1 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Defence (a) what is the current proportion of servicewomen in the SAF; (b) what is the current proportion of SAF servicewomen in senior leadership; (c) what measures will be taken to increase the proportion of SAF servicewomen and SAF servicewomen in senior leadership and to expand the roles that can be held by SAF servicewomen.
2 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Defence with regard to the enlistment of women for National Service (NS) (a) whether there are any other considerations apart from having adequate NS population to meet our national security and defence needs; and (b) if so, what are these other considerations.
The Minister for Defence (Dr Ng Eng Hen): Mr Speaker, can I have your permission to take Question Nos 1 and 2 together, as they are related?
\tMr Speaker: Please do.
\tDr Ng Eng Hen: Thank you. In general, the questions raised by Ms Poh Li San and Ms Carrie Tan deal with the role of women in the national defence of Singapore. Similar issues were raised during the debate in this House on the White Paper on Singapore Women's Development and my reply today will address the general theme, as well as specific queries.
The proposal to enlist women into National Service (NS) is not new. In fact, it was debated as early as 1967, when NS was first introduced into this House. It was during the debate on the National Service (Amendment) Bill. To the then-Member of Parliament for Tiong Bahru, Mr Lee Teck Him, Dr Goh Keng Swee replied that we had not reached the stage where mandating NS for women was necessary.
The Government's position on the conscription of women into military service remains today. But it is important to state clearly why we hold to this position, so that this House and Singaporeans understand how we have sustained the strong support for NS and built up a credible SAF. The principal considerations which go to the heart of Ms Carrie Tan's questions, that men, but not women, were mandatorily enlisted when NS began, had less to do with gender equality than the pressing need to quickly build up a military to defend Singapore. The British had announced in 1967 that they would pull out all forces from Singapore by April 1971 and that precipitated a live challenge.
An SAF had to be built from scratch and expeditiously, because there were clear and present dangers that threatened our very existence as a fledgling nation. Dr Goh Keng Swee and his officials and the SAF pioneers' first preference was, actually, not NS conscription, but an army formed by regulars, men and women. They did not want to deal with the potential problems of NS – turning civilians into soldiers, equity, defaulters, deserters, training injuries and even deaths, among them. But, a regular army would not have been sufficient to protect Singapore. So, NS was started and this House subsequently passed the Enlistment Act in 1970.
The Enlistment Act to effect NS, as it was originally drafted and stands, allows for both males and females to be enlisted, the precise clause – a \"person subject to this Act means a person who is a citizen of Singapore or a permanent resident thereof…\" It does not exclude women.
In fact, Mr Lee Kuan Yew wrote in his memoirs \"From Third World to First: The Singapore Story\", and I quote, \"I was keen to have our women do National Service as Israeli women did, because that would reinforce the people's will to defend themselves. But Keng Swee did not want his new Ministry to carry this extra burden. As the other Ministers in Defco\" – meaning Defence Council – \"were also not anxious to draft our women, I did not press my point.\"
\"An extra burden\" – our founding leaders and Dr Goh Keng Swee were honest and professional in their assessment. Building up SAF with male conscripts alone was difficult. I quote for you Dr Goh's words: \"At that time, we were just beginning; SAFTI was just ongoing, probably producing its first or second output of non-commissioned officers (NCOs) and officer cadets. We had an acute shortage of training officers and commanders from NCOs upwards, and the thought of raising a huge NSF army just made us shrink from the responsibility.\"
We are used to the image of Singapore's Founding Fathers. In fact, behind the brave exterior of SAF pioneers, laid doubts and insecurities. Enlisting women would have been an \"extra burden\" that they did not want to take on.
Today, NS is well-accepted and SAF functions well. So, it is hard to imagine that Dr Goh Keng Swee and the SAF pioneers could have felt overwhelmed – so much so that, today, I think we take NS for granted. But, despite the enormous challenge that our founders had, they persisted, overcame and we enjoy the fruits of their labours.
In 1975, full-time NS could be extended to bring in NSFs for the Singapore Police Force (SPF) as well as for the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) in 1981.
NS has succeeded well enough in building a credible SAF with male conscripts, such that in 1983, when the topic of NS for women resurfaced, SAF's professional assessment then was \"that the SAF could cope with the manpower shortage through various efficiency and technological means.\" Indeed, this is the case today.
Despite falling birth rates, SAF has maintained operational readiness with reduced manpower through the same use of technology and optimising resources. I have given many examples in this House of how this transformation has produced today's modern SAF that is more mechanised, motorised, lethal and effective, despite smaller numbers of soldiers.
Having reached this position of strength, should we, for the sake of gender equality, introduce NS for women? I think that is the question that some people have put forth. Some proposed this idea during the debate on the White Paper, including to deploy these NS conscripts as nurses or teachers. I think there are distinct pitfalls, if conscription is implemented for any other reason than the critical need of military defence, whether it is for men or women.
Compared to 1967, when we introduced NS, Singapore remains one of the few countries that NS is accepted, working well and enjoys strong public support. And the main reason that we have this virtuous state of affairs is that we have kept the mission of NS clearly focused on the critical need for national defence. The primary reason for enlistment into SAF must remain to train a soldier who is able to defend Singapore and to repel, if not defeat, an enemy who wants to invade our country. Likewise, enlistment into the Police and SCDF must be based on the national need for homeland security and emergency services.
This stark raison d'être of NS to fight and defend our country and ensure its security is the foremost consideration that must undergird the mandatory enlistment of all National Servicemen. It is very far off from the proposals to conscript women to serve in roles such as caregivers and healthcare workers, or to send a powerful signal of gender equality. These are inadequate justifications or reasons to mandate that someone must suspend individual liberties as a civilian, give up two years of his or her life; and, if they do not, they go to jail, as our Courts have sentenced NS defaulters.
Further, the societal cost of enlisting women into NS now would far outweigh the benefits. Women would be delayed in their entry into the workforce. The immediate effect will be an accentuated decline in the size of our local workforce and the reduction of household incomes. Even if women are enlisted for non-military NS roles to augment our healthcare and social services, it may make manpower shortages in other industries worse.
Over the long term, it will impose a great cost not only on women themselves, but also on their families, children and spouses, and society as a whole. Is that cost justified to send a signal or to reverse stereotypes? From the Government's perspective, no. I think most Singaporeans would say no, too, from a security perspective.
But, if Singapore was ever threatened with an existential threat by an aggressor and have a sudden and great need to boost our military, I am certain that MINDEF and SAF would call on the Government of that day to enlist not only women, but even teenagers and older men into military service to defend and save Singapore.
The Ukrainians did exactly this when their homeland was invaded. They required women employed in a wide range of professions, aged between 18 and 60, to register for possible military conscription. Young men and the elderly, who were well past their retirement age, also volunteered to fight on the frontlines to protect their country. In fact, I had a few emails from retired Singaporean males who offered to come back into the SAF, I am not sure why, when Ukraine was invaded. I sent them a polite reply and said, \"we do not need you, yet.\"
There was even a report published in Reuters in February 2022 of a 79-year-old Ukrainian woman, who was filmed at a training ground handling a Kalashnikov assault rifle.
But we are not there today and hope never to be.
In considering NS for women, we should not inadvertently downplay or dismiss the already significant contributions that women do make in national defence and security by serving as Regulars and volunteers.
Ms Poh Li San asked about the measures undertaken to expand the roles that Regular servicewomen can serve in SAF. Our Regular servicewomen currently serve in vocations, such as Infantry, Artillery, Armour, Combat Engineers, Pilots and Naval Officers, amongst others. Today, we have more than 1,600 uniformed servicewomen in SAF who make up about 8% of our Regulars. In addition, more than 500 women have been trained and deployed as SAF volunteers (SVs) in a variety of roles since 2015.
Indeed, servicewomen within SAF hold their own and many punch above their weight. Progression to senior ranks for all personnel is based on merit, capability and aptitude, as it is for all soldiers. Currently, women make up 5% of Regulars holding senior ranks of Lieutenant Colonel (LTC), Military Expert (ME) ME6, or Master Warrant Officer (MWO) and above. We hope to see this figure increase as the proportion of servicewomen in SAF continues to grow.
We need to look no further than Members in this House as good examples – Ms Gan Siow Huang and Ms Poh Li San. As our first female Brigadier-General in SAF, Ms Gan took command of the Air Power Generation Command, which is the largest formation in the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF). Ms Poh also started her career in RSAF as a helicopter Search and Rescue pilot and was the Flight Commander of 125 Squadron. She was also the first female full-time Aide-de-Camp to the late President, Mr SR Nathan.
Outside SAF, women serve as Regulars in SPF and SCDF, and contribute to our national defence and security. For example, other than serving in SPF as a Police Inspector in the 1990s, Ms Sylvia Lim was appointed as a member of the Advisory Council on Community Relations in Defence, ACCORD, from 2012 to 2020, where she maintained support for our national defence among the community and business groups.
Ms Poh Li San also asked about SAF's efforts to continue expanding the proportion of servicewomen in SAF and those who hold senior leadership positions. We have stepped up our recruitment of women because SAF wants more women to join our ranks and will make it more attractive for them to do so. For example, we facilitate flexible work arrangements, such as part-time or job-sharing and telecommuting, where possible, without compromising operational readiness. We have also implemented policies to help our servicemen and women take better care of their loved ones with childcare and parent care leave, and counselling services to support their well-being. Aside from career progression and opportunities in the workplace, SAF has also taken proactive steps to improve servicewomen recruitment and retention. It set up the SAF Women Outreach Office (WOO) in July 2020. This provides dedicated focus to review policies and create a conducive and progressive workplace experience for our servicewomen.
Sir, let me summarise and conclude.
Compulsory NS comes with significant costs on enlistees and the society and can only be justified if it serves the critical need of national security and defence. This is the basis of the social compact and individual responsibility for NS, and those who do not comply are dealt with harshly. Historically, SAF started the conscription of males and is able to defend Singapore today against potential aggressors and provide adequate deterrence. Likewise, the enlistment of males into SPF and SCDF is sufficient for our homeland security needs. There is, currently, no need for us to enlist women for NS.
We should not enlist women for NS to perform roles outside SAF, SPF or SCDF, even if that achieves some social good. The cost on women themselves, their families and society does not justify enlisting women into NS for those reasons. Women are already contributing to nation-building as Regulars and volunteers. SAF and Home Team welcome more women to pursue full-time careers or join their volunteer units.
Mr Speaker: Ms Poh Li San.
\tMs Poh Li San (Sembawang): I would like to thank the Minister. I have two supplementary questions. Firstly, given the declining birth rates and also a shrinking male population over the next 10 to 20 years, other than transformation using technology, does MINDEF have plans to further increase the recruitment of full-time servicewomen to augment the numbers to meet operational needs?
My second question is on flexible work arrangements (FWAs) for our servicewomen. Beyond no-pay leave and current FWAs, what else can MINDEF offer our servicewomen, so that they can spend a few years to start their young families and still come back to the force to contribute?
\tDr Ng Eng Hen: Mr Speaker, the short answer to the first question by Ms Poh Li San is: yes, we are stepping up recruitment not only for women, but Singaporeans across the board. Thankfully, and I suppose, expectedly, we are counter cyclical when it comes to the economy. Our recruitment has been fairly successful and our attrition quite low. But, despite that, we recognise that there are falling numbers. As I had said, even with the decline in manpower and our birth rates, we have been able to keep SAF's effectiveness and operational readiness.
In terms of how we are adapting SAF and MINDEF to be a choice workplace for Singaporeans, it is an HR challenge – let me frame it that way. In other words, despite being a military, how do you attract and recruit Singaporeans – males, females – who want to join you? We are taking this challenge seriously. We recognise that COVID-19 has precipitated a number of changes, which will not go back to status quo ante.
We have peculiar security needs, so, working from home is harder. In lieu of that, let me give an example. Instead of working from home – you cannot work from home because our IT systems are often, for classification purposes, separated from the grid – we have set up work near homes. So, now, servicewomen and servicemen can go near their homes to a secure system and do their work. We have set it up now over in northeast, southwest and central Singapore.
And just like the whole-of-Government and Civil Service, we are seeing how work away from office – rather than near home or at home – is very much, we believe, an entrenched concept. If you try to fight it, you will not become an attractive recruiter as an organisation. We are going to embrace it, but see how it works.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
\tMr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Speaker, I generally agree with what the Minister for Defence has explained on the women's role in the defence of Singapore. However, I think it is also an appropriate instance now to raise the issue: is the sharing of the burden of the defence of our country now being reviewed, in view of the fact that we have a rising population, but we continue to have a declining number of male enlistees? So, is there a review being done as to how we can ensure that the sharing of the burden of the defence of this country is being done properly?
\tDr Ng Eng Hen: Mr Speaker, can I ask the Member to clarify what he means \"sharing of burden\"? Who and which group is he referring to?
\tMr Leong Mun Wai: What I am referring to is, the burden of defending this country must be shared, in my opinion, by all the citizens of this country. That is why we are here today, talking about what are the roles women can play, whether they can play a bigger role in the defence of this country. So, at the same time, we also know that our population is increasing, but there are still not enough male enlistees in our SAF. So, why is that situation allowed to be continued?
\tDr Ng Eng Hen: Mr Speaker, I have gone to great lengths in describing that SAF, even from its inception, had made use of technology and optimising resources, so that we can build a credible and strong SAF, even despite declining enlistees. So, the assertion by Mr Leong Mun Wai goes completely against what I have said in the last 15 minutes. He either does not believe me or thinks that SAF is not credible, and, therefore, the rest of his questions are not germane.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Law Students Found Cheating in Bar Examinations and Steps to Address Public Concerns","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Law (a) whether there were similar instances of cheating by trainee lawyers in the years prior to the recent discovery of candidates cheating in the 2020 Part B Bar examination and (b) if so, what actions were taken against them.
4 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Law (a) whether any steps need to be taken to address public concerns about the law students found cheating; and (b) whether the punishments meted out are sufficient.
5 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Law (a) whether the Singapore Institute of Legal Education (SILE) has observed a similar trend of trainee lawyers cheating in their Bar examinations, especially for the 2021 cohort; and (b) whether the Ministry intends to introduce any rules to regulate trainee lawyers' conduct so as to ensure that they are deemed ethically ready to be called to the Bar.
\tThe Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to answer all the Parliamentary Questions related to the recent incidents of cheating by trainee lawyers during the 2020 Bar examinations together? That would include Question Nos 3, 4 and 5 in the Order Paper from Mr Seah Kian Peng, Ms He Ting Ru and Ms Hany Soh, as well as Question No 11 for Written Answer from Mr Ang Wei Neng filed for today's Sitting.
Mr Speaker: Please proceed.
\tMr K Shanmugam: Thank you, Sir. Sir, the Singapore Institute of Legal Education (SILE) conducts the Bar examinations in Singapore. SILE has said that it has put in place additional safeguards to prevent cheating. It has introduced remote proctoring for examinations that are conducted online and SILE's position is that, apart from the 11 cases which have been uncovered, they have not found any other cases of cheating in the subsequent rounds of the Bar examinations. But, of course, the fact is that there is a difference between whether it has happened and what they have found. But they have not found anything else.
As regards these particular trainee lawyers, SILE has required that all of them who cheated are to repeat the preparatory course and/or the Bar examinations in the next year. The Attorney-General has objected to their applications for admission because of the cheating during the Bar examinations and the Court has adjourned their hearings for admission. So, what does that mean? It means that their applications to be admitted to the Bar will be heard at some time in the future, when the adjournments end. To get admitted, they will need to convince all the stakeholders involved that they are fit and proper to practise law before they are allowed to do so.
As with all admission applications, the High Court has the discretion to rule on whether a particular applicant should be admitted or should not be admitted, taking into account the views of the Attorney-General, SILE and the Law Society.
We need to be careful about how much we discuss here and I have to be careful of what I say because the applications of the trainee lawyers who cheated are still pending in Court. In the circumstances, what I can say is this: lawyers are fiduciaries. They are expected to act in the best interests of the clients they advise. They are also officers of the Court, meaning they owe a very high duty to the Court. They have to be honest, both with their clients and with the Court. They have to act with the highest standards of probity to ensure that they can be relied upon with utmost confidence. That is not just as lawyers advising clients, but in every other aspect of their conduct.
Cheating is a serious derogation from the basic principle of honesty. I think all this can be said without too much contention. There are levels of seriousness when lawyers behave dishonestly: misleading clients is serious, lying in Court is serious, lying on oath is serious. Some of these carry potential criminal consequences. There is also other conduct which, if it is unbefitting of a lawyer, whether or not in the context of advising a client, can also be taken up.
These are basic principles. I am sure Members, including the Members who have asked the questions, would accept that any such conduct is quite unacceptable.
What happens to the particular trainee lawyers' applications, how they will be dealt with – the Courts will decide, taking into account the views of the respective institutions, which will put forward their views.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Seah Kian Peng.
\tMr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have three supplementary questions for the Minister.
\tMr Speaker: If you can keep it to two questions, please. Thank you.
\tMr Seah Kian Peng: Okay. First one: the Minister mentioned that SILE has since put in additional safeguards. Of course, we could say we are smarter in hindsight, but my question is, why were some of these safeguards not put in place in the first instance? If some of the trainees in previous examinations – which is the question I filed – have subsequently been practising, may I ask the Minister whether the LawSoc has found any misconduct amongst any of them in that group? These are the earlier cases. Were there any similar cases of examinees that cheated in the past?
My second supplementary question is: earlier on, we were concerned about second chances. Given that the names of these candidates are now revealed, what can we say about giving them second chances?
\tMr K Shanmugam: Mr Seah Kian Peng's first question is: why did SILE not put in safeguards earlier? Sir, I cannot speak for SILE. I assume that they, perhaps, expected lawyers to be more honest than what has turned out to be the case, at least, with regard to some of them; and, prior to COVID-19, examinations were usually conducted physically. So, I do not think SILE has that much experience conducting it in this format. Second, with regard to whether there were earlier cases, Sir, what I can say is: SILE says that it has not found situations of such cheating. I drew a distinction between that and whether something like that has actually happened.
\tMr Speaker: There was a second supplementary question, Minister, about second chances.
\tMr K Shanmugam: My apologies. On whether it should be a question of second chances, I think the way we ought to approach it is this. The first point should be: what is the offence and who committed the offence? The offence here is cheating – which is serious. Who committed it? Trainee lawyers – that is also serious, doubly serious. You start with that and the message has got to go out to others that all of this will be dealt with very seriously. I do not think anyone can dispute that.
Second, at the same time, what is the right penalty? As I have said, that is before the Courts, so, we need to be careful. But I think we can say this much. These are young people. Does that mean that we forever prevent them from practising? I think most people would say that would sound very harsh. So, what is the appropriate penalty, taking into account the seriousness of the offence, but also their age and should they forever be prevented from being lawyers, being called to the Bar? I think most people would think that is probably too harsh.
Should they face significant sanctions that bring across the seriousness of the conduct? I think most people would agree with that. Within that framework, how the Courts decide, I think we have to wait and see.
\t
\tMr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.
\tMs Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Thank you, Speaker. This question is akin to what Minister has just responded to, in relation to recommending having a rehabilitative nature or giving these trainee solicitors a second chance: whether we can also explore recommending that these trainee lawyers be conditionally called, continue to have close supervision by their supervising solicitors or representative from the Law Society and serve the community by volunteering in cases through the Legal Aid Bureau or the Criminal Legal Aid schemes, until they are deemed satisfied by their supervising solicitors.
\tMr K Shanmugam: I think the points made are interesting. As to whether they need close supervision, at the age of 23 or 25, I do not think you need to have close supervision to know that you ought not to be cheating in an examination, because, being Singaporeans, they would have gone through examinations for the most part of their lives and one hopes that this was not earlier practised.
I think there are some merits in some of the other points about requiring them to do some service to the community. But these are not things that are decided by the Government. We can decide as a matter of policy in future under the law, but for these specific cases, these are matters that are between the Attorney-General's Chambers and the Law Society to make suggestions and for the Courts to decide.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessed Impact of COVID-19 Lockdown in Chinese Cities on Supply Chains and Measures to Ensure Accessibility of Essential Goods and Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) in view of the various lockdowns in China due to the latest COVID-19 outbreak, what is the assessed impact to supply chains and rising prices in Singapore; (b) which industries or goods and services have been or are anticipated to be most badly hit; and (c) whether any further measures are being taken to alleviate this impact, particularly for the availability and accessibility of essential goods and services.
\tThe Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Low Yen Ling) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, the recent outbreaks of COVID-19 cases in China have prompted movement controls to be imposed in various Chinese cities, including Shanghai. As a major supplier of many goods to the world, the reduction in economic activity in China will, inevitably, lead to some supply chain disruptions, particularly delays in the fulfilment of manufacturing orders and shipping time. However, cargo is still able to leave from Shanghai port and, where necessary, is being redirected to other ports in China or other transport modes, such as air.
Industries in Singapore will feel the impact of the supply chain disruptions to varying degrees, depending on their dependence on imported supplies from China and their contingency plans. Since the outbreak of COVID-19, many companies have strengthened their business continuity plans (BCPs) and supply chain resilience plans, which include holding more inventory buffers and diversifying their supplier sources to mitigate the impact of supply disruptions.
Our key imports from China include electronics, machinery and metals. These are, primarily, intermediate goods that are required by companies in the manufacturing and construction sectors. Based on feedback from companies in these sectors, we understand that most of them have been able to cope with the delays in shipments from China thus far.
We also do not expect the lockdowns in the Shanghai port to significantly affect Singapore's supplies of essential food and healthcare items, as our reliance on China is relatively low and the cities where we import most of our food supplies are not classified as high risk ones for now. The Government will continue to adopt a multi-pronged approach of import diversification, local production and stockpiling, which will help to minimise supply shocks.
Nonetheless, as the lockdowns in China have further strained global supply chains, which are already under stress due to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, they are likely to exacerbate global inflationary pressures in the near term. How the effects play out over the longer term will depend on the scale and extent of the lockdowns and their impact on China's economy.
The Government recognises that rising cost pressures and higher frequency of supply disruptions have affected businesses. To cope with these challenges, some businesses have had to hold higher inventory buffers which will require more working capital. To support companies with their cashflow needs, we had announced at Budget 2022 an extension of the Temporary Bridging Loan (TBL) programme and the enhanced Trade Loan Scheme up to 30 September 2022. In addition, the three rounds of tightening of Singapore's monetary policy over the past six months should also help moderate the pass-through effects of external inflationary pressures.
Furthermore, the Government has announced more assistance for lower-income households to cope with higher prices. As the Minister for Finance mentioned in his Ministerial Statement just last month on 4 April 2022 in Parliament, the Social Service Offices, or SSOs, will provide a minimum duration of six months' support for all new ComCare Short- to Medium-Term Assistance (SMTA) clients who apply between April and September this year. Households which are already on ComCare SMTA can also have their assistance extended for at least another three months, if they require further help.
The SSOs will continue to exercise flexibility to provide those in need with financial assistance and support. This includes providing ComCare recipients with more cash assistance during this period to cope with inflationary pressures. We will, certainly, continue to monitor the situation closely.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Projected Impact on Export Competitiveness from Strengthening of Singapore Dollar","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Prime Minister in light of the tighter monetary policy stance taken by MAS (a) what is the projected impact on our trade exports from the strengthening of the Singapore dollar; (b) how will the Government ensure that the strengthened Singapore dollar does not adversely impact our export competitiveness in the long run; and (c) whether the Ministry will continue to strengthen the Singapore dollar if core inflation does not moderate over the next few months.
\tThe Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Prime Minister): The Monetary Authority of Singapore's (MAS) monetary policy is aimed at keeping inflation low, especially over the medium term. Achieving low inflation also supports sustained economic growth.
MAS seeks to achieve this through an exchange rate-centred monetary policy, in particular, by managing the Singapore dollar against a basket of currencies of Singapore's major trading partners. When inflationary pressures build up, MAS allows the trade-weighted exchange rate to appreciate faster, thereby helping to reduce imported inflation. MAS has tightened its monetary policy stance three times since October 2021, when the Authority shifted to a slight appreciation of the policy band within which the exchange rate is managed. This has been in line with rising global price pressures and the improvement in external economic conditions.
The strengthening of the Singapore dollar is necessary to dampen inflation and to help preserve the purchasing power of businesses and households. It is not expected to have a significant negative impact on Singapore's exports. Growth in non-oil domestic exports has remained firm in Q1 2022. With continuing uncertainty in the global economic environment, Singapore's exports are, primarily, dependent on demand rather than our exchange rate. This is borne out in EDB's latest survey of Business Expectations of the Manufacturing Sector, which showed that the Singapore dollar exchange rate is not a key limiting factor for manufacturing firms' export orders. Singapore's exports are, generally, high value-added products and services where demand is less sensitive to price and, therefore, exchange rate changes. Further, a stronger exchange rate helps reduce the import costs faced by our export industries.
MAS expects core inflation to continue to rise in the coming months before peaking at around 4% in Q3 this year. Inflation is, however, expected to remain at elevated rates for some time, higher than what we have experienced in recent years. This has, primarily, been due to pressures in global energy and other commodity markets.
However, because MAS began shifting its policy stance early, it has been able to respond to rising inflationary pressure through gradual shifts in exchange rate policy, including in its latest April Monetary Policy Statement. Had MAS not begun tightening policy last year, ahead of many central banks, it would have had to allow for a steeper appreciation of the exchange rate.
MAS' monetary policy response is also part of the Government's multi-pronged strategy to deal with rising inflationary pressures. As Members know, the Government has set aside considerable resources to help Singapore businesses, especially SMEs, and our households cope with higher costs.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
\tMr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Speaker, I have two supplementary questions for the Minister of State. One, how does MAS expect the strengthening of the Singapore dollar to affect Singapore's GDP forecast for the year? Two, the tightening effects of our monetary policy are, eventually, relative to what other countries have similarly done. So, how has the surge in the US dollar dampened the effects of the measures to tighten or strengthen the Singapore dollar, and if so, will further measures be needed?
\tMr Alvin Tan: I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. In the absence of further disruptions caused by the Ukraine war or a severe setback in trajectory of the pandemic, the Singapore economy should grow at an above-trend pace for the second consecutive year at around 3% to 5% this year. The April 2022 Monetary Policy Statement has reaffirmed MAS' assessment of this GDP growth forecast range, barring significant external shocks that I mentioned earlier. And MAS' monetary policy stance is consistent with the macroeconomic outcome of GDP growth within this forecast range.
As I have mentioned in my original answer, MAS manages the Singapore dollar against a basket of currencies of Singapore's major trading partners, within the policy band. So, any bilateral exchange rate movement will, accordingly, have a more muted impact on the Singapore dollar's effective exchange rate, which remains in line with MAS' monetary policy stance, as announced in April.
But MAS will continue to focus on medium-term price stability and avoid sudden large shifts in policy and, in aggregate, will remain vigilant to developments in the external environment and their impact on the Singapore economy.
\tMr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for his clarification. I wonder, in light of what he shared about how MAS has allowed three separate adjustments to the band since last year, I would note that the Singapore dollar has only appreciated, depending on how one measures it – between 1.5% and about 2.7% or 2.8% since then. Of course, inflation rates are significantly higher than that. I am wondering whether a stronger appreciation of the Singapore dollar may be warranted and if this is a consideration that MAS will seriously consider in the months ahead.
\tMr Alvin Tan: I thank the Member for his question. We do not give advance guidance of future exchange rate policy. But, as I mentioned earlier on, MAS will continue to focus on medium-term price stability and avoid sudden large shifts in policy. But the key thing is that because of the way in which our exports and imports are structured, the impact on price competitiveness vis-à-vis our exports is not heavily affected. I think that is quite critical.
The second part is that we will continue to strengthen our companies, as well as the export competitiveness, but I think the appreciation of the slope will help our exports to remain competitive in the long run.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Financially-distressed Consumers Seeking Debt Management Assistance and Respite Measures for Consumers and Businesses With Short-term Liquidity Issues","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Prime Minister in light of rising interest rates (a) whether there has been an increasing trend over the past year in the number of financially-distressed consumers who have sought debt management assistance; (b) whether the Government intends to introduce measures to afford temporary respite to consumers and businesses who encounter short-term liquidity issues; and (c) what are some foreseeable knock-on impacts.
\tThe Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Prime Minister): The number of financially-distressed consumers who have sought assistance from banks is not high and has been decreasing over the past year. Broader indicators also suggest that the household and corporate debt situation in Singapore remains resilient on the whole.
The proportion of non-performing mortgages has remained low, at less than 1% last year. And the Monetary Authority of Singapore's (MAS) stress test suggests that the median household's mortgage servicing ratio should remain manageable, even under scenarios of significantly higher interest rates or lower incomes.
The proportion of non-performing corporate loans has also remained low, at about 2.6%. Here, too, MAS' stress test suggests that debt servicing of Singapore-listed firms is likely to remain manageable as interest rates rise, with most firms having sufficient earnings to cover their interest expenses and cash reserves to provide buffers.
Industry-wide credit relief measures have been gradually withdrawn, in line with the broadening of the economic recovery and the steady decline in the number of applications for assistance. These measures, introduced in March 2020, were meant to provide short-term relief and support to individuals and SMEs, as stringent public health measures led to temporary cashflow difficulties.
Conversely, recent market-driven interest rate increases have been accompanied by continuing income growth. This mitigates their impact on the debt-servicing ability of most borrowers. Indeed, the debt relief schemes introduced during the pandemic are not meant to insulate borrowers from the normalisation of interest rates.
However, a small segment of households, especially those with higher leverages, could be more constrained by higher interest rates. So, they should approach their lenders early to explore possible loan refinancing and repayment solutions.
For financially-distressed HDB homeowners, MAS has worked with MND, HDB, MOM and financial institutions to establish standardised interventions when late repayments occur. These include potential loan restructuring solutions, early referrals to appropriate social service agencies and, in certain limited cases, helping them obtain alternative HDB accommodation where foreclosures are unavoidable. Likewise, companies with low net profit margins should approach their lenders early to work out suitable loan repayment schemes and plans.
More broadly, everyone should exercise caution in their new borrowings. Households and businesses should plan for future and further interest rate increases and be sure of their ability to service their loans before making additional long-term financial commitments.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of State for his detailed answers. I have two supplementary questions. First, the reason why I am asking this question is because I am concerned about the slow, but then, eventually, rapid boil from the rising interest rates, in particular, the impact on the rising cash outlays by households and businesses, particularly from the cascading effect of the interest rate.
So, my first question: is it possible to assess the rising cash outflows and its impact on households from the rising interest rates for this year and next?
The second question is probably what is the proportion of Singaporean households vulnerable and likely to turn vulnerable at the margin, rather than currently vulnerable, as mentioned by the Minister of State. And what can they do now as Singaporean households and businesses mostly affected by the potentially slow, but then, rapidly boiling effects of rising interest rates, as we go forward beyond the second half of this year?
\tMr Alvin Tan: I thank Mr Saktiandi Supaat for his supplementary question. Most households should still be able to service their mortgages and other debt obligations, as Singapore's domestic interest rates pick up alongside global rates. I would like to frame my answer, quite helpfully, with regard to the mortgage as well as the total debt servicing ratio, which I think covers quite a lot of what the Member is concerned about.
The total debt servicing ratio framework (TDSR) captures a borrower's monthly expenses on all types of debt, including mortgages, car loans and unsecured debt, as a proportion of income. The overall debt servicing ability of households has, thus far, remained manageable, with the median TDSR being 43% last year. This is well within the recently tightened TDSR threshold of 55%. So, 43% median TDSR last year and the tightened TDSR threshold at 55%.
But, beyond mortgages, MAS has also imposed rules for car loans, as well as unsecured credit, to encourage prudent borrowing. This has helped the credit profile across these consumer loan products to remain healthy. The proportion of credit card rollover balances, as a share of GDP, for example, has declined since the pre-pandemic period from 1.3% in Q4 2019, to about 1% as at end 2021, and the charge-off rates have similarly decreased from 6.3% in Q4 2019, to 4.4% as at end 2021. In addition, only 0.01% of borrowers have defaulted on car loans granted by financial institutions, as at end 2021.
For the Member's second question on what consumers can do, I think that, generally, consumers can seek assistance for their outstanding debt. For example, consumers in financial distress can seek help from Credit Counselling Singapore for debt management assistance or consider taking up commercial products, such as debt consolidation plans, that may alleviate their repayment burdens.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): I thank the Minister of State for his answer. Can I ask if MAS coordinates with other agencies in the Government to look at the exposure of households to unsecured loans provided by retailers, or consumer retailers since this would be part of the broader landscape of exposure, especially with concerns about economic shocks coming from outside?
\tMr Alvin Tan: I thank Dr Tan Wu Meng for his supplementary question. The answer is yes. We have worked with Credit Counselling Singapore and also gone upstream with regard to ensuring that consumers and borrowers have increased their financial literacy, in terms of new kinds of products that the Member has mentioned.
Consumers, borrowers, members of the public can go on to MoneySense.gov.sg – that is a website that we continue to build at MAS – to help consumers understand their credit profiles, what kind of products are available on the market and also to exercise prudence in their borrowing, particularly in an environment of heightened interest rates.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Easing of COVID-19 Rules and Impact of Pandemic on Patient Treatment and Public Healthcare System","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"9 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Health (a) whether there will be guidelines or criteria developed for the reactivation of TraceTogether and SafeEntry as contact tracing tools; and (b) what examples of future situations where these tools may be used so that the public can take the necessary steps to retain their tokens where necessary.
10 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the criteria considered by the Ministry in deciding tolower the DORSCON level from Orange to Yellow; and (b) whether the Ministry will relax the rules and allow unvaccinated residents to enter malls and to dine in the food and beverage outlets together with the rest of Singaporeans.
11 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Health (a) in light of the easing of the COVID-19 safe management measures, whether community mask-off events, such as temple dinners where food is served, will be allowed; and (b) if so, under what conditions.
12 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Health given a 7% increase in the age-standardised death rate in 2021 that bucked the downward trend in previous years (a) what is the Ministry's analysis of the reasons behind this increase; (b) what is the number of excess deaths due to COVID-19; and (c) what formula is used in the Ministry's calculation of excess deaths.
13 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will conduct a study on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on (i) non-COVID-19 patients facing delayed treatment, especially older ones with chronic conditions and (ii) the public healthcare system, in view of the patient backlog from the periodic suspension of non-essential services.
\tThe Minister for Health (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I address Question Nos 9 to 13 and also the Question for Oral Answer filed by Mr Louis Chua1 for the Sitting on or after 10 May, please?
