contribute to the global effort to tackle offshore tax evasion. In this regard, Singapore will prioritise AEOI with jurisdictions which meet the conditions stated, such as the UK and France.
We are mindful that implementing AEOI under the CRS will impose new obligations on our FIs. FIs will need to institute new procedures and configure their systems to fulfil their customer due diligence and reporting obligations under the CRS.
The Government is working closely with the financial industry in our implementation of the CRS. MOF, IRAS and MAS held a public consultation on proposed legislative amendments in March and will be releasing draft regulations for consultation by June this year. This will allow FIs to have sufficient time to make changes to their procedures and systems to comply with the CRS requirements. The regulations will detail the CRS requirements that FIs have to comply with.
Moving on to Mr Louis Ng's speech on the PIC, we agree with Mr Ng on the need to ensure that PIC claims are genuine and in order. IRAS has taken and will continue to take a strong stance against abuse of the PIC scheme, whether consultants are involved or not.
IRAS does not make it mandatory for taxpayers to submit PIC claims through consultants, and many businesses submitted the applications on their own without the help of consultants. At the end of the day, it is the company's choice as to whether to use consultants or not. But from our perspective, we would require that any information that they submit for their claims must be true and accurate.
Mr Ng noted that IRAS had investigated or audited about 71,000 claims or around 30% of the PIC cash payout claims made from years of assessment 2011 to 2015. He suggested that IRAS audit and investigate more PIC claims. IRAS takes a risk-based approach in its enforcement, and this 30% is not a fixed rule. The 71,000 claims were identified for investigation or audit based on the use of analytics and risk profiling, as well as the experience of the IRAS investigators. Of these 71,000 claims, about 44,000 claims, or 62%, were rejected upfront even before any cash was disbursed. Hence, there was no need for a clawback. About 5,500 claims are undergoing audit or investigation. Of the 21,500 claims for which investigations have been completed, 20,000 were in order and 1,500 required clawback.
I would like to assure Mr Ng that even as the PIC scheme lapses from the year of assessment 2018, IRAS will continue to conduct rigorous compliance programmes to review and audit the PIC claims. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Child Development Co-Savings (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Tan Chuan-Jin): Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
Singapore is our home for family. Strong families are, and must remain, the basic building blocks of our society. For each of our families and our society, children are our future. With strong families and good support from society, our children can have a good start in life. In the coming years, my Ministry will continue to strengthen fundamental family relationships and support vulnerable families.
Fathers play an important role in parenting, and shared parental responsibility should become a way of life in our society. During last year's National Day Rally (NDR), our Prime Minister said that eligible fathers may be granted an extra week of paid paternity leave, with their employers' approval. Employers who agree to grant this extra week of leave to employees may seek reimbursement from the Government. This is on top of the one week of paternity leave we have today, which is compulsory and which the Government pays for.
To celebrate the Jubilee year, we had extended the extra week of paid leave to all fathers of Singaporean babies born on or after 1 January 2015. This additional week should allow fathers to be more active in raising their children. The Public Service took the lead by implementing this immediately.
Since the NDR announcement on 23 August 2015, enlightened employers have been granting their employees the extra week of paternity leave. This Bill allows employers to seek reimbursement for the leave taken by eligible employees. Eligible self-employed persons can likewise claim the loss of income from the Government for the additional week of leave taken. The reimbursement can take place from 1 July 2016, when the system is ready. Employers will still be reimbursed for leave taken from 24 August 2015 to 30 June 2016.
Members will also remember Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo announcing at the National Population and Talent Division's (NPTD) Committee of Supply (COS) last month that this second week of paternity leave will be mandated from 1 January 2017. This will be done in the next round of amendments to the Child Development Co-savings Act (CDCA), together with the enhancements to the other leave schemes announced at NPTD's COS.
Separately, as announced at my Ministry's COS last month, we will extend the Child Development Account (CDA) benefits to Singaporean children of unwed parents. This includes the $3,000 CDA First Step grant. Children of unwed parents may be disadvantaged and require more support. The Child Development Co-Savings Scheme encourages unwed parents to contribute to the child's CDA for his or her development needs, and the amount will be matched by the Government up to a cap. As CDA funds can only be used for approved educational and healthcare-related uses for the child, this can help to enhance the child's outcomes. We are doing up the system enhancement concurrently for this to kick in, likely for children born from the third quarter of this year.
Unwed mothers will also qualify for the full 16 weeks of maternity leave for children born from early next year. The longer paid leave will provide unwed mothers with more time to care for their child in the early months. This provision will be included in the next round of CDCA amendments.
The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) and the National Council of Social Services (NCSS) will also work with the relevant VWOs and agencies to strengthen support for families with vulnerable, low-income unwed mothers. This is to enable them to make better-informed decisions to improve their financial and family stability and, ultimately, enhance their child's outcomes.
In conclusion, these legislative amendments are needed to carry out the enhancements that had been announced earlier at NDR 2015 as well as COS 2016. I do seek Parliament's agreement for the amendments, so that we can support families where it matters most. With that, Madam, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mdm Speaker: Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Speaker, the birth rate in Singapore seems to be recovering from record lows. In 2010, we hit our lowest number of citizen births at just over 30,000 babies born. In 2012, in the Chinese zodiac Year of the Dragon, citizen births increased to over 33,000 babies. The good news is that citizen births in the last two years have matched the auspicious Year of the Dragon. In fact, last year, citizen births almost hit 34,000 babies, the highest in a decade. The total fertility rate (TFR) is hovering around 1.25, off the low of 1.16 in 2010.
There is some hope that we have turned the corner with regard to falling birth rates. However, it is still too early to tell whether the increased birth rate is a trend or a temporary rise due to positive sentiments brought about by the SG50 Jubilee celebrations. I think we can be cautiously optimistic. I will touch on the optimistic part first.
I am optimistic because I believe the Government has been addressing the structural obstacles to higher birth rates. In 2013, the Workers' Party (WP), in response to the Government's Population White Paper, published its own population policy paper after the White Paper debate in this House. In WP's paper, we elaborated on seven obstacles that stood in the way of higher birth rates.
One, lack of work-life balance; two, escalating housing costs; three, income inequality; four, stressful education system; five, gender inequality in the family with regard to housework and childcare; six, pro-birth policies favouring higher income families; and seven, discrimination towards single-parent families.
The Government has been addressing some of these issues in the last few years. With this Bill, the Government is further enhancing paternity leave and is also addressing the last two structural obstacles that we have brought up: discrimination towards single-parent families and pro-birth policies favouring higher-income families.
We have been arguing that, while having children inside of marriage should continue to be encouraged, the children born to unwed parents should not be denied the benefits that children of married parents received. We believe no children deserve to be disadvantaged and psychologically damaged for the norms their parents break.
Clause 2(b) of this Bill expands the eligibility of the CDA co-savings scheme to \"any other child\", without amending the purpose of the Act, which is to, \"encourage married women to have more children\". This amendment achieves the dual goals of encouraging births within marriage without discriminating against the children of unwed parents that we have called for.
We have also argued that the CDA scheme privileges higher-income families with the spare cash to put away into CDA. Middle-income families just managing to make ends meet to support three children would need to lock up $24,000 in CDA to reap the full benefits of dollar-for-dollar matching from the Government. Furthermore, as the quantum increases from $6,000 for each of the first two children, to $12,000 each for the third and fourth child, and $18,000 each for the fifth child and beyond, this actually encourages higher-income couples who could make the larger savings to have more children.
The new CDA First Step grant of $3,000 addresses this issue of inequality. It does so by establishing baseline savings for all children, regardless of the household income background. It is a good first step by the Government in addressing the inequalities facing families seeking to have children. Because equality matters.
While there are reasons to be optimistic because of the Government's policy reversals and advancement, we should be very cautious in our optimism. We have the benefit of hindsight in the struggle against low birth rates for nearly 30 years now. Singapore's TFR fell below the replacement level of 2.1 in 1976 and reached the first low of 1.4 in 1986. In 1987, the Government's policy reversal from promoting birth control to encouraging Singaporeans to have more children, helped push the birth rate up in the following years. Many of the young couples having children today were born during the mini-baby boom caused by the policy reversal.
However, the TFR resumed its gradual decline in the 1990s to hit the low of 1.4 in 2001 again. In reaction to the plunging TFR, the Government then launched the Baby Bonus scheme, which slowed the decline. But the decline continued through the 2000s till TFR reached the lowest in 2010.
So, what are the lessons here? First, the Government's pro-birth policy is important and can be effective in halting or slowing down birth rate declines. However, most of the pro-birth policy changes have been reactive rather than proactive with the 1987 reversal reacting to the low in 1986, the Baby Bonus scheme reacting to the low in 2001, and the enhancements in the last few years reacting to the lowest in 2010. This reactiveness limits the effectiveness of pro-birth policies.
Instead of reacting to plunges and new lows in birth rates, I believe the Government should set a target of achieving a TFR of 1.4 in 2020 and a TFR of 1.7 by 2030. This will change the tone of the issue from being marked as a demographic problem to be struggled with to a performance target to be achieved, on par with many of the Government's socio-economic policies. After all, the TFR is as much a socioeconomic issue as it is a demographic one.
The other lesson to be had here is that policies need to go beyond the carrot-and-stick approach and take a whole-of-Government approach to be effective over the long run. In this respect, there is one dot that the Government has not connected to the birth rate issue, and it should. One reason why pro-birth policies seem to be swimming against the tide in the 1990s and 2000s was because Singaporeans experienced growing socio-economic inequality and lingering gender inequality in those two decades. Equality matters for increasing birth rates. This has been shown in many studies in other developed countries. On this issue, I would like to make three points.
First, gender equality matters a whole lot. As more fathers take on more responsibility in childcare, pro-birth policies, such as those promoting flexi-work arrangements should adapt to help fathers realise their parenting aspirations. As employer and management mind-sets start to change due to the Government's promotion of flexi-work arrangements through the Work-Life Grant, it would be important to help mould the new mind-sets to emphasise that flexi-work arrangements are not meant only or mainly for working mothers but should be made as accessible to working fathers too.
In this respect, the Government will need to change its own mindset that establishes a hard association between mothers and childcare. The Additional Child Care Subsidy for working mothers should be made gender-neutral and extended to working fathers, so that lower-income female homemakers with several children or elderly dependants are not denied the subsidy and could provide better care to the dependants.