\tMr Speaker: Please do.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: With the pandemic situation stabilised, the Multi-Ministry Taskforce (MTF) took decisive steps to open up social and economic activities to almost pre-COVID-19 norms. So, to Ms Sylvia Lim's question, temples can start to organise dinners, barring any changes in rules later.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked if individuals who are not fully vaccinated can be allowed to enter malls and dine in F&B outlets. I would like to clarify that they can enter malls as we have significantly removed vaccination-differentiated safe management measures (VDS) for non-fully vaccinated persons.
However, we still need to remain cautious because the next infection wave is highly possible. We also need to watch out for new variants that may threaten us again. Hence, MTF decided to maintain VDS for the three most risky settings: nightlife outlets with dancing, events with more than 500 participants at any point in time and then, F&B outlets where there is a constant flow of diners who are mask-off and interacting. For F&B outlets, we will, however, not deploy TraceTogether and SafeEntry, but instead put the onus on customers to ensure that they are fully vaccinated before visiting an F&B outlet.
We will continue to review our VDS measures as the pandemic situation evolves.
We are taking a cautious \"step down but not dismantle\" posture for our public health measures. If the situation requires, we will have to step up VDS and reactivate TraceTogether and SafeEntry. Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked what the criteria are to reactivate these measures. It is a matter of judgement, depending on the severity of the situation. We will have to take into account if there is a new variant of concern, whether it is more severe or more infectious than the Omicron variant, whether past infections and current vaccines continue to confer strong protection against the new variant and how all these affect our hospital capacity.
I can understand that some members of the public and Members of the House want a system, with transparent and clear triggering points, but I am afraid this is not possible when we are in a pandemic crisis with fog of war. Through MTF's actions over the years, I hope the public would also appreciate where we are coming from. We do what is necessary to protect lives when danger is upon us and we will step down measures when they are no longer needed, no longer necessary, so that people can resume their normal lives.
So, the best step for the public to take is not to delete your TraceTogether app and not to throw away your TraceTogether tokens. Please keep them.
Members asked about the Disease Outbreak Response System Condition (DORSCON) framework. DORSCON was established after SARS in 2003, then reviewed and progressively improved upon from the experiences drawn from managing the H1N1 pandemic in 2009, and the coordination for the Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus and Ebola Virus Disease. Post-COVID-19, we will, certainly, review it further, along with our response measures, given all that we have learnt during this pandemic crisis.
The DORSCON framework was developed as a tool for Ministries and agencies to coordinate and execute the Government's response to outbreaks of infectious diseases. By and large, it has served its purpose well in this pandemic.
In the initial phase of the pandemic, MTF decided that, for transparency, we would announce the DORSCON level and colour code publicly, too. This would help alert the public to the need for personal vigilance and social responsibility. However, it had also led to certain public reactions, such as the rush to the supermarkets. This is one key issue for review as DORSCON is meant to bolster preparedness, not to induce public anxiety.
A key factor to consider in our review of the DORSCON framework is that after more than two years of the pandemic, the Government and our society have learnt a lot about pandemic response. We have developed a comprehensive response system, covering health protocols, border controls and safe management of social and economic activities. It is also tiered and differentiated, catering to different activities and settings, such as schools, offices, public spaces, eating places, nightlife, events and so on, with various severity conditions.
Therefore, from a public communications point of view, we believe that the public now pays much less attention to the DORSCON colour code and takes care to understand the various public health measures in detail, and then respond and do their part accordingly, be it taking vaccination, wearing masks or abiding by the safe management measures (SMMs). So, I am confident that today, we have a much more sophisticated public that understands what they need to do when a pandemic turns for the worse.
The response of the public and the contribution of everyone in our society are, ultimately, what give us resilience during a pandemic outbreak. So, the DORSCON framework is most likely still relevant, but it needs to be part of a larger emergency preparation and public communications framework that we have already developed and people now understand.
Members also asked about \"excess deaths\". Let me first explain what it is. It means comparing death rates across the years, taking into account the changing age profile of the population. If the death rate goes up in a pandemic, above that expected in the absence of a pandemic and over what is expected from population ageing, it means there are excess deaths.
For Singapore, our age-standardised death rate has decreased from 2017 to 2020, from 563 per 100,000 residents to 519 per 100,000 residents. In 2021, the rate increased to 557 per 100,000 residents, almost back to 2017 levels. So, 2021 is about the same as 2017, just a notch lower. So, there are excess deaths in 2021, compared to 2020.
\tMr Leon Perera asked why that is so and how we calculate excess deaths. We used well-established, internationally-practised methods, including age adjustments. There are excess deaths in 2021 because there had been a global pandemic, causing millions of deaths around the world, and Singapore was not exempted.
During a pandemic, excess deaths will be higher than officially reported deaths directly caused by the disease. To illustrate, a recent WHO analysis of excess deaths found that while the officially reported number of COVID-19-related deaths around the world is slightly over six million, \"excess deaths\" during this pandemic is 15 million – about 2.5 times more.
There are a few reasons to explain the difference in the two numbers. One, in some parts of the world, there can be under-reporting in regions where testing is insufficient or where data is difficult to collate. But, in Singapore, this is not an issue. Two, there are infected persons who died of other illnesses, where the COVID-19 infection might have been a contributory factor but not the main cause. Three, care-seeking behaviours changed. For example, individuals with chronic conditions may put off their check-ups, treatments and medications during the pandemic, to their own detriment. Four, there are many regions where their healthcare systems were overwhelmed. When that happens, proper care is denied and the people who suffer are not just the COVID-19-infected patients, but everyone who needs hospital care.
Our excess deaths in 2021 among Singapore residents is about 1,535. That is for 2021, when we had a Delta wave, after accounting for ageing. COVID-19 deaths as at end 2021 among residents is 804, or about 52% of excess deaths. The remainder excess deaths could be due to some of the factors I explained earlier, except under-reporting, which is not an issue in an urban environment like Singapore; also, the last reason I mentioned, hospitals being overwhelmed. That is not a big factor here, because we prioritised the protection of our healthcare system, going into a circuit breaker when necessary. So, although our hospitals came under significant pressure at the height of the infection waves, they were not overwhelmed, and hospitals could continue to give priority to serious and urgent cases.
As mentioned in the Ministry of Health (MOH) press release on 24 March 2022, MOH is continuing to collect and analyse the data, particularly the recent Omicron data, to find out more comprehensively the impact of this crisis on Singapore residents and we will release a special report soon to estimate the excess deaths over the past two and half years of the pandemic and the key factors causing the excess deaths.
I should emphasise that whether it is official COVID-19 death toll or excess deaths, Singapore will have one of the lowest rates in the world, amongst countries that have chosen to live with COVID-19 and resumed normal lives, and that is because of the cooperation of everyone in Singapore and the effectiveness of protecting our healthcare system.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin.
\tMs Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for Health as well for the response, including setting out some of the criteria which will be taken into consideration for the reactivation of the TraceTogether programme. I have a supplementary question and it was an article in The Straits Times yesterday, which said, and I quote, \"TraceTogether tokens and even SafeEntry Gateway boxes are Government properties and throwing them away could be considered an offence\", and it then goes on to list certain offences under the Penal Code, Vandalism Act and Computer Misuse Act.
I think, this has caused some alarm among people who may have inadvertently disposed of or misplaced their tokens. So, it will be very helpful to have some clarification on what to do with these tokens and what happens if there has been any inadvertent disposal, as well as some assurance in terms of the data that is or is not connected while the app remains in the phone.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: I thank the Member for her question. I read the article as well and I thought there might be a supplementary question on it. I will need to check with GovTech with regard to the status of all the equipment. As for those who have inadvertently disposed of them, do report them. I am sure the Government agencies will be as helpful as they can to try to replace them. I think our key consideration is not so much about protection of the equipment, but to make sure that should we have another variant of concern, businesses, individuals, we are ready to respond.
Mr Speaker, Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin also asked about the data. I mentioned this in an earlier reply, which is, that for events, for example, nightlife with dancing, where SafeEntry data is still collected, it will be purged very quickly.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
\tMs Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions for the Minister for Health. He mentioned earlier that vaccination-differentiated safe management measures (VDS) will still be needed for events of more than 500 participants. Can he clarify that this also applies to the community dinners that I asked for, meaning that, if the number of participants is expected to be more than 500, then the organisers would have to check that the participants are vaccinated?
Second, the Minister mentioned that these dinners can proceed. What about events or activities that are associated with the dinners, like auctions and stage performances like \"getai\"? Are all these also allowed?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: The answer to both questions is yes. So, if the temple dinner has more than 500 people, they ought to install a SafeEntry check-in counter; and then the auction and performance can proceed.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.
\tMr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Sir, I am trying to see whether the unvaccinated can live their lives normally, as with the other Singaporeans. I spoke to some unvaccinated people and they shared that, for many of them, they choose not to be vaccinated because they are worried about the severe adverse reactions.
The Minister had said that the health care system is not overwhelmed, the majority of Singaporeans are vaccinated. So, is there any way in which we can really consider removing some of the VDS, so that those who choose not to be vaccinated for whatever reasons can lead their lives as per the rest of Singaporeans? There are only about 3.5% of such people and, really, they ought to take responsibility for their own decision not to be vaccinated.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: Indeed, we all take responsibility for our own health and make our own decisions regarding our own health status, including vaccinations. The issue that we do need to consider here is that, in a pandemic crisis, individual decisions also affect the society and the healthcare system.
The Member would remember that 3.5% of our population is not fully vaccinated. They accounted for 20% of ICU cases and deaths and also add on a certain workload to our healthcare system, which, in extremis, when the numbers are huge or when we have a big wave, may mean adding a lot of pressure to our healthcare system. When that happens, it is not just the unvaccinated who will suffer, not those who are infected that will suffer, but everyone who requires hospital care, acute care and emergency services will suffer. So, it is because of that, that the decision not to vaccinate yourself is no longer just about yourself; it is also a role for us to protect the whole society.
Having said that, the last time the Member asked me that question, since then to now, we have relaxed many of the VDS restrictions for this group, because, given the current situation, we do not think it is needed. But we do worry about the next variant of concern. Most likely, it will evolve and emerge in the months to come. So, given that posture, I think, just maintain these three most risky settings where VDS will still apply and we will continue to review the situation.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
\tMr Leon Perera (Aljunied): I thank the Minister for his comprehensive answers and just a procedural clarification. If I heard correctly, the Minister said he would answer all questions until Question No 13. I am just wondering if he has answered Question No 13 as well, which is about the impact of restraints placed on non-urgent treatments and testing during COVID-19 and what backlog has there been for such treatments and testing, and what has that impact been.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: I thank the Member for the question, I intend to answer Question No 13. So, whether the Ministry will conduct a study on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on various aspects, as I mentioned, we have issued a Press Statement on 24 March, and said that we will collate all the data, and do a proper study. It is a special report on the impact of the entire pandemic and we will answer some of the questions, including the data required.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : To ask the Minister for Health (a) how has the DORSCON level guided decision-making and Government agencies’ preparedness in dealing with COVID-19 over the last two years; and (b) whether the framework will be reviewed."],"footNoteQuestions":["9","10","11","12","13"],"questionNo":"9-13"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Format of Government's After-action Review on COVID-19 and Plans to Share Review Findings or Recommendations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Prime Minister (a) what is the format of the Government's after-action review (AAR) on COVID-19; and (b) whether it plans to share the AAR's findings or recommendations with the public.
\tThe Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am taking this question on behalf of the Prime Minister.
Sir, last July, in reply to a Parliamentary Question from the Leader of the Opposition, Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean said that the Government will conduct an after-action review (AAR) of our COVID-19 response when the situation has stabilised and we are out of the woods.
Sir, our response to COVID-19 can be characterised by two broad phases. In the first phase, which was from the start of the outbreak to August last year, we focused on containing the spread of the virus. Thereafter, when we had vaccinated a high proportion of people in Singapore, we shifted our approach to learn to live with the virus. For now, the pandemic is still not over, but the situation has improved. Therefore, the Government has started work on the AAR, focusing on the first phase of our experience, in other words, what happened from the start of the outbreak till August 2021.
The AAR is intended as a broad ranging exercise to thoroughly analyse our experiences and review the lessons learnt, so that we can be better prepared for the next pandemic. We have asked the former Head of Civil Service, Mr Peter Ho, to oversee this process and he has agreed to do so. The Government will share the findings and lessons with the public, when the AAR is completed.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\t
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): I thank the Minister for Finance for answering the question. Sir, as the Minister Teo Chee Hean has alluded to, last July, Senior Minister mentioned that there were particularly severe challenges for the Government and there were many valuable lessons to be learnt from COVID-19. Likewise, only a few weeks ago, at the Administrative Service Appointment and Promotion ceremony, the Prime Minister said we will be throwing away valuable lessons for which we have paid dearly.
Sir, the public has a limited to unknown perspective on the short-comings or lessons that were paid for dearly during COVID-19 and how we can be better ready as a country, both physically and psychologically, when another pathogen or emergency hits our shores. I thank the Minister for confirming that an AAR, led by a former Head of Civil Service, is going to be conducted. Can he also share how many participants are envisaged to participate in this AAR, will it be a whole-of-Government exercise? Secondly, would this exercise also include reviewing emergency preparedness scenarios for the country and other scenarios, such as building up indigenous manufacturing capability in critical areas, for example?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, the AAR has already started, as I mentioned just now. It is, indeed, a whole-of-Government endeavour. Mr Peter Ho has been given access to all information with regard to the Government's response. He will do a thorough exercise in reviewing the Government's response, which is our intent, to learn thoroughly and rigorously from what we have experienced so far, in order that we can do better for the next pandemic, which will surely come.
This was also the approach we took when we reviewed the lessons from SARS. Which is why, as Minister Ong Ye Kung said just now, we had put in place a DORSCON framework, we set up the National Centre for Infectious Diseases (NCID). Likewise, we will learn many lessons, many useful lessons from COVID-19, particularly the first phase of the experience. And we will use these lessons to improve our response for the next pandemic.
To the second question that Mr Pritam Singh asked, indeed, the lessons that we hope to derive from this AAR will be wide-ranging and will include how we can be more resilient as a nation, how we can improve our supply chains and how we can improve our national resiliency in a broad range of areas.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
\tMr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Speaker. Can I ask the Minister whether the AAR will also include a more detailed assessment of how our $100 billion COVID-19 spending has been spent?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Sir, the AAR will be broad-ranging. As I have said, it will look at a whole range of issues. There are many things that the AAR will cover. But the focus will really be on issues of strategic and national importance which will enable us to learn and do better and be better prepared for the next pandemic. I am sure everyone will agree that it is in our shared interest to achieve that objective.
The question that Mr Leong Mun Wai has asked, really, is more pertaining to accountability with regard to monies spent, which is an important issue. But I think it is a slightly different one and MOF will be happy to take that up. We do that with regard to all areas of spending and, where relevant, we will put out information on how the monies are spent. But let the AAR focus on the more strategic and important issues that will enable us to be better prepared for the next pandemic.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Application of Previous Ban on Visitors to Preschools by Parents and Parents of Newly-enrolled Children","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the previous ban on visitors to preschools, including parents and parents of newly-enrolled children, still applies.
\tThe Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Eric Chua) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): Mr Speaker, in line with changes in our national COVID-19 posture, the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) has progressively eased visitor restrictions in our preschools. Since November last year, parents can accompany their newly-enrolled children and can do so for half a day for the first two days of preschool. For children with additional needs, preschools may exercise flexibility and allow these parents to accompany their child for a longer period. From 24 November last year, external photographers and videographers were also allowed to enter the preschool for the kindergarten graduation ceremonies.
With the recent easing of community measures, ECDA has further eased visitor restrictions to support children's learning and development. From 26 April 2022, parents may enter the preschool to attend parent-teacher conferences or as volunteers. Prospective parents may also enter the preschool to tour the preschool premises.
However, casual visitors remain restricted to lower transmission risks, as the majority of preschoolers are ineligible for vaccination. Visitors to the preschools will also be subjected to prevailing safe management measures, such as health and temperature checks and keeping their masks on at all times.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enrolments into Day Activity Centres and Plans to Cope with Increased Demand","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling –
16 To ask the Minister for Social and Family Development with regard to enrolment into Day Activity Centres (DACs) (a) whether DACs can cope with the demand in the next five years; and (b) if not, whether there are plans to (i) reduce the average waiting time for enrolment and (ii) increase the staff support in this sector.
\tMr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Question No 16, please.
\tThe Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Eric Chua) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): Mr Speaker, as of April 2022, there were 31 MSF-funded Day Activity Centres (DACs) with a total capacity of over 1,700 places and an overall utilisation rate of about 78%.
There are, currently, eight DACs with no vacancies. When individuals apply to DACs with no vacancies, SG Enable will refer the caregivers to other DACs with spare capacity. SG Enable also explores alternative support services with the caregivers, such as home-based services for the individual and respite care services for the caregivers.
In October last year, MSF increased funding for DACs by some 20%, or $3 million per year. The increased funding will allow our DACs to hire more care staff to increase their quality of care and service standards, especially for clients with higher support needs. We are also studying the longer-term demand for DACs and will look into setting up new DACs in areas where demand is expected to exceed the current supply.
MSF will continually monitor and review our funding support and programmes to meet the needs of persons with disabilities and their caregivers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans Beyond Encouraging Employers to Retain and Promote Flexible Work Arrangements as Permanent Feature of Workplace","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"17 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Manpower with regard to the easing of safe management measures (SMMs) and workers returning to their workplace, whether there are plans by the Ministry to go beyond encouraging employers to retain and promote flexible work arrangements, such as telecommuting and staggered work hours, as a permanent feature of the workplace.
\tThe Minister of State for Manpower (Ms Gan Siow Huang) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, even as we continue to ease safe management measures (SMMs) at the workplace, flexible work arrangements (FWAs) remain relevant to businesses. Many employers see the value of retaining FWAs as it not only strengthens business resilience but also improves talent retention and recruitment. A recent study by the Institute of Policy Studies on workplace arrangements also found that around eight in 10 respondents who telecommuted most or all of the time felt that they were productive in doing so. The Ministry of Manpower's (MOM) own surveys show that the majority of employers are keen to continue FWAs even after the pandemic ends, given the benefits FWAs bring to both employers as well as employees.
The tripartite partners agree that employers should sustain FWAs as a permanent feature of the workplace. A tripartite statement was released in April to encourage employers to continue doing so. In the last two years, employers implemented FWAs, especially telecommuting, as an urgent measure for public health resilience, even when they were unsure that this was good for productivity. For the provision of FWAs to be a sustainable and effective permanent measure, employers will need sufficient time and support to find the right calibration that works best for their employees while meeting business needs. After all, workplace settings and business needs differ across industries and jobs, and we also know that different employees have different needs for FWAs.
Over the next few years, the tripartite partners will do more to strengthen training to equip companies with the know-how to implement FWAs in a win-win and sustainable manner, such as in the areas of HR and job redesign. We will also partner our Work-Life Ambassadors on the ground to support the implementation of FWAs.
As laid out in the White Paper on Singapore Women's Development, we will also bring more companies on board the voluntary Tripartite Standard on FWAs. This means having a clear policy on how to request FWAs and managing employees' expectations on its responsible use, timely communication of outcomes of FWA requests as well as fair and objective evaluation of employees' FWA requests. The Public Service has taken the lead to adopt the Tripartite Standard on FWAs.
These efforts will put companies in good stead to comply with the upcoming Tripartite Guidelines that will be introduced by 2024, which will make it a requirement for employers to fairly and properly consider FWA requests. Together, these efforts will establish the norm that it is acceptable to request for FWAs while maintaining employers' prerogative to assess and decide on FWA requests, based on their business and operational needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Reopening of Economy on Demand and Supply of Manpower and Measures Planned","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"18 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Manpower in light of the easing of safe management measures, what are the plans to assist Safe Distancing Ambassadors to transit to new jobs and channel them to sunrise industries.
19 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Manpower in light of the revised safe management measures that came into effect on 29 March 2022 and the recovery of the economy (a) what are the efforts to promote more local employment; (b) how is the Ministry helping sectors that are facing a shortage of local workers; and (c) whether the Ministry will relax foreign labour policies should the manpower crunch continue.
20 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Manpower with regard to the reopening of our economy (a) which are the sectors facing a severe shortage of manpower especially foreign workers; and (b) what are the measures taken by the Ministry to help these industries and companies to ride out the labour shortage so as not to hamper the recovery of our economy.
21 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will consider permitting cleaning companies to recruit cleaning workers from a wider range of countries to reduce the risk of labour shortages.
22 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Manpower for each year in the past five years (a) what is the number of local part-time food and beverage workers; and (b) of these workers, how many are students.
23 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Manpower in view of the easing of safe management measures, whether the Ministry will be working on measures to encourage and divert manpower resources from positions no longer needed, such as safe distancing ambassadors, to industries that are facing manpower shortages, such as food services and retail.
24 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the number of temporary workers who are currently working on COVID-19-related jobs, such as Safe Distancing Ambassadors or SafeEntry checkers; (b) what are the other employment opportunities available to these workers as the safe management measures are being stepped down; and (c) how can such workers be assisted in seeking new and longer-term employment.
25 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether there are planned measures to support businesses, particularly in the food and beverage and catering sectors, who are having difficulty in hiring staff amidst the reopening; and (b) if so, what are these measures.
\tThe Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng): Mr Speaker, may I seek your permission to take Question Nos 18 to 25 together?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tDr Tan See Leng: As economic recovery gains momentum, we recognise that some segments of the economy may find it challenging to fill job vacancies amidst the tight labour market. In my reply, I will be addressing the questions that Members of this House have asked about these manpower shortages, as well as the longer-term job opportunities of workers employed in short-term COVID-19 roles.
To Ms Poh Li San's question, the Construction, Marine Shipyard and Process (CMP) they are the hardest hit as they rely most heavily on migrant workers. As Ms Joan Pereira, Ms Yeo Wan Ling, Mr Sharael Taha and Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin have pointed out, our industries, such as food services, cleaning, retail, tourism and aviation, that were affected by safe management measures and international travel restrictions are also facing a manpower crunch now as they rebuild their manpower with the reopening. There also continue to be many vacancies in outward-oriented industries, such as information and communications, and financial services.
A significant part of the manpower crunch that we are experiencing today is, in large part, due to the impact of COVID-19. The balance, albeit a smaller part, is due to cyclical reasons. In the last two years, our non-resident workforce declined sharply as businesses were battered by the pandemic. However, while demand is recovering, border restrictions had dampened the regular inflow of foreign manpower. The Government has taken steps to resume the inflow of foreign workers to ease the manpower crunch and we, progressively, lifted border restrictions from late last year. Since then, non-resident employment growth had increased in the fourth quarter of 2021 for the first time in two years and picked up pace in the first quarter of 2022.
Most recently, we announced the removal of entry approval requirements for all pass types, including Work Permit holders in the CMP sectors. The number of CMP Work Permit holders in Singapore reached a two-year low in October 2021 but has since grown strongly by more than 40,000 to reach over 90% of pre-pandemic numbers. Our businesses now have fuller confidence to bring their work pass holders into Singapore and the recent reopening of the Singapore-Malaysia land border should also further ease the labour market tightness in the months to come.
Mr Yip Hon Weng, Ms Poh Li San, Mr Sharael Taha and Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked what the Government is doing to enable Singapore to reopen our economy and reconnect with the world. MOM is working with MOT, MTI, STB and CAAS closely to provide targeted support for the tourism and aviation industries with additional foreign worker quotas on a time-limited basis, to ensure that they can quickly rebound and capture the opportunities.
Mr Yip Hon Weng also asked about efforts to promote local employment. Government agencies are also working closely with industry and unions to promote good jobs and ramp up local hiring. For example, STB partnered NTUC, NTUC's Employment and Employability Institute (NTUC's e2i), WSG and key trade associations and chambers (TACs) to launch the Tourism Careers Hub in January 2022. This hub facilitates job matching of local candidates with the tourism sector. It supports the upskilling of workers to meet evolving demands, as well as drives transformation efforts. CAAS is working with aviation firms to recall former employees and expand hiring. Both CAAS and STB have lined up recruitment activities, such as career fairs, in the next few months.
We will also continue to support our businesses to transform and to improve job quality to attract and retain local workers. For example, MTI recently announced the $70 million Food Services and Retail Business Revitalisation Package. In the cleaning sector, NEA has also been working with cleaning companies to adopt technologies, such as autonomous floor cleaning scrubbers and robotic solutions, to free up workers to meet the added demand for disinfection work. So, basically, MOM and MTI will work closely with TACs to study further ways to support both the retail and F&B sectors in terms of how to support their manpower needs in the immediate term.
We will also nudge and continue to support our businesses to hire locals. We have extended the Jobs Growth Incentive to September 2022 to support the hiring of mature local workers who are not in work for at least six months, persons with disabilities and ex-offenders. Employers can receive up to $21,600 per eligible hire over a 12-month period. There are also other pathways in which employers can tap on, such as the SGUnited Mid-Career Pathways Programme, and attachments under these pathways will allow employers to provide mature candidates with on-the-job training and evaluate their job-fit.
\tOn top of that, the Government will also be disbursing the Small Business Recovery Grant (SBRG) from June this year and this provides $1,000 per local employee, up to $10,000 per firm.
Our efforts are paying off. I am encouraged to see that many businesses have been able to build up their local workforce to meet their manpower needs. Overall, resident employment grew by 71,300 in 2021 and the resident unemployment rate has recovered to pre-COVID-19 levels and there continues to be opportunities to hire more local workers.
First, employers should look to hire workers who were employed in short-term COVID-19 roles, such as Safe Distancing Ambassadors and vaccination centre workers, the same group that Dr Wan Rizal, Ms Yeo Wan Ling, Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Mr Sharael Taha have asked about. Around 6,400 of such workers were employed as of April 2022 by the public sector, Government-funded institutions or private sector medical service providers. Around 1,200 of these workers will be redeployed into longer-term roles, but the other 5,200 will be looking for new jobs when their contracts end over the coming months. WSG and NTUC's e2i will be providing employment facilitation support. Employers who are interested to consider these workers can reach out to WSG and NTUC's e2i. Many of these workers came from the F&B and Retail sectors and would, thus possess the relevant skill sets, as well as experience.
Second, employers can also consider hiring trainees who have gone through various attachment and training programmes under the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package. There are 9,800 trainees who are still undergoing these programmes as at end February 2022, and they, too, will be looking for jobs in the near future. The Jobs Taskforce, which I chair, is working with sector agencies to place these trainees into suitable roles which make use of the industry-relevant skills and experience gained through the programmes.
Third, employers can also tap on a larger pool of local manpower by providing flexible work arrangements, including flexitime, flexi-place and part-time work.
Mr Leong Mun Wai also asked about the number of local part-time workers in F&B services for the last five years and the proportion who were students. The number of local part-time workers in F&B services remained stable at around 35,000, on average, over the last five years, of which about 15% were students. Part-time work can benefit both employers who need the manpower and workers who will not only earn an income but can also gain work experience for the future.
In conclusion, we expect labour market tightness to ease in the coming months as non-resident employment rebounds following significant relaxation of border restrictions. However, COVID-19 has underscored the importance of building resilient businesses. This is all the more important, given the uncertainties in the global geo-political and economic environment. Over-reliance on foreign workers will leave businesses open to and vulnerable to disruptions.
Therefore, I strongly encourage employers facing manpower shortages to utilise all the available support to press on with efforts to transform and become more manpower-lean, while tapping on the available sources of local workers that still exist to build up their local manpower core.
\tMr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Clarification by Minister for Home Affairs.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix, unless Members had asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Minister for Home Affairs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): Mr Speaker, with your leave, may I correct a factual error in my reply at the 5 April 2022 Sitting to Question No 6?
Mr Speaker: Please do.
Mr K Shanmugam: It was a question by Ms Joan Pereira on the safeguards to protect members of the public from recalcitrant sex offenders. Sir, I had said in my reply to Ms Joan Pereira that preventive detention (PD) sentences can range from seven to 14 years. [Please refer to \"Safeguards to Protect Members of Public from Recalcitrant Sex Offenders\", Official Report, 5 April 2022, Vol 95, Issue 61, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
I misspoke. PD sentences range from seven to 20 years. Thank you, Sir.
Mr Speaker: Order. Introduction of Government Bills. Minister for Finance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Stamp Duties (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Stamp Duties Act 1929\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Finance (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":"Endangered Species (Import and Export) (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 2006\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State for National Development (Mr Tan Kiat How) (on behalf of the Minister for National Development); 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":"Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Minister Chan Chun Sing.
The Minister for Education (Mr Chan Chun Sing) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Prime Minister, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
Mr Speaker, the amendments proposed today to the Constitution can be grouped into two parts. The first part amends Article 45 of the Constitution relating to the disqualification criteria for a Member of Parliament, or, in short, MP. The second part amends Articles 37E and 72 of the Constitution relating to the disqualification criteria for members of the Council of Presidential Advisers, or in short, CPA; and the Presidential Council for Minority Rights, or in short, PCMR. This is to align with the amendments to the disqualification criteria for an MP in the first part.
These proposed amendments arose from the Elections Department's review of our election processes and legislation after the General Election in 2020, or in short, GE2020. This is among other proposals, such as the possible introduction of postal voting for overseas Singaporeans and special arrangements for voters residing in some nursing homes, which I had shared in this House in March this year.
Let me now elaborate on the amendments under the first part.
Currently, under Article 45(1)(e) of the Constitution, a person is disqualified as an MP if he has been convicted by a Court in Singapore or Malaysia and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than one year, or to a fine of not less than $2,000. The disqualification period is five years from the date the person is released from custody or when the fine is imposed. During this time, the person cannot stand for election as an MP.
The disqualification criteria are to ensure that MPs are persons with integrity and who adhere to high standards of conduct. Clause 3 of the Bill amends the current fine quantum in Article 45(1)(e) of \"not less than $2,000\" to \"not less than $10,000\". The current fine quantum of \"not less than $2,000\" has not been revised since Singapore's Independence.
Members may ask why the fine quantum was not changed earlier and what prompted the need to change this now. As part of the review which the Elections Department, or in short, ELD, undertook after GE2020, ELD noted that the MP disqualification criteria have not been revised since Independence and, thus, initiated a review of the criteria. While there was a related amendment to the Constitution in 2002, the focus of the amendment was to deal only with the anomalous situation of a disqualified MP not being able to continue sitting or voting in Parliament while his appeal was pending and did not cover the MP disqualification criteria per se.
ELD considered two reference points for the revised fine quantum. First, if we were to take into account inflation over the years, $2,000 would amount to about $8,000 today. Second, the revision took into account sentences handed down by our Courts today for committing serious tax evasion and corruption offences, which are relevant to the integrity of a person.
Notwithstanding the proposal to update the fine quantum, Singaporeans should reasonably expect that Members of this House, and those who aspire to be Members of this House, must hold themselves to the highest standards.
Members may also ask if the imprisonment term of one year requires revision. As part of its review, ELD examined the criteria in selected Commonwealth countries, such as Malaysia, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the UK. For these countries, the imprisonment term for MP disqualification is either at least one year or at least two years. ELD's assessment is that Singapore's imprisonment term of one year remains at an appropriate threshold and does not require further revision for now.
Clause 3 also extends the disqualification due to conviction by a court of law beyond Singapore and Malaysia to any foreign court. With more Singaporeans living, travelling and conducting business in other countries, convictions by courts in other countries should be included in the disqualification criteria, since they are relevant in determining the fitness of the person for office. These overseas convictions must be for offences that would have been punishable by a Court in Singapore if they had been committed locally.
Currently, a Singapore Citizen who voluntarily acquires a foreign citizenship will be disqualified as an MP. However, Article 45(3) excludes a Commonwealth country or the Republic of Ireland from the definition of a \"foreign country\". This exception is historic and is no longer relevant today. Thus, clause 3 also removes the outdated Article 45(3). An MP should be disqualified if he acquires citizenship of another country.
Next, let me elaborate on the amendments under the second part. Clauses 2 and 5 of the Bill to amend Articles 37E and 72 of the Constitution make similar changes to the disqualification criteria for members of CPA and PCMR with respect to the fine quantum and convictions by foreign courts of law. Similar to the amendments under the first part, the fine quantum criterion for disqualification from being a member of CPA and PCMR is proposed to be revised from \"not less than $2,000\" to \"not less than $10,000\". For membership to PCMR, clause 5 extends the disqualification due to a foreign conviction by \"a court of law in Malaysia\" to \"any foreign court\".
Finally, clause 6 sets out clearly that the amendments proposed today to the Constitution will apply to convictions which meet the new proposed criteria before the amendments come into force. As the disqualification criteria are imposed to ensure fitness of persons for office, prior convictions should be recognised as disqualifying, even if they happened before the date of operation of the amendments. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is important to bear in mind that the aim of this Bill is relatively narrow and coheres with the current policy underpinning the relevant articles in the Constitution.
In the main, it serves to update the disqualification criteria concerning criminal convictions for membership of Parliament as set out in Article 45 of the Constitution. In this regard, what is proposed, as mentioned by the hon Minister, is to revise the fine quantum from \"not less than $2,000\" to \"not less than $10,000\".
As a consequence, it is proposed that the disqualification criteria for a member of CPA and PCMR, as well as a candidate standing for election as the President be similarly updated.
As stated by the Elections Department in its press release, the proposed revision is to \"account for inflation over the years\" – the hon Minister said since the year of Independence, it is about $8,000 now – and ensure that the quantum \"is commensurate with fines meted out for offences that are relevant to the integrity of the person\".
In light of this background, unless an hon Member wishes to advocate a change in the current policy, which has been in place since Independence, the proposed \"light touch\" amendment to the Constitution should not raise controversy.
It may be useful to appreciate the underpinning of this policy. It is connected to the concept of universal suffrage – the right to vote for a candidate of his or her choice.
John Stuart Mill, a well-known English philosopher, stated as follows in his 1861 essay, \"Representative Government\": \"There ought to be no pariahs in a full-grown and civilised nation; no persons disqualified, except through their own default.\"
Emeritus Prof Joseph Jaconelli, in his 2020 article entitled \"Constitutional Disqualification\", stated that whilst John Stuart Mill was addressing the question of the extent of the right to vote, the same point applies to the right to stand for office. He went on to state that: \"It applies with greater force, since to provide otherwise would be to limit the range of choices available to the electorate.\"
In other words, our approach is to leave decisions on the electability of a candidate to an informed electorate unless the candidate has committed a serious offence which attracts a sentence of more than one year or, as proposed in this Bill, a fine of more than $10,000.
Even then, the automatic disqualification ceases after a five-year period, as provided for under Article 45(2) of the Constitution.
The approach in the United Kingdom (UK) and other countries is similar. Under the UK's Representation of the People Act, a person will be ineligible to stand for elections if he has been convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to imprisonment of one year or more.
For these reasons, I support the Bill. It is fair that the electorate is presented with the widest possible slate of candidates compatible with a minimum level of checks for the integrity of the person. It is also fair that a candidate's previous disqualification be reset after a certain period.
This Bill, however, relates not only to disqualification to enter into an election, but it also has an impact on the qualification to remain as an MP.
Currently, by default, both issues are tagged, in that the same criteria appy to a sitting MP. Hence, notwithstanding my support for the Bill, I feel it is necessary to signpost, for future consideration, the ability of an MP to continue in his or her office upon being convicted of a criminal offence whilst in office.
Just last month, The Guardian reported a case of a UK MP in the House of Commons who was convicted of sexually molesting a 15-year-old. He apparently did not resign immediately, although it has now been reported that he has since resigned. We can ask ourselves – what would be the case if this happened in Singapore? I dare say that a good number of Singaporeans outside this House would assume that the MP would automatically be disqualified from holding office as his conduct would have brought disrepute to the House and, quite frankly, our country, too.
That is not necessarily the case, however, if we look at the current provisions. As I mentioned earlier, the disqualification criteria for a candidate are the same as the disqualification criteria for an MP. This is provided for under Article 46 of the Constitution.
Hence, whether or not a sitting MP convicted of a crime will automatically be disqualified would depend on not just his conviction but his sentence. If the sentence of imprisonment is less than one year, then he is not automatically disqualified.
I did an informal survey of sentences imposed by the Courts in cases reported by the Straits Times between March and April this year. I noted the following cases.
A Singaporean male was convicted and sentenced to one week's jail for possession of obscene videos, including child sexual abuse material. Another Singaporean male who molested a female teenager by touching her soles and toes was sentenced to two weeks and five days' jail. In another case, a Singaporean male was convicted after pleading guilty to five counts of forgery for the purposes of cheating involving $9.7 million. He was sentenced to nine months' jail.
If an MP were to have committed any one of these offences, he would not be automatically disqualified. Of course, his tenure ceases automatically if he resigns from his party or if he \"loses his whip\", which is the Parliamentary parlance for being expelled from his political party. This latter ground does not affect independent MPs though.
There is a connected aspect to this issue which I seek to highlight. For professionals, such as doctors, lawyers and engineers, they would not be allowed to practise, so long as they are convicted of offences that involve moral turpitude, irrespective of the actual sentences. Civil servants and uniformed officers convicted of crimes may be dismissed, reduced in rank or otherwise punished, too.
It may be helpful for us, as a heuristic, to think of this as \"two keys\": the first, a qualification to enter into the profession; and, the second, a qualification to remain.
The question that arises for consideration is: what should be the corresponding standard of conduct dealing with criminal convictions imposed on Singaporean politicians? That is, what should be the strength of the second key for MP?
To me, this is a no-brainer. Whenever we, as MPs enter Parliament, we receive salutes from the uniformed officers on duty. This is meant to be a mark of respect for us as elected representatives of our country. Is it not anomalous that the saluting officer is held to a higher standard, as compared to us? This does not make sense.
Therefore, we might want to consider if we want to impose similar requirements on sitting MPs.
While this may be a simple enough task for this House to consider these issues, to implement a policy solution would require bipartisan support from both sides of the aisle. Without bipartisan support, there will be a serious potential for misinterpretation of the purpose behind the imposition of high standards for Singaporean politicians.
What should be avoided at all costs is a perception that the Bill is an attempt on the part of one political party trying to constrain the public's right to vote for a candidate of their choice.
Also, both sides of the House will need to come to a consensus on how we should deal with politicians who may be convicted for acts of civil obedience or conscience, which are markedly different from criminal behaviour.
Once we have struck a consensus on how to treat criminal convictions of sitting MPs in this House, then, I would imagine that the disqualification criteria for candidates and members of other high constitutional offices may have to be reviewed again.
Mr Speaker, to agree on this Bill is an easy matter. To my mind, it is a simple updating exercise. This Bill does not propose to deal directly with two other important matters: the disqualification criteria of sitting MPs and the parity of standards between sitting MPs and professionals, civil servants and uniformed officers.
This \"second key\", in my respectful view, appears to be weaker for MPs. These are important matters but we can debate on these in good time, given that any Constitution amendment here should require strong bipartisan support. I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, the crux of this Bill is to change one of the threshold criteria for the disqualification of MPs, the elected President and Members of the CPA and PCMR.
In essence, the current law of disqualifying a person once he has received a Court fine of at least $2,000 is being amended. The threshold for a disqualifying Court fine is proposed to be raised to $10,000. Sir, our view is that the increase to $10,000 moves us in the right direction. The Workers' Party supports this Bill.
The focus of my speech today will be on the impact of this change on qualifying for Parliamentary office – what Minister Chan Chun Sing earlier referred to as the first part of this Bill.
In its media release on 4 April 2022, the Elections Department highlighted that the disqualification fine amounts had not been revised since Singapore's Independence some 57 years ago.
Sir, given the forces of inflation and also how fines have been raised by Parliament over the decades, it is undeniable that a fine of $2,000 in 1965 would be a much more significant punishment compared to a $2,000 fine today. Based on a rough calculation of the impact of inflation on prices from 1965 to the present, the figure of $10,000 is within reason.
Sir, I should emphasise that, going by this logic, the change brought about by this Bill does not represent a lowering of standards for eligibility for Parliament. Instead, it is an attempt to retain the same standards of eligibility that existed when the law was originally enacted.
Sir, the task of setting disqualifications for Parliamentary office raises questions of national significance. After all, we are dealing with the issue of which Singapore Citizens should be considered unfit for elected public office. This affects the fundamental right of citizens to participate in public life and also the right to continue in office after being duly elected by the people.
Some may wonder why we need to be so concerned since the disqualification based on a Court sentence lasts for only five years, after which, the person can stand for election again. While five years is no doubt just one election cycle, five years in a person's life is not a short time. Nor should we discount how society could lose from the contributions of an otherwise capable citizen banished to the political wilderness, even if temporarily.
Thus, debates concerning the right of individuals to stand for election or to continue in service merit serious consideration.
On the one hand, the current approach of setting the cut-off based on the quantum of punishment via the Courts is imperfect. If one is targeting fitness for office, the current method makes no distinction about the types of offence involved. A fine and/or a short imprisonment term may be imposed by the Courts for many offences with varied moral culpability, ranging from traffic offences to theft. Fines may also be imposed for infractions under some laws which many do not consider criminal in nature.
Take, for instance, the recent Court case involving a member of an Opposition party. Shortly before the General Election in 2020, he was fined $5,000 for contempt of Court. This placed him over the $2,000 disqualification threshold for standing for election. When he applied to the High Court for clarification on his status, the judge ruled that so long as the Court fine was of the required amount, it did not matter what the underlying charge was. The Court held that matters considered quasi-criminal, such as the contempt of Court, would suffice for disqualification.
On the other hand, imperfect though it is, the advantage of having a cut-off simply based on the punishment quantum is that it is easy to apply and it is clear to everyone. With the raising of the disqualification fine to $10,000 applied to today's circumstances, there will be a better calibration to target offences of greater seriousness.
Sir, while today's amendment is a step in the right direction, I understand and I stand corrected that, in notable jurisdictions, such as Australia and the United Kingdom, candidates at the national election are, generally, not disqualified if they are merely fined in Court, whatever the amount. Instead, disqualification kicks in only when one is sentenced to imprisonment of a certain duration.
Sir, given the multitude of regulatory laws in today's modern society, there is always a risk that persons engaged in business or certain industries or professions may be fined for some non-compliance.
We may wish to consider in future how relevant the issue of fines is to our disqualification criteria for Parliament and, should we embark on such a further review in the future, careful consideration should be paid to how to balance upholding respect for Parliament as a national institution with having a set of eligibility criteria that are relevant to modern Singapore.
To summarise then, the Workers' Party supports the Bill to raise the threshold fines for disqualification from Parliament to $10,000. I have also raised the suggestion of a possible future review on the issue of disqualifications based on fines to further examine if it is appropriate to either remove fines altogether or to look at further refinements.
Mr Speaker, we want elections to be contested and to be contested, by competent people who are committed and passionate to serve. As an educated electorate, I believe Singaporeans are discerning and will continue to make rational decisions about who should represent them in this august Chamber.
Mr Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Sir, I support the proposed amendments to the various Articles of the Constitution.
Article 45 sets out the criteria for the disqualification of MPs. Article 45(e) states that a person shall not be qualified to be an MPs if he has been convicted of an offence by a Court of law and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than one year or a fine of not less than $2,000 and has not received a free pardon.
The fine quantum of $2,000 has not been revised since Independence and I agree that it is appropriate to adjust the fine quantum, to ensure that the fine quantum is commensurate with the reasons why a person ought to be disqualified to be an MP.
Take, for example, the sentencing guidelines for traffic offences. They have been enhanced after Parliament amended the Road Traffic Act in 2019. In recent Court cases for careless driving, the Courts came up with a sentencing framework whereby a person charged for careless driving resulting in grievous hurt will face a fine of $2,500 even when his culpability is low.
This means that if a person were to make an error of judgement when driving and his careless driving results in an accident, whereby a victim suffered a serious injury, then that person would be disqualified to be an MP as the fine for careless driving would exceed the sum of $2,000. And this is the current fine quantum for disqualification under Article 45(e) of the Constitution.
Thus, if the Constitution is not amended, any aspiring person who wishes to stand as a candidate to be an MP would not be qualified, and any sitting MP would be disqualified if they have been convicted of a similar kind of traffic offence.
Sir, last year, I advised a client who was charged for careless driving. He had turned left and he hit a motorcycle because he missed a blind spot. The motorcycle rider suffered a fractured arm and my client was fined a total of $4,000. I was thinking to myself: this could happen to anyone of us in the House; anyone of us who was driving and had missed a blind spot would be charged for careless driving and fined more than $2,000 and it would result in us being disqualified.
So, it begs the question as to whether a momentary lapse of judgement whilst driving is the kind of reason that a person ought to be disqualified to serve as an MP. And I would humbly submit that we ought to set a bar in the Constitution that disqualifies a person from being an MP if that person is convicted of an offence that relates to dishonesty, fraud, corruption, bribery or, as Mr Murali Pillai has suggested, sexual misconduct, but not for careless driving.
For other offences that are technical in nature or what we call statutory offences, we ought to review whether such offences ought to result in disqualification to be an MP as well. Take another example – a company director who had gotten a fellow investor who becomes a shareholder and he cannot get his fellow shareholder to hold an Annual General Meeting (AGM). Thus, he fails to file an Annual Return and is convicted in Court. Should the fine imposed by the Court exceed $2,000? Should that Director also be disqualified for such a technical offence, that he had made a mistake in choosing a fellow investor or a shareholder wrongly?
Sir, section 45 of the Charities Act sets out the criteria where a person is disqualified to serve as a director in a charity if the person is convicted of dishonesty, including fraud, corruption, bribery and deception, or offences involving terrorism, terrorism financing or money laundering.
Section 154 of the Companies Act sets out the criteria where a person is disqualified to serve as a director of a company if the person is convicted of any offence, whether in Singapore or elsewhere, involving again, fraud or dishonesty punishable with an imprisonment of three months or more.
These disqualification criteria suggest that the state frowns upon persons who have behaved dishonestly and are disqualified from holding positions where they act as fiduciary to either a charity or a company.
So, I would urge the Government to do likewise – signal the type of dishonest conduct that we wish to guard against and not just by adjusting the quantum of the fine.
Sir, I also wish to ask the Minister to clarify, for persons who are convicted of offences overseas, may I ask the Minister whether the same criteria of referring to the quantum of fine will apply? For example, it was previously reported that in some Scandinavian countries, the fine for traffic offences is pegged to the person's earnings. Thus, if you are a high earner in Singapore and, for some reason, you are caught speeding in a Scandinavian country, the fine for speeding may far exceed the sum of $10,000, which is the proposed new criteria for disqualification. In fact, that fine in that Scandinavian country is supposed to be pegged to your salary. So, is that the intended objective of the amendment to the Constitution?
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had previously said that it will be more difficult to attract quality candidates into politics as potential candidates will have to face negative comments on social media. They have to put up with a greater financial sacrifice from switching careers and also face less certainty of winning in elections.
If we do not find the right people to serve in Parliament, Singapore, as a country, will suffer, because of weaker leadership at the national level.
Thus, we should amend the Constitution to ensure that the type of people who are disqualified from becoming MPs are the ones that we want to exclude and not citizens who have made minor or technical mistakes in their lives.
Mr Speaker: Minister Chan Chun Sing.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me, first, thank Members who spoke on this Bill and for their support of the Bill.
Let me first cover the technical clarifications. Then, I will conclude with the spirit behind what we are doing.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked whether the updated fine quantum criterion would apply for persons convicted of offences overseas. The answer is yes. An individual who has been fined by a foreign court the equivalent of at least S$10,000 will be disqualified. However, it must be for an offence which would be punishable by a Court in Singapore if it had been committed locally. This is an existing provision in our Constitution and is based on the principle that committing an offence abroad should have the same consequence on the eligibility to stand for elections.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Mr Murali Pillai and Ms Sylvia Lim noted that this Bill serves, in the main, to update the constitutional disqualification criteria. Ms Sylvia Lim asked if fines should be considered at all, while Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Murali Pillai raised the possibility of further tightening the disqualification criteria in the future, so that we continue to hold our parliamentarians to the highest standards. Specifically, Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Murali Pillai suggested identifying the offences that would disqualify an individual as an MP to signal the behaviour or conduct that we want to guard against.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the scope of this Bill is intentionally narrow and focused on updating the disqualification criteria. This is in keeping with the democratic ideal that the rights of individuals to participate in the political process and to stand for public office should be unfettered as far as possible, as pointed out by Mr Murali Pillai. While we need to ensure fitness of individuals to be parliamentarians, the bar cannot be so high that we undermine our parliamentary system which is founded on representative democracy. Keeping the disqualification criteria to a reasonable threshold also allows voters broad discretion to choose whom they wish to represent them.
Indeed, many jurisdictions disqualify elected Members if they have been sentenced to an imprisonment term of one or two years and not by the type of offences. This is because there are inherent challenges in listing the specific offences and then having to frequently amend a basic document like the Constitution, so that the offence list is updated. There is also the issue whether we automatically disqualify every individual convicted of a listed offence even though the actual sentence, whether fine and/or jail sentence, may be quite light. An automatic disqualification based solely on conviction without taking into account the actual sentence is not compatible with the principle of ensuring fitness for the office according to actual conduct.
Mr Murali Pillai noted that there will be candidates or MPs who are convicted of a heinous offence or one involving dishonesty or moral turpitude but received sentences that do not cross the constitutional disqualification threshold and, therefore, will not be disqualified. These disqualification criteria set out the thresholds for disqualification as MPs, based on the severity of the punishment for offences committed.
As the basic document, the Constitution has to establish the suitable balance for Singapore between ensuring wide representation of all sectors of our community in Parliament and ensuring the representatives' fitness for office. The constitutional ineligibility, which is covered by the Bill, simply sets the minimum threshold for individuals to seek office in Parliament, so as to ensure basic fitness for office. No different from the need for minimum age to ensure maturity and personal competence by requiring a certain level of language command in Article 44, the Bill addresses the parliamentarian's minimum moral aptitude. Beyond the disqualification criteria, our political parties must continue to ensure that the candidates they field and MPs from their parties are persons with integrity and who adhere to the highest standards of conduct. Ultimately, our voters will decide, at the ballot box, the fitness of the person seeking to represent them in Parliament.
Nevertheless, I would like to thank all Members for the suggestions. We will keep them in mind in any future reviews.
So, Mr Speaker, Sir, let me conclude by reiterating the intent behind this Bill. The Bill aims to update the disqualification criteria for membership of Parliament and memberships of CPA and PCMR so that they continue to be relevant in ensuring that Members are persons with integrity and who adhere to high standards of conduct. This is to safeguard and protect the standing and dignity of Parliament, as well as the offices of CPA and PCMR.
Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may conclude with an exposition on the spirit behind this.
As we have heard from Mr Murali Pillai, Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Ms Sylvia Lim, if we set the bar too high, then we may, inadvertently, rule out many people who might want to participate in the representative democratic process that we have. If we set the bar too low, as Mr Murali Pillai pointed out, then it seems incongruent with what we expect of our public officers and our uniformed officers. So, in amending the Constitution today, we are adhering to the spirit behind what was set out from Independence and updating the criteria, but the spirit remains the same: to find the balancing point between setting the bar too high that may exclude too many and setting the bar too low that will not be congruent with what we expect of parliamentarians. But, having said that, whatever we agree today is but one of the levers that will apply to those who wish to be a Member of this Chamber.
Besides the rules that we have, there are three other important keys, if I may use the words of Mr Murali Pillai, and those three other keys are as follows. First, the standard that the respective political parties hold themselves accountable to. Second, the standards that each and every one of us hold ourselves to. And third, and most importantly, the standards which our public hold us to.
In order for our democracy to function properly, we need all four keys. We need the first key, the set of rules that balance the need for democratic participation with the standards that we expect from those aspiring for public office but, very critically, the other three keys – what political parties expect of the standards from their respective MPs or candidates; how our candidates and MPs hold ourselves accountable to the standards that we expect of ourselves as representatives of our people and our country; and, finally, the strongest safeguard against any degradation of the standards of this House must be our electorate who, ultimately, elect our people into this House.
With that, Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. I urge all Members on both sides of the House to give your fullest support to the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Any other clarifications? The Question is, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution, a vote is taken to ascertain that the Second Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament, which is 63 Members. Clerk, ring the division bells.
[(proc text) After two minutes – (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Serjeant‐at‐Arms, lock the doors.
Before I proceed to start the electronic voting, may I remind Members that they are to be seated at their designated seats and should only start to vote when the voting buttons on the armrests start to blink.
[(proc text) Question put, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\" (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Take a vote. You may now begin to vote. May I remind Members to depress their vote button firmly in order to register their vote in the system. Members are advised to check that their names are registered according to their vote indication when the voting results are shown on the display screens.
Mr Speaker: I will proceed to declare the voting results now. There are 87 \"Ayes\"; 0 \"Noes\"; 0 \"Abstentions\". The Second Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament.
[(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 Chan Chun Sing]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment. (proc text)]
Third Reading
Mr Speaker: Third Reading, what day?
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Now, Sir, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Third time.\"
Mr Speaker: The Question is, \"That the Bill be now read a Third time.\" Pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution, a vote is taken to ascertain that the Third Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament, which is 63 Members. Clerk, ring the division bells.
[(proc text) After one minute – (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Serjeant-at-Arms, lock the doors.
[(proc text) Question put, \"That the Bill be now read a Third Time.\" (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Take a vote. You may now begin to vote. Again, I remind Members to depress their vote button firmly in order to register their vote in the system. Members are advised to check that their names are registered according to their vote indication when the voting results are shown on the display screens.
Before I proceed to declare the results of the vote, are there any Members who wish to claim that his or her vote has not been displayed or displayed incorrectly on the screens? No?
Mr Speaker: I will proceed to declare the voting results now. There are now 88 \"Ayes\"; 0 \"Noes\"; 0 \"Abstentions\". The Third Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament.
[(proc text) Bill accordingly 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":"Adoption of Children Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Minister for Social and Family Development.
The Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
First and foremost, our starting point is that every child deserves to grow up in a loving family and a caring community. We want our children to thrive under the care of trusted adults.
This is part of our Social Compact in Singapore, where families form the bedrock of our society. They are our first line of support. The Government will preserve strong families because they are our foundation that nurtures and builds resilient individuals, together with the support of a caring community.
However, we note that, in some instances, a child's birth parents may be either unable or unwilling to care for him or her. This is when the Government must facilitate alternative and needed care arrangements.
Where reunification with their birth parents is unlikely, adoption into a strong and stable family is an important enabler – providing the children with a better chance of having a good start in life and achieving better outcomes.
Today, adoption in Singapore is governed by the Adoption of Children Act 1939 (ACA). In the past decade, the number of adoption applications has averaged about 400 annually, with a dip in 2020 and 2021 due to the pandemic and cross-border restrictions. Over 90% of applications were granted by the Courts.
Adoption agencies have also been playing an increasingly bigger role in the adoption sector. Domestically, there are about 10 to 15 commercial adoption agencies – I will call them CAAs. They provide various services for prospective adopters. For example, arranging pre-adoption assessments and matching them with children identified for adoption.
There are also four Social Service Agencies (SSAs) which provide similar services. MSF appoints these SSAs to conduct pre-adoption briefings and assessments. Currently, all adoption agencies are not directly regulated, although they must comply with Singapore laws, including laws against child trafficking. ACA was last substantively amended in 1985. Since then, the adoption landscape has evolved significantly and seen several key developments.
First, adoption applications have become increasingly complex. MSF is seeing more adoption applications involving children with high needs and prospective adopters with concerning issues. Second, some vulnerable children in state care, who would benefit from adoption, face obstacles in the adoption process, primarily due to objections from their birth parents. Third, the CAAs have become more prominent in the adoption sector. With a limited number of local children available for adoption, prospective adopters have sought their services to source for foreign children.
Over time, MSF has received feedback about such CAAs engaging in undesirable practices that are financially-motivated, with little to no regard for the interests of the child, prospective adopters and birth parents.
While MSF has administratively addressed such undesirable practices, legislative levers are needed for greater deterrence because this cannot be tolerated in our society. Therefore, this Bill will repeal and re-enact ACA, with enhanced provisions to govern the adoption sector, practices and processes in Singapore, and to better safeguard the child's welfare.
In formulating the Bill, MSF had consulted extensively. This included key stakeholders, like our adopted children, adoptive parents, adoption agencies, agencies supporting women with unplanned pregnancies, religious leaders, lawyers and the Courts.
While the groups were diverse, I was heartened to hear they all shared a common view and, that is, that the child's welfare should be at the heart of our considerations.
Overall, we had received feedback and suggestions from over 200 respondents, many of which were taken on board.
We also carefully studied international developments and best practices on adoption, learning what would be useful and relevant for our social and cultural context. This Bill is the culmination of their suggestions and aspirations.
Before I go into the key provisions, allow me to clarify upfront the three main groups of people mentioned in the Bill.
First, the Guardian-in-Adoption (GIA). This is a public officer responsible for safeguarding the welfare of children identified for adoption and granted powers through the Bill to carry out various statutory functions.
Second, adoption agencies. These refer to persons in the business of arranging for interested prospective adopters to adopt. Today, there are CAAs and some SSAs that provide such services.
Third, authorised adoption agencies. MSF intends to authorise some fostering agencies and SSAs that handle adoption-related work to have specified statutory functions and powers, such as to perform Adoption Suitability Assessments.
Allow me to elaborate on the key provisions of the Bill, which are grouped into three key thrusts: first, finding a good home for every child; second, balancing the interests of birth parents and the child; and third, putting in place a sound regulatory system for the adoption process.
First, finding a good home for every child. The first thrust is finding a good home for every child identified for adoption. As I said earlier, the key focus of adoption is the child's welfare, rather than about supporting parenthood. This means ensuring they are adopted by families who can provide good home environments for them.
In this regard, we will provide greater clarity on and tighten the eligibility criteria for adoption.
First, we will prioritise applicants with a stronger nexus to Singapore. This is given the small number of children identified for adoption and the challenges in accurately assessing prospective adopters based overseas.
Today, the Act requires the applicant to be resident in Singapore. Clause 4 specifies that the applicant for adoption under Singapore jurisdiction must be habitually resident in Singapore. In determining this, the Court will consider how long the applicants have been living in the country, where they work and the base of their social and economic ties. For joint applications, at least one applicant must be a Singapore Citizen (SC) or both applicants must be Permanent Residents (PRs), while a sole applicant should be an SC or a PR.
The Bill allows the Court to recognise exceptional cases where adoption would be in the child's welfare, for example, if a Singaporean couple living overseas wishes to adopt their orphaned niece living in Singapore.
Second, we will provide more guidance on who can adopt jointly, given the differing marriage laws across jurisdictions. The Bill specifies that applicants married under Singapore law can do so. For couples who married overseas, only those who would be regarded as lawfully married, if their marriage had taken place in Singapore, can adopt jointly. This means that only a man and a woman, married to each other, can apply together. This is because Singapore's marriage law only allows a man and a woman to marry each other.
Third, clause 5 establishes the default position that applicants convicted of serious crimes cannot adopt. This improves on the current arrangement, which relies on the Court-appointed GIA to object on a case-by-case basis. The list of serious crimes will be prescribed in subsidiary legislation and will include offences, such as sexual abuse, violence and drug consumption offences. Exceptions may be made in special circumstances, for example, if an applicant had committed the offence when he or she was a teenager and has since remained crime-free and assessed to have a low risk of re-offending, the GIA may provide a favourable assessment and the Court may decide to grant the adoption order.
But, let me emphasise that, ultimately, it remains for the Court to be satisfied that there is no risk of harm to the child, before granting an adoption order. This is not a trivial matter and would be considered carefully and dutifully, both by the GIA and the Court.
Lastly, in the course of addressing queries from prospective adopters, MSF explains to them the criteria used.
Clause 7 provides factors that the Court, GIA and authorised adoption agencies must consider when assessing suitability. This includes factors that we will prescribe in subsidiary legislation, for example, the strength of applicants' marriage, parenting capacity and existence of support networks.
Additionally, clause 7 also requires Court judgments on adoption to be considered in assessing suitability of prospective adopters. In particular, the High Court has, in the past, held that relevant public policies can be taken into account in adoption applications.
In this regard, I would like to reiterate the Government's statements in Parliament in January and October 2019 that, as a matter of public policy, we do not encourage planned and deliberate single parenthood as a lifestyle choice. To be clear, we do not support the use of Assisted Reproduction Technology (ART) or surrogacy to conceive and then adopt a child.
Second, our public policy encourages parenthood within marriage. In the case of a man and a woman married in accordance with Singapore's marriage law, they may be medically unable to conceive children and surrogacy is their only option. If so, it would be possible for them to adopt their child who is conceived through surrogacy, if the arrangement is carried out in a jurisdiction where surrogacy is not illegal or unlawful.
The Government has also stated that it is a matter of public policy that we do not support the formation of same-sex family units, which the High Court had affirmed in December 2018 in UKM v Attorney-General. We reiterated in January 2019 that we do not support the formation of same-sex families through processes, such as adoption. These public policies will be taken into consideration when determining suitability to adopt.
We will also introduce more safeguards into the adoption process.
Clause 11 lists three prerequisites before prospective adopters can apply to Court.
First, they must attend a Pre-adoption Briefing. This enables them to better understand the adoption process, eligibility criteria and unique needs of an adopted child.
Second, they must attend a Disclosure Briefing. This equips prospective adopters with the knowledge and skills to disclose the child's adoptive status at a suitable time, with the child's welfare in mind.
MSF strongly encourages such disclosure. During one of our engagement sessions, I, myself, heard the candid views of adopted children who shared with me about their adoption journey and the importance of disclosure to them. They were very brave.
Ten-year-old Zephaniah Lim was one of them, who emailed us after the session. I would like to share with the House an excerpt. He said, and I quote, that, \"Forever Daddies and Mummies must tell their children about their Tummy Mummies and that they came out from their stomachs. Because the children need to know where they came from.\" Zephaniah's moving words represent the voice of many adopted children. And, as a House, we ought to support their voices.
Nevertheless, we recognise that some birth and adoptive parents may have concerns regarding disclosure. I fully understand this. We are, therefore, taking an incremental approach towards disclosure. As a first step, we will mandate disclosure briefings, but not the disclosure itself.
MSF will study practices overseas and consult key stakeholders on further steps that we could take towards greater disclosure, for example, the setting up of an adoption register.
Third, they must undergo an Adoption Suitability Assessment (ASA). Today, only applicants adopting a foreign unrelated child or a child in state care need to undergo a pre-adoption assessment. We have not required this in other cases. This is because the child is likely related to the applicants and already living with them before their adoption decision.
Nonetheless, we have received feedback that ASA would be useful to prepare and provide early support to all applicants. Thus, we will now require all applicants to obtain a favourable ASA before they can adopt.
Where prospective adopters are related to the child, such as step-parents, and do not present any concerns, they may undergo a simplified ASA process. All applicants must also reside in Singapore for at least a year. This ensures that they are settled here and their family and support systems are stable. Applicants may appeal to GIA against an authorised adoption agency's decision on ASA, to ensure that their views are heard.
Next, for the sake of the child's welfare, we encourage timely applications for adoption. Clause 33 allows the Court to strike out applications that are made a long time after a child has started living with the applicants. This is to deter prospective adopters from delaying their application filing. This provision will not apply in specified circumstances where the child is already likely to be living with the prospective adopters. For example, if the child is a biological, or related child.
I will now describe the new powers to obtain information for required assessments and to grant Court orders to ensure the child's welfare and safety.
We propose six key levers.
First, to ensure assessors have all salient information necessary to make an accurate assessment. Clauses 15, 19 and 29 empower GIA and authorised adoption agencies to vary or revoke an ASA in specified circumstances or direct prospective adopters and any relevant person of a child to undergo assessments or to provide pertinent information.
In principle, this preserves the integrity of ASA and avoids some situations that MSF encounters today, for instance, prospective adopters failing or refusing to provide information on their financial stability or mental health, and even providing false information.
The Bill also states consequences for non-compliance. For example, GIA can recommend that an adoption order should not be made, if pertinent information is not provided.
Second, under clause 59, it will be an offence to provide false or misleading information to GIA or an authorised adoption agency during the adoption process. This is also to ensure the accuracy of assessments and that an adoption order is not made or refused due to false information.
Third, as the adoption process takes time, clauses 22 and 30 put the onus on prospective adopters to notify GIA and authorised adoption agencies of any material changes in their circumstances, for example, applicants who decide to separate midway through the proceedings.
The applicants' duty to notify will commence when they apply for an ASA and will last until the Court decides on their application. Failure to comply can result in the Court drawing an adverse inference against the applicant.
Fourth, under clause 32, the Court will be able to empower applicants, who are in the midst of adoption proceedings, to make non-routine decisions for the child's care, where needed. These are decisions that a person can be expected to make ordinarily in caring for a child, such as allowing a wisdom tooth extraction or minor surgery after a fall. If organisations require a Court order for applicants to decide on a non-routine decision, applicants may then choose to rely on this provision.
Fifth, clause 35 empowers the Court to require that applicants, a child's relevant persons and/or the child attend support services, such as mediation or counselling. Such orders may be made even after adoption proceedings have concluded.
Sixth, in the event of an unsuccessful adoption application, clause 43 allows the Court to order any person who has the child to transfer the child to a suitable person recommended by GIA, where this is required to ensure the child's safety. Non-compliance will be an offence punishable with a fine and/or imprisonment.
I have spoken at length about the various provisions and measures we have introduced to ensure that we can find a good home for every child, because we have the child's welfare at heart. This sums up our first thrust.
Next, I will talk about our second key thrust. This is to strike a balance between the interest of the birth parents and the child.
First of all, let me state that MSF acknowledges and upholds the sanctity of parents' rights over their child. Adoption is not a decision to be taken lightly. Hence, clause 25 states that an adoption order cannot be made unless all key parties who may be affected by it are notified first. Such key parties include a child's birth parents and someone who has actual custody of the child. They are referred to as a \"relevant person\" in the Bill.
The consent of a child's relevant person should be obtained in the ordinary order of things. We will retain the existing requirement that an adoption order cannot be made, unless every relevant person of a child has consented to the child's adoption. We have made clear how to obtain informed consent, such as having two witnesses when signed consent is obtained.
However, in some cases, a child's birth parents may be missing or may unreasonably object to the adoption, even though the refusal harms the child's welfare. In such instances, the Bill will allow the Court to proceed with the adoption process, even without the birth parents' consent.
While the current ACA lists some grounds for dispensation of consent, stakeholders have shared that these are insufficient.
Over the last few years, there have been about 1,000 children in state care at any point in time. Of this group, adoption would have been the best permanency option for about one in 20 children in state care, or about 50 children. Even then, only 10 applications to adopt them were made each year, on average. Of this already small number, about 40%, or four applications annually, were contested by the child's relevant person, typically a birth parent.
Such contestation, which can be protracted and costly, deters prospective adopters from applying to adopt them. Most importantly, the child's welfare is adversely impacted because he or she can neither be safely reunified with his or her birth parents or kin, nor be placed in a new, permanent family.
To address this, clauses 36 to 41 provide guidance on a wider range of circumstances where dispensation of consent would be in the child's welfare. In calibrating these grounds, MSF had studied overseas jurisdictions and past cases we have managed and consulted widely.
This amendment will help children like Esther, not her real name. Esther's birth mother alleged that she was abused by Esther's birth father and that he had placed Esther in physical danger while under the influence of drugs. As Esther's birth parents were unable to provide a safe and stable home, she was placed in foster care shortly after she was born. Her birth father was also, subsequently, jailed for drug-related offences.
Despite extensive efforts by MSF's Child Protective Service to work with her birth parents to reunify Esther with them, concerns remained. About two years after being placed in foster care, MSF arranged for Esther to spend two days weekly with her birth mother. However, Esther experienced nightmares and refused to eat or go to school.
Esther's birth mother was also unable to care for her independently and could not cope well when stressed. This raised concerns over her ability to provide safe care. Upon his release from prison, Esther's birth father also could not commit to meeting her to nurture a healthy parent-child relationship. As a result, this left Esther with poor emotional attachments to her birth parents.
Despite this, Esther's birth father objected to her adoption, even though he lacked the commitment to care for her, as a father ought to have.
Our proposed amendments to clarify the grounds under which the Court can dispense with consent to adoption are intended to help children like Esther move out of the state care system earlier, be adopted and have the chance to grow up in a safe, loving and stable family.
I would like to emphasise that our intent is not to make it easier to take children away from their parents. We will not consider adoption for children in state care if they can be safely reunified with their birth family. It is only when we have exhausted efforts to reunify the child and determined that adoption is the best alternative that we will seek the consent of the birth parents for the child's adoption.
Should the birth parents refuse and MSF's Child Protective Service conclude that any further delay would harm the child's welfare, we will source for suitable applicants to adopt the child. Such applicants may then file an application in Court, requesting the Court to consider dispensing with the birth parents' consent.
Like today, birth parents can choose to contest an adoption application and, if there is such contestation, the Court will make the final decision.
Finally, the third thrust is to establish a sound regulatory system for the adoption process.
While there is currently, no specific regulatory framework that governs adoption, all parties in the adoption sector must comply with Singapore laws. These include laws against child trafficking. Many stakeholders in the adoption sector do try their best to act responsibly, with the child's welfare in mind.
Nevertheless, MSF has received feedback that some commercial adoption agencies engage in undesirable practices. These include advertising children for adoption in a way that other businesses advertise goods for sale, fraudulently obtaining a birth parent's consent to the child's adoption and not being transparent about their fees.