The Government should also consider rewording section 3, subsection 1(a) of the Act which I quoted earlier, to, \"encourage married couples to have more children\", instead of \"married women\". This is so as to emphasise in our laws that the state does not place the burden of birth rates and thus the blame of low births solely on the motivations of women but recognise that the decision to have children and the raising of children are the shared responsibility of both spouses. The wording of the CDCA should be thoroughly looked at to emphasise this shared responsibility to have and raise more children.
Also, since the Act has expanded beyond the original monetary co-savings carrot, the Government should also consider renaming the Act to reflect the contents more accurately and better, symbolically, perhaps as the Family Life Promotion Act.
Second, we should extend the equality of benefits to all men and women who are parents of Singaporean children as far as possible. This includes single unwed parents and also the non-citizen spouses of Singaporeans. This may not seem related to the birth rates of married citizen couples at first glance. But we are all social beings living in communities of shared interests in the first instance, not detached individuals with selfish interests. As we have seen in this House, Members from across the political spectrum have strongly empathised with single unwed mothers. There is something universal in this sentiment, as those of us who have or aspire to have children cannot bear to see other children suffer through no fault of their own. Extending equality to all parents of Singaporean children cultivates positive sentiments for having babies and raising children.
Extending eligibility for the CDA co-savings grant to the children of single unwed parents is a good first step. The next step is to consider extending the Baby Bonus Cash Gift to the same children, but perhaps to be deposited into the CDA so that the grant may be locked up for the sole benefit of the children.
It is also a good time to look at the housing needs of children of single unwed parents. As it is, this group of single parents is prevented from buying a new or resale Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat until they are 35 years old to go under the Single Singapore Citizen Scheme. This creates an unacceptable inequality where Permanent Residents benefit more from HDB home ownership than a group of citizens. More importantly, the children are denied a stable physical and social environment to grow up in to focus on their schooling and playing.
The empathy for suffering Singaporean children and their parents also extends to non-citizen spouses who struggle with residential security due to the need to constantly renew visit passes. The Government should alleviate the stress and separation anxieties faced by the Singaporean spouses and children in such situations. I reiterate WP's call for foreign spouses of Singapore Citizens to be given priority for citizenship naturalisation after five years on the Long-Term Visit Pass Plus.
Third, socioeconomic inequality matters. Therefore, socioeconomic equality matters. Singaporeans are economically rational and both short-term and long-term financial security affect their decisions to have more babies. The CDA First Step grant is a welcome move towards narrowing the gap in child development resources between low-income and high-income households. The Government should bring this policy move to its logical conclusion by automatically allocating to the CDA a standardised $10,000 for each child. It is then up to the parents to match the grant by topping up the CDA up to another $10,000 to earn higher interest and earmark savings for the child's education and well-being. The Government could create incentives for parents to make the additional savings by making the savings eligible for income tax reliefs.
The reason we are calling for a standardised grant for each child instead of the stepwise $6,000, $12,000 and $18,000 formula for the CDA grants is because short-term financial security is a factor, especially for lower-income and middle-income households. The stepwise formula is meant to be carrots to entice parents to have three babies or more but ignores the fact that the immediate stress and cost of raising existing children would put off parents from deciding on the third baby. Giving a bigger grant for the existing children would alleviate the immediate stress, encourage a healthy family life and persuade parents that it is worth the while to have a third child and more.
Equalising the grants would also remove an artificial inequality within the family created by the policy. With the current policy, the third and fourth child could receive up to $12,000 more savings and grants, compared to the first and second child, and the fifth child onwards could receive up to $24,000 more. This means that the older children would have less funds benefiting their education and well-being, compared to the younger children.
Mdm Speaker, I am cautiously optimistic that we are at the crossroads of turning around our declining birth rates. I am cautiously optimistic that the Government has finally found the verve after three decades to stop blaming Singaporeans for not choosing to have babies and to start addressing the structural obstacles to enable Singaporeans to have more babies. As the lessons of three decades show, the Government cannot be reactive towards lower birth rates and should be proactive to aim for higher birth rates. And as the Government seeks to enable and empower Singaporeans to have more babies, please remember these two words as a key principle to guide pro-birth policy: equality matters. On this note, I support the Bill.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, I stand in full support of this Bill, a Bill which starts a new chapter in our journey in parenthood and a Bill which brings about a fundamental change in our parenthood policies, a much-needed fundamental change.
I also stand in full support of this Bill because it is not only about dollars and cents but also about the hours, the minutes and the seconds, the precious time we spend with our children.
The amendments to section 3 bring about a stronger sense of inclusiveness. Single unwed mothers do not enjoy most of the benefits and support given to married mothers. You do not have to be a single parent to realise the difficulties they go through and face in bringing up their children.
No matter what the circumstances are that led to them being single unwed mothers, we should still help and support them, especially their child or children who, like us, are fellow Singaporeans.
As I mentioned during the Committee of Supply (COS) debates, to be a truly inclusive society, we need to accord equal rights to our single unwed mothers, and we should ensure that they do not feel alone in their journey. We must help and support them rather than penalise them. This is the right thing to do.
So, I am extremely delighted that the proposed amendment to section 3 seeks to expand the categories of children who may be eligible under the Child Development Co-Savings Scheme. Children, other than children of married mothers, will now qualify for the scheme. Together with MSF, we have fought hard for this. I have joined 16 other Members of Parliament (MPs), Non-Constituency MPs (NCMPs) and Nominated MPs (NMPs) and the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) who, over the 12 years, spoke up for this.
The change in this policy is timely and I do hope that this does open the floodgates of help and support for single unwed mothers and the days of penalising them are history and they will finally get the same high level of support we give to our married mothers.
But this Bill does not just talk about mothers. It also emphasises the important role fathers play. Research at the University of Bergen has shown that, and I quote, \"A sensitive and attentive father has a positive influence on a child's development, but only if he spends a considerable amount of time with his child during his first year\". This research is part of a major project at The Norwegian Centre for Child Behavioural Development.
And the researcher's advice was simple, and I quote again, \"Try to get leave from work in order to spend as much time as possible with your child during his first year. But, above all, make sure you spend high quality time with your child.\"
The amendments in this Bill seek to provide this by allowing employers to claim reimbursement from the Government for the extra week of paternity leave. Subsequent amendments to this Act, as the Minister has mentioned, where the second week of paternity leave will be legislated, will further strengthen this.
But I urge the Government to do more, to not just do more in providing financial grants, which is important, but also do more in helping to ensure that both fathers and mothers have the chance to spend more time with their children. The Government is now writing this next and brand-new chapter in this journey, and we now need employers and fathers to join us.
Minister Tan had previously stated that in 2013, only 28% of fathers took up the Government-paid Paternity Leave; in 2014, the figure was 36%. These figures are clearly not encouraging. I sincerely hope that employers will not only grant the fathers their paternity leave but also actively encourage them to take it. My appeal for fathers, speaking up as a father, is that you will not regret spending time, quality time, with your children in this amazing journey called parenthood. This is a journey that changes your life, that makes you a better person, and this is a journey your children need you to play an active role in.
This journey has changed my life. I have gone from being the biggest Linkin Park fan to now being the biggest Pororo Park fan. And quite embarrassingly, I can sing most of the songs you hear at Pororo Park in Marina Square. And I know that life has changed when I now subconsciously start singing Pororo songs.
Life has also changed for me from having tea parties with the Prime Minister and the Ministers to now having weekly tea parties with my daughter. The tea parties are much less stressful now, but those imaginary cups of tea have made it much easier for me to understand my daughter.
Lastly, life has certainly changed for me now as I am no longer the most stubborn person in my house. My daughter has learnt to say the word \"no\" and I never knew that someone could say the word \"no\" so many times in a day. I hope that she does not change and every guy that approaches her in the future, she will say \"no\".
Madam, I am often asked in the media what special powers I wish I have, and my reply has always been that I wished I had the power to turn back time. As much as I try to live a life without regrets, there will always be regrets, always a wish that we could have done things better, and always a wish that we could have spent more time with our loved ones. And as recently published in a The Straits Times article, \"Regret is an incurable ache\".
The time spent with our children is precious and should be cherished. The memories created will last forever and are priceless. Madam, we cannot buy time, and we cannot turn back time. We cannot get back the hours, the minutes and the seconds lost. But we can, every day, treasure and value the time we have with our children and our loved ones.
Madam, this Bill is an important step forward for unwed mothers, for all fathers, mothers, children and employers. This is a journey we must all take together and the only regret one will have is that they did not participate in this journey.
Let me end with a less known quote about parenthood by Jill Smokler, and it reads: \"Being a parent is dirty and scary and beautiful and hard and miraculous and exhausting and thankless and joyful and frustrating all at once. It is everything.\" Madam, I wholeheartedly support this Bill.
Mdm Speaker: Minister Tan Chuan-Jin.
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: Mdm Speaker, I thank Mr Louis Ng and Assoc Prof Daniel Goh for supporting this Bill. I would like to quickly address the point on TFR. We have all been concerned about our birth rates for quite some time.
There are many different reasons behind this. We are not the only country that is affected by it. I would like to assure the Members of this House that we are fully committed to exploring all possible ways. Many of the suggestions come from both sides of the House and many members of the public out there. And many ideas, many different suggestions; some initiatives are carried out in other countries; some have worked better; some have not worked as well. Sometimes, it is also contextual and depending on the cultural context. Broadly, we do want to look at not just carrots and sticks, but really the overall environment is important. Ultimately, the last and final step must be taken by individuals and their families. What we can do is to provide as supportive an environment as possible.
As whether we are reactive or not, I am also hopeful. The rates have marginally increased. We hope that they can be sustained. The approach that we have taken really is not about being reactive. I think the reactive part happened quite some time ago and we saw the trends turning into the direction which we were not quite happy with. And it is a series of measures. Each time, as we see the effect and if it did take effect, we continued to calibrate and improve. And this journey will continue.
I would like to assure Assoc Prof Daniel Goh that our target is indeed to try to move up to 1.4 and 1.5. In fact, in the Deputy Prime Minister's opening remarks at the Parliamentary debate on the Population White Paper on 4 February 2013, he said, \"In the short term, I hope our birth rate can increase to at least 1.4 or 1.5\", which was our birth rate not so long ago, around the late-1990s and the early-2000s.