While MSF has worked with SSAs to educate prospective adopters on dubious practices and also issued stern warnings to entities which engage in undesirable practices, stronger action is needed. MSF, therefore, intends to introduce offences and regulatory measures, as follows.
First, we will restrict the sharing of identifiable information of children identified for adoption. Clause 48 prohibits the unauthorised publication or broadcast of identifiable information of children who were, or are, the subject of adoption proceedings, including after the protected person turns 21 years old.
Clause 51 prohibits the unauthorised publication or broadcast of identifiable information of children when advertising, promoting or providing adoption services, to prevent children from being commodified. In addition to financial penalties, the Court can order offenders to remove the publication or broadcast.
Second, we will impose new requirements relating to adoption-related payments. Today, applicants must apply to the Court for sanctioning of payments they have received in consideration of an adoption and payments that they have made to birth parents. Our intent is that payments exchanged in the adoption process should be made to benefit and promote a child's welfare and not to exploit or entice a relevant person into giving up his or her child, or for improper financial gain.
Clause 53 extends the sanctioning requirement to payments made by applicants to people beyond birth parents. If payments made or received by the applicants are not declared to the Court and sanctioned, they cannot be enforced.
Under clause 54, every adoption agency must publish a list of every payment to be made to, or through the agency for adoption-related matters. This will increase transparency and allow prospective adopters to make better-informed decisions. It will be an offence if an adoption agency fails to do so without reasonable excuse.
We will also regulate categories of payments under clause 55 to guard against improper financial gains. Making or receiving any adoption-related payment outside of the permitted categories will be an offence. Examples of permitted payments include legal fees and payments to defray the costs of caring for a child.
Third, we will penalise the use of fraud, duress, undue influence or other improper means to obtain consent to adoption. MSF has encountered applications where the birth parent alleged that he or she was tricked into signing the consent document. Some birth mothers interviewed by MSF have shared that they were forced by adoption agencies into signing the consent document without having sufficient time to consider the implications. Such practices are wrong and harmful. Under clause 56, such practices will amount to obtaining consent improperly and will be an offence.
Fourth, clause 57 will regulate the circumstances where children can be placed with prospective adopters. Generally, this will only be allowed if the prospective adopter has already obtained an ASA. If the child is a foreigner, the prospective adopter must also have in-principle approval for a Dependant's Pass for the child. Prospective adopters will be guilty of an offence if they fail to comply. Adoption agencies, any relevant person of the child and people who assist them will also be guilty of an offence if they place a child with such prospective adopters.
However, there are some children who live with prospective adopters before they commence the adoption process, such as children whose foster parents intend to adopt them or children living with their relatives who are seeking to adopt them.
The Bill, thus, specifies that the offence will not apply in such cases for practical reasons as removing the child temporarily from the prospective adopters during the adoption application process would not be in the child's welfare. Nonetheless, if ASA turns out to be unfavourable due to care or protection concerns, MSF will step in to arrange for alternative care arrangements.
Lastly, the Bill makes clear that protecting children and strengthening the adoption sector are a shared responsibility.
Under clause 60, it will be an offence for key parties involved in adoption proceedings or in the adoption sector to fail to report suspected offences under the Bill to GIA or an officer authorised by GIA.
Under clause 72, individuals who report, whether voluntarily or under a legal obligation, will be protected from legal liability for reporting. Their identity will also be protected during Court proceedings.
In addition, under clause 73, key parties performing statutory functions, such as GIA and staff in authorised adoption agencies, will be protected from personal liability if they have acted in good faith and with reasonable care.
As the majority of applications in Singapore involve inter-country adoptions, the proposed offences will have extraterritorial effect under clause 50. This means that if an offence is committed by a person outside Singapore, the person may be dealt with as if the offence was committed within Singapore.
The penalties for first-time offenders of an offence in the Bill range from a fine of up to $5,000 or $10,000, and/or imprisonment for a term up to 12 months or three years. The penalties are higher for repeat offenders and offences targeted at commercial adoption agencies.
To enforce these new offences, clauses 61 to 63 provide GIA and authorised officers with powers of enforcement while clauses 64 and 65 clarify that it would be an offence to obstruct enforcement or provide false or misleading information to officers performing enforcement functions, such as an officer authorised by GIA.
To conclude, it is timely to bring this Bill before the House as we have designated 2022 to be the Year of Celebrating SG Families.
At the start of my speech, I shared about how families are the bedrock of our society. This Bill reaffirms the enduring role that families play in our society and towards the nurturing of resilient individuals. It reminds us how providing every child with a strong, safe and stable family environment also gives them a good start in life, as well as enables them to flourish and to fulfil their potential.
While most children will be blessed to grow up happy and safe in the family they were born into, this Bill will enable adopted children to experience the comfort, care and love of a family, described in the words of 10-year-old Zephaniah, as their \"forever\" Mummies, \"forever\" Daddies and \"forever\" brothers and sisters. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Seah Kian Peng.
Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Mr Speaker, this Bill addresses two important matters relating to the policy on adoption: first, regulating the behaviour of individuals; and second, regulating the structure of institutions. We need both to work seamlessly together in what is, essentially, a very private and emotional affair – the birth of a family.
Sir, in the adoption of a child, the overriding consideration must be, as what the Minister has described, the centrality of the child. Our dream is for every adopted child to have a good home and a family to take care of and to love them.
I shall now make a few points about the Bill.
First, one proposed change is to prioritise applicants with stronger ties to Singapore. In this case, I would like to ask if the threshold of \"strong ties\" is sufficiently high.
My question lies in the case of joint applications, which are allowed as long as both applicants are Permanent Residents (PRs). If the test is that of ties to one's country, should not one applicant, minimally, be a Singapore Citizen? Yes, PRs do have some degree of permanence, but they do move on when circumstances change. For example, there are those who renounce it after the first term, or there could be others who have had their PRs, subsequently, not renewed or approved.
Second, the change of default to disqualifying applicants who have committed serious offences, rather than allowing all applications and then reviewing on a case-by-case basis.
I agree with this as a matter of efficiency and also as a signal of how high we set the bar for qualifications. At the same time, even as we have safeguards to disqualify applicants with certain prescribed offences, we do allow exceptions if the Court is satisfied that these individuals have reformed. I am supportive of this.
I have a related point, however, on how this relates to the wider point on the protection of children. Our duty of care towards the child must be of the same level when it comes to birth parents. As I had indicated earlier in my speech at this year's Committee of Supply debate on MSF's budget, we must be as prompt and forceful in separating a child from birth parents or families where they are deemed to be \"harmful\" to the child.
Can the Minister say how this is provided for, if not in this Bill, then in other legislation relating to oversight and responses to child abuse and how parents who have committed serious offences are dealt with insofar as their ability to continue their parenting duties?
As much as I support this Bill for what it makes explicit, I would also like to point out an important provision of this current Bill and what it leaves implicit.
This Bill allows for single parents to adopt. I have, over the years, spoken quite a few times on the status of single parents and how our definition of \"family\" should expand to include these parents.
As a result of this provision for sole applicants, one question may arise for single parents who subsequently marry. Specifically, what happens to a child if the sole parent goes on to legally marry someone of the same gender overseas?
This issue is one which opens itself up to strong debate, but I would say, as far as the issue of adoption is concerned, the \"overriding consideration\" that I spoke of at the start of the speech still holds – which is, the centrality of the child and for every adopted child to have a good home and a family to love them.
If that condition holds, I would say there is much that the Bill can stay silent on and allow the circumstances of each specific case to be examined on its own merits, whether the single parent marries here or overseas and what the family unit, eventually, comprises.
I end with two specific points on regulating institutions.
First, how do we ensure or strengthen the assessment process for prospective adoptive parents? Can we ask for more testimonials and references to attest to the parents' character, as well as for specific performance indicators? In this case, I opine that more is better.
Second, in ensuring that assessments are current and also recognising that the entire process can take some time – potentially up to three years – the current proposed change is to put the onus on the applicants to notify authorities of any material change in their circumstances.
I agree with the placing of the onus, but I would like to add that we might want to impose annual affirmations and declarations on the part of applicants. This reduces the chances of declarations being overlooked and removes an excuse of forgetfulness for applicants. Again, in this case, it is better to be safe than sorry.
Mr Speaker, Sir, in some ways, the adoption of a child may seem to be open to more checks and scrutiny than the birth of one, because we see our duty to the adopted child as a joint and a public one.
To some extent, this is a duty which extends to all persons who are vulnerable. It is our collective duty to care for those who are unable to care for themselves and to put up rules, both for private conduct and in our institutions that work towards the flourishing of children within families. Sir, I support this Bill as a means of doing so.
Mr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join this debate on this excellent Bill. Speaking from personal experience, what I have learnt is that the adopted child blesses and enriches the family. My wish is that everyone listening to this speech today would seriously consider adoption, regardless of whether you have biological children.
I must also take this time to commend MSF for the good work they have done so far, not only in tabling this Bill, but the hard work over the years in working with stakeholders, parents and children in striving towards creating more awareness and support for adoption and facilitating the process of adoption.
There are also wonderful voluntary welfare organisation (VWO) partners who do silent, selfless and courageous work in this space – such as Safe Place, Touch Community Services, aLife and so many more ground-up and committed organisations.
The Bill aims to find a good home for every child identified for adoption and I stand strongly in support of this.
In some cases, a baby's adoption status is treated as a secret. However, adoption can be celebrated as an act of love. In that light, I support having disclosure briefings because it is best to disclose to the child as early as possible while helping the child understand that he or she is loved. When our daughter was still young, my wife and I would tell her that she came from her \"Tummy Mommy's\" tummy, but she was born in our hearts.
I understand that many would be concerned whether such disclosure would affect the child adversely. But I have thought about this and I believe we should tell the child about his or her adoption and do this as early as possible. Inevitably, the child will realise that he or she is adopted and will wonder why it was kept a secret. He or she will think that perhaps, there was something to be ashamed of.
A better approach, in my humble view, is for adoptive parents to explain adoption in a manner that is positive and affirming and showing the child that he or she belongs to a family and is loved equally. My wife and I have four children and all of them are treated and loved equally – no difference. They each have different personalities, but, when they are put together, they make quite a team.
I would also like to emphasise that it is in the best interests of children that adoption should be reserved for stable family units, ideally with a married husband and wife.
This Bill also stands to break cycles of abuse and neglect and this is very important. With record numbers of child abuse cases in 2020 and 2021, we need to work harder to protect our young because they are vulnerable and cannot speak up or defend themselves. With this Bill, more children will be able to be removed from abuse and neglect but, consequently, we will need more prospective parents willing to parent these children.
Mr Speaker, I also support the desire to deter undesirable behaviour in the adoption sector. The need to protect the best interests of the child means that certain behaviour that might compromise a child's welfare should be outlawed.
Alongside this, in order to protect children and also birth mothers, I also support Singapore's continued policy of, generally, not allowing commercial surrogacy.
I know surrogacy is a sensitive topic. But the unavoidable fact is that commercial surrogacy invites a very high risk of exploiting the woman who rents her womb. Surrogacy also invites so many middlemen and agents' fees. Many of these women who rent out their wombs come from developing countries and do so out of desperation. Surrogacy, in my view, should not be allowed in Singapore, or overseas for that matter, on account of the high possibility that women will be exploited.
We should also not commodify babies. Instead of commercial surrogacy, adoption is a very real alternative. We want to promote the ideal – which is not-for-profit adoption of Singaporean babies to Singaporean couples facilitated by non-commercial VWOs and MSF. And, by \"couples\", I mean a husband and wife.
I would also like to speak up in support of pregnant ladies who make the difficult and life-giving decision to keep their pregnancy and give their babies up for adoption. This is true selflessness. In this selfless manner, an unplanned pregnancy can create a wonderful family unit for the adoptive parents.
Finally, Mr Speaker, while this is an amazing Bill, I believe we can take it to a higher level. This Bill arises out of a greater aim to create a greater space for adoption within our society. My sincere aspiration is that we, as a society, see adoption as equally attractive as having biological children and both can come hand-in-hand as routes to starting a family. This positive framing of adoption can invite more prospective adoptive parents to come forward and put their names down and also for more unplanned pregnancies to lead to adoption instead of abortions.
One humble suggestion is for MSF to invite prospective adoptive parents to put their names down on a list, and also to have a list of pregnant ladies who want to give life to their babies, but cannot take care of them and would like to put them up for adoption. Then MSF can match the two lists together and facilitate more adoptions.
Having a child, whether adopted or biological, is not always easy. Like all families, there are ups and downs. So, I call on MSF to provide follow-up support, engagement and bonding activities for parents of adoptive children who desire support.
In conclusion, Sir, adoption is a unique journey. It will not always be smooth, but love solves all things.
I hope that there will be many more adoptions in Singapore in the decades to come. To prospective adoptive parents, do take the leap of faith and walk the journey. There is a wonderful team in MSF and I admire them and am thankful to them for all their hard work.
Mr Speaker, I believe we are all made for a unique purpose and I challenge each of our Members here and listeners at home to carefully consider whether your unique purpose is to adopt a child. I stand here in Parliament strongly advocating for the incredibly worthy cause of adoption. And for this reason, I support this timely Bill.
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 5.10 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.50 pm until 5.10 pm.
Sitting resumed at 5.10 pm.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Mark Chay.
Mr Mark Chay (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Adoption of Children Bill, which seeks to improve the systems and processes surrounding adoption in Singapore with a child welfare first approach.
I am pleased by the added rigour, scrutiny and support that will be soon embedded in the screening, selection and post-adoption processes, to ultimately, safeguard the well-being and the rights of children across Singapore.
Please allow me to share a few thoughts on the Bill. One, on the requirement for adopters to undergo suitability assessments; two, on breaking cycles of abuse and neglect; and three, on the suitability and criteria to adopt.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am encouraged by the move to conduct mandatory Adoption Suitability Assessments (ASA) on all prospective adoptive parents. This is to ensure a robust due diligence process which ascertains the fitness, readiness and suitability of adoption applicants.
I would like to ask if ASA is a two-way matching process that is fair and transparent to the potential parents as well. Will there be a comprehensive evaluation of the child's medical, mental and emotional status? In addition, will full disclosure of these details be shared with potential adoptive parents? In particular, the mental health and condition of adopted children are a concern and potential adopters should be made aware of the unique needs of the child they are adopting.
I move to my next point on breaking cycles of abuse and neglect.
I fully agree that access to a safe, stable environment is paramount to the health, happiness and development of the child.
The Bill states that the Court may dispense with a child's birth parents' consent to the adoption if the birth parents are unfit or unwilling to care for the child.
The Bill also prevents persons convicted of serious crimes, such as sexual violence and drug-related offences, from adopting and I would like to make two points on this matter.
First, I am happy to see that the Bill recognises the reformation process and the Court may consider exceptional cases for overcomers to be eligible for adoption.
Second, like overcomers, birth parents may be deemed unfit or unwilling to care for children at a point of time. But what if they can overcome and be deemed able and willing to parent later? In these instances, would there be an opportunity for the birth parents to reconcile with their birth children?
Lastly, on the criteria for suitability to adopt, my hope is for us to be a progressive nation and begin to have conversations on non-traditional family units.
While I do not disagree with the Government's position against deliberate single parenthood through surrogacy, adoption or same-sex parents, I am pragmatic in acknowledging the possibility that other non-traditional family structures may be able to meet the needs of an adopted child just as efficiently.
Although I respect the policies in place today, it is my hope that, in time, we dispense with evaluations of suitability based on sexual orientation or relationship status when the key qualifications and thresholds for suitability have been satisfied.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I conclude by restating my firm support for this progressive Bill that modernises and legitimises Singapore's adoption process to provide for and protect children in need of forever families.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.
Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Sir, I stand in support of the Adoption of Children Bill.
The last substantial amendment to the Act was in 1985, almost 40 years ago. The recommended increase from 12 sections to 75 sections in the proposed amendments, is a testament to the need to update this legislation. In addition, Singapore's birth and fertility rate has been declining. And adoption is one of the top options for couples who aspire to parenthood. Adoption is, thus a matter of interest to our society.
Adoption is clearly a serious matter. An adoption order granted by the Court is, in effect, a termination of the legal relationship between a child and his/her biological parents, and adoption means transferring all rights and responsibilities in caring for the child to the adoptive parents.
I wish to touch on matters relating to three key stakeholder groups: the children to be adopted, the adoptive parents and the adoption agencies.
First, the voice of the child. I fully agree with the Ministry's undergirding principle behind this suite of amendments in the Bill – that the top priority is to guard the welfare of the child. Many of the stakeholders involved in the adoption process are adults: prospective adopters, biological parents, adoption agency operators. But the person that is most impacted remains to be the child who is up for adoption. My question to the Minister is, therefore, how the voice of the child can be better sought and heard.
All the names I use hereon are not the real names of the persons involved, but all of them are people I know.
In the case of one of my young teenaged residents, I call him \"Weng\", the stress and uncertainty he endured during the adoption process was very hard for him. Weng's biological father, in a foreign country, had abused both him and his mother. His mother remarried a Singaporean who discovered the option of adoption only after quite a long period of appeals to agencies and through me, the Member of Parliament. Throughout the period of adoption, Weng, the young man, expressed great fear and anxiety of being rejected in this adoption application and being sent back to his home country. Weng really wanted to reside in Singapore with his mother and stepfather and wants to serve National Service when it is time. He wanted to become a Singaporean. I am so glad he is one now.
Another young resident, \"QH\", had to return to China to fend for himself at age 21, whilst his biological mother remained in Singapore with his biological half-brother and Singaporean stepfather. I supported part of his education, because fees were very high for him as a foreigner here and I often wished he could have become one of Singapore's sons.
One of my former students, \"Boon\", is a Singaporean child with special needs who was fostered as a toddler, because he was abandoned, until he was 21, through the Ministry's arrangement. Could Boon have been put up for adoption earlier? He was fostered for more than a decade. How long, therefore, would it take under the Bill, the new Act, if approved, to propose and facilitate the adoption of fostered children like Boon who were abandoned from young?
Sir, if the top priority of the Bill is for the welfare of the child, there must be ways found by which the process incorporates the voice of the child to be adopted.
Next, on the voice of the adoptive parents. In the process of preparing this speech, I spoke to a number of adoptive parents who have walked the journey. There are usually two main areas of concern: one, the long administrative process; and second, the unevenness of available information for them to make informed decisions.
The process of adoption, currently, involves many steps – from pre-adoption briefing, to home assessment study, identifying an agent, identifying a child for adoption, applying for a Dependant's Pass for a foreign child, getting the approval of the Family Court, sending the Adoption Order to ICA for a birth certificate, applying for Singapore Citizenship and, in the case of China, several post-adoption reporting requirements.
\"Yen\", a happy adoptive mother who adopted a baby from an ASEAN country, had to wait for a Dependant's Pass to be approved before she could spend time with the child, even after passing a very stringent Home Report assessment. That was step seven of, I think, 15 steps in MSF's portal, when I did a search. Mothers, like Yen, ask if the new process would further lengthen the anxiety of bona fide prospective adopters.
How do the steps in the new process vary, in terms of the number of steps, quantity, duration and complexity? How can the process be made more efficient whilst ensuring the welfare of the child remains a priority? Whilst essential steps to assess and prepare prospective adopters are made mandatory, which I fully support, are there other steps that can be consolidated or simplified and the flow of information across agencies be better shared?
The second concern of adoptive parents is that of the uneven level of awareness amongst them. In the words of one parent who spoke to me, \"for us, the official road sort of 'ended' after MSF officially gave us the certification to become adoptive parents.\" Another one told me, \"After the Home Study Report was done, we did not know where to go to look for the babies.\" They depended on the luck of the draw, to land the right lawyer to help them, the right social worker and the right adoption agency.
Several adoptive parents cited their search of agencies to be daunting and quoted some agencies to be \"dubious\" and \"dodgy\". Whilst the new clause 10 of the Bill provides for the Unique Entity Number (UEN), address of the place of business of every authorised adoption agency to be published, one wonders if that is sufficient. Surely, much more could be done to facilitate access to the needed information to help potential adoptive parents make better informed decisions and to cut short the process.
Lastly, on the voice of the adoption agencies. It is obvious from the feedback from adoptive parents I spoke to that not all adoption agencies are equally experienced, ethical and effective. How will MSF evaluate and identify appropriate agencies? How can the better ones, that Mr Deputy Speaker spoke about just now, be recognised and engaged?
For the sustainability of the good players in the market, whether for profit or not, financial viability is necessary. Therefore, can there be some way to help them? Can there be fee guidelines such as that issued by the MOH for clinics, so that there is an acceptable range of service fees? This will ensure that adoption agencies with good records get to remain in the business and build on their strength to support more families effectively.
Sir, the Adoption of Children Bill is overdue and is well worth our support. I seek the Ministry's considered responses to the concerns I have raised for the child, adoptive parents and adoptive agencies. Thank you so much for doing the good work.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this Bill. I note that the Bill contains certain provisions of the Adoption of Children Act 1939 while also codifying certain other current practices, and I would like to seek clarifications on just certain parts of this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill requires that an adoption application must, henceforth, be made by an applicant who has a favourable adoption suitability assessment under clause 14, or in short, ASA. ASA is required to be issued by an authorised adoption agency pursuant to the requirements of the Bill. Clause 14 further provides that a valid ASA is one that is issued in the form specified by and contains all the necessary information required by GIA. Can the Minister clarify what additional information is required as prescribed under clause 14(3)A and B?
Currently, only limited categories of prospective adoptive parents are required to obtain a favourable Home Study Report (HSR) before they are allowed to adopt, for example, for overseas adoptive children. The HSR assessment is usually carried out by one of the four Social Service Agencies (SSAs) specifically authorised by MSF to provide certain adoption services. One such organisation, Touch Community Services, has provided a helpful explanation on the purpose of HSR on their website. They explained that HSR is to assess a person's suitability and readiness to adopt a child. The assessment is required before the adoptive parents start searching for a suitable child or before initiating legal adoption proceedings. The home study process involves interviews, screenings, home visits and applicants will be assessed on areas, such as their motivation to adopt, views on adoption, family, marital, medical and employment history, childcare arrangement, parenting styles and other relevant information, involving adoption and adoptive parenting.
I would like to ask the Minister whether for the categories of adoption applications currently requiring HSR, for example, adoption of foreign or local children not previously known personally to them, would HSR still be required, or whether ASA will replace HSR completely. And if ASA will not replace HSR, how would ASA add value to the current HSR regime beyond the ASA being a formal certification by the adoption agency that these applicants are suitable to be adoptive parents?
For any other group of applicants not currently subject to the HSR procedure, for example, a step-parent adopting a child of his or spouse from a previous marriage, may I know what is the expected rigour of the ASA assessment expected, for example, when compared to the current HSR process? How will GIA ensure that all ASAs comply with the requirements and standards expected under the Bill or any subsidiary legislation?
I am also curious why the Government did not consider it fit to allow the current four SSAs, which are issuing HSRs to issue ASAs, instead of getting the authorised adoption agencies to do so. Since the four SSAs are already issuing HSRs, it would seem reasonable and consistent for them to do the ASA assessment and issue the ASAs. I am also concerned about the additional cost to adoption which may arise from the requirement of ASA. The expenses for the adoption of overseas children are already quite significant and it is not easily affordable to some. Bearing in mind that each HSR already costs $2,000 and the HSR process is currently undertaken by commercial agencies, is the Minister able to indicate, for now, the estimated fees which the Government expects the adoption agencies to charge for ASA and would this be capped by the Government?
Mr Deputy Speaker, I have earlier spoken on the new requirement of the adoption agency issuing an ASA for adoptive parents. Clause 10 of the Bill allows the Minister to designate or authorise adoption agencies. May I ask the Minister to share with the House what are the specific requirements for an adoption agency to be an authorised adoption agency?
I agree with the Bill setting guidelines for permissible adoption-related payments, requiring all our adoption agencies to publish information on their fees, as well as other provisions, criminalising undesirable behaviour. It is important to ensure that agencies uphold acceptable standards and moral practices. However, I am concerned about the possible compliance costs which may be incurred by such authorised adoption agencies and whether such costs will be passed on to the adoptive parents. I am concerned that the requirement should not lead to an increase in the cost of adoption fees and expenses. Certainly, for the many adoption cases involving children from overseas each year, the cost is considerable. I urge the Government to take steps to ensure that this Bill will not lead to an increase in the cost and expenses of adoption.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill also helps to facilitate adoption of children who have been placed in foster care or a children's home for many years as their birth parents continue to be unfit, or unwilling, to care for them. I can understand some of these difficult cases, the concerns about their birth parents being continually unfit to take care of their children, or even be abusive. I can also understand that some of these children may even have good and close relationships with their foster parents, making adoption a worthwhile consideration.
Nevertheless, people may change for the better over time and live to regret their past actions, while legal adoption, unlike fostering, adds a permanent and irreversible seal to an end to the legal relationship between birth parents and their children. Rehabilitation efforts, may, for some, involve a longer time than others. How do we decide between continuing a child under foster care or putting the child in foster care up for adoption? There will not be easy, one-size-fits-all solutions.
Even after the passing of this Bill, it will not and should not be an easy decision for the Court to make based on any set of general conditions, such as those in clause 37, for example, the time consideration which should be given to the parents in each type of situation listed in the clause, or for each particular case. I seek the Minister's assurance that there will still be sufficient safeguards to ensure that any adoption in these circumstances be allowed in perhaps only the most appropriate of cases.
Next, Mr Deputy Speaker, I understand that adopted children, who were foreigners at the time of birth are given citizenship at the time of the formalisation of adoption. However, ICA requires such children to take the oath of renunciation, allegiance and loyalty when they reach 21, pursuant to Article 124(1) of the Constitution.
Would the Government consider amending the law to dispense with the need for such adopted children not born in Singapore to take this oath, especially for children who were formally adopted by Singaporean parents under Singapore law within a short time after birth, for example, say, not more than one to two years after birth, and whose adoptive parents are also Singaporeans at the time of issuance of the children's Singapore citizenship certificate and birth certificate?
There are no other options for these children, unlike other categories, such as children who keep dual nationalities from birth, either by the parents' choice or at least one of the adoptive parents has a foreign nationality. Many of the adopted children would have severed their ties with their former countries, as well as their birth parents.
This Bill codifies the existing practice required by MSF for all would-be adoptive parents to first attend certain briefings, including a briefing on disclosure of adoptive status in clause 13.
Currently, MSF states on its website that prospective adopters are strongly encouraged to attend a disclosure workshop on talking with one's adopted child about adoption. The workshop will help one to understand why adopted children should know about their status and how adoptive parents can approach the subject.
These briefings have been a part of the adoption procedure for some time now. While still not mandating disclosure by parents to their adopted children of the status of their adoption, the inclusion in the Bill of the disclosure briefings is still, in my view, extremely significant, as it would help to enshrine the importance of disclosure.
There is quite a lot of literature on the benefits of disclosure, particularly early disclosure of the fact of adoption to the adopted child.
In the days of old, many parents would not tell their adopted children the fact of their adoption and some would find out later on in their life, through different sources or by accident. Many adopted children do not react well to discovering this later in their life.
Some time ago, a father shared with me his painful experience. He and his wife had adopted a child from a neighbouring country some years ago and did not disclose the fact of adoption to the child. As the child developed a different complexion from his adoptive parents as he got older, he was teased about it and had a tough time in school.
One day, he confronted his parents about it and his parents admitted to him that he was adopted. However, he struggled to accept this revelation in his mid-teens and why he was not told about it earlier. He developed difficult behavioural issues right through his early adulthood. Sadly, the episode also took a toll on his parents' marriage.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am, myself, an adoptive father. I was glad that in the early stages of adoption, I was briefed and made to understand the importance of disclosure. Though not mandatory, my wife and I agreed at the onset that we should disclose to our child that she is adopted.
We started by sharing with her stories of adoption even when she was a baby. In recent years, we started telling her that we are her adoptive parents. She knows that she has a \"Tummy Mommy\" and a \"Forever Mommy\".
My daughter is still young. She is in Primary 1 this year. It is still a work in progress in our disclosure journey. We expect that, in future years, we would have more and deeper conversations with her about her adoption, but we are glad that we have started this journey of disclosure some time ago.
Mr Deputy Speaker, though the Bill does not make it mandatory for parents to disclose the fact of adoption to their adopted children, once passed into law, the requirement in the legislation for a prospective adoptive parent to attend briefings on disclosure is a symbolic step in the right direction.
I understand that there may still be parents who may not be comfortable with disclosure and I sincerely hope that, by my sharing, I can also encourage some of those who may still have doubts.
I am in a support group of adoptive families that was initially set up by the SSA which helped us with our home study report the Lutheran Community Care Services. Pre-COVID-19, the group's parents and children had met from time to time. I hope the group will be meeting up again soon with the relaxation of safe management measure (SMM) conditions.
My daughter also meets up with other friends who are adopted.
Recently, a staff worker from the Lutheran Community Care Services sent to our support group a video on disclosure which I found to be very encouraging and thought-provoking.
I hope that adoptive parents and all stakeholders can continue to work together to encourage more parents about the benefits of disclosure and also to help adoptive parents and children along both their disclosure journey and, indeed, their adoption journey. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): For many would-be parents, the little pink \"+\" sign on the home pregnancy test kit is a moment of incredible joy. For other couples, this journey may be prolonged. As this House discussed last month, higher ages for marriage have been accompanied by greater challenges for childbearing, although, with the intervention of modern science, many are able to conceive and birth children of their own.
There are yet others for whom this route is closed, who find themselves unable to have biological children of their own. And, of course, there are those who see the provision of a home to a child, for whom this would otherwise not be available, as a noble calling in and of itself.
For such latter groups of households, desirous of having the pitter-patter of tiny feet as any other, there is one other route – becoming the parent of a child who has been born in otherwise undesirable circumstances, which led to the child being given up for adoption.
As any \"forever\" parent would tell you, there is absolutely no difference, insofar as becoming a father or mother is concerned, when one holds that baby, boy or girl, in one's hands for the very first time. Adoption is the way that these parents have been able to experience that joy of parenthood.
The Bill that is being debated here takes important steps to revise the process of adoption, refreshing some protections for biological parents while simultaneously introducing a number of amendments to ensure the suitability of adoption providers and adoptive parents for the sake of the welfare of the most important individual in the adoption process – the child.
Many of the proposed amendments and refinements are both necessary and very much welcomed.
However, I have concerns about how some of these measures may, inadvertently, introduce unintended consequences that run counter to the child's interest. They have to do with pre-adoption procedures, post-adoption recognition, both for parents and the child, counselling for adoptive parents and the regulation of adoption agents, all of which I plan to elaborate on in my speech.
One important objective of this Bill is to codify a number of sound and sensible procedures related to pre-adoption procedures, including requiring prospective parents to undergo suitability assessments – what, in practice, results in a home study report as well as attending pre-adoption and disclosure of adoption briefings.
Clause 13, which formally requires participation in a briefing on the disclosure of the child's adoption status, formalises the existing practice of strongly encouraging attendance. It is fully in line with both evidence that points to the psychological benefits as well as the ethical responsibility of doing so. It is a positive development.
Similarly, reconciling the need to perform a home study for not just foreign, but also Singaporean children, is consistent with the fact that home dynamics and the suitability of parents to adopt does not discriminate by national origin. All potential parents should be carefully assessed while simultaneously being transparently confronted with concerns that would trigger a rejection and, thereby, be allowed to proactively address any red flags that serve as a barrier to adoption.
While some prospective parents may find the assessment process intrusive and unfair, it is important to remember that pre-emptively ruling out couples who are unsuitable for parenthood is, ultimately, in the best interests of the child. The last thing we would wish for an adopted child is the need to face the trauma of yet another parental rejection.
The various steps involving at least two Court hearings prior to the issuance of the order of adoption, interviews in the office as well as at home after the arrival of the child and background investigation by MSF may be prolonged but, as clause 31(1) of the Bill indicates, should not exceed two years.
Pre-COVID-19, the process would, generally, be done and dusted in about nine months. I, myself, find this duration somewhat poignant – and practice reflected this reality with the initial Dependant's Pass issued for a nine-month period, with little need for extension in most cases.
In 2019, this timeline was altered to allow 21 months after the Dependant's Pass was first issued. This may well have been reflective of the fact that the pandemic introduced inevitable delays into the process. Unsurprisingly, foreign adoptions effectively ceased in the earlier phases of COVID-19.
But, even as we return to normal, there has not been any reversion to the practice of the original nine-month duration.
Mr Deputy Speaker, one could argue that the additional degree of freedom provided would surely be welcomed as it affords all parties additional time to complete the necessary steps. However, one must understand the mindset by which humans, such as you and I, operate.
With additional time, the sense of urgency to complete the task often diminishes. How many of us have drafted our Parliamentary speeches well in advance of the deadline? And it risks dragging out the uncertainty faced by adoptive parents; imagine not knowing for certain that, after a full one-and-a-half years of caring for a child, they would not, for sure, be taken away.
A 21-month timeframe for completion also throws a wrench into the prospective parents who may wish to adopt more than one child, since they are unlikely to initiate the adoption of a second until the first is complete.
I also believe that there are reasonable adjustments to the current procedures that can expedite the process.
At the moment, there are four accredited SSAs that have been tasked by MSF to perform HSR. The report itself is exhaustive and intrusive, and understandably so, since it is critical to ensure the suitability of a couple to raise an adopted child.
But what is somewhat puzzling is how a very similar set of questions is posed by MSF itself, despite the fact that they have access to HSR and that HSR is produced by agencies accredited by MSF itself. Hence, while interviews by MSF following HSR are justifiable – these occur after the arrival of the child, which does alter family dynamics – the replication of the report seems to me to be less so.
I would submit that the resources dedicated to repeating HSR are much better dedicated towards ensuring the integrity of the process, followed by the accrediting agencies.
Moreover, before the in-principle approval (IPA), which kickstarts the entire adoption process, is issued, MSF would, typically, interview the birth parents. This is, of course, important and necessary to respect the rights of the biological parents. But this step can be concluded and closed once IPA has been issued.
After all, why would it make sense to reopen psychological scars, encourage rumination and prevarication and risk imparting a sense of doubt and regret thereafter? What would it mean for the hitherto adoptive parents if, after a year and a half down the road, the birth mother somehow changes her mind?
Mr Deputy Speaker, all of this is to point out that inasmuch as we wish to protect the interests of the child, which, indisputably, is paramount in this process, we should not neglect the rights and responsibilities of the adoptive parents. After all, such parents face the same emotions of loss should the child be suddenly taken away from them and of fear of deep commitment to the child before the adoption is finalised, should the adoption process somehow fail.
What this would mean for the child is a home environment characterised by uncertainty and this is the last thing you would want to wish for a child who is already facing unprecedented volatility in their family life.
This is why clauses 46 and 47 spell out, in no uncertain terms, the status of the adoptive parents vis-à-vis the child after the adoption order is issued. But, certain rights pertaining to parents do not appear to be well-handled by the related and consequential amendments spelt out in part 9.
For instance, clause 77 amends the definition of a Dependant's Pass in the Child Development Co-Savings Act. However, as far as I am aware, parents are unable to purchase health insurance for the child or to add them to a family health insurance package before formal adoption is complete. Thus, while they remain on the Dependant's Pass, parents are unable to have the financial assurance that one will be able to take one's son or daughter to the doctor, especially in the early months when all manner of health issues may unexpectedly present themselves. It strikes me that some exemption should be afforded to those on a Dependant's Pass to be added to insurance in this case since the child's health does not respect the timelines dictated by the adoption process.
Similarly, the existing migrant domestic worker levy concession rate is not available for families whose children are on a Dependant's Pass. The $240 difference can quickly add up, especially for families that are already facing a surge of startup expenses that go towards new furniture, equipment, diapers and milk powder. Even if MOM cannot process a concessionary rate until after the child has definitively received their citizenship, a rebate for prior months after the change of status may, in fact, be warranted.
As a final example, consider the 12-week paid adoption leave granted by MOM. For starters, this leave is an entitlement only for adoptive mothers. It is unclear to me why the three-month bonding and care period should exclude the father. As this House debated last month, it makes much more sense to have a longer period of shared parental leave which either parent can draw on. This is all the more so, given how the adoptive mother will not have to undergo the typical postpartum physiological and psychological recovery process. Furthermore, the eligibility criteria require the child to become a citizen within six months of the adoption. Will this timeline be altered by the current practice where Dependant's Passes are issued for 21 months?
Clauses 35 and 45 now afford the Court the right to order mediation and counselling for parents, so long as it is beneficial to the well-being of the child. The former clause comes into play during the adoption process or the latter applies post-adoption. It is difficult to quibble about requiring such intervention before adoption. After all, there remains limited clarity about the adoptive parents' relationship status and background which could influence the success of the adoption.
But, to extend the power to do so after the conclusion of adoption proceedings indefinitely strikes me as an open invitation for the state to exercise its power to excessively intervene in family dynamics. While I understand that conflicts at any time after the child is adopted is possible, that open-ended nature of the clause may, potentially, discriminate between adoptive and non-adoptive families. Would it not be better to introduce a time-delimited requirement within the context of this particular Bill and to rely on existing laws governing child protection to stipulate mandatory counselling?
Parts 6 and 7, notably, clauses 54(4) and 60(3), spell out punishments in the form of monetary fines for adoption agents that fail to comply with the requirements stated in the Bill. But the Bill appears to fall short of taking the next step of holding frequent or flagrant violators to more permanent account. For example, MSF, currently, declines to mete out any durable punishments, falling back on the argument that parents working with ACRA-registered adoption agents are engaged in private arrangements.
The closest we see to such language in the Bill is that clause 10(5) allows the Minister to cancel the authorisation of an authorised adoption agency before the expiry of the authorisation. It remains unclear whether this means MSF will permanently bar an individual or agency from the industry. May I ask the Minister is there any system for recording or investigating adoption agents or an official registry of private providers maintained? These need not mean that each agent must be accredited per se, but there is, at least, a record of the most systematic violators. Children are not commodities to be traded and providers that adopt – pardon the pun – poor practices should not be allowed to continue to do so repeatedly.
The Government fully understands the benefits of regulatory discipline associated with official registries. MOM oversees migrant domestic worker (MDW) agencies closely and agencies that engage in repeated or especially egregious violations can expect to have their licences revoked. I see little reason why this should not apply with equal force to adoption agents.
Mr Deputy Speaker, adoption should be a \"win-win-win\" process. It relieves biological parents who have neither the wherewithal nor inclination to raise a child on their own; it offers adoptive parents an opportunity to fulfil their dreams of raising a child; it provides an opportunity for a child to have a better start in life. It is also a win for our country – as Singaporeans struggle with delayed marriages and low fertility rates, adoption offers a means for our families to start or expand families that would otherwise not result.
The rules introduced in this Bill go a long way towards rationalising the adoption process in Singapore. I have raised a number of concerns – many practical in nature – that I hope the Ministry will take into consideration. But the Bill, as a whole, encapsulates many improvements that will help create more happy families in Singapore. And for this reason, it has my clear and unequivocal support.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Ng Ling Ling.
Ms Ng Ling Ling (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, adoption is a significant decision for those who intend to undertake the important responsibility and legal obligations as parents. It is a beacon of hope for couples who are unable to conceive, but desire to have children.
As it takes great love, sacrifice and long-term commitment to adopt a child, the process must be considered in the best interests of the child identified for adoption. I am heartened to know that MSF is repealing and re-enacting the Adoption of Children Act 2022 to better safeguard the welfare of adopted children. My speech will focus on four aspects of the Bill: one, giving priority to prospective adopters who have strong ties to Singapore; two, safeguards to prevent persons convicted of serious crimes from adopting; three, suitability assessment for all prospective adopters; and four, post-adoption support for adoptive families.
Firstly, I understand that the Bill proposes to prioritise Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents (PRs) for adoptions in Singapore. For joint applicants, I note that both the individuals should be habitually resident in Singapore, and either or both of the individuals are citizens of Singapore, or both individuals are PRs.
I would like to seek clarifications on the impact of this change on Singapore Citizens who intend to adopt the foreign nationality children of their foreigner spouses. In my Meet-the-People Sessions, I came across several residents who are either adopting or have adopted the children of their foreign spouses. After the adoption process is completed, these adoptive step-parents have expressed concerns and difficulties in affording the educational fees of their step-children, who are often foreign students. Many appeal for permanent residence and citizenship status for their adopted stepchildren to try to reduce their school fees in Singapore, but this process takes time.
I hope to seek clarification from MSF on what may be the safeguards in place to ensure that Singaporeans under such circumstances are given full counsel on the full financial implications of bringing their stepchildren up in Singapore to ensure that the welfare of the adopted children are taken care of.
Secondly, I am supportive of the legislative provision that prevents persons convicted of serious crimes from adoption. A good adoptive relationship depends on the good character of the adoptive parents to instil good behaviours and set good examples for their adoptive children. Thus, I would like to understand how MSF intends to determine the nature of offences to be prescribed in the legislation. Will serious crimes be determined by the category of crimes, length of imprisonment and/or the amount of fine imposed?
In my view, even for those with non-serious offences, as it will be difficult to guarantee that there will be no risk of re-offending, it may be in the best interests of children being put up for adoption to also be protected. This is especially if the criteria for serious or non-serious crimes are not easy to prescribe. I would like to suggest that MSF consider placing potential adoptive parents who have previous convictions in Court, even for non-serious offences, on a lower priority for adoption.
My third point relates to the suitability assessment for all prospective adopters.
I would like to clarify with MSF on what will be the difference in the lead questions that will be asked as well as the criteria for assessment that will be used to make Adoption Suitability Assessment (ASA) more useful than the current Home Study Report (HSR) to ensure the child's welfare.
I also note that the current HSR fee is set at $2,000. However, there are no means-testing schemes to ensure that the fee would remain affordable for prospective adopters. I would like to ask how MSF will ensure that ASA will remain affordable for potential adopters, especially in special circumstances, such as unwed single mothers who wish to formally adopt their biological children, who have financial difficulties to pay for the fees for these assessments.
Finally, I am encouraged that the Bill will empower the Court to order the attendance of relevant support services, such as counselling and mediation. Several established research studies have consistently shown the long-term effects that adopted children faced, which often persist into adulthood. The research showed that adopted children are at higher risk of developing behavioural and emotional issues, such as anxiety, depression and delinquent behaviour.
Given the mental health and behavioural development risk associated with adopted children, I would like to suggest that MSF consider providing support services to adopted children up to the age of 21 when they can lead an independent life. I would agree with the majority of the respondents during the public consultation process that the support services not be made mandatory, but are provided on a needs basis, when it is required. Mr Deputy Speaker, please allow me to speak a few words in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome the Adoption of Children Bill tabled by MSF. The adoption of a child is very meaningful. This is because it enables children who need a family, especially those under state care, to find a home suitable for them. It also gives couples who cannot have children of their own a glimmer of hope and helps them form a happy family. I would like to make three suggestions on the proposed Bill.
First, the Bill proposes that, for joint applicants, at least one parent must be a citizen, or both must be PRs. At my weekly Meet-the-People sessions, I came across residents who adopted a foreign stepson or stepdaughter because they have married a foreign spouse. However, as they could not afford to pay for the tuition fees of foreign students, they hope to apply for PR status for their stepchildren to lighten the burden of school fees. Therefore, I hope that MSF will consider certain measures to help these applicants.
Second, the Bill proposes that persons who have committed serious offences would not be allowed to adopt children. I hope that MSF will clarify what constitutes a serious offence. While limiting the eligibility of ex-convicts who have committed serious crimes to adopt children to protect the safety and welfare of children, we cannot prevent ex-convicts who have committed non-serious crimes from re-offending, thus affecting the development of the adopted children. Therefore, I hope that MSF will consider giving lower priority to ex-offenders who have committed non-serious crimes, to better protect the safety of the adopted children.
Third, the Bill proposes to give the Court the power to order adoptive families to attend counselling, if necessary. Many studies have shown that adopted children are at a higher risk of developing emotional problems than those who grow up in their biological families. Therefore, I hope that MSF will continue to provide social services for adopted children until they reach the age of 21, so that we can detect and treat potential mental illnesses early.
The adoption of a child is a very important decision that requires unwavering love and selfless dedication of the adoptive parents to fulfil the promise of a home to the adopted child. I believe that the safety and well-being of the adopted children are the key factors in determining whether they can find a happy home, conducive for their development. The new provisions added to the Bill are in line with this guiding principle of protecting the safety and welfare of children. I, therefore, support this Bill.
(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, there are many wonderful stories of adopted children finding good homes, where they are unreservedly loved by their adoptive parents. For adoptive parents, it can also be a rewarding journey of parenthood, so that their adopted children can get a better life.
Adoption is a beautiful thing and, with the necessary legislative framework and social support in place, I believe that it will serve the interest and welfare of children identified for adoption and create a journey filled with hope ahead for the children and the parents. Notwithstanding my considerations raised, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, children in their early and formative years require nurturing care and support. A safe and happy childhood leads to lifelong and intergenerational benefits for health, productivity and mental wellness. This stems from my personal experience being a father of five kids.
The sad reality is that not all families are equipped or able to care for their children. This is notwithstanding how much they want to. Some children struggle through challenging family circumstances. These situations may be present at the time of birth or come into being during their childhood years. For these kids, adoption may be the best option for them to lead a normal and healthy childhood. This Bill is timely, given the sharp rise in child abuse cases within the past two years.
Personally, I believe the overriding principle for adoption is to provide them with psychological safety, as well as the caring and supportive environment that they need. I have a few clarifications on the Bill. First, Mr Deputy Speaker, will all the changes to child adoption laws apply to foreign adoptees, where the adopting family is based in Singapore? Second, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, what are some exceptional circumstances that may permit adoption by a person who has been convicted of serious crimes?
I support the decision to prevent persons convicted of serious crimes from adopting. That said, I also believe in second chances. I trust the effectiveness of our prison rehabilitation programmes. Thus, I believe that the current position is the right balance between caution and giving second chances. How does the Ministry decide on the time-bar duration? Also, how does the Ministry determine whether the person has been adequately reformed, to be capable of providing care to a vulnerable child? Will this restriction, based on the conviction of serious crimes, also apply to the immediate family members of the adopting couple? These would be people who also live with or spend significant amounts of time in the company of the adopted child. If the applicant or said family members have committed serious crimes abroad, will they also be subjected to the same restrictions?
Third, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the amendment that seeks to provide more clarity on circumstances, where consent from the birth parents can be dispensed with, if it is in the child's welfare. However, there may sometimes be compatibility issues between the adopting family and the adopted child. What intervention and support measures will the Ministry provide to the family and their adopted child, if these issues occur? Quite often, this may happen when the parents adopt a special needs child or one with some behavioural baggage, but underestimate the effort and resources required to bring him or her up.
I know of a couple who adopted a child with special needs from the Philippines. Caring for the child is not easy and I applaud the couple's efforts in providing a safe and loving home for him. Other than briefing the potential parents with regard to the potential needs of the child, will the Ministry consider providing greater support to parents willing to care for such children? This is to, hopefully, prevent the need for the Court to make an order against the adopting parents for the child's welfare.
The Bill stipulates for prospective adoptive parents to attend a compulsory pre-adoption briefing, where they learn more about the adoption process and related issues, before they can apply to adopt. Is such a briefing adequate? Should there be a more extensive preparation course and follow up? Are there mandatory health check-ups and mental health assessments for the adoptees, before an adoption procedure is finalised?
Moreover, what if the adopted child is unable to get along with the rest of the siblings and other family members? Will the Ministry encourage adoptive parents and their families, where practical, to participate in respite fostering activities, if they seem unsure about adoption? In this way, the family can gauge whether they really have what it takes to welcome someone new into their families. This should not be a test, but it could be an avenue for families to determine their readiness.
I would suggest that part of the adoption process should include training or conversations with adopting parents and their families, to aid them with such decisions. The discussions should cover the sibling relationship issues. In this way, these conversations can be a whole family affair.
Fourth, Mr Deputy Speaker, does the Ministry intend to actively raise awareness and encourage adoption of children who have been under state care? According to a news report, there are fewer than 10 applications for children in state care, out of about 400 adoption applications filed in Singapore yearly. How does this figure compare with the number of children who are under state care? What is the percentage of those in state care who have been identified for adoption? What are the criteria for these children to be deemed suitable for adoption?
I support the amendments to ensure that adoption agencies publish their fees in a transparent manner and only charge the permitted payments. While advertising adoptees with identifying information is understandably prohibited, perhaps a generic awareness campaign on local child adoption could help to shed more light on the values and realities of child adoption.
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, a well-matched adoption can be a potentially life-changing and life-saving experience for the adopted child. With the new laws, I believe that Singapore will be a safer place for vulnerable children. Singapore will also benefit from a new generation of children who would have otherwise fallen by the wayside.
Adoption is, ultimately, an act of kindness. In my maiden speech in this Parliament during the Debate on the President's Address one and a half years ago, I spoke about how we can be richer as a nation, if we help one another. We are just emerging from the COVID-19 crisis.
Over the last two years, the Government has done much to help fellow Singaporeans to save jobs and to provide emergency support for workers and their companies.
But there is other help that is needed. We need the community to come together and to care for those who may be less fortunate and may be in need of a loving home and loving relationships. In helping those in need, such as children who struggle through challenging family circumstances, we leverage our various strengths and abilities to create a stronger social compact.
There is great value for us to do more for one another. Natural families already have many obstacles to overcome, to achieve stability and provide a safe and comfortable environment for children to thrive and grow. I imagine that adoptive parents would face even more challenges. Let us help in every way we can, to make every match between adoptees and adopters a success.
Lastly, I would like to express my admiration and appreciation for the Singaporeans who have adopted children. Dedicating resources, energy and giving of your lives to a child outside of your natural family is, undoubtedly, one of the most selfless acts of humanity. I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill, which seeks to better protect the welfare of children identified for adoption.
According to data from MSF, there is an average of 400 adoptions a year in Singapore. While this number is not large, each and every adoption could mean a better future for the child, especially if the birth parents are unable or unsuited to raise the child properly. I, therefore, support the extensive proposals to enhance our local adoption laws and practices. However, I have a few clarifications and suggestions.
Let me first start by speaking about children in foster care. Sir, there are many children currently in foster care, or who have been in a children's home for years, who would benefit from being adopted into a caring and stable family. However, couples who wish to adopt such children face roadblocks when the child's birth parents do not consent to the adoption. To address this issue, the Bill makes clearer the proposed thresholds and circumstances and specifies more grounds, under which the Courts will allow the adoption to proceed without the birth parents' consent.
However, the issue of the Courts dispensing with the consent of birth parents in the adoption process is not new, as there are prevailing case law examples. I would like to ask if any of the proposed provisions go against prevailing case law, and, if so, what are the reasons for this.
I would also like to ask what will be the protections given to the adopted child and the adoptive family, to prevent birth parents who did not provide their consent, from harassing the family? In cases where the birth parent was found to have intentionally caused grievous physical hurt or mental trauma to the child, it is vital that we do all we can to help the child get a clean break from the cycle of abuse. Adoptive parents, too, should be protected from harassment and be given a safe and conducive environment to care for their adopted child.
Next, I will touch on deterring undesirable behaviours in the adoption sector. Sir, I welcome the Bill's proposal to introduce offences to protect the welfare of the children identified for adoption and to ensure the integrity of adoption processes and practices in Singapore. Specifically, the Bill proposes to make adoption practices more transparent by making clear what are allowable adoption-related payments and to require all adoption agencies to clearly publish information on their fees. But is this sufficient to combat existing unscrupulous practices in the adoption sector?
A recent news report published by CNA, followed the story of an adoptive parent who tried to adopt a newborn in Singapore four years ago, but was forced to return the baby to the birth parent after refusing to pay questionable additional fees to the birth parent and the adoption agency. Is this a prevalent practice in Singapore, where adoptive children are being, and I quote, \"sold as merchandise\" to the highest bidder? How many such cases have MSF come across in the past five years?
Can MSF, therefore, consider regulating the fees charged by adoption agencies in Singapore? While I understand that adoption agencies currently charge different rates due to a variety of reasons, such as childbirth expenses, we should rein in adoption agencies that try to profiteer from adoptive parents. I would like to propose for MSF to gazette in subsidiary legislation the permissible fees charged by adoption agencies and review these fees regularly, in consultation with the industry, to ensure that the fees are both reasonable and updated. Simply put, we can, and must, end the abhorrent practice of giving babies to the highest bidder.
Lastly, I hope that more Singaporeans can consider becoming foster parents to vulnerable children and young persons who are in need of a loving home environment. According to MSF data, the number of children and young persons in foster care has remained stable at about 540, in the past three years. Can MSF provide an update on its efforts to encourage more families to step forward to become foster parents?
Various research papers and anecdotal stories posted online have documented the multitude of challenges involved in fostering. It can, indeed, be stressful to be foster parents. In addition to the traditional stressors of caregiving, foster parents must build rapport with the child, who often might come from a troubled background and, therefore, finds it difficult to trust his new caregivers. Some foster parents have shared that they sometimes received a late call-up to foster a child, and this would spark a last-minute shopping rush for clothes and essential items and to make urgent childcare arrangements. To alleviate these challenges, can the Ministry consider providing foster parents with additional childcare leave, beyond what are already provided for under the Child Development Co-Savings Act and the Employment Act?
Sir, the proposed amendments to the Adoption of Children Act are vital to ensure that more vulnerable children have access to adoption and are able to receive the best opportunity to grow up in a safe, stable and loving family. As we enhance the Act to improve the adoption processes and weed out undesirable behaviour within the industry, I also hope that more Singaporeans will consider fostering and adopting children who are in need of a loving family. Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Don Wee.
Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the new Adoption of Children Bill is timely and will enhance measures to protect the interests of adopted children and help them find good homes and families. I have four suggestions.
The first is regarding adoption leave. Presently, adoptive mothers of children below the age of 12 months are entitled to 12 weeks of paid adoption leave, which they can use to bond with, and care for their adopted newborns and infants. For adopted children aged between 12 months and seven years old, adoptive parents can only tap on six days of Government-paid childcare leave (GPCL). For those aged between seven and 12, Government-paid extended childcare leave is only two days.
I would like to suggest that the Ministry consider extending adoption leave to mothers of children aged up to six years. After all, toddlers and preschoolers need as much, if not more, time than infants to bond with their adoptive mothers.
The first few months of the adoption are a major and critical adjustment period for both mother and child. With 12 weeks of adoption leave, the mother will be better enabled to understand the traits and needs of her adopted child. The child will also benefit immensely from the dedicated attention of his or her adoptive mother in a new home and, in some cases, a new country.
Increasing the adoption leave for mothers of toddlers and preschoolers will also encourage more suitable local couples to consider adopting children in state care who are typically older. As the Bill proposes to clarify the threshold for the dispensation of consent for the welfare of children under state care, such a provision will be helpful in meeting the future rising needs of older children being adopted into stable families.
My second suggestion is to provide funding for adoptive parents' support groups. Funding would be helpful for authorised adoption agencies to facilitate more regular support group sessions. Through such sessions, social workers will be able to detect problems faced by adoptive families and assist them in a timely manner. Parents can also turn to these groups for emotional support and useful advice at different stages of their children's growth and development. Unique issues that they may face would include disclosure, family conflict between the adopted and biological children or other family members, or a budding romance between adopted children or between an adopted child and a biological child, amongst others. I see the importance of support groups and strongly encourage adoptive families to participate. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] My third suggestion is regarding the school fees paid by non-citizen stepchildren in the process of being adopted. Until they are adopted and become Singapore Citizens, they have to pay international student fees, which are much higher than those that are paid by Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents (PRs). For Primary schools, the fees are over $800 per month. For Secondary schools, they range between $1,000 and $2,500. These fees would impose a heavy burden on most families. Some of these children may even have to miss school until they are adopted and become citizens. For more complex cases, the adoption process may take up to two years. This break in their learning is a disservice to growing children.
I have received some feedback from a number of Singaporean men who are married to divorcees from China with children from their previous marriages. Many of these men would like to adopt their stepchildren. However, the Chinese embassy requires that the biological fathers have to endorse and sign the adoption papers. In some cases, there are delays in the ex-spouses' negotiation of terms and conditions. In other cases, the biological Chinese fathers may refuse to sign. With the interests of the children at heart, I would like to request the Government to consider charging these children school fees that are similar to those paid by PRs. There are long-term benefits to nurturing people. The Government may impose certain conditions, such as indications of these foreigner children setting their roots here in Singapore.
(In English): Lastly, regarding post-adoption reviews. It is not clear to me if post-adoption reviews will be required or how it will be implemented for adoptions here.
The Bill proposes to empower the Court to order attendance of relevant support services, such as counselling and mediation, if required at any point during the adoption proceedings or after an order has been made. However, this is different from a routinely scheduled post-adoption assessment.
For children adopted from China, the China Centre for Children's Welfare and Adoption (CCCWA) requires post-placement reports. These reports are to be prepared by accredited agencies here and submitted to CCCWA. For stepchildren and kinship adoptions, the adoptive parents are required to undergo at least one post-adoption assessment within three years from the adoption registration in China. For children adopted from the social welfare institution, parents need to complete six post placement reports at the sixth month, first year, second year, third year, fourth year and fifth year milestones.
I would like to ask the Ministry for clarification and details about post-adoption reviews for local adoptions and adoptions of children from other countries. I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Henry Kwek.
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Kebun Baru): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Adoption of Children Act Bill today. At first glance, the Bill affects a small number of Singaporeans. On average, 400 children are adopted each year and half of them are born in Singapore.
However, for the new parents who choose to adopt, for the children who are adopted and for the biological parents of the children put up for adoption, the laws and processes of adoption have an immense impact to them. Therefore, I am heartened that MSF is proposing a set of comprehensive and timely amendments.
I would like to commend three particular provisions in this Bill. First, regulate the key parties of the adoption sector, to ensure that they are well-run and to deter them for commodifying the adoption process; second, implement safeguards against the applicants convicted of serious crimes – children who are put up for adoption deserves to belong to supportive and healthy families; third, prioritising applicants with a strong nexus to Singapore.
Notwithstanding my support for many parts of the Bill, I would like MSF to also clarify, particularly on the provision that allows for the judicial Courts to dispense with the consent of a relevant person, who is usually a biological parent, to a child being put up for adoption if certain thresholds are met.
The intentions behind this provision are sound. After all, if parents or guardians are deemed by the Courts to be extremely ill-suited to discharge their duties, then, surely, there must be a legal process where society can protect the child, by giving the child the opportunity to live outside bad, or even dangerous, influences of his or her biological parents or guardians.
However, I do hope that MSF can provide the public clarity on the Government's considerations, as well as the steps that Government agencies will take, before the commencement of the Court process.
Will our social workers inform the biological parents or guardians at the earliest possible time if the social workers deem them to be heading down a path where the state takes their children away from them? If so, how will the social workers inform these biological parents or guardians?
I am fully aware that there are circumstances, such as serious abuse and neglect, where the state has to refer cases to the Courts immediately and at the first occurrence of such abuses. But there are also circumstances that are less clear.
As fellow parliamentarians here, we all have our encounters with families that are embroiled in serious family disputes, violence, potential or actual abuses. There are also parents that we see who are struggling with children with uncontrollable behaviours.
What I worry about is that if the public is unclear about how this provision will be implemented, then some parents in families that require deep intervention from our social workers may withdraw from cooperating with MSF, out of a misplaced fear that their children will be taken away from them without their consent.
We must also consider the issue on the other side. There are also parents who are engaging in self-destructive behaviours or lifestyles. These parents may not be well-informed about the laws, such as ACA. By informing them of the consequences of their actions early on, it is possible that the fear of losing their children will inspire them to take a different path. As such, I hope MSF can provide some clarity on this matter, even though I acknowledge it is not an easy balance to strike.
Lastly, I would like to ask MSF how the Government decides whether children are put up for adoption versus fostering. Will the new ACA lead to any changes when the Government makes such decisions? And will some children currently being fostered also have a chance to be adopted, and will the fostered parents be informed or consulted?
In conclusion, the Bill contains many good provisions and I fully support it.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill will update the regime for the adoption of children. It is a step towards helping children identified for adoption find good homes, breaking cycles of abuse and neglect, and deterring undesirable behaviours in the adoption sector.
I thank MSF for having held a public consultation and engaging stakeholders in the social and legal sectors in preparation of this Bill. I am glad that the amendments proposed in this Bill contain suggestions surfaced in those consultations.
I have three points of clarification to raise.
My first point is on the pre-adoption application requirements. Under section 11, an adoption application may only be made by an individual holding a valid and favourable Adoption Suitability Assessment (ASA). Can the Minister clarify the requirements that must be satisfied by applicants to obtain a favourable ASA? Can the Minister further clarify what are the requirements for the simpler ASA for adoption of a related child?
Under section 22(1), during the relevant period, applicants for an ASA must notify the authorised adoption agency of any material change as soon as practicable. The relevant period starts on the day of an ASA application and ends the day after an adoption application has been made. With the child's welfare as the primary guiding principle in mind, can MSF share how it ensures the continued suitability of applicants after the adoption application has concluded?
In addition, will MSF be releasing guidelines on the administrative requirements, legal processes and the relevant costs involved in the pre-adoption application to provide applicants with more guidance?
My second point is on the dispensation of consent of relevant persons. This Bill allows for the dispensation of consent of relevant persons on the grounds of having ill-treated or failing to provide any suitable care for the child. I do understand there are diverse views on this issue. Can the Minister share how MSF decided on the threshold for the dispensation of consent and also further details on when MSF will consider the dispensation of consent appropriate?
My third and final point is about deterring undesirable behaviours in the adoption sector. Commercial adoption agencies are not directly regulated today. To safeguard the integrity of the adoption process, there should be sufficient mechanisms in place to sanction and deter undesirable behaviours that compromise a child's welfare. In this regard, transparency in the amounts paid to adoption agencies will go some way in deterring undesirable behaviours through public scrutiny.
Can the Minister share what mechanisms will be in place to enforce the publication of amounts to be paid to or through adoption agencies? What are the penalties for adoption agencies that fail to publish such information?
I also understand there are, currently, less than 10 private adoption agencies offering different suites of services at varying costs. Will the Minister consider implementing a mandatory accreditation for all adoption agencies to standardise the practice and determine their suitability to operate? A registry of accredited agencies could be published to recognise those that are committed towards the protection of children under their care. This may give prospective adopters better peace of mind as they embark on the journey towards parenthood.
In conclusion, I seek the Minister's clarifications on the requirements of ASA, grounds for dispensation of consent of relevant persons, and deterrence of undesirable behaviour in the adoption sector. Notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to find a good home for every child identified for adoption, prospective parents are screened through the Home Study Report (HSR) before adoption. For this report, they have to submit information pertaining to their reasons for adopting, their family, education, employment and health, among others.
I would like to ask the Ministry how comprehensive the health information submitted is. Will the couples need to submit more detailed information with the new Bill? The reason is that, generally, although not for all cases, adoptive couples tend to be older couples. MSF had said that the couple should not be more than 50 years older than the child. But, if the child to be adopted is 10 years old, this would mean that the couple may be up to 60 years old. Hence, I think it is important that all potential adoptive parents undergo comprehensive medical examinations certifying that they are fit and healthy, both physically and mentally. I look forward to the Minister's clarification on this issue.
Next, I would like to express my concerns about the threshold for the dispensation of the unfit, biological parents' consent for their children to be adopted. This group of parents would include those who are in jail for extended periods of time, are very abusive or drug addicts and so on. I fully understand and support the Ministry's review on this issue and its aim to enable affected children to grow up in safe and stable families. Severance of ties between the biological parents and their children should only be allowed under strict conditions and must be very carefully considered. I seek the Ministry's assurance in this sensitive matter that the best interests of the child will be considered thoroughly from all angles.
Finally, about the disclosure to an adopted child of the truth about his or her birth. The disclosure of a child's adoption is a very sensitive and emotional issue. Depending on the relationships and personalities of adoptive parents and children, the consequences can vary widely. Sometimes, the disclosure can destroy an established relationship. When the adopted child has become an adult and wishes to find out who his or her natural parents are, that is his or her choice. For younger children, it should be left as a private matter between the adoptive parents and the adopted child. I hope that the Ministry will continue to adopt a cautious approach, as it has done so far.
I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.
Miss Rachel Ong (West Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, over the past four years, I have had the opportunity to serve with an non-government organisation (NGO) that aims to address the orphan crisis in the Philippines through advocating for adoption and preparing families to receive children through adoption and foster care.
Through the work they do, I have come to understand some of the legal and administrative challenges posed in adoption in their nation's context, especially in ensuring that children are safe and valued.
For this reason, I am encouraged and grateful to note how Singapore's tabled Adoption of Children Bill addresses many of the legal and administrative challenges faced in the adoption process; paving the way for children to be placed in Singapore homes in a manner that is safe, ethical and brings fulfilment to both children and their adoptive parents.
Ultimately, the laws surrounding adoption should exist to find the best family for the child and not the best child for families.
The Adoption of Children Bill strikes a good balance in placing safeguards for adopted children to be placed in a healthy family environment, while also reducing obstacles from them being placed in healthy families sooner. I am excited at the many lives this Bill will change, not only for our children and families, but the impact this will have on our community and nation.
As we speak of the Bill today, may I propose to the House, and fellow Singaporeans, to respectfully consider adoption as a real and viable option to starting and growing families, alongside assisted reproduction schemes.
UNICEF estimates 15 million orphans who have lost both parents in the world, also known as double orphans, the majority of who are in Asia. However, double orphans are not the only pool of children that need to find a home. We have children whose parents fail to perform parental duties for various reasons, also known as social orphans, many of whom are under state and institutional care.
In Singapore alone, there are over 1,000 children in state care staying in residential and foster homes, even if not all require adoption. There is no shortage of physical and social orphans locally and overseas who are needing, if not, longing for healthy families.
There is much that can still be done to raise awareness and to open the hearts and minds in Singapore to the idea of adoption. While over 80% of Singaporeans surveyed in 2013 shared that they are supportive of adoption, the number of adoption applications in Singapore has fluctuated around 380 from 2012 to 2021. And of these adoption applications, fewer than 10 per year are for children under state care.
In comparison, the demand for Assisted Reproduction Technology (ART) procedures has surged, evidenced by a 40% increase in the take up of funding for ART procedures between 2015 and 2019. Such demand has also led to recent policy changes in assisted reproduction; such as raising the age limit for those undergoing ART procedures, as well as increased co-funding for such procedures. These measures have been most welcomed, and many residents and friends I know are grateful for these changes that support their growing family.
However parenthood comes to us, it is a miracle. I sincerely look forward to the day where demand for both ART procedures and adoption will be on par, and to see more families embracing adoption as part of starting and building families. Perhaps in the near future, similar assistance used in supporting ART can also be provided to adopting families who pass the Adoption Suitability Assessment (ASA).
Adoption shows us that we do not have to look like the other person to love them. It expands the social and emotional capacity of a people and society. Love runs much deeper than blood. When a child knows that he or she has been chosen by a family to be loved and is given a safe home and life resources to explore new possibilities, it transforms his or her life in a manner that impacts generations to come.
Adopted at the age of 12 after his father passed away, Mr Nelson Mandela was the first in his family to receive formal education, alongside the children of his adoptive father. Because of the education opportunities accorded by his adoptive family, he became politically active during his university years and beyond and never imagined that he would be responsible in leading a nation out of apartheid, radically changing the lives of South Africans.
Closer to home, someone, whom I have deep respect for, chose to adopt her two children: her first, a daughter from China; and her second, a son from a teenager here who decided to release her baby for adoption over abortion. Both children are well-loved and cared for and have grown to be confident and contributing Singaporeans. As a matter of fact, her son today is a grateful recipient of a scholarship in a vocation of his dream. What a difference adoption has made to the lives of these young people and a joy they have been to their family!
Abandonment does not have to be the destiny of orphaned children, but an opportunity for families with emotional and financial capacity to help the children discover their destiny, no matter what age they come into their homes.
While children's homes could still give them the best quality of life possible, there is so much more a family brings to a child.
Studies show that being raised in an institutional environment contributes substantially to the delayed and adverse development of young children. Studies also feature that poor development is not associated with selected gene pool nor adverse pre-institutional experience; but when placed in families, most of such children display substantial catch-up growth, beginning soon after adoption, across physical, mental and social domains.
By placing orphaned children in families, we support them to see beyond their circumstances, uplift them to greater things. It gives our children courage to pursue all that life has for them; and to know that they have a destiny to fulfil.
An adopted child once shared: \"My birth mother brought me into this world, but it was my adoptive parents who gave me life.\"
As a Government, I believe we can do more to raise awareness, advocate for and support families in adoption. As a nation, I look forward to the day where we will have more families wanting to adopt, waiting to adopt children, than children waiting on families, especially for our Singaporean children under state care. With this, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this Bill.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill and the many measures introduced to protect the interests of the children to be adopted. I have three areas of concern.