This is something that we intend to do. I do call on all Members in this House who still have some way to go in terms of contributing to the data, well, please. I would imagine Mr Louis Ng and Ms Tin Pei Ling would help us on that front as well. It is something that we all have a part to play. In terms of environment and culture, it is not something that is just mandated by the Government. It is something that is created by all of us as well. Societal attitudes really are a sum total of individual attitudes. We all have a part to play. So, let us all chip in.
I am also very heartened to hear from both Mr Louis Ng and Assoc Prof Daniel Goh on their support of the extension of the Child Development Co-Saving Scheme to children of unwed parents. We know that this has been an issue that many have been championing for some time. It is something I personally felt very strongly about. I have noted that they would like the Government to extend to unwed mothers the same high level of support we give to married mothers on all fronts.
But before I address this point, let me reiterate the key principles underlying our decision for the review on support for unwed parents.
Firstly, the benefits extended must directly contribute to the child's development or caregiving needs. So, that is one motivating reason. Secondly, the benefits must also support the unwed parent's efforts to provide for the child. Lastly, it is also important for us to remember that we do want to encourage families to have children within the confines of parenthood and within the confines of marriage. I think this is to the prevailing prevalent social norm and we all would agree that it is always best for children to grow up in that environment and that is something we want to continue to encourage.
I think we have said this several times, but I would like to repeat this here again that it is important to note that while there might be some differentiation for unwed parents, the children of these unwed parents do continue to be provided for on many fronts. It would be not correct to say that they are deprived of everything else. Yes, there are some differences. We have equalised some of it in my recent moves. But I want to emphasise that we do want to support the growth and development of all Singapore Citizen children, regardless of the marital status of their parents. For example, the benefits include education, healthcare subsidies, MediSave grant for newborns, centre-based infant and childcare subsidies and foreign domestic worker levy concession. All working parents, regardless of their marital status, are also eligible for infant care leave, childcare leave before the child turns seven, and extended childcare leave when the child is seven to 12 years old. And this has been the case for some time.
While we do what we can for the children, we do think that we must continue to try and encourage and support parenthood within the confines of marriage. This is the prevailing social norm. Many of us would agree that it would always be ideal if children can grow up within the confines of that. But having said, we do recognise that situations do happen and we want to support the children and we do want to support the families.
For vulnerable, low-income unwed parents who need more assistance, my Ministry and the NCSS will work with relevant VWOs and agencies to strengthen support for them and their families. Previously, many of us here, as MPs, we will meet some of our residents who fall under difficult circumstances and unwed mums. And notwithstanding the fact that there were some differences in some of those various benefits, there is always wholehearted support in terms of providing for them when they do need that help.
Members will also remember that we are starting the KidSTART programme that I shared in Parliament last month. Through this programme, we will proactively identify low-income and vulnerable children aged six and below, and many of these would include children of unwed parents. That is a very substantive effort and I hope that this is something that would take off because I think it will have a significant impact over the long haul.
Mr Louis Ng has supported the amendment to allow employers and self-employed persons to claim reimbursement and loss of income, respectively, for the second week of paternity leave. In fact, he would like employers to actively encourage their employees to take it.
I could not agree more. For the employers who have been doing so, you have the Government's support; we will fully fund this leave, as long as you grant it. More importantly, the support you give your staff to better manage their work-life responsibilities will enhance their loyalty and productivity as well. Employers who go the extra mile will also attract talent, especially in today's tight labour market. The Government will do its part by continuing to support parents through leave schemes and promoting a pro-family workplace. This includes encouraging employers to adopt family-friendly practices, such as providing flexible work arrangements.
On the point of active fatherhood, Mr Louis Ng shared passionately about his experiences, and many of us here who are parents would fully understand his sentiments. The amendments tabled today are in support of parenthood. He shared with us what Jill Smokler had to say about this journey. My challenge to fellow fathers is to find this out for ourselves. There are no shortcuts and we should spend time and effort to be good fathers.
Active fatherhood is a personal commitment. I personally believe that it is not just about quality time, but it is also about quantity time. We must try to be present in our children's lives as much as possible. We can do all we can in terms of schemes, in terms of measures to support. But many of us will also know that we do have choices to make. Oftentimes, we cite reasons like work and so on. But sometimes, we are also distracted by our own preoccupations. The question is: are we prepared to put in the sacrifices? Are we prepared to put in the time? Instead of spending time with our friends watching football somewhere else, spending time with children and so on and so forth. And I think as we scroll down and actually study the kind of commitments that we are committed to and we find ourselves busy with, we will find that there are things there that we can actually choose to forgo in favour of time spent with family.
Mr Louis Ng hit the nail on the head when he shared that the time with our children is precious. Many of us whose children have grown up or continued to grow up, obviously, we do miss those days when they were toddlers and, each stage, as it moves on, does not ever come back and these will become memories for life, and it is important for us to be there to cherish it when those memories are created. So, it is important for us to be more active and to play a vigilant role. But we can also take heart that what we have done, when we have done what we can to expose our children to the right values, while there is no guarantee in terms of outcomes but, at least, we have given it our best shot and it is a continuing lifelong journey that we journey with our children.
Mdm Speaker, the Government, together with the community and the individual, must continue to build strong families because, ultimately, as we look at building our nation, we talk about looking forward to SG100, there are many, many different things that we need to do. But we all know that the building blocks of any nation really lies with the individuals and the families. If we have strong families, it gives us a reason to be anchored here, it gives us a reason to build a better future. This is not just for ourselves but it is really very much for our families, for our children, and for their children in turn. We will continue as much as we can to create a pro-family environment for families, and to also support the more vulnerable in our society. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Tan Chuan-Jin]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Law (Ms Indranee Rajah) (for the Minister for Law): Madam, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
Madam, this Bill contains various amendments to several Acts. The amendments are mainly technical in nature. I will highlight the key amendments.
Presently, the Evidence Act requires the Courts to presume the genuineness of laws and reports of judicial decisions contained in books, where such evidence is tendered in Court. However, as the presumption only applies to those contained in books, it does not apply to laws or reports published online, even if they are published on official websites authorised by the government of a country.
Clause 6 of the Bill extends this presumption by requiring the Court to presume the genuineness of (a) any legislation that is published on an official legislation website; and (b) any law report published on a website that publishes official or authoritative reports of decisions of the courts of a country.
The amendment will also make clear that the presumption is applicable only to official or authoritative reports of decisions of the courts of a country.
Clauses 7 and 43 of the Bill contain three main sets of amendments to the Family Justice Act and the Supreme Court of Judicature Act respectively. These amendments seek to: (a) align the right of appeal between family cases and non-family cases; (b) clarify that all family proceedings must be commenced at the Family Court; and (c) introduce immunity provisions for certain groups of individuals.
Let me first touch on aligning the right of appeal. Presently, under the Family Justice Act, family proceedings can be heard, at first instance, by: (a) the Family Division of the High Court, in which case, appeals are heard by the Court of Appeal; or (b) the Family Courts, in which case, appeals are heard by the High Court.
The Bill amends the Family Justice Act to restrict the right of appeal from the Family Court to the High Court, where any order specified in the new Second Schedule is made by the Family Court. This ensures that the right of appeal is consistent across the lower Courts, namely, the Family Court, District Court and Magistrate's Court.
The Bill also amends the Supreme Court of Judicature Act to restrict the right of appeal from the Family Division of the High Court to the Court of Appeal, such that certain interlocutory orders made by the Family Division of the High Court are either not appealable, or appealable only with leave of that Court or the Court of Appeal. This aligns the appeal regime in the Family Division of the High Court, with that applicable to non-family proceedings in the High Court.
I will now touch on the amendments requiring family proceedings to be commenced in the Family Courts. Currently, the practice is for applications for all family proceedings to be filed in the Family Court, except those proceedings which the Chief Justice has directed to be heard and determined by the Family Division of the High Court.
The Bill makes this current practice law by providing that all family proceedings must be commenced in the Family Court at first instance, except those classes of family proceedings which the Chief Justice has directed to be heard and determined by the Family Division of the High Court. Presently, this exception applies to probate cases involving estates which exceed $5 million in value.
For family proceedings commenced in the Family Court, the current practice has been to transfer contested matters where the assets are above $5 million or, where the case is complex, to the Family Division of the High Court. This practice will continue, subject to any adjustments that may be made by the Chief Justice from time to time.
Lastly, the Bill amends the Family Justice Act and the Supreme Court of Judicature Act to confer certain individuals with protection from personal liability where the acts are done in good faith and do not involve any fraud or wilful misconduct.
Child representatives, appointed to represent the interests of a child, will be protected from personal liability under the Family Justice Act. Registered medical practitioners, psychologists, counsellors, social workers or mental health professionals appointed by a Family Court or the High Court to examine or assess a child or person will be protected from personal liability under the Family Justice Act and Supreme Court of Judicature Act.
The immunity provisions ensure that these professionals, who do not represent any of the parties before the Court and lend their expertise to assist the Court in arriving at a fair and just decision, will be able to perform their duties without fear of legal liability, so long as they act in good faith and without fraud or wilful misconduct.
The Bill also introduces amendments to the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act, Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act and Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act. As the Family Justice Courts hear proceedings under these three Acts, these Acts will be amended to allow the Family Justice Rules Committee to make Family Justice Rules to prescribe the relevant procedure for proceedings under these Acts.
I will now turn to the amendments arising from the Mental Capacity Act. The Mental Capacity Act was passed in 2008, and it introduced two frameworks to deal with the issues arising from the lack of mental capacity. First, it conferred powers for the Court to appoint deputies to make decisions on behalf of persons who lacked mental capacity. Second, it introduced the Lasting Power of Attorney, a legal instrument which allows individuals to appoint a \"donee\" to make decisions on their behalf should they lose mental capacity.
The Bill amends nine Acts to include the reference to a donee of a Lasting Power of Attorney under the Mental Capacity Act, where there is already a reference to a deputy. This ensures that donees will have the same standing as deputies under those Acts, when the donor loses mental capacity.
I will next turn to the amendments which allow the designation of other political office holders to hear appeals. Clauses 10, 19, 25, 30 and 32 amend the Immigration Act, Massage Establishments Act, Passports Act, Private Security Industry Act and Public Entertainments and Meetings Act respectively, to empower the Minister for Home Affairs to designate other political officeholders of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to hear appeals under these Acts in his place. This is consistent with other newly introduced and recently amended laws and facilitates administration by allowing political officeholders to focus on various responsibilities and portfolios within the Ministry.
Let me touch on the amendments to the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Act. In 2015, Singapore signed a Joint Declaration with the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) to allow ITLOS proceedings to be hosted in Singapore in future. ITLOS is an independent judicial body established by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to hear disputes concerning the interpretation or application of UNCLOS.
Clause 12 of the Bill amends the International Organisations (Immunity and Privileges) Act to empower the Government to apply the Act to relevant international organisations and bring ITLOS within the scope of the Act. This ensures that the Government has the power to grant the legal capacities and to confer the privileges and immunities necessary for ITLOS to carry out its functions in Singapore.
Turning now to the amendments to the Legal Profession Act and the Singapore Academy of Law Act, clauses 16 and 38 of the Bill contain three main sets of amendments to both Acts, namely: (a) to allow the Singapore Institute of Legal Education (SILE) to enact rules for the administration of the Part A course and examinations; (b) to deal with the establishment of the new Law School of SIM University (UniSIM Law School); and (c) to allow the Presiding Judge of the Family Courts and the Presiding Judge of the State Courts to refer matters to the Law Society or the Disciplinary Tribunal.
Clause 16 of the Bill also contains a number of amendments which were proposed by the Law Society of Singapore. Let me explain these amendments in turn.
First is allowing SILE to enact rules for the administration of the Part A Course and Examinations. Since 2015, SILE has taken over the administration of Part A of the Bar Examinations, which is one of the requirements for overseas trained law graduates from overseas scheduled universities to become a qualified person. The amendments to the Legal Profession Act will enable SILE to enact rules to administer and provide for the conditions for entry to the courses, tests and examinations for Part A.
Second, the UniSIM Law School was recently established, and its law degrees will be recognised for the purposes of admission to the Singapore Bar, similar to those from the National University of Singapore (NUS) and the Singapore Management University (SMU). The Legal Profession Act and the Singapore Academy of Law Act will be amended to ensure that UniSIM Law School and the members of its faculty will have the same standing or restrictions as those which are correspondingly applicable to NUS, SMU or their faculty members.
Third, allowing the Presiding Judge of the Family Justice Courts and the Presiding Judge of the State Courts to refer matters to the Law Society or the Disciplinary Tribunal. Presently, any Judge, Judicial Commissioner, Senior Judge or International Judge of the Supreme Court may refer matters touching on the conduct of any regulated legal practitioner to the Law Society or the Disciplinary Tribunal. The Bill amends the Legal Profession Act to confer the same powers on the Presiding Judge of the Family Justice Courts and the Presiding Judge of the State Courts.
Lastly, there are a number of amendments arising from requests made by the Law Society, which I will summarise.
First, the composition of the Council of the Law Society will be amended in order to better reflect the composition of the members of the Law Society who are entitled to vote for the election of the members of the Council.
Second, it will no longer be compulsory for the voting of Council members to be conducted in a physical space via ballot.
Third, the Council will also be allowed to transfer certain amounts from the Compensation Fund to a fund established by the Law Society to purchase or maintain a library, where no grant is made from the Compensation Fund in any year and there is no application for a grant from the Compensation Fund that is pending at the end of that year.
Clause 15 amends the Legal Aid and Advice Act to enable the Legal Aid Bureau not to charge any registration fees for an application for legal aid or advice. This takes out one step in the registration process and makes it administratively more convenient for applicants when they apply for legal aid.
Clause 35 amends the Remote Gambling Act 2014 to enlarge the jurisdiction of the District Court or a Magistrate's Court to try cases and sentence offenders under that Act. This allows the District Court or a Magistrate's Court to hear cases and impose the maximum fine or imprisonment term set out in the Remote Gambling Act 2014, notwithstanding the limits prescribed under the Criminal Procedure Code.
Currently, in contentious proceedings before the Registrar of Trade Marks, there is no avenue for appealing against interlocutory decisions. There can be potentially severe consequences where interlocutory decisions have the effect of bringing proceedings to an end. An example would be when an interlocutory decision leads to a trademark application being treated as withdrawn. Clause 45 amends section 75 of the Trade Marks Act to allow for appeals in such situations.
Clause 50 of the Bill amends the Wills Act to expressly confer our Courts with the power to order rectification of a will upon application of any interested person. The Court may exercise this power where it is satisfied that the will fails to carry out the testator's intentions due to a clerical error or a failure to understand the testator's instructions.
This amendment will allow the Courts to better give effect to the testator's testamentary intention. It arises from a recent decision of the Court of Appeal, which strongly suggested that the power to rectify wills is not available to our Courts.
In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mdm Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mdm Speaker, I would like to seek some clarifications on the amendments being made to the Wills Act, the Government Proceedings Act and the Legal Profession Act. I declare that I am a lawyer with a Practising Certificate in force.
First, the Wills Act. Clause 50 of the Bill will introduce a new provision to the Wills Act. The new section 28 will allow a Court to order that a will be rectified if the Court is satisfied that the will is expressed in such a way that it fails to carry out the testator's intention due to a clerical error or a failure to understand the testator's instructions, or both. This provision seems to be influenced by legislation in other countries, such as the United Kingdom (UK) Administration of Justice Act 1982, which contains a section 20 similar in wording to the Bill. I have noted that an NUS law academic, Assoc Prof Barry Crown, had recommended that our Wills Act be amended to include such a statutory right to rectify a will to bring more certainty to this area of the law. This is because a 2014 case decided by the UK Supreme Court had suggested that the courts had a common law right to rectify wills even if there is no statutory right, and it is probably more prudent to legislate the right to make clear what powers the court should have.
Nevertheless, the UK case in question, Marley vs Rawlings, also raises questions about how wide the power under the new provision should be. In that case, a husband and wife made mirror wills to leave their entire estate to a non-family member. But each spouse signed the other spouse's will by mistake. Clearly, the lawyer's office was at fault in not checking that the wills were executed by the proper party. What the court did in that case was to exercise the statutory power under the Administration of Justice Act to rectify the wills by replacing wholesale the words of each will with the text of the other spouse's will. This is way beyond the usual understanding of rectification being the adding or omitting of certain words only. Is the Ministry intending the Court to have such a wide rectification power?
I would also like a confirmation about the implication of such a provision on lawyers who have been negligent in drafting wills or in will execution. How will this provision save them from being liable for negligence? Will clients be expected to go to Court first to try to rectify the will before suing lawyers for negligence? This would put a heavy burden on clients.
Next, the Government Proceedings Act. The Government Proceedings Act enables the Government to sue and to be sued. Clause 9 of the Bill amends section 29 of the Act to provide that, in such lawsuits, it is possible that the Court can certify that legal costs for more than two Government lawyers may be payable. This is a change from the current position where the maximum number of Government lawyers a litigant may have to pay for is two. According to the explanatory note, the change is to bring the position in line with that in other civil suits and family matters. The current position in other civil suits and family matters is that the Court may order a litigant who loses to pay legal costs for more than two solicitors on the winning side. In order for such a Court order to be obtained, the Court must find that more than two lawyers were reasonably required to handle the case due to factors, such as the complexity of the case or novel points of law being raised.
Madam, I have concerns about the Government taking such a position as the prospect of a very heavy legal burden in legal costs could have a dampening or even crushing effect on persons involved in suits against the Government. As it currently stands, anyone who is thinking of suing the Government or defending a legal action by the Government is aware that if the action is lost, he would likely have to pay legal costs to the Government. This is on top of funding his own lawyers to meet the fierce challenges thrown by the Government's legal team, whose limitless resources include having the entire Legal Service and Civil Service at its disposal. Not many individuals or entities have the financial resources needed to take the Government to Court or to defend a suit by the Government.
I believe the Government should consider taking a broader view on this matter and keep the current provision of capping its claim for legal costs to no more than two legal officers. After all, the purpose of the Government Proceedings Act is to enable the Government to sue and to be sued. If the costs of suing or being sued by the Government are too high, people will surrender. There must not be a signal sent that the Government is trying to use the prospect of crushing legal costs to deter or wear down those who may wish to sue the Government or to defend Government lawsuits vigorously.
Lastly, Madam, the Legal Profession Act. Clause 16 of the Bill makes various amendments to the Legal Profession Act. My query relates to clauses 16(t) and (u) which deal with the disciplinary proceedings against lawyers who have misconducted themselves. Under clauses 16(t) and (u), the Minister may make rules to exempt lawyers from disciplinary action if they had given gratifications or remuneration to those who procure business for themselves or other lawyers under circumstances to be prescribed in the rules. The act of giving gratifications for procuring legal services is generally abhorrent to the profession. What sorts of exemptions are being contemplated and under what circumstances?
Mdm Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, I stand in support of this Bill. However, I have two brief clarifications to be made.
Firstly, the proposed amendment to the Community Mediation Centres Act removes the requirement for the Director of a Community Mediation Centre (CMC) to prepare and submit to the Minister an annual report on the activities, operations and use of the CMC. Consequently, this removes the requirement for the Minister to lay that report before Parliament.
Based on my house visits and Meet-the-People Sessions, I sense an increasing number of neighbourly disputes. As such, I value the work of the CMC, which provides a neutral platform for residents to resolve relational, social and community disputes amicably without resorting to litigation. Through community mediation, the CMC aims to cultivate a more harmonious, civil and gracious society.
I also expect that the CMC will be facing an increasing amount of work. As such, I believe the report we are proposing to do away with, would be useful and crucial in allowing us to further detect issues in our community, detect trends, see what has worked and what has not and chart the way forward.
Can the Senior Minister of State clarify why we are proposing this amendment and, if amended, will there be other forms of reports from the CMC and will these be made available to the public?
Secondly, there are proposed amendments to the Legal Profession Act, which involves the recategorisation of junior, middle and senior categories of lawyers based on their number of years in practice. Currently, junior lawyers are practitioners with less than seven years of practice, middle category lawyers are those with between seven and 12 years of practice, and lawyers with more than 12 years of practice are senior lawyers.
Based on statistics obtained from the Law Society of Singapore, as at 31 August 2015, there are only 423 middle category lawyers, as compared to 1,909 junior lawyers and 2,502 senior lawyers.
It would appear that the proposed changes to the middle category of lawyers from five to 15 years, instead of the current seven to 12 years, will go some way towards evening out the numbers of lawyers within the various categories.
Can the Senior Minister of State share the possible underlying causes which have resulted in the legal profession seeing a shrinking middle category of lawyers and whether sufficient steps are being taken to address this concern within the legal profession?