First, I would like to ask the Ministry if it would provide more details about checks on the children, post-adoption. Would social workers be assigned to check on these children for the first two to three years after they are adopted? The checks and screening before adoption are quite stringent, but what about after adoption? Such checks would also be opportunities for social workers to find out if the adoptive parents need support in specific areas and, thus, refer them to the appropriate support programmes or groups.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
Second, would the Minister share how the adoptive parents would be prepared and supported in the area of disclosure? While disclosure is not mandatory, the Disclosure Briefing aims to encourage prospective adopters to disclose to the child the truth about his or her adoptive status and equip the couples with the necessary skills and knowledge to make the disclosure. What kind of guidelines and at which age for the child would the parents be advised?
Finally, there will be some adopted individuals who want to find out more about their biological parents and the circumstances of their adoption, whether they were informed about this by their families, or found out by accident. It is natural for anyone to want to discover more about his or her own roots. For some, knowing who their birth parents are and why they were given up for adoption helps to provide them some closure. How would the Ministry assist them? Is it possible to establish a register with some basic information, of course, with the agreement of the birth parents? Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I would like to ask MSF, in the first two to three years after adoption, whether it will send social workers to do home interviews to check on the condition of these children. This will enable the social workers to understand how the adoptive parents are coping and, when necessary, refer them to support programmes and groups.
Next, would the Minister share how the Ministry's briefing is going to teach adoptive parents how to disclose to the children that they are adopted?
Lastly, there will be some who are adopted, who want to understand more about their birth parents and the circumstances of their adoption. How will MSF help them? Will the authorities set up a register with some basic information?
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exempted Business","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Deputy Leader.
The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Leader, I beg to move, \"That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2.\"
[(proc text) Question put and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2.\" (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adoption of Children Bill ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Minister Masagos Zulkifli.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Mr Speaker, I thank the Members who have spoken, and I note all of them have expressed support for this Bill. I am glad that we share the same view that, ultimately, the child's welfare must be our starting point and is at the heart of adoption. We have heard many views and suggestions on ways we can strengthen our current adoption framework and processes. Let me respond.
First of all, the Bill covers the entire adoption process and proceedings in Singapore, regardless of a child's nationality. This is in reply to Mr Yip Hon Weng's query on whether the Bill applies to foreign children identified for adoption.
Several Members spoke about the proposed changes to the eligibility criteria for prospective adopters. Mr Seah Kian Peng asked whether residency requirements should be further tightened to disallow joint applications where both applicants are Singapore Permanent Residents (PRs). PRs form an integral part of Singapore society. A good number have committed to making Singapore their home and taking up permanent residency is one step on their journey towards citizenship.
As I shared in my opening speech, the number of children in Singapore available for adoption is limited. Hence, we would prioritise adopters with a stronger nexus to Singapore, who must qualify for the physical residency criteria, too. However, we may not wish to take this principle too far, such as to disqualify applicants based on their degree of connection to Singapore alone.
Some Members asked about the scope of the provision to bar applicants who have committed serious crimes from adopting. I recognise their concerns. Let me address them.
To address Ms Ng Ling Ling's query on how we will determine the types of serious offences to be prescribed, our guiding principle will be the bearing that the offence has on applicants' character and fitness and their ability to safely care for a child. Such offences would include sexual abuse and violence offences and offences under the Children and Young Persons Act.
We will also reference established frameworks that list serious offences. Depending on the types of cases that surface over time, we may review this list.
For offences not in the prescribed list, the applicants' criminal record will still be taken into account as part of the Adoption Suitability Assessment (ASA) by authorised adoption agencies, the Guardian-in-Adoption's (GIA) recommendations and when the Court considers the specific application. The overriding consideration is, again, whether the child's welfare is protected.
I would also like to inform Mr Yip Hon Weng that there is no fixed time-bar before an ex-offender can become eligible to adopt. GIA will look at each case holistically and balance various considerations. This includes the applicant's relationship with the child, the availability of alternate caregivers for the child if an adoption order is not granted and how long the applicant has remained crime-free. The longer the person has remained crime-free, the more favourably it would present his or her application.
Mr Yip Hon Weng also asked whether the provision covers offences committed abroad and offences committed by applicants' immediate family members. The suitability assessments are holistic. While we will only prescribe offences under Singapore law, offences of a similar nature committed overseas will be considered in assessing their suitability. Today, holistic assessments of the suitability of the applicants' household includes consideration of the other household members' background.
I will now move on to Mr Seah Kian Peng's comment relating to public policies. He asked what happens if a single applicant applies to adopt and, subsequently, marries someone of the same gender overseas. The scenario is hypothetical. Even if it were to happen, we should not pronounce on how a Court will, ultimately, decide on the case. It suffices to say that the Court has ruled that public policies are relevant and will be considered in any specific application and that the Government has made clear our public policy on this.
As I have mentioned in my opening speech, the Government does not encourage planned and deliberate single parenthood as a lifestyle choice. Singapore's public policy continues to be one which encourages parenthood within marriage. We also do not support the formation of same-sex family units through institutions and processes like adoption. These public policies will continue to guide suitability assessments.
This Bill also clarifies the duty of the applicant to provide accurate information and to update the information provided if circumstances change.
I will now address Members' queries on suitability assessments. Some, like Mr Dennis Tan, have asked how ASA differs from the pre-adoption assessment known as the Home Study Report (HSR) today, in particular, whether more information will be required from prospective adopters. In this regard, Mr Seah Kian Peng suggested requiring prospective adopters to provide character referees and periodic declarations of their circumstances.
HSR done today is a comprehensive assessment of the suitability of the applicants and the living environment that they would provide the child if the adoption were to be granted. ASA will continue to cover all key aspects covered by HSR. It will continue to be rigorous and assessed by qualified and trained professionals. The four social service agencies that perform HSR today will be authorised to conduct ASAs.
The key difference is that ASA will be mandatory for all applicants, even if they are related to the child. In such cases, the child is likely to already be living with the prospective adopters at the point of assessment. Thus, in such cases, the information required will be tailored to the specific child. Assessors will consider the actual dynamics of the relationship between the prospective adopters and the child and their understanding of the child's needs.
On character referees, MSF already requires prospective adopters to provide them today. In fact, we also interview their household members, as well as those close family members and friends who may meet the child.
We agree with Mr Seah Kian Peng that periodic affirmations and declarations by prospective adopters on their circumstances would be useful.
Today, the Court-appointed GIA checks in regularly with applicants on their circumstances. This ensures that assessments are up to date. Consistent with placing the onus on prospective adopters to notify MSF and authorised adoption agencies of material changes in their circumstances, MSF will require them to provide such declarations along the adoption process.
Mr Louis Ng asked about the prerequisites to obtain a favourable ASA, guidelines on the new processes and the circumstances under which a simplified ASA may be issued.
We have legislated and will also prescribe factors that assessors must consider in determining suitability. Relevant factors include the ability to provide a safe and suitable home environment for the child and marital stability.
MSF will provide more information to assist prospective adopters and other key stakeholders when transiting to the new processes. This would include authorised adoption agencies that they can approach for assistance during their adoption journey.
The adoption process can be shortened if prospective adopters provide all necessary information to assessors in a timely manner. Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked about streamlining GIA's investigations by relying on ASA findings. Such findings by authorised adoption agencies will be taken into account by GIA in assessing the case. At the same time, some Members have also proposed for more types of checks or assessments to be carried out. Hence, the issue is about striking the right balance and not to rush through the adoption process.
In cases where the applicants have been caring for the child for a prolonged period and do not present any concerns based on preliminary investigations, authorised adoption agencies may issue a simplified ASA. For example, this could be in a case where an applicant is adopting his step-child with his wife and both of them are able to provide a safe and stable home for the child.
Mr Yip Hon Weng commented that the relationship between a child identified for adoption and the rest of the family should be considered as part of the assessment. This is to ascertain if the family is prepared and understands the implications of adoption.
We agree. Today, part of the suitability assessment includes interviewing household members, such as other children of prospective adopters, to learn their views. We will continue to do so.
Mr Louis Ng, Mr Dennis Tan and Ms Ng Ling Ling asked about the cost of ASAs. Ms Ng Ling Ling further asked about the cost of raising the child after adoption is formalised.
Adopting and raising a child are a life-long commitment and responsibility. Assessors will look at the prospective adopters' mental, emotional and financial preparedness to adopt.
ASAs are conducted by social service agencies (SSAs) which charge fees to cover their costs in conducting the assessments. Fees are charged on a cost-recovery basis. Waivers are not granted for ASA fees.
Adoption is, ultimately, about the welfare of the child. If the prospective adopters are not able to cope well with caring for the child in financial, emotional or other terms, that is something that should be of concern to us.
Ms Denise Phua asked how the child's voice would be sought. As the child's welfare must be a key priority behind every adoption, MSF has already been seeking the child's views and wishes, in relation to his or her proposed adoption today. We will continue to do so.
Next, I will address Members' queries on medical and mental health assessments for children and prospective adopters.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked if medical and mental health assessments are mandatory for children identified for adoption before proceedings are finalised. Mr Mark Chay also asked if the child's medical, mental and emotional status is evaluated.
The answer is no. However, GIA, authorised adoption agencies or the Court may require the child to be assessed if they are of the view that such assessments may be useful to understand or document the child's needs.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh suggested that potential adopters should undergo comprehensive medical examinations, as they tend to be older.
Today, MSF already requires all prospective adopters to undergo health examinations and submit medical reports. As the adoption process takes time, we also check if the reports are updated.
Under the Bill, GIA and the authorised adoption agencies will be empowered to direct prospective adopters to provide any pertinent information or undergo assessments, including psychological or psychiatric assessments, to better assess their physical and mental fitness.
I will now address Mr Christopher de Souza's suggestion on matching prospective adopters with women with unplanned pregnancies who wish to place their child for adoption.
Today, pregnant women and prospective adopters can approach adoption agencies to indicate that they wish to place their child for adoption and to be matched with a child to adopt, respectively. Where such women have approached MSF for assistance, we also link them up with the SSAs which can do the matching. Going forward, MSF is also considering developing a registry to match children in state care with prospective adopters.
I will now move to the issue of disclosing to a child that he or she is adopted.
Ms Joan Pereira asked how we will support adoptive parents with disclosure and what guidelines would be given.
Broad guidelines for disclosure would include broaching disclosure as a process, rather than as a one-off event, being sensitive to the child's emotions and needs in understanding his or her birth history and assuring the child that he or she is loved.
While there is no universally appropriate age for disclosure, the professionals recommend introducing and normalising the concept of adoption as early as possible.
Beyond the Disclosure Briefing, if at any time prospective adopters or adoptive parents require more assistance with disclosure, they can approach MSF or any authorised adoption agency. We will direct them to relevant support services or support groups, which I will elaborate on subsequently.
Ms Joan Pereira also asked how adopted children who wish to find out more about their birth family can do so and whether MSF will establish an adoption register.
As Mr Gan Thiam Poh said, disclosure is very sensitive for the different parties involved: the child, the adoptive parents and the birth parents. This also came out very clearly in the consultation process.
As I mentioned in my opening speech, we will further study steps we could take towards greater disclosure, such as the setting up of an adoption register.
All adoptive parents would, generally, be aware of the identities of their adopted child's birth parents, as a copy of the child's original birth certificate must be submitted to the Courts as part of the adoption application. Hence, adoptive parents can be the first port of call if their adopted children wish to contact their birth parents.
Some adopted individuals also approach MSF and we assist as far as possible. Where we are able to contact the birth parents, we will explore whether they would be open to being contacted by the adopted child.
We also work with the adopted child to prepare him or her for possible scenarios. Sometimes, the birth parents may have passed away or they may be unwilling to establish contact with the child for their own reasons.
Many Members, such as Mr Christopher de Souza, spoke up on supporting prospective adopters and adoptive families through their journey. Let me outline some key ways in which MSF provides such support.
First, the Pre-adoption Briefing provides prospective adopters with an overview of what they can expect during the adoption process. ASA then builds on this as assessors interact closely with prospective adopters to address their concerns or queries.
Similarly, once the adoption application is made, GIA will continue to work with prospective adopters. This includes referring them to relevant support services.
While ASA and GIA investigations are primarily suitability assessments, they also serve as useful opportunities for prospective adopters to gauge their readiness to undergo the adoption journey.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked if the matters covered in the Pre-Adoption Briefing would be adequate to prepare prospective adopters. He also asked about the support measures that are available in cases where there may be compatibility issues between the adoptive parents and the adopted child.
As I shared earlier, the Pre-Adoption Briefing is part of the process of preparation to adopt. It should not be seen in silo.
Beyond the mandatory briefings and assessments, prospective adopters and adoptive parents can also tap on formal and informal support groups to support them during their adoption journey – as mentioned by Mr Dennis Tan.
MSF can also connect them with Family Service Centres (FSCs) for support on issues common to families, such as parent-child conflict or marital stress.
Mr Don Wee suggested providing funding for support groups.
Today, some SSAs organise formal support group sessions covering various topics, including addressing prospective adopters' concerns on disclosure, on a cost-recovery basis. The SSAs also organise group outings for adoptive families to be introduced to and interact with one another.
Through such sessions, online forums and word-of-mouth, adoptive parents and their adopted children have also formed their own informal support networks.
Mr Louis Ng asked how we will continue to ensure applicants' suitability after an order is made. Mr Don Wee and Ms Joan Pereira asked whether post-adoption reviews will be mandated at specific milestones.
An adoption order is made after extensive and in-depth investigations are conducted to ensure that the child is placed with suitable adoptive parents. Hence, after an adoption order is made, MSF's general position is to treat the adoptive family as any other family. The Government, therefore, does not interfere in the family unless we have cause for concern.
MSF also received mixed feedback on such post-adoption reviews during our stakeholder consultations, with some commenting that such reviews are invasive for adoptive parents when similar requirements are not imposed on birth parents. We note that Assoc Prof Jamus Lim shared similar views on this issue.
Ms Ng Ling Ling suggested that MSF consider providing support services to adopted children up to 21 years old, on a needs basis. We agree with her. If we conduct the pre-adoption suitability assessments rigorously and guide adoptive parents well in their adoption journey, it should suffice to offer support services to those who may need them.
That said, under the Bill, even after proceedings have concluded, the Court can order parties to undergo support services, such as mediation or counselling. Such orders can be made till the adopted child turns 21, as needed.
Ms Ng Ling Ling also asked if we will introduce support services for adopted children whose adoptive parents decide to undergo divorce and the criteria that the Court may use in determining custody matters for such children.
The Women's Charter provides guidance to the Courts in determining custody matters. If adoptive parents, unfortunately, have to contemplate divorce, these same principles apply. The support services that are given to all divorcing couples with children are also available and extended to adopted children.
Several Members of Parliament, such as Mr Gan Thiam Poh, expressed that dispensation with a birth parent's consent to adoption should only be allowed under very strict conditions. Mr Louis Ng also asked for more information on how the grounds for such dispensation are determined.
Let me start by assuring Members that MSF acknowledges the sanctity of parental rights and that a child's birth parents should be primarily responsible for caring for him or her.
Our intent is for a birth parent's consent to adoption to be dispensed with only when he or she is unable to provide consent or is, unreasonably, withholding such consent and adoption would be in the child's welfare.
We have calibrated the grounds for dispensation by balancing these two considerations. We also looked at other jurisdictions' laws on dispensation, examined the adoption applications that MSF has seen over the years and consulted professionals involved in contested adoption cases to determine the threshold.
Hence, the grounds are based on actual cases where it has been tested and shown clearly that the child is unlikely to be reunified safely with his or her birth family and adoption would be in the child's welfare.
Ultimately, it is the Court that will decide whether to dispense with consent, taking into account the case-specific facts and GIA's recommendations.
To Mr Melvin Yong's query, our intent is to build upon prevailing case law to give more guidance on when dispensation of consent would be in the child's welfare.
Specific to children in state care, Mr Henry Kwek and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked how MSF decides when to pursue adoption for such children instead of fostering or other care options. Mr Mark Chay asked if there would be opportunities for birth parents to reconcile with their children.
When a child is removed from his or her parents due to care or protection concerns, they are placed in foster care or in children's homes to provide the care and safety that their homes of origin are not able to provide. Once the child's immediate safety has been assured, MSF works with the child's birth family to resolve the problematic circumstances, so that the child can return home as soon as possible.
This entails collaborating with them on safety plans and trying to address safety concerns. We also share with them the plans that we will put in place for the child's welfare should they not be able to resolve these safety concerns. Officers from the Child Protective Service use an evidence-based Structured Decision-Making framework and consultations with an independent panel of professionals to guide their decision-making.
In some cases, birth families may be unable or unwilling to resolve safety concerns, despite extensive and prolonged assistance from professionals. In such cases, rather than leaving the child in long-term state care, adoption is a permanency option which would give the child more stability, certainty and a better outcome in life.
Hence, it is only at the point where reunification seems unlikely that we look at facilitating the adoption of that child and cease efforts at reunification.
Generally, for children below three years of age, working with birth parents for a period of 12 months provides MSF with a good indication of the likelihood that the child can be reunified. For children above three years of age, a longer duration of about 24 months is taken.
Should unhappy birth parents harass prospective adopters, our existing laws on protection against harassment will accord them protection.
I will now move on to Members' queries relating to adoption agencies.
Mr Louis Ng and Ms Denise Phua spoke about the accreditation of adoption agencies. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim suggested developing a registry of agencies. Our approach is to focus on the criminalisation of undesirable adoption practices. We will keep a close watch on the impact of the Bill on adoption agencies' practices and we are prepared to consider further measures in the future, if necessary.
Mr Melvin Yong queried about the number of cases where children identified for adoption were offered to prospective adopters willing to pay the most. MSF does not have the data. However, we have heard of such practices and the Bill seeks to introduce measures to deter children from being commodified.
Mr Louis Ng also asked about the mechanism to ensure adoption-related payments are published and declared. When applying to Court, all applicants must list every payment they have made or received for adoption-related matters. GIA will cross-reference these payments against the figures published by adoption agencies. Where they do not tally, GIA and authorised officers will investigate further to determine if an offence has been committed.
Ms Denise Phua asked about guidelines for adoption fees. This depends on the services that the agency provides to prospective adopters and could vary, depending on factors, such as whether the child identified to be adopted is local or foreign. In this Bill, we have focused on regulating payment categories rather than payment quanta directly. Payments for adoption-related matters outside the permitted payment categories would be an offence.
Last, but not least, some Members raised queries on adoption-related issues not directly covered in the Bill.
Mr Yip Hon Weng and Miss Rachel Ong asked if MSF will actively raise awareness and encourage adoption of children in state care. Mr Yip Hon Weng further asked if we would encourage respite fostering as an option for prospective adopters to determine their readiness for adoption.
Mr Don Wee and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked about adoption leave. Mr Don Wee also asked about school fees for foreign stepchildren seeking to be adopted by their Singaporean parents.
Mr Melvin Yong also requested for more information on MSF's efforts to encourage more to step forward to become foster parents and to provide them with additional childcare leave.
Mr Dennis Tan suggested that the requirement for adopted children to take mandatory oaths of renunciation, allegiance and loyalty be dispensed with.
We thank the Members for raising these issues. We will look into the suggestions.
Mr Speaker, having addressed the comments and suggestions raised by Members, I will now conclude.
This Bill seeks to achieve three main outcomes.
First, to find a good home for every child identified for adoption.
An adoption order terminates the legal ties between a child and his or her birth parents and creates new ties between the child and his or her adoptive parents. This is no simple matter. Given the gravity of an adoption order, it is crucial that the child is placed with adoptive parents who can provide a safe, stable and loving home for him or her.
Second, the Bill balances the interests of birth parents and the child.
This is done by clarifying the grounds under which the Court can dispense with birth parents' consent. It is not in a child's welfare for him or her to linger in the state care system. Adoption will give such children an opportunity to have a fresh start, experience stability and achieve better outcomes in life.
Lastly, the Bill seeks to deter undesirable practices in the adoption sector by putting in place a strong regulatory system. The life of each child is precious. We must guard against any attempts to commoditise or exploit our children for financial or other gains.
Ultimately, this Bill will contribute to building strong families in Singapore. Like I said in my opening speech, families form the bedrock of our society. They are our foundation that nurtures and builds resilient individuals, providing the best source of safety, love and care for our children, so that they can learn, grow and lead meaningful and fulfilling lives.
I would like to take the opportunity to thank MSF's stakeholders and the public for their contribution to this Bill. Their valuable comments and suggestions have helped to shape and refine the proposals.
I would also like to thank prospective adopters and adoptive parents for opening your hearts and homes to the children who need them, so that they can have a good start in life and fulfil their potential. Finally, I thank Members for your support for this Bill. [Applause.]
[(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 Masagos Zulkifli B M M]. (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 at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to a date to be fixed.\" – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad]. (proc text)]
The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Sir, about 80% of Singapore's resident population lives in public housing. How the common areas in the public housing estates are managed, therefore, is a point of tremendous public interest.
In the beginning, HDB and its predecessor, SIT, not only built flats but also managed the common property within the housing estates. Since 1989, with the enactment of the Town Councils Act, the responsibility to manage, maintain and improve common property was vested in the respective Town Councils. There are various reasons for this, I will mention three of them.
First, it holds the elected Members of Parliament to account for, and also gives their residents a greater say in, the management of the common property within the public housing estates, that is, local political accountability.
Second, it allows for each town to develop its own distinctive character and instil in the residents an enhanced sense of belonging and pride in their immediate surroundings, that is, community and identity.
Third, by replacing a top-down central management approach with a divested organisation structure, it will allow for a faster turnaround to address residents' complaints, that is, efficiency through decentralisation.
Over the years, Town Council operations have evolved. Apart from the routine repairs, servicing and maintenance and so on, Town Councils also undertake improvement and upgrading works funded, either fully or substantially, by the Government.
Town Councils derive their revenue from two sources. First, service and conservancy charges (S&CC) collected from residents and tenants of commercial units within the township. This forms the bulk of the funding for estate management.
Second, Government grants. They come in several forms. We have the S&CC Operating Grant. This is allocated based on the number of HDB flat units and flat types. Smaller flat types get higher grants.
Currently, the grant stands at $33.70 per month for 1-roomers; $26.20 per month for 2-roomers; $17 per month for 3-roomers and, finally, $9 per month for 4-roomers. We also have Good and Services Tax (GST) subvention grants.
There are also separate grants which may only be used in relation to lifts. They are the Lift Enhancement Programme, Matching Grant for Lift Replacement Fund and Lift Maintenance Grant.
The current model of estate management through Town Councils has been in force for 32 years without much change. The model has worked reasonably well. The question is whether it can work even better today and whether it will remain high functioning tomorrow, especially in light of certain developments which I will now proceed to highlight.
First, HDB Build-To-Order (BTO) flats in mature estates.
Since 2001, HDB has undertaken many BTO development projects to address the housing needs of Singaporeans. A good number of these projects may be found in mature estates. They are, usually, much taller skyscrapers of between 35 and 40 storeys high, so as to optimise the usage of the land.
They are also popular and often oversubscribed. One driver for this is that it allows young couples starting families an opportunity to purchase BTO units near their parents, who may be living in the older part of the township.
Upon completion, the Town Council will have to manage the new BTO developments in addition to the mature estate. In accordance with HDB's mission \"to deliver affordable homes of quality and value\", our BTO developments give private condominium developers a run for their money. There are so many beautiful features packed into our BTO developments. I have reviewed several brochures issued by HDB for BTO developments in mature estates highlighting these features.
Let me read an example from a 2011 brochure of a BTO development involving five blocks, ranging from 23 to 38 storeys in height offering 1,232 units: the idea of \"housing within a garden is realised by shaping the development as an extension of the park connector. Be sheltered from the hustle and bustle of urban life with the central green spine that runs through the development, connecting the surrounding park connectors to form a green network. Residents can stroll along the green spine or relax in the resting shelters along the way.\"
No doubt, these enhancements were, and are still, being driven by rising expectations of Singaporeans. I have no quarrel with that.
An issue arises when we realise that maintenance costs for these extra features in the BTO developments are also \"enhanced\". These features are not found in mature HDB estates.
I recently filed a Parliamentary Question with MND asking about maintenance costs for these BTO estates and what steps are taken to ensure that they are within the average maintenance costs undertaken by Town Councils. The hon Minister made several points, of which I will highlight two in my speech.
First, he said that Town Councils are consulted prior to tender. Respectfully, based on my personal checks, it seems HDB did not undertake this as de rigour. I am personally aware of instances where such consultation did not happen.
The hon Minister also said that HDB's estimates may differ from Town Councils' estimates as Town Councils may enjoy economies of scale. Respectfully, where there are BTO flats in mature estates, the situation is usually the opposite. The reality is maintenance costs for these skyscrapers are significantly higher than maintenance costs for the older housing estates. Let me provide three \"concrete\" examples.
All the \"verdant green gardens\", \"green spines\" and so on described in the brochures would have to be maintained, not by general landscaping contractors, which is the usual case in mature HDB estates, but specialist contractors. This alone drives up costs.
For high-rise BTO skyscrapers, HDB has installed pressure reducing valves at various floors of each block. Town Councils are to regularly check the valves and run diagnostics when residents encounter problems, such as \"water hammering\". There is no such issue arising in mature estates.
On a final example, Sir, may I have your permission to show an object?
Mr Speaker: Yes, you may. Just do not throw it at anyone, especially in my direction. [Laughter.]
Mr Murali Pillai: Sir, I am holding a paver which was used to pave the driveways in a HDB BTO development within my constituency. This paver was made in the UK – truly \"enhanced\" and unique!
These pavers were used to pave the driveways in a BTO housing estate. Without a doubt, they look beautiful on completion. Inevitably, however, pavers buckle. And, indeed, many have already damaged car tyres. To replace them and ensure the same look and feel, the Town Council would have to purchase them from the UK. With respect to the hon Minister, there is no economy of scale that Town Councils can leverage for these costs.
I am not making an argument to trade off aesthetics for costs. All I am asking for is a deeper reflection on the implication of each decision at the construction and design stage. This cannot happen unless our policy sets the right regulatory incentives. Our current model may have some tension, as I shall explain.
Prior to 1989, since HDB would have been in charge of both developing and maintaining the housing estate, it would be able to get a better sense of the maintenance costs for developments and factor that in, directly, because, ultimately, HDB has to balance its books.
Thirty years later, it seems to me that there are warning signs that this ability may have hollowed out or that it is not foremost in the minds of the officers, given that there is no incentive to look at maintenance, only development.
What I have described has the hallmarks of, or, if not an outright moral hazard, at least a misalignment of incentives developing between HDB and the Town Councils. While not contradictory, we can appreciate that what motivates a developer is not what motivates a maintenance contractor.
One thing that needs to be appreciated is that townships managed by Town Councils are not homogenous. Where a Town Council entirely manages a non-mature BTO estate, there may be no issue. But, where a single Town Council manages an estate comprising both mature HDB estates and BTO developments, the situation can be markedly different and, therefore, must be addressed. The question of parity and fairness needs to be asked.
The second problem is the potential for cross-subsidisation by flat owners from older HDB housing estates for residents in BTO flats. I had earlier explained the structure of S&CC grants from the Government. It does not take into account the higher maintenance costs of BTO flats with these unique features that are not found in mature estates.
On the other hand, S&CC by residents are all put in a common pool and fixed, based on flat type. There is no uplift in S&CC for BTO units in the by-laws passed by all 17 Town Councils. Owners of DBSS units are charged higher S&CC, but that is not directly relevant here.
This raises an issue of equity which must be addressed immediately. As it stands, costs for maintaining Town Council estates have been escalating whilst revenue is, generally, flat. If this carries on, Town Councils will be looking to raise S&CC. The equity issue must be dealt with first.
The potential issue of cross-subsidisation also rears its head when dealing with problems associated with BTO design features in common properties. I recently filed a Parliamentary Question highlighting the problem of slippery and wet drop-off points, walkways and so on at HDB BTO developments arising from design issues.
The hon Minister suggested that such feedback can be channelled by the Town Council to HDB and HDB will decide how best to deal with these matters. I did just that. The response by HDB was that the Town Council should undertake the recommended works using Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC). The problem, however, is that 10% of the CIPC funding comes from Town Council revenues, the bulk of it is S&CC from residents. This exacerbates the cross-funding issue that I highlighted earlier.
Also, CIPC is a finite \"pot\". All things being equal, CIPC should be utilised to build facilities at the mature estates. Many of them were originally built without drop-off points and sheltered walkways and did not address design limitations of built features at these new BTO units.
I now turn to the Town Council's responsibility in maintaining infrastructures at common properties in mature estates.
Infrastructures are built not to last forever. There is a lifecycle involved beyond which they must be renewed. For each infrastructure, there is also a built-in tolerance limit beyond which the infrastructure may have to be strengthened or repaired.
For works to upgrade infrastructure to last beyond its lifecycle or repairs to infrastructure damaged because tolerance limits are exceeded, it is my respectful view that Town Councils should not be undertaking such projects if they are to be funded by S&CC. Residents' S&CC should be used for maintenance per se and not be used to replace or extend the life of such infrastructural works. This should be the case even if the Government funds 90% of the costs through CIPC, leaving 10% to be funded by S&CC.
Again, recently, I filed a Parliamentary Question to understand the Ministry's position on whose responsibility it is to repair scupper drains around mature estates, which have been misaligned owing to soil movements. The hon Minister's position is that the responsibility lies with the Town Council.
Respectfully, I suggest that Town Councils should not be undertaking these infrastructure-related works, which, by the way, are not cheap, unless they are fully funded by the Government.
I accept that one possible solution is incorporating these works through the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP) which is 100% funded by the Government. But this is not an elegant solution, because NRP cycles do not coincide with infrastructure life cycles or timed to occur when repairs are needed because infrastructure tolerances are exceeded. Also, the NRP budget is finite and residents may not necessarily be happy that the budget is utilised to repair drains or other parts of the infrastructure when it can be used to renew amenities, such as playgrounds, BBQ pits and so on.
I pause here to summarise the three main points I have made so far, so that hon Members can see the solution that may already be emanating. First, having Town Councils separate from HDB creates two sets of incentives – one for the developer and one for the maintenance contractor. These incentives can be perverse in some cases. From a purely economic point of view, Town Councils can achieve less economies of scale.
Second, the issue of parity between old flats and new ones becomes important, and the drawing of lines becomes less that of a town, than that of old estates versus new. In this case, the boundaries of a town become less relevant than the type of flats.
Third and related to the boundaries issue, the same argument arises for the blurring of boundaries between maintaining old infrastructure and building new ones. Given this, a question that begs to be asked is this: is the \"town\" the right boundary, or the right unit of measurement, for such works? Hence, are Town Councils the right vehicles?
Aside from the three points above which relate to mainly infrastructure, I now come to the issue of human resource management at Town Councils. Anecdotally, I have noted that there is a relatively high turnover amongst all Town Councils at the level of resident-facing property officers. These officers form the backbone of all Town Councils. They are the ones who, on a day-to-day basis, ensure that rubbish is duly collected every day from each block, common areas are swept and cleaned, the lifts are working and the various issues that pop up without notice from time to time are attended to.
Having spoken to several of them and their managers, the common grouses are tough work conditions and the lack of career prospects from within the organisation.
The latter point requires some explanation. For property officers employed directly by Town Councils, the sense amongst them is that the organisations are too small to accommodate their personal growth. For the property officers who are employed by the management agents of Town Councils, the scale issue may be addressed by the management agents' ability to deploy property officers across properties that they maintain. Still, however, the management agents lose property officers to bigger organisations, such as HDB, which values their skills and experience.
In the pre-1989 situation, HDB would have been the employer of these property officers. Doubtless, it is a much bigger organisation which would have allowed for these officers to attend skills upgrading, provide regular career progression and even lateral transfers to other areas of operations.
If we are serious about wanting to ensure a reasonable standard of maintenance in our public housing estates, the human resource management issue must be tackled decisively. There must be an Industry Transformation Map for this sector. We need to build a deeper pool of expertise in management of townships.
Sir, the intent of my speech is to make a case for the hon Minister to urgently review the current model of estate management. I am not suggesting that this is a broken system now. But if we do not do anything, I fear it will be.
So, what areas should the hon Minister be looking at? I suggest two.
We recall that the three main motivations for the Town Council are – local political accountability, community and identity, and efficiency through decentralisation.
First, on the latter point, I think that there is merit in relooking at centralisation of resources again with HDB to conduct maintenance services. This will reduce opportunities for the misalignment of incentives I spoke about. It will eliminate turf wars that happen from time to time between HDB and Town Councils on issues, such as source of water leaks, whether from external walls or from within the units. It will also allow for the provision of maintenance services at a much higher economy of scale and a deeper level of expertise. This will, in turn, taper the increase in maintenance costs.
Already, with Progressive Wage Models implemented for cleaning jobs, maintenance costs have increased at a faster pace than revenue. We need to exhaust all other ways to reduce costs before making the decision to increase S&CC.
We also will have an opportunity to convince property officers to stay in their jobs, because their employer is a big organisation that will invest heavily in the upgrading of their skills, and provide promotion and transfer opportunities.
Issues of turnaround time for a centralised body to deal with complaints, which was a problem in the 1980s, can be managed more effectively now through advances in technology. Of course, we also have the Municipal Services Office.
On the second point of local community and identity, the Town Councils can retain the responsibility to take up project work, such as NRP, CIPC, ROS and so on, which, usually, involve deep consultations with residents. Such works will enable the Town Council to develop its precinct's own unique character.
Alternatively, if it is felt that the responsibility should still be sited with the Town Council, I think there is merit to relook at the funding models, in particular, the criteria for S&CC grants, and ensuring that S&CC by residents are not used for renewal of infrastructure and dealing with design issues in BTO developments.
This allows us to retain the political accountability for Members of Parliament in reflecting the residents' concerns and preferences relating to their homes and public spaces.
Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a simple reimagining of the model of management of one of our key public resources. I have argued for a new model, which retains all the three main features of the 1989 Town Councils Act, while closing some of its current operational gaps.
I look forward to hearing the hon Minister's response to my speech.
The Senior Minister of State for National Development (Ms Sim Ann): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Mr Murali Pillai for sharing his views on how we can improve the way we manage our HDB estates.
Let us revisit the rationale for forming Town Councils, which we did back in 1989.
The purpose was to give elected Members of Parliament the autonomy to run their own towns and, thereby, let towns develop a distinctive character, guided by the needs of residents.
It is also a testing ground for Members of Parliament to win, and retain, the trust and confidence of their residents. Not only are Members of Parliament expected to represent voters in Parliament, they are also required to pay close attention to the management and maintenance of our HDB estates.
This is a role that comes with custodial and financial responsibilities. It is a uniquely Singapore approach to governance.
The simplest way to describe the relationship between HDB and Town Councils is that the former builds while the latter does everything else – manages, maintains, replaces and repairs. To fund these activities, the Town Council collects Service and Conservancy Charges (S&CC) from HDB households. But that leaves out many important nuances.