Mdm Speaker, my request for the Government to clarify the above notwithstanding, I support the Bill.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. This Bill seeks to make several amendments to about 51 Acts, most of which are mainly technical in nature. Several amendments to the Act involve dealings by Government authorities with a person without mental capacity either through his Deputy or through his donee appointed under a Lasting Power of Attorney. Some of the amendments also allow the Minister to designate either the Second Minister, the Minister of State or Parliamentary Secretary to hear appeals.
I wish to raise two queries for the Senior Minister of State. Like my hon colleague Mr Louis Ng, I have a query about clause 3 of the Bill where section 21 of the Community Mediation Centres Act is repealed.
From an accountability point of view, when a Community Mediation Centre is established by the Government and funded by the Government, and the Director and staff are deemed public servants, surely the Director should continue to provide a report to the Minister. This is to allow proper accountability of civil servants to the Executive arm of the Government. I am also of the view that the Minister ought to continue to lay the report before Parliament and account for the activities and efficacy of the Community Mediation Centres. So, could I ask the Senior Minister of State to clarify the rationale for repealing section 21 of the Community Mediation Centres Act?
The next clarification required is on the amendment to the Work Injury Compensation Act. Mdm Speaker, there was a recent case involving an engineer who had lost mental capacity following an accident. His next-of-kin had purportedly accepted compensation under the Work Injury Compensation Act but, subsequently, his brother, who was appointed as a deputy under the Mental Capacity Act, then proceeded to sue the employer for damages under common law instead of claiming for compensation under the Work Injury Compensation Act.
I note that the amendment to this Act states that section 22(2) of the Act has been deleted and the following has been substituted. Let me cite the section 22(2) which has been substituted. It says: \"Where it appears to the Commissioner that compensation or interest is payable to an employee under this Act and the employee lacks capacity within the meaning of the Mental Capacity Act, before such payment is made, it is lawful for the Commissioner to receive and pay the compensation or interest to any one or more of the dependants of the employee for the benefit of the employee, even if there is no donee of a Lasting Power of Attorney which is granted by the employee under the Mental Capacity Act and under which the employee confers on the donee authority to receive the compensation or interest, and even if there is no deputy who is appointed or deemed to be appointed for the employee by the Court under the Mental Capacity Act and who is conferred power to receive compensation or interest\".
This section seems to suggest that the Commissioner of Labour continues to have the power to receive and pay compensation to any one or more of dependants even if there was no donee, even if there is no deputy appointed.
A dependant under this Act is quite rightly crafted and it means the wife, husband, parent, grandparents, stepfather, stepmother, child, grandchild, stepchild, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, stepbrother, or stepsister, irrespective of whether that person is actually dependent on the employee's earnings or not.
If I may ask the Senior Minister of State, in light of the recent case in the High Court in April 2015, Justice Quentin Loh had made a decision and, in that decision, he had said that \"In my judgement, the next-of-kin of a mentally incapacitated employee do not have, without more, the requisite capacity to make a claim under the Act on behalf of the employee. Only a person duly appointed by the Court under the Mental Capacity Act will have the legal capacity to do so\".
I am sorry if this House is struggling to understand what I am saying because this is quite legalistic. That was a High Court case made in April 2015 and, in March this year, the Court of Appeal had affirmed that particular decision. In light of what the Courts are saying, which is that only someone who is either a donee appointed under a Lasting Power of Attorney or someone who is appointed by the Court under the Mental Capacity Act as a deputy would have the power to make such a claim.
Could the Senior Minister of State clarify who would be the rightful person to make a claim to the Commissioner of Labour and whether that decision made by the next-of-kin or dependant is final and binding on the employee's dependant because the law and the case law seem to say something differently? I think it would be useful for the Senior Minister of State to clarify that. With that, Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mdm Speaker: Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mdm Speaker, I thank the Members for their comments and for their support of the Bill.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Louis Ng asked about the amendment to the Community Mediation Act and the removal of the need for the CMC to submit an Annual Report.
Mdm Speaker, we continually review our laws to see if our processes are still relevant or if the objectives of those processes can be achieved by other means. In this case, the CMC is a department of the Ministry of Law (MinLaw), which is held accountable through its accounts and budget estimates which are available in the annual Budget Book which is presented to Parliament. However, we do agree that information on the activities and the operations of the CMC should be available to the public. Insofar, as information and statistics relating to the CMC are concerned, they will continue to be available on the CMC website, and this includes statistics on the number of mediations conducted, CMC's success rate and the types of disputes handled by CMC.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan raised two queries on the amendments to the Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA): first, whether next-of-kin who are not donees or deputies may submit claims to the Commissioner of Labour; and second, what happens if the Commissioner of Labour errs in his assessment as to whether there is a donee or deputy.
I should clarify at the outset that the purpose of this particular amendment to WICA in this Bill is simply to ensure that donees have the same standing as deputies under the Act. So, in other words, wherever you see deputy, the donee will have the same standing. This particular amendment is not intended to address the larger question, which is whether other third parties are entitled to file claims or receive compensation under WICA. There has been a recent decision by the Court of Appeal, as Mr Lim Biow Chuan has alluded to, on this wider issue, and the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) is studying the implications of this decision. So, it would be premature for me to make any remarks on that at this moment. MOM would see what implication the Court of Appeal's decision has.
With regard to the amendments to the Legal Profession Act, Mr Louis Ng queried the possible underlying causes leading to the shrinking middle category of lawyers and what steps were being taken to address this concern. In May 2013, the report of the 4th Committee on the Supply of Lawyers identified three main factors as causing or contributing to attrition among legal professionals. They were unsustainable work practices, unsuitability of the individual legal professional for legal work and structural problems within law firms.
To address this issue of attrition, the 4th Committee recommended that the two existing local law schools should consider a more targeted selection of law school applicants and help prepare young graduates early for the realities of practice, for example, by expanding clinical legal programmes currently offered. And to address the work-life balance concerns by providing flexibility in legal practice, for example, allowing flexible schedules or different career tracks for lawyers and by providing greater support and welfare, for example, by providing lawyers with tools to create a better working environment.
Tackling these issues will take time and require a concerted effort on the part of the law schools and the legal profession as a whole. Steps are being taken to look into this. The Law Society is presently conducting a study to look into how junior lawyers can be encouraged to stay in practice which, in turn, will help the number of lawyers in this middle category. The findings of their study should be available later in the year.
There are also longer-term initiatives which have taken these concerns into account. For example, the third law school at UniSIM will select its students based not just on academic ability but also aptitude, attitude and interest in the practice of family and criminal law. Their curriculum will be practice-oriented, culminating in a six-month practicum training, so that students will be better prepared and equipped for the realities of practice. So, this will deal, to some extent, with the second problem identified by the 4th Committee, in relation to the unsuitability of individuals for legal work.
I should also highlight that the lawyers represented by the original middle category are more limited, compared to the junior and senior categories. It represents five cohorts of lawyers: those between seven and 12 years of standing. In comparison, the junior and senior categories represent lawyers under seven years' standing and not less than 12 years' standing respectively, which is a larger number of cohorts. In addition, the statistics relate to the number of lawyers who remain in private practice in law firms. Some of those who leave private practice remain in the legal profession as in-house counsel in the private sector, or by joining the public sector or academia. Others move into other industries, such as investment banking, fund management, private equity, where their legal skills come in useful, and they continue to make a meaningful contribution to the wider economy.
I believe Ms Sylvia Lim has asked a number of questions, the first relating to the Wills Act and the scope of the power to be given to the Courts. What is driving this amendment was the Singapore Court of Appeal's decision in Cheo Yeo and Associates and another where the Court of Appeal held obiter that the remedy of rectification of wills is not available in Singapore. The Court of Appeal's decision strongly suggested that where a will fails to embody the intentions of the testator due to a clerical error or a failure to understand the testator's intention, the Singapore Courts do not have the power to correct the error in the will.
This particular amendment was intended to address that and to give the Court the power to correct a clerical error or to give effect to the testator's intention where there was a failure to understand that intention.
With respect to costs, that is really just intended to bring the position with respect to the Government in alignment with that for other parties in normal civil proceedings, and the costs remains at the discretion of the Courts. It is not intended to give the Government any additional power but just to bring it in line with other normal civil proceedings.
Mdm Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Madam, I have three clarifications for the Senior Minister of State. First, she did not touch on my query on the Legal Profession Act amendments, clause 16(t) and (u). What are the circumstances contemplated under which the Minister would prescribe rules to exempt lawyers who had, on the face of it, committed some misconduct, according to what is raised in the Bill?
The second clarification concerns the Wills Act. The Senior Minister of State mentioned that it was spurred on by the recent Court of Appeal's case. But I would like her to confirm whether the inspiration for the wording came from the UK and whether she is aware of the case which I cited, Marley vs Rawlings, which interpreted that provision very widely and whether it is the intention of the Government to give the Court this kind of width of rectification power.
My third clarification concerns the cost of Government proceedings. The Senior Minister of State mentioned that this does not give the Government additional powers, but the fact is that under the existing section 29 of the Government Proceedings Act (GPA), the cost claimable is limited to two. So, this amendment would actually give an allowance for the Court to certify more than two lawyers' costs being payable. It is a change to the legal position, as far as GPA is concerned. I have my grave reservations about this clause for the reasons I stated earlier.
Mdm Speaker: Senior Minster of State.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Madam, with respect to the costs, as I had indicated, the idea was to just bring it in line with what is available to other civil parties, that means, even where the Government is not involved. So, it is not intended to be used in an oppressive manner but really where if costs are incurred, it gives the Court the discretion to allow costs for more than two counsel, if the Court really thinks that this is an appropriate case to do so. So, the safeguard there is that it lies in the hands of the Courts.
With respect to the question on the Wills Act, I am not able to comment if there was a specific reference to the UK case. What I can say is that we had specific regard to our Court of Appeal's case and, the intention, as I had indicated, was to make sure that our Courts have the power to rectify a clerical error or our Courts have the power to give effect to the testator's intention. That, really, is, as I have stated, the intent behind this.
With respect to the third question, I think that the Minister would have to look at it on a case-by-case basis. I am not setting out any specific guidelines in this instance. But basically, when the Minister looks at it, he would have due regard as to what cases should be exempted.
Mdm Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Madam, I need to clarify further with the Senior Minister of State on the issue of cost. The point here, of course, is that when you have the Government on one side of a legal proceeding and perhaps a private individual or private entity on the other side, you are dealing with an inequality of resources in most cases. The Government, with its Legal Officers, having the whole Civil Service there, the prospect of a litigant going into litigation with the Government and sustaining that litigation, I think it is already prohibitive to most people.
So, my question is, why is the Government not able to take a broader view, you may want to say, even a magnanimous view or perhaps a view from the accountability standpoint that, look, we are not going to allow cost to be an inhibition or prohibitive factor when the litigant decides whether to continue with litigation or to commence litigation with the Government or not.
I am sure the Government does not need the money. So, the question is, why do you need to change that position to allow for more than two lawyers' costs to be claimed? Why can the Government not limit its position to two?
Mdm Speaker: Senior Minister of State.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Madam, it is not always the case that somebody who brings the proceedings against the Government is impecunious. I just want to flag that as a first point. So, there are any number of parties with different situations and they may have different financial means.
The second point as to why it is necessary or why should the Government not limit itself, the answer is that there is no one size fits all when it comes to the issue of costs. There will be some instances where a lot of work is required and where it is very complex, and where there will be others where it is much more straightforward and simpler.
At the end of the day, it is really for the Court to decide. And our Courts, in this matter, I believe, are objective and fair. The idea is that if it is a case that really a lot of work was incurred, and it appears to the Court that it is fair and just to award costs for more than two counsel in such a situation, the Court can do so; but if the Court, having taken into account the circumstances of the case, feels that it is not equitable to do so, then it will be up to the Court. So, at the end of the day, I think it rests with the Court to do the right thing, with respect to costs.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Madam, just a point of clarification for the Senior Minister of State. Regarding the case law of the UK case that is cited by Ms Sylvia Lim, I just want to ask for the Senior Minister of State's clarification. I am not sure I understand the Senior Minister of State's answer, but I think for judicial guidance, if it is not the intention of the Government that the UK Supreme Court decision is intended to be applied, then perhaps the Government can state its position now so that the Courts will be able to follow accordingly when the Bill is passed.
Mdm Speaker: Senior Minister of State.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Madam, I thank Mr Dennis Tan for his clarification. I am sorry if I was not sufficiently clear just now. First, it was prompted by our Court of Appeal's decision, but when the Government drafted these provisions, the Government did look at the UK case and some of the wordings were based on that. That is as far as I can go. Obviously, when our Courts apply it, and when they look at other precedents, our Courts will have to give effect to the law as our Courts see correct. What I do not want to do, is to suggest in any way that our Courts are bound by another court's decision.
So, the short answer to the Member's question of whether we looked at the UK case in question, the answer is yes. But as to what was it that prompted this particular amendment, it was our Court of Appeal's decision.
Mdm Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Madam, I do not want to belabour the point, but I would just like to record my reservation about clause 9. Notwithstanding what the Senior Minister of State has said about the Courts being a safeguard, I do feel that the Government could have taken a different view to make it clear that it would not want to be seen to be, in a sense, using legal cost as a deterrent or prohibitive factor when it comes to litigation with the Government. So, I want to record my reservation about that clause. I note that the Bill is very broad-ranging, and I will not oppose the Bill, but I have grave reservations about that clause.
Mdm Speaker: Senior Minister of State.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Madam, I think what I can say is this: when this Government is engaged in litigation, whether it is brought by somebody else or whether the Government has reasons to initiate it, the Government does its best to be fair, objective and rational about it. So, it would not be our approach to use costs to be oppressive, but to seek costs where we think that it is fairly and justly incurred and to leave it to the Court to make the appropriate decision on the quantum of costs to be awarded and the number of counsels to be taken into account.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Low Thia Khiang.
Mr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied): Mdm Speaker, on the same point made by Ms Sylvia Lim on clause 9, I am wondering whether this will raise the perception of Singaporeans that the Government is using the cost to intimidate Singaporeans in bringing any legal case against the Government. So, you have no choice whether you think you are being wrongly or rightly prosecuted, but because you look at the cost, you say, \"Oh let's forget about it, let's pay.\"
So, is that a good thing for Singapore as a society? That the people who feel somehow victimised by the Government are intimidated by the cost; you do not know how much the Court is going to decide. In the past, you said, \"Okay, it is limited to two lawyers\", but now, there will be more. So, the sense of intimidation of Singaporeans, I think, does not spell well for the future of Singapore.
Mdm Speaker: Senior Minister of State.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mdm Speaker, I said it before, once; I said it before, twice; and I will now say it again a third time. It is not the intention of the Government to be using costs to intimidate anyone. As I have indicated, when the Government has to defend a matter or pursue a matter, it will do so after having taken advice, doing so rationally and doing so if it thinks that it is the right course of action. That is the first thing when it comes to taking proceedings.
With respect to the amount of costs that a person may face, when a person brings proceedings against the Government, that person would, no doubt, be legally advised, and also have an indication of the amount of costs that would be incurred. And it should not be forgotten that if costs ought to be awarded against that party, it does mean that that party, at the end of the day, ultimately failed against the Government. Meaning that, that case should not have been brought in the first place.
And the final safeguard is really the Court. It is in the hands of the Court to ensure that the amounts of costs that are awarded are fair and just. And as I have said, this Government will pursue a course that is reasonable and rational and that the costs sought are commensurate with the claim. So, it is not the intention of the Government to intimidate anyone.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Low, I must stop this clarification, because you have made your point, Ms Sylvia Lim has made the same point, Mr Dennis Tan has made the same point, clarification sought. Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah has already made her replies. I do not think there is going to be any further development by continuing with the clarification.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed.\" – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien]. (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 4.55 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Coverage of Approved Items for Claim under Seniors' Mobility And Enabling Fund","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"24 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Health whether the Seniors' Mobility and Enabling Fund can be used to fund the cost of battery replacement, and maintenance and repair of the mobility devices provided by the Fund.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Seniors' Mobility and Enabling Fund (SMF) provides means-tested subsidies to offset the cost of assistive devices, home healthcare items and transport services to Ministry of Health (MOH)-funded eldercare and dialysis centres. It supports caregivers in caring for seniors at home.
Over 29,000 seniors have benefited from SMF since its establishment in 2011. Of these, about 15,800 seniors received subsidies for mobility devices, such as wheelchairs, motorised wheelchairs and walking aids.
The demand for devices and transport services for seniors is growing. We have, therefore, prioritised our funding to target the purchase of essential mobility equipment, rather than maintenance and repair, including battery replacement. Nonetheless, we have provided, on a case-by-case basis, SMF subsidy to some seniors with a critical need for the device but no financial means to replace a battery or repair the device.
We will continue to review the scope of the SMF as needs of seniors evolve, within the fiscal resources available for this scheme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Acquittal of Female Offender of Sexual Assault Charges","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for Home Affairs in light of a recent High Court judgment which acquitted a female offender of sexual assault charges, whether the Ministry will consider amending section 376A(1)(b) and other non-gender-neutral sections of the Penal Code.
26 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Ministry will amend the law so that sexual penetration will apply to female offenders; and (b) whether the Ministry will review all laws on sexual offences to make them gender-neutral.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Prosecution has filed an appeal against the High Court's decision in the recent case of Public Prosecutor vs Zunika Binte Ahmad.
The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) will await the outcome of the appeal before considering our next steps.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Carbon Filters for Food Exhaust Systems at Hawker Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) how many NEA hawker centres currently have activated carbon filters installed in the exhaust systems; (b) whether there are plans to install such filters for existing hawker centres that do not have them; and (c) what other measures is NEA taking to ensure better odour control, smoke, noise and grease reduction in hawker centres in residential areas.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Prior to the commencement of the Hawker Centres Upgrading Programme (HUP) in 2001, hawker centres were not fitted with centralised exhaust systems. Centralised exhaust systems were introduced during the HUP. These systems are typically fitted with baffle filters to reduce the grease in cooking fumes.
For new centres, besides a centralised exhaust system with baffle filters, the National Environment Agency (NEA) also considers the installation of additional air cleaning systems such as carbon filters, ultraviolet lamps or electrostatic precipitators in their exhaust systems to prevent grease or odour issues.
Currently, four hawker centres have additional air cleaning systems such as carbon filters installed in their exhaust systems. If there are issues related to the exhaust system of specific hawker centres, NEA will look into the feedback and work with the relevant stakeholders, including Town Councils for Housing and Development Board (HDB) centres, to explore appropriate solutions for the centres such as replacing the motors in the exhaust system or installing carbon filters in the exhaust system, if necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Fencing Up of Open Fields in HDB Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"29 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth with regard to open fields in HDB estates that are fenced up and managed by the People's Association such as the large field behind Punggol Community Club (a) whether these decisions to fence up the fields have been made in consultation with residents; (b) what are their utilisation rates on weekdays compared to weekends; and (c) whether the fields can be opened up during weekdays and off-peak periods for families to enjoy without the need for booking.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth): Open fields are managed by various Government agencies and statutory bodies, including the People's Association (PA). For fields managed by PA, their primary purpose is for community use.
The local residents will work with the grassroots organisations (GROs) to determine if there is any need to fence up a field. The usual considerations are safety of use, security, noise management and maintenance. For example, the said field in Punggol was fenced up upon residents' request for safety and noise management considerations.
Utilisation rates vary and depend on various factors. They are generally higher during weekends and school holidays.
All local residents are welcome to use the fields for community activities and can make a simple booking with the local GROs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cost of Developing New Generation ERP System","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Transport (a) why is the cost of developing the new generation ERP that is based on the Global Navigation Satellite System estimated to cost $556 million; (b) what are the reasons for the huge difference in the price quoted by the winning tenderer compared to the next highest quote of $1.2 billion; and (c) what will be the Ministry's approach on how data collected will be anonymised and aggregated to protect individual privacy.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The tender awarded for the next-generation Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) system includes the cost of designing and building the backend computer system, operating and maintaining the system for the first five years, replacement of On-Board Units (OBUs) for vehicles, and additional equipment like cameras and roadside beacons. It also includes the cost of providing other value-added functions, such as capabilities for collection and dissemination of traffic information, electronic payment for roadside parking, checkpoint tolls and usage of off-peak cars.
Both tender bids received were of good technical quality. The difference in tender prices was due to differences in the tenderers' cost estimates and pricing strategies.