First, the Government does not leave it to Town Councils to raise the funds required from HDB households alone. We support them through S&CC operating grants. In FY2020, the Government provided $146 million in operating grants to Town Councils. In addition, the Government also provides about $132 million worth of S&CC rebates, tiered according to flat type, to help residents pay for their S&CC. This compares against a total S&CC collection of $770 million from residential units for that year.
Second, the Government provides additional funding for replacing or maintaining major infrastructural items, such as the Lift Replacement Matching Grant and the Lift Enhancement Programme (LEP).
Third, major efforts to renew HDB towns are heavily funded or even undertaken by the Government through dedicated programmes like the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP) or Remaking Our Heartlands (ROH).
It is understandable for Town Councils to question whether the parameters under which they operate are fair and reasonable. After all, they have important responsibilities. They are subject to laws and regulations and are also accountable to residents. I see the hon Member's speech in this light and welcome it.
The key points raised by the Member are tension between HDB's role in building and Town Councils' role in maintaining public housing estates, and whether HDB or the Government can undertake the maintenance of public housing estates.
I will address these and the other points made by the Member about Town Councils' challenges and financial sustainability.
First, the Member expressed concerns about the maintenance costs of features in new BTO developments, some of which have higher maintenance costs, due to the need for specialist contractors or equipment.
Sustainability and maintainability are factors that HDB considers when designing new BTO projects. BTO projects adopt design for maintainability principles, including the appropriate choice of materials and finishes and proper detailing for durability and maintenance. HDB also seeks Town Councils' feedback on whether there are features that may affect maintenance.
That said, many other factors besides downstream maintenance costs, are considered at the design stage. Otherwise, we would end up with cookie-cutter precincts that cannot reflect the aspirations of homeowners or the changing demands of urban living.
The building of skyrise greenery is a good example. Incorporating more greenery into our compact and high-rise urban environment is an important solution for tackling urban heat. But such features must be thoughtfully designed to keep maintenance costs manageable.
The key is to ensure good feedback loops between HDB and Town Councils pre-tender and during construction, so that adjustments can be made promptly to address potential maintenance issues. Such feedback loops should continue after residents move in and add to HDB's experience when designing subsequent projects.
We value the Member's feedback and will review our processes to ensure that ease of maintenance is given due priority. We also agree that HDB should deal with design issues that might not have been evident upstream and which present themselves upon project completion promptly.
Regarding the dislodged pavers that the Member has mentioned, indeed, there were issues. While HDB had tested the pavers for durability prior to approving their usage, following feedback from the Town Council, HDB investigated and found the profile and interlocking effect of these pavers to be not as effective as the typical interlocking tiles. Hence, HDB will be replacing the pavers and bearing the costs fully. HDB has incorporated this learning and will avoid using such pavers in future projects.
The Member has suggested that the Government should fund the costs of replacing infrastructure beyond its lifecycle, and repairs to infrastructure damaged because tolerance limits are exceeded.
Today, Town Councils can already fund such cyclical works through the Sinking Fund and, for lifts, through the Lift Replacement Fund. Town Councils have to apportion at least 40% of their income to these funds and a similar percentage of Government grants are also channelled to these funds. Hence, the Government already co-funds such infrastructural works.
The use of S&CC to defray cyclical maintenance and replacement costs in HDB estates is no different from the practice in private condominiums where maintenance fees are used to pay for the cyclical maintenance and replacement of infrastructure, except that the Government provides significant support for public housing – both in terms of funding and otherwise. Town Councils should, thus, continue to set aside funds from S&CC collected for long-term cyclical replacement works.
The Government is committed to continue to work with Town Councils to ensure their long-term financial sustainability. We provide substantial grants to Town Councils, with Government funding amounting to about $1.2 billion over the last five years. We further provide S&CC rebates directly to residents, to help those who require more assistance.
We recognise that Town Councils face various cost pressures, due to a mix of internal and external factors, including tightening manpower, economic uncertainties caused by the pandemic and global supply chain disruptions.
These inflationary pressures affect all sectors, including the Government, which also has to manage a tight fiscal situation. Hence, the solution cannot simply be for the Government to take over estate management or to fully fund cost increases.
Ultimately, any long-term increases in costs will have to be borne in one way or another by all of us. Town Councils, being responsible for estate maintenance, play an important role in managing cost increases and apportioning costs among different households. This is why Town Councils have the full autonomy to set S&CC rates, including differentiated rates, to achieve both financial sustainability and equity.
Nonetheless, let me assure the Member that the Government will continue to partner Town Councils closely in this endeavour. MND will be open to considering appropriate further measures, if necessary, to cushion the impact of rising costs on residents, especially those in greater need of help. We will also review the structure of S&CC operating grants regularly to ensure that it reflects the profile of our public housing stock, subject to the Government's fiscal position.
The Member has highlighted the high turnover of Town Council property officers due to tough working conditions and lack of career prospects.
We empathise with this. Manpower challenges are not unique to Town Councils and are faced by organisations across Singapore, including the public sector.
We recognise the demanding nature of property officers' work. They need to have the technical competency to maintain infrastructure and also soft skills to manage multiple stakeholders. The Government has, thus, been providing significant support to help Town Council officers acquire the necessary skills to handle their work.
These include: (a) regular training and sharing sessions to deepen their technical and case management skills; (b) providing technical advice for complex maintenance cases; and (c) establishing clear progression pathways for the facilities management (FM) workforce, including Town Council property officers.
Under the Built Environment Skills Framework, FM workers can improve competencies in key transformation areas through training and advance to higher wage bands.
As some maintenance issues like cleanliness are attributable to human factors, we also strive to tackle these upstream and promote positive behavioural norms. For example, the Municipal Services Office has been coordinating public education efforts. These include strengthening norms that discourage high-rise littering and pigeon feeding.
Mr Speaker, the Town Council concept goes beyond the physical management of a town. It represents an important partnership between the elected Members of Parliament and the residents in co-creating their living environment. An effective Town Council can build a town into a distinctive, cohesive and vibrant community with a unique identity that is endearing to its residents.
I am heartened that the Member seeks to improve upon our unique approach to local governance and set out his views in a detailed and thoughtful speech. However, we would think very carefully before re-centralising township maintenance, as the Member has suggested because devolution is at the heart of the Town Council concept.
But the Member has provided very helpful reminders to HDB and MND on giving due priority to maintenance costs when designing and building HDB towns and keeping a close track on how the costs of running HDB estates should be managed and apportioned between different stakeholders.
We are committed to doing both. Township management is perhaps not the most exciting of topics, but one that affects the day-to-day experience of many Singaporeans. I thank Mr Murali Pillai again for the opportunity to respond to his ideas and set out MND and HDB's thinking on this subject.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 7.49 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":"Matter Raised On Adjournment Motion","questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Criteria Used in Determining Potential of HDB Flats for Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the criteria and weightage of factors used in determining redevelopment potential of HDB flats to be chosen for the Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) and for flats which are identified; and (b) what is the process by which the timing of SERS is determined and redevelopment initiated for such flats already identified.
Mr Desmond Lee: SERS was introduced in 1995 as part of our estate renewal strategy for older HDB estates. It allows us to optimise land through the redevelopment of selected HDB precincts which have high development value.
SERS involves compulsory acquisition and is, therefore, highly selective. The identification of suitable sites and the pace of SERS require careful site-by-site evaluation of various factors, including the redevelopment potential of the site, the availability of suitable replacement sites to rehouse the flat owners involved and the Government's financial resources. While the age of the precinct is a consideration, there is no fixed age criterion to determine if a precinct is suitable for SERS.
Given these considerations, HDB has estimated that only around 5% of all HDB flats are suitable for SERS. However, I would like to emphasise that this is not a target. Most of the projects with high redevelopment potential have already been selected. To date, about 41,000 flats across 82 sites have been announced for SERS and we do not expect many more sites to be eligible. As SERS information is market-sensitive, we cannot share the details of the remaining blocks to be redeveloped or other related information ahead of any SERS announcement.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"For Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"28 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for National Development (a) in selecting precincts for the Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS), what are the weights given to (i) the age of the blocks (ii) their redevelopment potential (iii) the availability of suitable replacement sites (iv) the Government's financial resources and (v) other factors; and (b) what are the reasons for selecting the four HDB blocks in Ang Mo Kio Avenue 3 for SERS despite them being only 43 years old.
Mr Desmond Lee: SERS was introduced in 1995 as part of our estate renewal strategy for older HDB estates. It allows us to optimise land through the redevelopment of selected HDB precincts which have high development value.
SERS involves compulsory acquisition and is, therefore, highly selective. The identification of suitable sites and the pace of SERS require careful site-by-site evaluation of various factors, including the redevelopment potential of the site, the availability of suitable replacement sites to rehouse the flat owners involved and the Government's financial resources. While the age of the precinct is a consideration, there is no fixed age criterion to determine if a precinct is suitable for SERS.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Response to Recent REACH Survey on Attitudes Towards LGBTQ and Considerations Behind Survey Questions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"29 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for Communications and Information with regard to the recent REACH survey on attitudes towards LGBTQ (a) what were the reasons for the unusually high volume of responses in a short timeframe; (b) whether the survey is restricted to only Singaporeans and Permanent Residents; and (c) whether the Ministry considers the survey results to be representative of attitudes towards LGBTQ, due to concerns over the mobilisation of respondents by various groups.
30 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Communications and Information with regard to the recent REACH survey on attitudes towards LGBTQ (a) what are the considerations behind how the survey questions are structured; and (b) what are the usual process and typical timelines considered before the issuance of any surveys by REACH.
Mrs Josephine Teo: REACH gathers feedback via multiple channels and from different segments of the community, so that all voices can be heard. Views collected by REACH are shared with relevant Government agencies.
The channels employed by REACH include email, social media platforms, WhatsApp chatgroups and dialogues. One modality used by REACH is Listening Points (LPs) – typically conducted in person or, since the start of the pandemic, via online surveys. They solicit views from specific groups with questions designed accordingly. The findings from targeted LPs are, therefore, not taken as representative of the entire population. For more holistic understanding, they are complemented by other sources of feedback.
Members Mr Alex Yam and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim referred to an LP to solicit views from the LGBTQ+ community. Similar LPs have been conducted to hear views from communities, such as rental flat dwellers, pre-release offenders, and gig economy workers. We have also previously partnered other communities including religious organisations, women and youth groups, to seek feedback on particular issues from their respective constituents.
Consistent with the approach taken for such targeted LPs, the LGBTQ+ LP was conducted online and the link was disseminated through LGBTQ+ groups. However, unlike in previous online LPs, the link was circulated beyond the intended audience, which led to a large number of responses within a short time frame. REACH received more than 36,000 responses within a day or so for this LP; for comparison, other LPs that REACH conducts, typically, gather about 200 to 700 responses. As the LP platform is open to all, respondents can be from any nationality. But the majority of the feedback came from Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents, whose views are, naturally, the main focus of REACH and Government agencies. Surveys based on representative samples that the Government commissions are, of course, restricted to the resident population.
REACH has received feedback about this LP and acknowledges that it should be more careful when conducting LPs on issues where people hold sharply opposed and passionate views. REACH will learn from this experience to better engage Singaporeans on contentious topics in the future.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Additional Steps to Reduce Number of Dengue Cases and Update on Use of Wolbachia-Aedes Suppression Technology","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"31 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what additional steps will be considered by the Ministry to reduce the number of dengue cases; and (b) whether an update can be provided on the use of Wolbachia-Aedes suppression technology in Singapore.
32 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment what other measures can be taken to deter mosquito breeding in homes and common areas, such as drains.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Dengue cases in Singapore have been rising sharply since March 2022, with over 6,000 dengue cases reported by end April. This is more than the 5,258 dengue cases in the whole of 2021. NEA has been working with partner agencies and Town Councils to intensify inspections, flushing of drains and chemical treatment in dengue cluster areas, to remove potential sources of mosquito breeding and suppress the adult mosquito population. About two-thirds of the 587 dengue clusters notified since the start of the year have been closed.
Collective effort by the community is needed to bring down the number of dengue cases. NEA launched the annual National Dengue Prevention Campaign on 30 March 2022, ahead of the traditional peak dengue season from June to October, to rally members of the public and stakeholders to take immediate action to reduce mosquito breeding and protect themselves against dengue. New purple dengue alert banners have been deployed in areas with persistently high Aedes aegypti mosquito populations. This is to raise awareness of the greater risk of dengue transmission in these areas and encourage the public to take immediate action against mosquito breeding.
NEA has been working with grassroots organisations and the People's Association (PA) to intensify outreach efforts and distribute insect repellent through house visits and community events. We have deployed volunteers to areas with high footfall, such as hawker centres and transport hubs, and worked with partners, such as supermarket operators to ramp up awareness of the dengue situation.
Project Wolbachia is being implemented in a phased approach to allow a rigorous evaluation of the effectiveness of the technology and an assessment of the deployment strategy. Thus far, Wolbachia-Aedes mosquitoes have been released at about 1,800 HDB blocks across study sites in Yishun, Tampines, Choa Chu Kang and Bukit Batok towns and within five square kilometres of landed estates in Marine Parade, comprising some 160,000 homes. NEA has observed up to 98% suppression of the primary mosquito vector of dengue, Aedes aegypti, and up to 88% fewer dengue cases in study sites with at least one year of Wolbachia-Aedes mosquito releases.
Nonetheless, the Wolbachia technology is not a silver bullet and cannot replace the basic preventive actions that everyone must take to remove stagnant water and prevent mosquito breeding. With the traditional peak dengue season still ahead, NEA and partner agencies will press on with efforts to reduce the local mosquito population, including taking strong enforcement action against egregious cases of mosquito breeding. Town Councils face fines of up to $5,000 for mosquito breeding found in common breeding habitats, such as roof tops and drains, during cluster operations. Poorly maintained construction sites that are found to harbour mosquito breeding may be issued with Stop Work Orders or face prosecution in Court.
Offenders in households found with repeat mosquito breeding offences and multiple mosquito breeding habitats may be sent to Court, and, upon conviction, face a fine of up to $5,000, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or both. Heftier penalties will be given for subsequent Court convictions. Thus far this year, NEA has issued 38 Stop Work Orders to construction sites and six contractors were charged in Court for repeat offences. During the same period, 960 enforcement actions were taken against occupiers of various premises for mosquito breeding.
Residents living in dengue clusters should take extra precautions as the virus is circulating in their local community. Those who suspect that they have dengue fever should seek medical attention immediately. Residents who have been diagnosed with dengue should apply insect repellent regularly to prevent mosquito bites and stop the onward transmission of dengue by mosquitoes to their family members and the community.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Options to Reduce Contamination of Recycled Items","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"33 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment with regard to promoting recycling (a) whether more options are being explored to reduce the contamination rate amongst the current recycled items; (b) whether an emphasis is made to prioritise industrial recycling; and (c) whether any assistance will be provided to encourage the process with relevant industries.
34 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the Ministry will consider reviewing the design of the blue recycling bins and increasing the frequency of recyclable waste collection from housing estates.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Encouraging recycling as a way of life is a priority for my Ministry and NEA. To make it more convenient for residents to recycle, all HDB estates, condominiums, private apartments and landed properties are provided with recycling bins. Most of these bins are provided by Public Waste Collectors (PWCs) appointed by NEA, as part of the National Recycling Programme (NRP).
Since April 2020, NEA has also raised the minimum frequency of recyclables collection for HDB estates to three times weekly, from once a week previously, for the 660 litre recycling bins. Side-loading recycling bins with three times the usual capacity have been introduced in estates where space allows, with a collection frequency of once a week due to its larger capacity. NEA is also working with the PWCs to increase the resources deployed to collect recyclables from locations with higher recycling demand.
However, the recyclables collected under NRP are often contaminated when items containing food or liquid waste are disposed of in recycling bins, or when non-recyclable items, such as soft toys and clothing, are placed in recycling bins. To improve household recycling and reduce contamination rates, NEA launched the inaugural Recycle Right campaign in 2019. In January 2022, NEA introduced a new recycling mascot, Bloobin, as well as educational and user-friendly content to encourage schools and the community to cultivate the right recycling habit. A search engine was also developed to help residents search for and identify items that can be recycled (www.go.gov.sg/recycleright).
To consider other ways to reduce the contamination of recyclables, we recently carried out two concurrent pilots on the use of transparent recycling bins at Hong Kah North SMC and East Coast GRC, which was a suggestion from the Recycle Right Citizens' Workgroup to encourage the right recycling behaviour. We will evaluate findings from the pilots to consider if we should review the design of the blue recycling bins.
To promote industrial recycling, we have put in place the Mandatory Waste Reporting framework. Large hotels, shopping malls, industrial premises, such as factories and warehouses, as well as convention and exhibition centres are required to submit annual waste disposal and recycling data, as well as waste reduction plans to NEA.
We have also established a nationwide system for the recovery of electronic and electrical waste and are doing so for food waste and packaging waste including plastics. We implemented an Extended Producer Responsibility scheme for e-waste in July 2021, which enables the recovery and aggregation of useful materials such as metals, from e-waste for reuse.
For packaging waste, we started with the Mandatory Packaging Reporting in 2021, which requires large producers of packaged products and retailers to report packaging data and develop 3R (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) plans for packaging waste. Efforts are also ongoing to develop a beverage container return scheme, where a refundable deposit is included in the price of the prepackaged beverages to encourage consumers to return empty beverage containers to designated return points. Jurisdictions that have implemented such a scheme have seen the return rate for beverage containers increase significantly, to as high as 80%. This aggregates a clean stream of recyclables that can be more easily recycled.
For food waste, we will require operators of industrial and commercial buildings that generate large amounts of food waste to segregate the food waste for treatment. This will convert food waste into energy or higher value products, such as compost and non-potable water.
Beyond regulations, NEA is also supporting companies to adopt best practices to recycle and minimise waste. For example, NEA has developed guidebooks for industrial developments, shopping malls, offices, hotels and the MICE industry to set up 3R programmes. These guidebooks provide a step-by-step guide to implement a 3R programme tailored to the premises and highlights the best practices and case studies in the industry.
The Singapore Manufacturing Federation, in partnership with NEA, has also launched the Packaging Partnership Programme (PPP) as an industry-led capability development programme for sustainable packaging waste management. Under PPP, training sessions are organised to facilitate the exchange of sustainable packaging best practices and trends. PPP, currently, has 310 members across a variety of industries, such as food and beverage, pharmaceuticals, electronics and the packaging supply chain, from packaging manufacturers and logistics service providers to retailers.
MSE and NEA are also on the lookout for good ideas to promote and encourage more and correct recycling practices among companies and households in Singapore. Recycling, which is an integral part of our efforts to develop a truly circular economy, requires a whole-of-society effort and we welcome constructive and innovative suggestions from the public.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Waiting Time for Diagnostic Tests in Public Hospitals in Last Three Years and Subsidy Options Available in Private Hospitals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"35 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the average waiting time for cancer screenings, such as through colonoscopy in the public hospitals; and (b) whether there has been an increase in insurance claims from Integrated Shield Plans due to more people seeking such screening through the private hospitals in the last three years.
36 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) for the past three years, what is the annual number of patients who have waited for more than five months for a subsidised diagnostic test, such as colonoscopy and heart scan; (b) whether polyclinics can refer patients directly to national specialist centres within their cluster to conduct such tests; and (c) whether there are other options available for a subsidised diagnostic test if there is a backlog at any Government hospital.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: For colonoscopy, the median time to the investigation was approximately 38 days in 2021, an increase from about 31 days in 2019. Based on available data from our hospitals, over the past three years, an average of six subsidised patients per hospital each year waited more than five months for a first appointment for colonoscopy. For transthoracic echocardiogram, an average of 130 patients per hospital, per year, waited more than five months for a first appointment for the scan. These patients constitute fewer than 3% of the total patients who had undergone the scan. In these cases, these patients were mostly already seen by the specialist, who then ordered these investigations based on their clinical indications. Patients assessed to have higher risks or significant symptoms are prioritised with fast-tracked appointments, as clinically indicated. Earlier alternative investigations are also offered, if clinically appropriate.
Integrated Shield Plans (IP), generally do not cover cancer screening at both public and private hospitals, as no hospitalisation is required and these are neither a treatment nor an illness. There are other ways in which diagnostic tests are subsidised and made affordable.
All polyclinics can refer patients to public hospitals and national specialist centres, including those not within their cluster, for subsidised care which includes subsidised tests, as prescribed by the specialist. Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) general practitioner clinics can also refer CHAS cardholders for subsidised care at public hospitals. Additionally, to reduce the waiting time for patients requiring investigations, such as oesophagogastro-duodenoscopy (OGD) and selected cardiac tests, all polyclinics can refer eligible patients directly for such tests at the public hospitals without needing a first Specialist Outpatient Clinic (SOC) consultation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Hygiene Standards at Hawker Centres and Coffee Shops and Effectiveness of Enforcement Actions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"39 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Ministry conducts public surveys and monitors complaints and feedback on the general hygiene standards at hawker centres and coffeeshops; (b) if so, whether there has been an increase of complaints regarding the hygiene standards; (c) how does the Ministry ensure that cleaning companies, coffeeshop and food court operators adhere to the required hygiene standards; and (d) whether the frequency of enforcement checks, fines and penalties for hygiene violations have been effective.
40 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in view of the recent shortage of cleaning manpower, what measures will the Ministry implement to maintain public hygiene standards and cleanliness, particularly in hawker centres and food courts.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: With more Singaporeans returning to the workplace and tourist arrivals in Singapore, there has been a rise in the demand for cleaning services, including at hawker centres, coffee shops and food courts. At the same time, with the recent reopening of Singapore's land border with Malaysia, many Malaysians also took the opportunity to return to Malaysia, further contributing to the strain in manpower in the cleaning sector. The cleaning industry is doing its best to address this confluence of events through cross-deployment and backfilling of cleaners. MSE is monitoring the situation closely and will respond as necessary.
The experience of COVID-19 has reinforced the need for high standards of cleanliness and hygiene. Through initiatives, such as the Environmental Sanitation (ES) Regime, the Government has been working with stakeholders to improve cleanliness standards, including at hawker centres, coffee shops and food courts. By setting baseline standards and cleaning frequencies for both thorough, as well as routine cleaning, and for high-touch surfaces, premises managers can better plan cleaning resources to upkeep hygiene standards.
There are regular mechanisms in place that we will continue to use to monitor public hygiene and cleanliness standards. For example, the Singapore Management University has been conducting the annual Public Cleanliness Satisfaction Survey (PCSS), which measures the level of public satisfaction with public cleanliness in Singapore. The survey covers a wide range of settings, including food outlets, such as hawker centres and coffee shops. The findings show that the satisfaction level for cleanliness during the COVID-19 period was higher than that of pre-COVID-19. For hawker centres, the average satisfaction level improved from 62% to 83% while, for coffee shops, it increased from 65% to 77%. The satisfaction level for cleanliness in food courts also improved from 87% to 96% over the same period.
NEA and SFA also monitor public feedback closely. Public feedback volumes on general cleanliness at hawker centres, coffee shops and food courts have remained stable, even with the easing of COVID-19 restrictions.
We have received feedback from patrons that the tables are not cleaned fast enough at some of our public dining places. NEA and SFA have worked with coffee shop and food court operators, hawkers' associations and cleaning contractors to deploy and guide cleaners to revise cleaning workflows to improve cleanliness levels. There will be a team of cleaners focusing on wiping and sanitising tables in a timely manner after diners have cleared their tables, while a separate team of cleaners ensures that the designated tray and crockery return points are also continuously being cleared. SFA also conducts checks at coffee shops and food courts, and most operators have complied with our requirements.
NEA and SFA will continue to work closely with the coffee shop and food court operators, hawkers' associations and cleaning contractors to address the operational gaps observed and step up cleaning efforts. At the same time, I hope that we can all be patient as the sector adjusts to meet the rise in demand and the shortage of labour. I also encourage everyone to continue to play our part in keeping our public dining places clean and safe.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Minimum Occupation Period for New Citizens who Buy Landed Residential Property","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"41 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Law with regards to high-net-worth persons who become Singapore Citizens after obtaining Singapore permanent residency through the Global Investor Programme (GIP), whether the Ministry will consider imposing a minimum occupation period of five years on these new citizens for any purchase of landed residential property so as to reduce the risk of a self-reinforcing cycle of price increases in the private landed residential property market.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Residential Property Act (RPA) prohibits foreigners, including Permanent Residents (PRs), from purchasing landed residential property. Currently, Singapore Citizens are not subject to any restrictions on the purchase or ownership of landed properties under RPA.
There are strict criteria for a foreigner to become a Singapore Citizen. Only a small number have been granted Singapore Citizenship after obtaining Singapore Permanent Residency (PR) through the Global Investor Programme (GIP) since its introduction in 2004. This group of citizens, who first obtained PR status through GIP, accounted for a total of 21 landed property purchases over 18 years from 2004 to 2021. By comparison, over the last seven years, there has been an average of 2,400 landed property transactions annually.
I note the Member's concerns regarding the landed residential property market. This is something we review regularly. We will continue to work with the MND and other relevant agencies to monitor the situation and take the necessary measures.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Overseas Scam Calls Reported in 2021 and 2022 and Viability of Call Blocking Option for Users","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"42 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) what is the number of overseas scam calls that have been reported in 2021 and 2022 respectively; and (b) whether requiring telecommunication providers to give users the option to block all overseas calls will be viable.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) and the Singapore Police Force (SPF) are closely partnering the local telecommunication providers (telcos) to block suspicious calls. In 2021, the telcos blocked an average of 15 million incoming overseas calls each month, including spoofed numbers resembling those of local Government agencies and emergency services. Telcos have also added the \"+\" prefix for all incoming overseas calls since April 2020 to alert users to overseas calls, especially as scammers continue to spoof local calls using the \"65\" prefix.
Although there are a small number of telcos internationally that allow consumers to block overseas calls as part of their commercial service offerings, we are not aware of any regulator that requires telcos to do so. IMDA is, currently,f in discussion with the telcos on the feasibility and implications of providing consumers with the option to block overseas calls. A decision will be taken after the review.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures Taken by Council for Estate Agencies to Educate Public on Scammers Impersonating Real Estate Agents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"43 Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked the Minister for National Development (a) what measures has the Council for Estate Agencies taken to educate the public on scammers impersonating as real estate agents; and (b) what more can be done to protect members of the public from such scams.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Council for Estate Agencies (CEA) has been working with Government agencies and the real estate agency industry to inform and educate consumers on how to protect themselves against scams involving individuals impersonating property agents.
CEA has advised consumers to verify the identity of the property agents via the CEA Public Register before entering into any dealings with such individuals and not to pay to secure viewings. The industry and consumers should also file a Police report if they believe that they have been victims of scams.
To further raise awareness of these safeguards and best practices, CEA partnered Government agencies, such as HDB and the Singapore Police Force (SPF), the five largest property agencies in Singapore (PropNex, ERA, Huttons, Orange Tee & Tie and SRI) to disseminate the information via their respective social media and communication channels. CEA also shared the information with the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) and property portals, that is, 99.co and PropertyGuru which published related consumer education articles.
CEA collaborated with SPF to feature rental scams on the current affairs programme, \"Hello Singapore\", with the relevant episode aired on 13 April 2022. The episode featured messages on how consumers can protect themselves against scams. CEA will also be broadcasting these messages on HDB's digital displays at lift landings around Singapore for one week in end-May 2022.
CEA will continue to leverage these partnerships and channels to keep consumers abreast of any issues that may impact consumer interests.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Percentage of Preschool Children Referred to KK Women's and Children's Hospital for Learning or Behavioural Difficulties and Support Programmes Available","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"48 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) for each year over the last two years, what is the percentage of preschool children who are referred to KK Women's and Children's Hospital (KKH) due to learning or behavioural difficulties; and (b) what are the support programmes available to prepare these children before they enter Primary schools.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Over the last two years, about 2% of preschool-aged children were assessed by early intervention (EI) professionals and paediatricians at the Child Development Programme (CDP) at KK Women's and Children's Hospital (KKH) and National University Hospital (NUH) each year. This does not include children who were assessed at private healthcare institutions.
Those who require EI are provided interim therapy by the child development departments in KKH and NUH, before being referred to an appropriate EI programme, if necessary.
Children who require low levels of EI support are referred to the Development Support – Learning Support (DS-LS) and Development Support Plus (DS-Plus) programmes offered in preschools. Under these programmes, professionals, such as Learning Support Educators, EI educators, therapists and psychologists, provide intervention for the children once or twice a week. This includes language and literacy support for children with learning needs and psychological support for children with behavioural needs. These professionals also guide preschool educators to adapt their teaching methods and activities to better engage and integrate these children in the classroom setting. Children requiring medium levels of EI support may be supported under the Inclusive Support Programme (InSP) pilot, which integrates early childhood education and EI in preschools.
Children who require medium-to-high levels of EI support are supported by the Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children (EIPIC) or the Enhanced Pilot for Private Intervention Providers (PPIP) programme. These programmes are delivered by a team of professionals, including EI educators, therapists, psychologists and social workers in EI or PPIP centres. Children, typically, receive five to 12 hours of intervention conducted over two to three sessions every week.
Under these EI programmes, each child receives customised intervention guided by an Individualised Education Plan developed by EI and allied health professionals. These professionals also work closely with parents to support their child, which includes preparing them for transition beyond preschool, to Primary and Special Education (SPED) schools.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Projected Growth of Freelancers in Infocomms Technology and Media Industries from 2022 to 2025","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"49 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Communications and Information from 2022 to 2025, what is the annual projected growth of freelancers in the (i) Information and Communications Technology (ICT) and (ii) media industries.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Freelancers, or Own Account Workers (OAWs), form a relatively small part of our workforce. The proportion of OAWs in our resident workforce has remained stable at between 8% and 10% over the past five years. In the Information and Communications (I&C) sector, which includes both ICT and media industries, resident OAWs have more than doubled from 4,000 in 2016 to 8,800 in 2021, or 7.3% of all employed residents in the sector.
Technology has enabled greater flexibilities for working. With changing aspirations of our workforce and business models of media companies, freelancing may be increasingly attractive as a preferred arrangement. There is no established way to project the growth, but we will continue to monitor the trends. We will also continue to support freelancers in maintaining their skills relevance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Provision of Professional Development Leave for Teachers Ranked Lower in Performance Management System","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry will allow professional development leave for those with C-minus and lower performance grades under the performance management system of stacked ranking for teachers; and (b) if not, why not.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: All teachers have access to a range of professional development opportunities, such as in-service courses, which are curated to help teachers deepen their content mastery and pedagogy.
Teachers with C-minus grade and lower are weaker-performing teachers who should focus on improving their performance on the job. They can attend the relevant in-service courses to improve their competencies. They would also benefit from closer guidance from their supervisors to work on their areas of improvements.
As Professional Development Leave is, typically, for the pursuit of undergraduate or postgraduate studies, or professional development activities requiring longer periods of absence, such as academic research, it is not typically extended to weaker-performing teachers. Nevertheless, the Ministry is prepared to allow teachers with C-minus performance grade to go on no-pay Professional Development Leave if the professional development activity is relevant and useful for them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cause of Drop in Volume of Singapore's Bunker Fuel Sales in First Quarter of 2022","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"52 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport whether the fall in the volume of Singapore's bunker fuel sales in the first quarter of 2022 was due to supply chain delays in shipping.
Mr S Iswaran: Bunker sale volumes have declined by 12% from 12.8 million tonnes in the first quarter of 2021 to 11.3 million tonnes in the first quarter of 2022.
Based on industry feedback, this decline is driven by two factors: higher crude oil prices globally, which reduce overall bunker demand and congestion at other ports around the world, due to supply chain delays.
Congestion at overseas ports results in ships burning fuel while waiting to load or unload cargo. Some ships have decided to refuel while they wait at these upstream ports. They either choose not to refuel at Singapore or end up purchasing less fuel when they, subsequently, call at the Port of Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures in Place to Safeguard Quality of Bunker Fuel and Essential Supplies to Marine Vessels Calling at Singapore Ports","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"53 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Transport (a) what measures are in place to safeguard the quality of bunker fuel and essential supplies provided to marine vessels calling at Singapore's ports; (b) what are the specific reasons for the alleged supply of contaminated bunker fuel despite these measures; (c) when will the Maritime Port Authority expect to conclude its investigations and make those results publicly available; and (d) how Singapore intends to maintain the trust dividend it enjoys as a maritime hub.
Mr S Iswaran: The Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) was notified on 14 March 2022 that some ships had been supplied with bunker fuel containing high concentration levels of Chlorinated Organic Compounds, or COCs, in the Port of Singapore. This is the first case of fuel contamination, due to high concentration levels of COCs reported in Singapore in the past two decades.
MPA has released an update on the status of its ongoing investigations on 5 May 2022. The COCs were traced to fuel originally purchased overseas by Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd (Glencore) in January and February 2022 through Straits Pinnacle Pte Ltd (Straits Pinnacle), who had contracted with cargo trader Unicious Energy Pte Ltd (Unicious) for the supply of the fuel.
The fuel had been loaded onto a tanker at the Port of Khor Fakkan in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and shipped to floating storage facilities in Tanjung Pelepas in Malaysia to be further blended. Glencore blended the fuel and sold part of the affected fuel to PetroChina International (Singapore) Pte Ltd (PetroChina), another bunker supplier.
Glencore and PetroChina, which are both licensed by MPA, supplied the affected fuel to about 200 ships in the Port of Singapore, of which 81 ships, to date, have reported problems with their fuel pumps and engines.
MPA has a robust regulatory framework for bunkering. Every licensed bunker supplier must comply with the \"Specification for Quality Management for Bunker Supply Chain\" Singapore Standard, which covers the management system for the bunker supply chain from product procurement to delivery.
The Singapore Standard requires that the quality of bunker supplied to vessels must conform to the international standards set by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). The ISO 8217 on \"Petroleum Products – Fuels (class F) – Specifications of Marine Fuels\" is the relevant international standard that was developed together with industry stakeholders and national standards bodies. MPA monitors the compliance with these requirements through regular testing of fuels. More than 1,300 bunker samples are tested annually.
In this incident, Glencore and PetroChina had tested and confirmed that the fuel met the ISO 8217 requirements. Glencore had also performed additional chemical testing on the fuel based on the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D7845 standard. However, Glencore and PetroChina did not test the fuel for COCs, as both the ISO 8217 and ASTM D7845 standards did not require testing for COCs. This is because COCs, which do not occur naturally in crude oil, are, generally, of higher value in their pure form than bunker fuel. Hence, it is not common for COCs to be found in bunker fuel.