Safeguarding motorists' privacy was a key requisite in the tender. The system must be able to anonymise and aggregate ERP data for traffic management and analysis.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Development of Singapore-Kuala Lumpur High-speed Rail","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"31 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Transport if he will provide an update on the latest development on the Singapore-Kuala Lumpur high-speed rail (HSR) train and the extension of Singapore's MRT line to Johor Bahru.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: There is good progress on the High-Speed Rail project. The two Governments have conducted a joint market sensing exercise to gauge market interest and gather feedback on the commercial aspects of the project. We received very good responses. Both countries are now using the feedback to further develop the project's commercial model and procurement approach. We are also, concurrently, discussing the security, regulatory and technical aspects.
The Johor Bahru-Singapore Rapid Transit System (RTS) Link is also making steady progress. Following Malaysia's confirmation that their station will be located at Bukit Chagar in August 2015, Phase 2 of the Joint Engineering Study has commenced. This will take around 18 months. At the same time, the two Governments have also begun discussing the commercial, regulatory and security aspects of the project.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Schedule for Repainting of HDB Multi-storey Car Park Buildings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the repainting schedule for HDB multi-storey car park buildings; and (b) whether the repainting of the car park building is scheduled to coincide with the repainting of flats in the same precinct and, if not, what are the reasons.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Currently, Town Councils manage the general repair and re-decoration (R&R) works, including repainting, for the residential blocks in their respective towns. The Housing and Development Board (HDB) manages the R&R works for all HDB multi-storey car parks (MSCPs), and generally adopts a seven-year cycle for such works.
It is a good idea to coordinate the R&R works for the MSCPs and residential blocks, and HDB will be happy to work out suitable arrangements with the Town Councils. In particular, HDB can engage the Town Councils to undertake the R&R works for MSCPs on its behalf, with funding provided to the Town Councils for this purpose. This will enable Town Councils to better synchronise the R&R works in their towns, achieve a more coordinated look for the precinct and minimise inconvenience to residents. Some Town Councils have already taken up this arrangement, and HDB welcomes more to do so.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Community Health Assist Scheme's Inclusion of GP clinics and Dental Clinics","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"34 Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for Health if he can provide an update on the review of the Community Health Assist Scheme to include all GP clinics and dental clinics.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Currently, with 900 Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) general practitioner (GP) and 650 CHAS dental clinics islandwide, Singaporeans enjoy good access to subsidies at CHAS clinics. On average, each constituency has around 30 GP and 20 dental clinics under CHAS. Over 96% of CHAS cardholders and Pioneers have a CHAS clinic within 15 minutes by public transport from their homes.
Since the introduction of CHAS in 2012, the number of clinics participating in CHAS has increased significantly. Today, 70% of our primary care GP clinics are already participating in CHAS. We will continue with our targeted engagement efforts to bring on board more GP and dental clinics to participate in CHAS and to play a bigger role in providing appropriate and affordable primary care to our residents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Helmets and Insurance for Users of Personal Mobility Devices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"36 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will consider making it mandatory for users of personal mobility devices to (i) put on safety helmets and (ii) have insurance coverage for at least third-party claims.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: We have studied the practices of countries that have longer histories of facilitating the use of bicycles and personal mobility devices (PMDs). As PMDs are generally safe, most of these countries do not mandate helmets and insurance for cyclists or PMD users. In our case, PMDs are not allowed on roads and have to abide by speed limits of 15 kilometres per hour on footpaths and 25 kilometres per hour on shared and cycling paths. These rules provide further safeguards to pedestrians. We are aware that some cyclists and PMDs voluntarily wear helmets or buy insurance as an added precaution. For now, we have decided not to impose additional costs on everyone by making helmets and insurance compulsory. Let us monitor the situation and keep an open mind on whether a change is warranted in future.
At the same time, we need to educate users and enforce against those who flout the rules. Cyclists and PMD users have to be very mindful of the safety of pedestrians. They should always give way to pedestrians, including children and the frail. This is our consistent message to them: be considerate and gracious, give way to pedestrians for your own safety and that of other path users.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Insurance Coverage for Private Car Hire","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Transport whether passengers using Uber or Grab taxi services are covered by insurance in the event of any accident.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The Motor Vehicles Act requires all motor vehicles, including taxis and private hire cars, to be insured against third-party liability risks, which include death or bodily injury to passengers. Specifically, this means that passengers in a taxi that was booked through UberTaxi or GrabTaxi and which is involved in a motor accident, can claim compensation from the owner of the taxi or its insurer.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing COE Growth Rate Per Year","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"39 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will review the present COE growth rate per year.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The allowable Vehicle Growth Rate is currently 0.25% per year, effective until January 2018. We will review this again in 2017 with a view to reducing it to zero eventually.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"COE Quota and Pricing Policy for Taxi Hirers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"40 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will review the COE quota and pricing policy for taxi hirers in view of the increasing demand from new competitors in the market and the introduction of new regulations for these new competitors.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: In August 2012, taxis were taken out of the Certificate of Entitlement (COE) bidding process. Taxi operators are allowed to pay the Category A Prevailing Quota Premium for their COEs, regardless of the model of taxi being registered, in recognition of their public transport role. The Taxi Availability standards were also introduced, and taxi operators can grow their fleets by up to 2% per annum, subject to them meeting the standards.
Since the introduction of the standards, more taxis are plying the roads to serve commuters, especially during peak hours, and the taxis are being more efficiently utilised. We will not be removing this COE concession for taxis nor the cap on taxi fleet growth for now. We will continue to regularly review the issue.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Installing Additional Road Safety Features","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"41 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the criteria used to determine whether additional road safety tools, such as speed bumps, regulating road strips or raised zebra crossings, should be implemented; (b) what are the initiatives taken by the Ministry to promote traffic safety in private estates; and (c) what mechanism is used to regularly measure whether those initiatives have been effective.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) implements additional road safety measures at locations with high accident risk or where motorists tend to speed. We compare accident rates and vehicular speeds before and after implementation of the measures to assess their effectiveness.
LTA and Traffic Police work together with the community to promote road safety in both private and public estates. For example, LTA recently implemented advance \"STOP\" markings at Gerald Estate, along Yio Chu Kang Road, after receiving feedback from the community about motorists not stopping at stop lines.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Traffic Light Sequence at Potong Pasir Avenue 2 and Potong Pasir Avenue 1 T-Junction","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for Transport whether the traffic light sequence at the T-junction between Potong Pasir Avenue 2 and Potong Pasir Avenue 1 can be re-configured to only allow either vehicles to turn right from Avenue 2 to Avenue 1 or pedestrians to cross the road on Avenue 1 at any one time so as to prevent instances of near accidents.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) will be adjusting the traffic light timing to allow pedestrians to have a headstart in crossing the road, and for motorists to see the crossing pedestrians while waiting to turn right. LTA will also install additional road markings and signs to remind motorists to give way to pedestrians. These measures will enhance safety at the junction.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Profile of Active Female Taxi Drivers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Ang Hin Kee asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the percentage of active taxi drivers who are females; (b) whether the Ministry has the demographics and profiles of these female taxi drivers; (c) what are the common challenges faced by them at work; and (d) whether there are any specific measures or schemes to assist them.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: About 2.5% of active taxi drivers are female, with the following age profile:
We understand that they are primarily concerned about their personal safety and prefer not to drive to remote areas at night or ferry drunk passengers. To address these concerns, which are also shared by some male taxi drivers, taxi companies have installed panic buttons for taxi drivers to alert their company when in distress. The companies can then alert the Police and the taxi drivers who are nearby to render assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extending MRT Downtown Line 3 from Tampines to Pasir Ris, Punggol, Fernvale/Jalan Kayu and Yio Chu Kang","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will consider extending the MRT Downtown Line 3 from Tampines to Pasir Ris, Punggol, Fernvale/Jalan Kayu and Yio Chu Kang.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: We have planned for residents in the North East region to be served by the upcoming Cross Island Line. Extending the Downtown Line to the areas cited is not quite appropriate as it is primarily designed to serve the corridor between the East-West Line and North-East Line that does not have access to the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) network today.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"EDB's Performance in Attracting Foreign Investments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Thomas Chua Kee Seng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Trade) (a) what has been the performance of EDB in attracting foreign investments from 2011 to 2015; and (b) what is EDB's strategy in attracting foreign investments in the face of Singapore's ageing workforce.
Mr Lim Hng Kiang: From 2011 to 2015, the Economic Development Board (EDB) secured commitments of S$65 billion in fixed asset investments. These investments are expected to generate total business expenditure per annum of S$34 billion, value-added per annum of S$77 billion, as well as create 107,000 jobs when fully implemented.
EDB adopts a targeted approach to investment promotion, attracting projects that are in line with Singapore's competitive strengths as well as our constraints in manpower, land and planned international commitments on carbon emissions.
Besides attracting new investments, EDB also works closely with other Government agencies to support existing companies in Singapore to strengthen their competitiveness, raise productivity and create good job opportunities for locals. For example, EDB partners the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and the Singapore Workforce Development Agency (WDA) to engage companies on equipping their local workers with the relevant skills for their jobs. Where relevant, companies are also encouraged to redesign jobs to meet the needs of older workers through schemes, such as WorkPro, which is jointly developed by MOM and WDA.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Building Public Library near or at East Point","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Communications and Information whether the Ministry will undertake a feasibility study to review if a public library can be built at or near East Point to serve the population in Simei and Changi given that the Tampines and Pasir Ris libraries already serve large residential communities.
Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: The National Library Board (NLB) aims to make libraries accessible to Singapore residents.
There are currently about 43,000 residents in the Changi-Simei area. Residents in Simei and Changi have access to a network of three public libraries located next to the Tampines, Bedok and Pasir Ris Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) stations. Bedok and Pasir Ris libraries are smaller branch libraries, while the library in Tampines is a regional library with a wide range of services designed to serve the broader eastern region.
The population in these areas is increasing. NLB recently studied how to better serve the growing number of residents there and concluded that the best approach was to upgrade all three libraries. The Pasir Ris Public Library was thus revamped and reopened in November 2015. The Tampines Regional Library will be expanded to about twice its current size. The Bedok Public Library will be redeveloped at the nearby Bedok Integrated Complex, offering more diverse spaces. All residents in the East, including in Simei and Changi, will benefit from these enhancements.
In addition, NLB supports community-led initiatives to set up reading corners and community libraries, by training resident volunteers and providing a seed collection of library materials. NLB is currently working with a group of residents to set up a community library in the Changi-Simei area.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of L-drivers' Syllabus at Driving Centres and Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Home Affairs given the recent spate of multiple-vehicle pile-ups on our highway (a) how often are reviews made for the L-drivers' syllabus conducted by driving centres and schools so that what is taught is relevant to current road traffic conditions; and (b) how are driving instructors regulated to ensure that they keep up-to-date.
Mr K Shanmugam: The recent multiple-vehicle pileups have mainly been caused by motorists' failure to keep a proper lookout or maintain proper control of their vehicles. These core driving skills are already included in the driving school syllabus for learner motorists. The syllabus for learner motorists includes both theory and practical components and is designed to teach the basics of driving. The syllabus is regularly reviewed to ensure that it remains up to date with the latest road traffic rules and regulations and the road safety situation. Over the last few years, Traffic Police has updated the syllabus to include new elements, such as driving on slope for those learning to drive automatic-transmission motor cars, and emergency braking on wet surfaces and expressway familiarisation for those learning to ride motorcycles.
The syllabus is taught by driving instructors who are regulated by the Traffic Police through a licensing regime stipulated under the Road Traffic Act and the Road Traffic (Driving Instructors and Driving Schools) Rules. Driving instructors at the driving schools take an annual Instructors' Skill and Knowledge Evaluation to ensure that they continue to keep up to date.
Learner motorists have to complete the syllabus and pass the driving test before obtaining a driving licence. Beyond learning driving and passing the driving test, motorists have to continue to drive safely and obey traffic rules when on the road. This is especially relevant in our efforts to improve road safety and reduce accidents. Traffic Police will continue to educate road users and step up enforcement efforts to maintain safety on our roads.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Fire Safety Provisions for Coffeeshops Located in HDB Blocks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many fires have broken out in the last three years in coffee shops in HDB blocks with residential units located above them; (b) whether there are specific fire safety provisions pertaining to these coffee shops; (c) whether the Ministry will consider strengthening the fire safety provisions for these coffeeshops, including the mandatory installation of automatic sprinkler systems, so as to protect residents living above the coffeeshops.
Mr K Shanmugam: In the last three years, a total of 33 fires have broken out in coffee shops in Housing and Development Board (HDB) blocks with residential units located above them. There were 14 such fires in 2013, 12 in 2014, and seven in 2015.
The Fire Code, which is administered under the Fire Safety Act, stipulates fire safety requirements in buildings, including coffee shops that are sited within HDB blocks. The requirements applicable to coffee shops include the provision of ventilation openings for smoke dispersion, and separation of kitchens via fire-resistant walls if open flame-cooking appliances are used, in order to reduce the risk of fire spreading to other adjoining spaces. Alternatively, the Fire Code requires that the kitchens be equipped with fire-extinguishing systems to minimise the risk of fire spreading. There are also a number of other risk mitigation requirements.
The Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) has been working closely with HDB to ensure that operators of food and beverage outlets in HDB premises including coffeeshops, comply with the fire safety measures. The SCDF also partners the National Environment Agency (NEA) to advise NEA food establishment licensees to clean the exhaust systems and ductings in their regular maintenance regimes.
The SCDF takes a risk-based approach, assessing the benefit of any requirement, against the risks. The current SCDF requirements take into account that the fires at coffee shops in HDB blocks over the past three years have been confined to the affected premises, with no fire spread to the residential units above the coffee shops.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Complaints against Licensed Moneylenders for Unfair Contracts and Practices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Law (a) in 2015, how many complaints have been lodged against licensed moneylenders for unfair contracts and practices; (b) what action has been taken by the Ministry as a result of these complaints following the completion of the investigations; and (c) whether the Ministry detects an increasing trend of people borrowing from licensed moneylenders.
Mr K Shanmugam: In 2015, the Registry of Moneylenders received 129 reports lodged by members of public against licensed moneylenders. The reports included complaints against moneylenders charging high fees and interest rates, as well as extending credit in breach of the unsecured credit limits. The Registry also conducts regular inspections on moneylenders so as to ensure that their practices are in compliance with the Moneylenders Act and Rules. Where moneylenders or their officers are found to have committed offences under the Act or Rules, the Registry will take decisive action against them.
In 2015, 17 moneylenders were subjected to licensing action, such as revocation of licence and forfeiture of security deposit. Nine moneylenders or officers of moneylending companies were warned or offered composition, while six other such individuals were prosecuted and convicted in Court. These included matters that arose from complaints made in 2014.
In regulating the moneylending industry, we seek to maintain a balance between protecting borrowers and ensuring that there is reasonable access to credit from licensed sources. Over the last three years, there has been an increasing trend in terms of the value of loans granted by the industry. During the same period, a number of measures were also introduced to strengthen protection for borrowers, such as controls on interest rates and fees, which were implemented in 2015. We will be implementing further regulatory changes 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":"Applications for Charity or IPC Status","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) in 2015, how many applications have been made for charity or IPC status respectively; (b) of these, how many applications have been approved respectively; and (c) what are the main reasons for rejecting a charity or IPC status application respectively.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: In 2015, 86 applications were made for charity status. As at 31 March 2016, 41 of these have been registered as charities and 17 charity applications were rejected. In the same period, 39 applications were made for Institution of a Public Character (IPC) status. Of these, 30 were granted IPC status and three were rejected. The remaining cases were withdrawn or are still under consideration.
Most of the rejected applications for charity registration were unable to meet registration requirements, such as having objects which were exclusively charitable. Some were rejected due to the lack of substantive activities, programmes or plans to demonstrate their sustainability. Others were rejected because they did not have clear intended beneficiaries or because their activities did not substantially benefit the community in Singapore.
The main reasons for rejecting IPC applications were poor governance, qualified audited financial statements, regulatory non-compliance or because applicants conducted activities which were not wholly beneficial to the community in Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Local Businesses' Access to OBS Facilities at Coney Island","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Thomas Chua Kee Seng asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth whether local businesses can access the facilities at the new Outward Bound Singapore (OBS) to be built on Coney Island for their team-building activities as the existing OBS at Pulau Ubin no longer caters to businesses.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The new Outward Bound School (OBS) @ Coney, together with OBS' existing premises on Pulau Ubin, will expand OBS' capacity to provide outdoor adventure training opportunities for every youth as they go through upper secondary school.
Our priority in the next few years will be to recruit and train additional quality instructional staff to provide safe and meaningful experiences for all students attending OBS programmes.
OBS' priority is to develop resilient youths through shared challenging experiences. Corporates can tap on outdoor adventure providers in the private sector.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Land Gazetted as Nature Reserves and Nature Areas","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development (a) what percentage of land is currently gazetted as nature reserves and nature areas respectively; and (b) whether there are plans to increase the number or size of nature reserves or nature areas.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Singapore is a city-state and, unlike other countries with large land mass, Singapore has to accommodate all our needs within limited land. Nonetheless, we recognise the value of these greenery and biodiversity systems and make a constant effort to sustain them. Today, there are four gazetted Nature Reserves and 20 recognised Nature Areas in Singapore. Nature Reserves and Nature Areas make up about 5% and 3% of Singapore’s land area respectively. Together, they occupy about 5,400 hectares. This is a significant size and is equivalent to about eight Ang Mo Kio towns, or almost half of all housing land in Singapore.
In addition to setting aside land for Nature Reserves and Nature Areas, we have been adopting unique solutions to conserve nature in our urban setting. For instance, by incorporating green spaces extensively within our urban environment, we have retained a fascinating diversity of native plant species in our city. We have also weaved nature deep into our heartlands through an extensive network of park connectors, Nature Ways and projects like the Active, Beautiful and Clean Waters Programme. We will continue to look for opportunities to integrate greenery and biodiversity in our urban environment and create a high-quality living environment for all.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Utilisation Rate of HDB Community Spaces","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether there have been studies on the utilisation rate of HDB community spaces; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider renting selected community spaces to private property owners who live close to the rented space for the purpose of funerals, subject to reasonable limits on usage and payment of higher charges than those payable by HDB flat owners.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) provides a variety of spaces for residents' use, such as precinct pavilions and void decks. From feedback, we know that these community spaces are in demand and popular with residents. They are designed as public spaces for all to enjoy and use freely. So, it is not practical to track the utilisation rate of these spaces.
In accordance with the Town Councils (Use of Common Property) Rules, the Town Councils may issue permits and impose charges, as they consider necessary, for the use of common property for social or communal functions such as weddings or funerals at void decks, open spaces and precinct pavilions.
All applicants who wish to apply to use these spaces could approach the relevant Town Councils which would process such applications, while taking into consideration residents' needs and possible disamenities to residents living in the precinct.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Programme on Human Anatomy and Respect for Members of the Opposite Sex for Kindergartens","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Acting Minister for Education (Schools) whether the Ministry will require all kindergartens to run a programme to (i) help students identify what are private body parts and why they should not touch one another inappropriately and (ii) educate them as to whom they should report the matter when they are inappropriately touched.
Mr Ng Chee Meng: Some preschools plan activities and make use of everyday teachable moments to help children learn about body safety, including programmes in partnership with community partners. The Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) is also exploring how preschools can be further supported to teach body-safety skills in an age-appropriate manner to children.
The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) and ECDA also have in place a reporting and support system to guide pre-school teachers who have concerns over a child's safety or suspect child abuse. Preschool teachers can approach ECDA or MSF for advice on appropriate actions to take.
In addition, the Ministry of Education's Nurturing Early Learners (NEL) Framework includes guidelines for pre-school teachers to help their children develop a positive self-concept and learn values and socially acceptable behaviours. The NEL Framework covers topics on general safety and how to help children to talk about their feelings and seek help from adults, including their teachers and parents, when they feel hurt or unsafe.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Private Education Institutions Offering Industry-relevant Training","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Acting Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) how many private education institutions currently offer industry-relevant training.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: There are 61 private education institutions (PEIs) that offer Workforce Skills Qualifications (WSQ) training in a range of industries from hospitality to digital animation. In addition, another 18 PEIs offer other industry-related courses supported by Government agencies such as the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) and Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA). These include PEIs such as ST Aerospace Academy and SEED Institute, which offer training in niche fields, such as aerospace and early childhood education.
PEIs need to work with industry and constantly update its curriculum to stay relevant. Individuals also need to assess a course carefully before enrolling.
To help support individuals in their decision-making, the Council for Private Education (CPE) makes available information on a PEI’s registration validity and course offerings on its website. CPE also releases online advisories which provide key facts and guides for prospective students in choosing a PEI and lists enforcement actions taken against PEIs and/or managers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[],"onlinePDFFileName":""}