While ISO 8217 states that the fuel shall be free from any material at a concentration that causes the fuel to be unacceptable for use, it also states that identifying and determining the concentration of a material that causes the fuel to be unacceptable for use can be difficult and that it is not practical to require detailed chemical analysis for each delivery of fuels beyond the characteristics and limits specified in ISO 8217.
Once they knew about the problem, Glencore and PetroChina had promptly taken the necessary steps to stop further supply of the affected fuel oil. The companies have also cooperated fully with MPA's investigations.
MPA has since included COCs into the list of chemicals to be tested as part of its testing regime. It is discussing with the industry and the relevant international and professional bodies to establish a list of chemicals to be tested and their corresponding concentration limits.
Prior to this incident, the only reported incident of contaminated bunker fuel in Singapore in the last decade was in 2018. MPA received complaints from four vessels regarding contaminated fuel bunkered in Singapore. The nature of the two incidents is different. The contaminants, then, were not COCs, and the number of vessels affected was far fewer. MPA found that the bunker suppliers involved in the 2018 incident had exercised reasonable due diligence in ensuring that the fuels they had supplied met ISO 8217 requirements.
Trust is critical to our competitiveness as a bunkering hub and MPA will continue to work hard to maintain the trust of our partners. While it is not possible to completely prevent such incidents from happening, especially in cases when the source of contamination occurs overseas, we will do our best to uphold high standards and testing requirements in Singapore, and to be open and transparent in our investigations and followup actions when we encounter such incidents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Priority for Interim Rental Flats under Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme for Families Affected by Delays in Build-to-Order Projects","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for National Development in light of further delays in the completion of three HDB Build-To-Order (BTO) projects, whether HDB will give priority to affected families who need interim rental flats under the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme.
55 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development for Rivervale Shores and other HDB BTO projects which have seen further delays recently, beyond the COVID-19-induced delays as earlier communicated to flat buyers (a) whether HDB has and will compensate flat buyers for the delays; and (b) what is the number of interim rental flats that have been made available and allotted for such buyers.
Mr Desmond Lee: The construction industry has been hit hard by the COVID-19 pandemic, with unprecedented global supply chain disruptions and tightened border controls over the past two years.
In 2020, the progress of construction projects was impacted by the circuit breaker, the stringent safe management measures put in place to enable a controlled resumption of work. In 2021, the situation was further exacerbated by the Movement Control Order in Malaysia and the tightening of border controls for workers from South Asia. These developments have caused significant delays to many construction projects, in both the public and private sectors. Nonetheless, all these measures were necessary to safeguard the health and safety of Singaporeans through the COVID-19 pandemic.
We recognise that delays to the completion of flats have caused inconvenience to flat buyers and affected their plans. To minimise the impact of the delays on flat buyers, HDB has been providing extensive assistance to help contractors complete ongoing BTO projects in a timely manner, without affecting safety and quality.
First, to help with the higher cost of materials, HDB has extended the period of protection against steel price fluctuations and supplied contractors with more concreting materials at protected prices.
Second, to tackle manpower shortages, HDB has worked with firms to safely recruit workers from various countries and co-shared the cost of bringing in these migrant workers.
Third, to strengthen the resilience of our public housing programme, HDB has worked with its contractors to enhance their existing stockpiles of building materials by procuring them in advance to mitigate potential disruptions. HDB is also closely monitoring the prices of construction materials and will extend further support to contractors, where required.
Fourth, HDB has also helped contractors prioritise work areas, expedite regulatory clearances, and gotten exemptions to allow less noisy construction activities to be carried out on Sundays and public holidays where possible.
Through the various measures, HDB has managed to keep delays for most projects to between six and 12 months. It is not possible to fully mitigate the unprecedented disruptions over the last two years. The extent of delay varies from project to project and depends on the onsite technical challenges, as well as the available supply of materials and manpower for the various stages of works.
Through the tremendous effort put in by HDB, of the 98 BTO projects currently under construction, only two projects, Waterway Sunrise II and Anchorvale Village, have incurred a delay of more than one year and are expected to exceed the Delivery Possession Date (DPD), or the contractual date that HDB is required to deliver possession of the new flats. Anchorvale Village is now expected to be completed between May and July 2023, which is a delay of about four to six months beyond DPD. HDB has reached out to affected flat buyers to update them of this latest development and provide them with the relevant support and assistance.
Under the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act (COTMA), flat buyers whose flats are delayed beyond DPD can seek reimbursement for qualifying costs incurred for the period of delay, by submitting proof of out-of-pocket expenses incurred. The reimbursement amount is subject to the prescribed formula and capped at 70%, of 10% of 60% of the new flat price for each year of delay. To minimise inconvenience to flat buyers, HDB will reimburse all flat buyers whose BTO flats are delayed beyond their DPD the equivalent of the maximum reimbursement sum under COTMA in a lump-sum one-off payment. They will not need to submit any claims for out-of-pocket qualifying costs.
About 14,500 flats were delivered in 2021, despite the disruptions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This is higher than the 13,500 flats delivered pre-pandemic in 2019. Looking ahead, with the improving COVID-19 situation and more positive outlook in the construction industry, HDB will strive to make further progress to minimise delays and deliver new BTO flats to buyers as soon as possible. There are still some uncertainties ahead, such as the ongoing geopolitical situation and the worsening COVID-19 situation in China, which may impact global supply chains. We are watching these developments closely and will keep BTO flat buyers updated on the construction progress of their projects.
With regard to the Member's query on progress of works for Rivervale Shores, I would like to report that, at this juncture, Rivervale Shores is scheduled to complete in 1Q to 3Q 2023, or about nine to 11 months later than the original Estimated Completion Date conveyed to flat buyers at launch. The revised completion date is still within DPD. We will continue to keep flat buyers updated periodically as construction progresses and arrange for them to collect the keys to their flat as soon as it is ready.
Meanwhile, to better support flat buyers in need of interim housing, HDB has increased the stock of flats for rental under the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS). In August 2021, we announced that we would double PPHS supply from about 800 to 1,600 units over the next two years. Since then, we have added 200 units and are on track to add another 800 units by 2023. This will bring the total PPHS supply to 1,800 units.
We have also revised the PPHS eligibility criteria and allocation process to prioritise couples with children and those who are less able to afford renting on the open market. Applicants who are prepared to share a PPHS flat with another eligible family will also be given priority. Since August 2021, the PPHS application rate has fallen significantly to about half the earlier rate. Around 45% of PPHS applicants invited to select a flat decided not to do so, suggesting that many of them have other options.
Even as HDB increases its supply of interim flats, supply remains limited and HDB will not be able to offer an interim flat to every family. We encourage families to seek other interim housing arrangements where possible, such as staying with their family or renting on the open market.
For low-income households with no family support and no other housing option, HDB will consider offering Interim Rental Housing (IRH) on a case-by-case basis. HDB has assisted about 350 households affected by BTO completion delays with IRH. As IRH flats are intended primarily for people with urgent housing need, it is also important to balance the use of these flats across different rental schemes to meet the needs of different groups, prioritising the neediest.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of S Passes and Employment Passes Issued and Screening of Foreign Manpower under New Eligibility Criteria from September 2022","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"56 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the number of new S Passes and Employment Passes (EPs) that have been issued since 1 January 2022; (b) whether the total number of S Passes and EPs issued to date is comparable to pre-COVID-19 times; and (c) what approach is the Ministry taking to screen foreign manpower entering the job market in view of the new eligibility criteria that will take effect in September 2022.
Dr Tan See Leng: Based on preliminary MOM administrative records, there were around 23,900 new EPs and S Passes issued in Q1 2022. This is comparable to around 25,200 new EPs and S Passes issued in Q1 2019, pre-pandemic. Overall, the total number of EP and S Pass holders was 329,100 as at March 2022, remaining significantly below the pre-COVID-19 level of 393,700 in December 2019, as a result of border restrictions dampening the inflow of foreign manpower over the past two years.
All EP and S Pass applicants have to meet MOM's prevailing eligibility criteria before their passes can be issued. This includes the EP qualifying salary, as well as the S Pass qualifying salary, levies and quota. In September 2022, the EP qualifying salary and S Pass qualifying salary and levies will be raised. These moves are part of MOM's regular updates to ensure that our framework keeps pace with local wage growth, so that foreigners are not coming in just because they are cheaper than local PMETs. From September 2023 onwards, EP candidates must also earn sufficient points under the new Complementarity Assessment Framework (COMPASS) to qualify for an EP, to allow for a more holistic evaluation of complementarity.
MOM will not apply the new criteria ahead of these timelines. To do so would be unfair to businesses. The point of announcing these changes early and phasing them in gradually is to provide businesses with time to plan ahead and adjust. As businesses hire EP and S Pass workers ahead of the above timelines, they should also keep these upcoming changes in mind, so that their new hires will be able to meet the renewal criteria in the future.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Impact of Holistic Health Framework in Primary and Secondary Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"57 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Education (a) whether he can provide an update on the impact of the Holistic Health Framework (HHF) in Primary and Secondary schools; (b) how has the HHF benefited students' with weight management issues; and (c) how have students’ weight management matters been handled to avoid embarrassment or stigmatisation to those students.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Holistic Health Framework aims to improve the overall well-being of students and encourage them to lead an active and healthy lifestyle. All students are given the opportunity through Physical Education lessons to acquire knowledge and skills to lead a healthy lifestyle and sustain it even after they leave school.
Students outside the healthy range for physical growth are supported by the school to adopt healthier behaviours using strategies, such as journaling, goal setting and action planning in physical activities and nutrition, to bring about gradual improvement in their Body Mass Index (BMI). Schools also partner parents on developing healthy habits in their children. Students who are severely overweight or severely underweight are referred to Health Promotion Board's Student Health Centre for medical screening and counselling.
In our survey with students, many reported practising the healthy habits they were taught. The proportion of students in our schools who were overweight remained stable in the past 10 years at between 11% and 13%, with the exception of the last two years when it increased to 16% due to the impact of COVID-19 on opportunities for physical activities. This proportion remains low, compared to many other countries.
Our Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) curriculum equips students with an understanding of the developmental changes they will experience, as well as the knowledge and skills to build a positive body image and healthy self-esteem. Engagement of students on weight management matters is done with sensitivity and discretion, to support not just the building of an active lifestyle, but also a positive self-image.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulation of Food and Beverage Vending Machines in Schools and Educational Institutions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"58 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Education (a) whether food and beverage vending machines placed in schools and educational institutions are regulated by the Ministry; and (b) if so, what guidelines are in place with regard to the type of food and beverage vending machines that are allowed in schools.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Food and beverages (F&B) sold in canteens, cafes and vending machines in schools adhere to the Health Promotion Board (HPB) Healthy Meals in Schools Programme (HMSP) guidelines and are subjected to HPB's compliance assessment. The HMSP aims to encourage children to adopt healthy eating habits from a young age and consume a healthy and balanced diet in school. HMSP guidelines include having at least two water coolers in the canteen and permitted sugar level of commercial drinks, so that children learn to drink water and beverages with less sugar.
The Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) also promote healthier F&B choices on campus and work with their F&B vendors, including vending machine operators, to achieve this.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review on Number of Public Holidays in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"59 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Manpower (a) when is the last time the Government reviewed its position on the number of public holidays in Singapore; and (b) whether the Government is amenable to review its position at the present time.
Dr Tan See Leng: The current configuration of public holidays in Singapore has been in place since 1968. Our calendar of public holidays reflects our multi-religious and multicultural society. This approach has served us well.
There are, currently, no plans to review the number of public holidays.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Accreditation by SkillsFuture Singapore of Apprenticeships Through Practical Experience under Skilled Practitioner","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"60 Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked the Minister for Education whether SkillsFuture Singapore will consider accrediting apprenticeships in specific professions, to recognise skills obtained through practical experience under a skilled practitioner.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Singapore Workforce Skills Qualification (WSQ) framework is a national skills credentialing system that supports the training, development, assessment and certification of skills for the workforce. The WSQ framework adopts the skills covered in the Skills Frameworks, which are validated by employers, unions, trade associations and chambers (TACs) and professional bodies.
The WSQ framework includes an Assessment-Only Pathway (AOP) to certify an individual's prior knowledge and skills without the need to undergo additional classroom training. The AOP is available across more than 500 courses, covering different sectors – from oil and gas to building and construction. The WSQ AOP can support employees by certifying the skills they have acquired through on-the-job training, including apprenticeships.
Beyond WSQ, SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) will be partnering sectoral lead agencies and professional bodies as \"Skills Development Partners\", which will help to identify in-demand and emerging skills needs and put in place structures to accredit skills acquired by individuals at the workplace.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Better Support for Families with Special Needs Children","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"61 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Finance to better support families with special needs children (a) whether there are plans to consider other qualifying tax reliefs, benefits and exemptions in addition to the Handicapped Child Relief (HCR); and (b) whether there are plans to raise the amount of relief under HCR to better reflect the average annual care cost of a child with special needs.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Government is committed to supporting families with special needs children.
The Qualifying Child Relief (QCR) and Handicapped Child Relief (HCR) are provided as recognition for parents in supporting their children and are not intended to defray the costs of raising children. Apart from these tax reliefs, there are various schemes that more directly offset the cost of services to support children with special needs, with more subsidies given to those with greater needs. These include early intervention programmes, such as the Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children and publicly-funded Special Education schools for students with moderate-to-severe special needs.
We continue to support individuals with special needs through adulthood. Work-capable Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) can receive employment support through the Enabling Employment Credit (EEC) and Open Door Programme (ODP) that provides wage offsets and grants, or other employment support services, to those who hire PwDs. Those who are unable to work can attend subsidised programmes at Day Activity Centres.
The Government remains committed to support those with special needs, through regular reviews of our policies. The new Enabling Masterplan 2030 will be launched by MSF later this year, as part of a continuing journey to build a more inclusive society in Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore Tourism Board's Plans to Revive and Rejuvenate MICE Sector with Reopening and Easing of Travel Restrictions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"62 Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked the Minister for Trade and Industry following the relaxation of safe management measures and travel restrictions, what are the Singapore Tourism Board's plans to revive and rejuvenate the Meetings, Incentives, Conferences and Exhibitions (MICE) sector.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, we have been working closely with our tourism sector, to help it build resilience and position it for recovery and growth when travel resumes. For example, in the face of global travel restrictions due to the pandemic, the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) launched the SingapoRediscovers campaign and SingapoRediscovers Vouchers (SRV) scheme to encourage Singaporeans to support our tourism operators, guides and businesses. Nearly S$300 million in SRV transactions were recorded, contributing directly to the top lines of our tourism establishments. SRV also spurred tourism establishments to enhance the variety and quality of our tourism offerings.
STB also launched the Safe Business Event Framework in July 2020, to guide the industry in the implementation of COVID-19-safe approaches for MICE events. Last year, we trialled the resumption of large-scale events, such as the Bloomberg New Economy Forum, Gamescom Asia and Industrial Transformation Asia-Pacific. These successful events demonstrated Singapore's capability to conduct large-scale international MICE events safely, paving the way for us to host other globally significant events, such as the Singapore Airshow this February, which saw a strong turnout of close to 13,000 participants.
Last month, I announced that the Government has earmarked close to half a billion dollars to support our tourism sector, including the MICE industry. We will continue to support the sector to develop its strategic manpower capabilities and accelerate our recovery plans. This support will continue even with the recent relaxation of travel restrictions, to help our tourism sector emerge stronger from the COVID-19 pandemic.
We have also launched initiatives to attract international travellers as travel rebounds. This includes SingapoReimagine, our international recovery campaign to drive bookings to Singapore. Through the campaign, STB will partner our tourism sector to enhance the overall visitor experience for travel to Singapore.
We have also secured a robust pipeline of MICE events this year, including Asia Tech x Singapore, Global Health Security Conference, Seafood Expo Asia, FIND: Design Fair Asia, Food & Hotel Asia and ITB Asia. These events will collectively gather around 140,000 attendees in Singapore from now till the end of the year. We will also continue to host major sporting events, such as the Formula 1 Singapore Grand Prix, which we have extended for seven years until 2028.
We are also ramping up our efforts to capture new traveller segments like sustainability and urban wellness. We launched the Tourism Sustainability Programme last month to help tourism businesses embark on, or expand, their sustainability efforts. We will also launch the inaugural Wellness Festival Singapore in June, which will bring together a suite of wellness offerings across Singapore.
With these efforts, our tourism sector is well-positioned for recovery as we emerge from the pandemic. We will continue to monitor developments in the tourism sector and will adjust our support measures and initiatives, based on the needs of the sector.
63 Mr Leon Perera asked the Prime Minister (a) to date, whether any exceptions have been made in the disbursement of the Baby Support Grant (BSG), for instance giving the grant to single mothers; and (b) whether the Government is considering an extension of the BSG beyond September 2022 in view of the continuing low total fertility rate at 1.12 children per woman in 2021.
Ms Indranee Rajah (for the Prime Minister): The Baby Support Grant (BSG) was introduced for parents of all Singaporean children born from 1 October 2020 to 30 September 2022. Single mothers who were lawfully married to their child's father, but are divorced or widowed, are eligible for BSG. We also allowed appeals from parents whose babies were born before 1 October 2020, but whose certified Estimated Delivery Date was on or after 1 October 2020.
BSG augments existing Marriage and Parenthood (M&P) support measures for families. It was intended to be a one-off measure to signal our support for families during the pandemic and encourage couples to proceed with their parenthood plans. We have received some queries this year on BSG eligibility period. As the pandemic situation has improved, we have replied that BSG will not be extended beyond the current eligibility period.
Parents will continue to benefit from our comprehensive suite of support for M&P, which we have enhanced over the years. For instance, the Government provides parents with up to $18,000 in financial support for their firstborn, through the Baby Bonus Cash Gift, contributions to the Child Development Account (CDA), and Medisave Grant for Newborns. The Government remains committed to supporting Singaporeans who want to get married and have children and will continue to review our measures to build a Singapore that is Made for Families.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Deployment and Adequacy of Targets for Fast E-vehicle Charging Points in Public and Private Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"64 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the current targets for Electronic Vehicle (EV) charging points in public and private estates are adequately significant to move the needle to persuade drivers to switch their internal combustion engine vehicles to EVs; (b) whether the Ministry has considered the inconvenience of overnight slow charging where multiple drivers have to compete for a charging point; and (c) whether the Ministry will be able to increase the deployment rate of fast EV charging points if demand increases in the next few years.
Mr S Iswaran: LTA launched a tender last month to deploy up to 12 electric vehicle (EV) charging points in nearly 2,000 HDB carparks. With this, up to an additional 12,000 charging points will be deployed by 2025, subject to demand. Beyond HDB carparks, we have also launched the EV Common Charger Grant to encourage more non-landed private residences to install charging points. All these efforts contribute towards our target to have 60,000 EV charging points in Singapore by 2030, which will be adequate to meet projected EV charging demand. LTA will monitor adoption patterns and deploy more charging points where demand is stronger.
Overall, slow charging places a much lower burden on electrical infrastructure, which, in turn, reduces the cost of charging for everyone. We are working with EV charging operators to optimise available charging infrastructure, such that drivers are able to slow-charge their EVs overnight at their usual carparks. At the same time, we recognise that fast EV charging points can complement the slow charging network by serving high-mileage vehicle segments, like taxis and commercial fleets, as well as EV users with urgent charging needs. EV charging operators have already started deploying fast charging points at many locations, including offices, retail malls and petrol stations, and we expect more to be deployed in the coming years. We are also studying options for the deployment of fast charging points near neighbourhood town centres and food centres.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plan to Switch Government-owned Vehicles Used for Essential Public Services to Electric Ones and Measures in Place in Event of Disruption to Power Grid","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"65 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the plan to switch Government-owned vehicles used for essential public services, such as Police cars and ambulances, to electric vehicles (EVs); and (b) what are the measures in place to prevent these essential public services and transport from being disrupted in case of a large-scale blackout or disruption to the national power grid.
Mr S Iswaran: The public sector is taking the lead on environmental sustainability under the GreenGov.SG initiative. All new cars procured and registered by public sector agencies from 2023 onwards will run on cleaner energy with zero tailpipe emissions. Other vehicles procured from 2023 onwards would also run on cleaner energy. This can include other options beyond EVs, such as hybrids, depending on the availability of vehicle models in the market that meet the operational requirements of the respective agencies.
With regard to the scenario of a large-scale blackout or disruption, Singapore's power system is one of the most reliable in the world. The Energy Market Authority (EMA) and SP PowerGrid (SPPG) have contingency plans in place to restore electricity supply expeditiously in the event of power outages. In addition, essential services have their own contingency plans to ensure that they are not affected by power outages, such as deploying mobile power generators to provide temporary power supply.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Full Scope of Economic Sanctions Imposed by Singapore on Russia for Invasion of Ukraine","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"66 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs what is the full scope of economic sanctions imposed by Singapore on Russia for its invasion of Ukraine.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Singapore is a consistent and staunch supporter of international law and the principles enshrined in the UN Charter. The sovereignty, political independence and territorial integrity of all countries, big and small, must be respected. Singapore takes any violation of these core principles seriously, as they are fundamental to the survival of Singapore, a small state.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine contravenes the UN Charter and is a clear and gross violation of international law. We cannot accept the Russian government's violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of another sovereign state. For a small state like Singapore, this is not a theoretical principle, but a dangerous precedent. This is why Singapore has strongly condemned Russia's unprovoked attack on Ukraine.
Since the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution to condemn Russia's aggression against Ukraine failed to pass due to Russia's veto and given the unprecedented gravity of Russia's attack on Ukraine, Singapore decided that we will impose appropriate sanctions and restrictions against Russia. Many other countries around the world have joined in the international sanctions.
As announced on 5 March 2022, our sanctions and restrictions aim to constrain Russia's capacity to conduct war against Ukraine and undermine its sovereignty. We have imposed export controls on items that can be directly used as weapons to inflict harm on or to subjugate the Ukrainians, as well as items that can contribute to offensive cyber operations. In particular, this includes a ban on the transfer to Russia of all items in the Military Goods List and all items in the \"Electronics\", \"Computers\" and \"Telecommunications and Information Security\" categories of the Dual-Use Goods List in the Strategic Goods (Control) Order 2021.
In addition, we have imposed financial measures targeted at designated Russian banks and activities in Russia and fundraising activities benefiting the Russian government. These measures apply to all financial institutions in Singapore, including banks, finance companies, insurers, capital markets intermediaries, securities exchanges and payment service providers. Specifically, financial institutions in Singapore are prohibited from:
(a) Dealing with designated Russian banks and are required to freeze their assets;
(b) Entering into financial transactions or providing financial assistance or services in relation to the export from, transhipment in, or transit through Singapore or any other jurisdiction of goods subject to Singapore's export controls on Russia;
(c) Entering into financial transactions or providing financial assistance or services in relation to the raising of new funds by the Russian government, the Central Bank of the Russian Federation or any legal person or legal arrangement owned or controlled by them or acting on their behalf or under their direction;
(d) Entering into financial transactions or providing financial assistance or services in relation to specific sectors in the breakaway regions of Donetsk and Luhansk; and
(e) Entering into or facilitating any digital payment token transactions which may be used to circumvent any of the above prohibitions.
The full scope of the sanctions imposed by Singapore on Russia is set out in MFA's Press Statement of 5 March 2022 and the enclosed factsheets, as well as MAS Notices SNR-N01 and SNR-N02, issued by MAS to all financial institutions in Singapore on 14 March 2022, which have been published on MAS' website.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Considerations in Singapore's Abstention on Suspension of Russia's Membership in UN Human Rights Council","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"67 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he can elaborate on the considerations that led to Singapore recording an abstention on the United Nations General Assembly vote on 7 April 2022 concerning the suspension of the rights of membership of the Russian Federation in the United Nations Human Rights Council.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Russia's invasion of Ukraine has undermined the global order. It subverts the basic rules and norms for how all countries, big or small, interact with one another. This flagrant violation of the United Nations (UN) Charter is dangerous for all countries, but, especially, for small states like Singapore.
Our very existence as a sovereign state, with territorial integrity and independence to chart our own destiny, will be threatened if the international rule of law can be abandoned, or obstructed, so cavalierly. A UN Security Council Resolution to condemn Russia's invasion of Ukraine had failed to pass because of a Russian veto. The dangerous precedent that 'might makes right' is not a theoretical, but an existential issue for a small state like Singapore.
That is why Singapore has taken a strong stand to condemn the invasion and imposed targeted sanctions on Russia. We co-sponsored and voted in support of two UN General Assembly Resolutions on the \"Aggression against Ukraine\" and the \"Humanitarian consequences of the aggression against Ukraine\". We also co-sponsored a UN Human Rights Council (HRC) Resolution on the \"Situation of human rights in Ukraine stemming from the Russian aggression\", which was adopted by an overwhelming majority on 4 March 2022.
Ms Sylvia Lim has asked why we abstained at the subsequent UN General Assembly vote on 7 April 2022 concerning the suspension of the rights of membership of the Russian Federation in the HRC.
We abstained because of the need to comply with due process at the UN. A key outcome of the HRC Resolution that Singapore co-sponsored was to establish an Independent International Commission of Inquiry to investigate all alleged abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law in Ukraine. On 30 March 2022, the President of HRC appointed three experts from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia and Norway to serve on the Commission initially for a year. Headed by an international jurist from Norway, the Commission will conduct investigations and make recommendations, in particular, on accountability measures. The Commission will report its initial findings to HRC and UN General Assembly at their 51st and 77th Sessions respectively, beginning in September 2022. Singapore supports the Commission and we expect accountability for any gross and systematic human rights violations committed during the war in Ukraine.
We would have preferred for a decision on the Russian Federation's membership of HRC to be made after the Commission reports its findings. Procedurally, this would set the proper precedent in terms of independent fact-gathering and support for the findings of a UN HRC-mandated Commission. This is consistent with Singapore's longstanding support for the rules-based multilateral system, the UN and the due application of its mechanisms and procedures. Our abstention, was, thus a principled one. It is consistent with our position throughout this crisis not to take sides, but to take a stand based on principles, international law and the UN Charter.
Let me take this opportunity to say that we are very concerned about the unfolding humanitarian crisis in Ukraine. We are especially disturbed and distressed by media reports of indiscriminate destruction of civilian infrastructure, the killing of civilians, especially children, and the discovery of mass graves in some cities of Ukraine. I call on all parties, and this includes the Russian Federation and the Ukrainian authorities, to fully cooperate with the independent UN HRC Commission and to allow full and unhindered access for it to conduct its work. The unhindered work of this Commission is crucial for the credibility and effectiveness of HRC and the UN.
I also want to express Singapore's full support for the work of the UN and its agencies to provide humanitarian support and to find a peaceful solution to the war in Ukraine. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was in New York in March 2022 where he met UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and received an update on the situation in Ukraine. He expressed our support for the work of the UN and the Secretary-General. We also welcome the recent visits to Moscow and Kyiv by the Secretary-General. We believe that the good offices of the Secretary-General will be crucial in this crisis, especially in facilitating the creation of humanitarian corridors and in delivering much needed assistance to the people of Ukraine.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessment of Disinformation Campaigns on Russia-Ukraine Conflict and Measures to Safeguard Singaporeans against Such Efforts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"68 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the Ministry's assessment of disinformation campaigns in relation to the Russia-Ukraine conflict to influence Singaporeans' views; and (b) how does the Ministry safeguard Singaporeans against efforts to divide opinions over this and other issues.
Mr K Shanmugam: MHA has previously provided our reply to a similar Parliamentary Question filed for the 4 April Sitting. To date, the Government has not detected a coordinated hostile information campaign (HIC) targeted specifically at Singapore.
Nevertheless, the Member's question is opportune to remind us that we should continue to be vigilant against efforts to draw Singaporeans into inauthentic discussions online and that these efforts seek to otherwise influence or divide us through hearsay, rumours, half-truths or misleading statements. The Government will continue with its efforts to build up a well-informed and discerning public through various public education efforts that strengthen our information and media literacy skills, so that we know how to discern the veracity of information that we encounter online.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Limits on Use of MediSave for Chronic Disease Management Medication for Patients Referred to Intermediate and Long-term Care Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"69 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the rationale for limiting patients from using their MediSave for chronic disease management medication when they are referred from Specialist Outpatient Clinics or Primary Care Clinics to Intermediate and Long-term Care Services, such as home medical care or home palliative care; and (b) whether the Ministry will review this limitation to ease patients' out-of-pocket expenses.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: MediSave is not allowed for home care setting today. We have been cautious in extending its use, as home care is, generally, unregulated and there is a need for measures to ensure appropriate delivery of home care. The exception is home palliative care, where admissions are more tightly gatekept and eligibility criteria better defined. Hence, patients can use MediSave for chronic disease medications prescribed by Long-Term Care (LTC) providers under the home palliative care limit.
Furthermore, LTC patients who are severely disabled can make cash withdrawals under MediSave Care to pay for their LTC expenses. Patients who face difficulties paying their subsidised LTC bills may also apply for financial assistance, such as MediFund.
MOH will review the need to extend MediSave use to chronic medication for home medical care, as part of our effort to encourage right siting of care and fulfilling the wishes of patients to recover in the familiarity of their homes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Pre-screening Measures for Blood Donations and Plans to Bring Back Mobile Blood Donation Drives","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"70 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the additional pre-screening measures for blood donations that are implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic will remain or be reviewed; and (b) what are the plans to bring back mobile blood donation drives.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The pre-screening measures implemented by the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) are reviewed regularly to align with the latest safe management measures (SMMs). After the most recent review on 19 April 2022, the COVID-19 travel-related deferral was removed. For now, HSA will retain the pre-screening criteria to defer those with close contact with COVID-19 infected persons, and with respiratory symptoms, fever and COVID-19 infections.
Mobile blood donation drives continued to be conducted regularly during the pandemic. The number and frequency were reduced, due to the inability of some companies to organise blood mobile drives at their premises. In such instances, arrangements were made for donors to donate blood at HSA's blood collection centres. As SMMs are relaxed and more staff return to the workplace, engagement of corporate companies to host mobile drives will be stepped up.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cap on Number of Hours Nurses and Doctors Can Work Per Shift","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"71 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry intends to have a cap on the number of hours a (i) nurse and (ii) doctor can work for each shift; and (b) if not, why not.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry does not intend to impose any additional caps on the working hours for healthcare workers beyond what is already stipulated in the Employment Act or the public healthcare cluster's employment contracts. In addition, for junior doctors, there are existing hospital guidelines, such as total allowable work hours per week and the provision of sufficient rest periods. Public healthcare institutions should put in the necessary efforts to adhere to these guidelines.
The experience with the pandemic has shown us that there will be times when healthcare workers will be subject to exigencies of service. Flexibility in deploying healthcare workers is important to ensure that our public healthcare clusters can manage the operational needs on the ground. The public healthcare clusters have established workgroups to look into enhancing the support for healthcare workers and care model transformation that will ensure a more sustainable work-life balance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Daily Withdrawal Limits for CPF Funds and Safeguards in Place Against Scams Involving Extraordinarily Large Sums","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"72 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Manpower whether CPF Board imposes any daily withdrawal limits for CPF funds that members are eligible to withdraw; and (b) whether CPF Board has a threshold beyond which extraordinarily large withdrawal sums are subject to enhanced scrutiny, to safeguard against scams.
Dr Tan See Leng: CPF Board takes a serious view towards safeguarding members against scams. At the same time, CPF Board recognises that we should not unnecessarily inconvenience members for the vast majority of transactions that are legitimate. This is why we do not impose any daily withdrawal limits or thresholds. However, CPF Board will only pay to a member's bank account after verification that the bank account belongs to the member.
CPF Board has put in place several measures to give members greater peace of mind against illegitimate transactions.
First, before any CPF withdrawals are authorised, CPF Board authenticates the identity of the person making the withdrawal request to ensure that he or she is the owner of the CPF account involved. This is done by verifying against the member's identification card for face-to-face requests or through the use of Singpass two-factor authentication for online requests.
Second, CPF members receive a notification via email or SMS for any withdrawal of CPF monies from their accounts. Members are encouraged to update their latest mobile number or email address via the CPF website by logging in with their Singpass, so they do not miss out on such notifications.
Third, CPF Board verifies that a bank account, indeed, belongs to the member before making any payment.
CPF Board's safeguards are in line with existing practices in the financial industry such that banks do not impose limits for transactions between verified accounts held by the same person within the same bank. As outlined in Minister Lawrence Wong's Ministerial Statement in February 2022, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and the banks are looking to introduce further measures for significant changes to their accounts, such as fund transfers that are large relative to their overall balances. CPF Board will review these safeguards regularly to ensure that they are effective and aligned with industry practices, where applicable.
Citizen vigilance is imperative in the fight against scams. Members should take necessary precautions to guard against potential scams when they receive unsolicited calls and refrain from giving away their Singpass or Internet banking credentials. CPF Board staff are also trained to assist members to respond to scam cases. When in doubt, always verify the authenticity of the information with CPF Board through multiple online and offline channels.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Proactively Detect and Support Adults Losing Mental Capacity and Without Family Support and Lasting Power of Attorney","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"73 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Health (a) what more can be done to proactively detect and support adults who have started losing their mental capacity and have no family support; and (b) for such adults who have not made a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA), whether the Ministry will consider having a deputy appointed immediately to make key decisions for the adult.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) has 68 community outreach teams island wide to increase the awareness of mental health, identify at-risk persons and provide the necessary support. Individuals who are identified by the teams to be at risk of cognitive impairment are encouraged to start future care planning and consider arrangements like the Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) and Advance Care Planning (ACP). In addition, MOH is building up the competencies and skills of our medical doctors to perform mental capacity assessments for at-risk patients. For example, MOH has engaged the College of Family Physicians Singapore to conduct a course for family physicians later this year on the operationalisation of the Mental Capacity Act.
Under the Professional Deputies (PD) scheme that was introduced in 2018, PDs may apply to Court to act for individuals who lack mental capacity, but do not have suitable next-of-kin to appoint as their deputies. Healthcare institutions, AIC's community outreach teams and social service touchpoints may contact any of the PDs registered with the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) should they encounter individuals who have started losing their mental capacity. Where the individual does not have the financial means, OPG will identify a Panel Deputy to apply to Court to be the deputy. Panel Deputies are public-spirited persons who act on a pro bono basis.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Prevent E-cigarettes from Flowing into Singapore with Reopening of Land Border with Malaysia","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"74 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Health as the land border with Malaysia fully reopens (a) what is being done to prevent e-cigarettes from flowing into Singapore through small hobbyist shops located in Johor Bahru; and (b) what more can be done to educate Singaporeans about the dangers of using e-cigarettes.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: This will also address Written Question Nos 29 and 30 asked by Mr Yip Hon Weng for the Sitting on 9 May 2022.
MOH takes a multi-pronged approach to curb the use of tobacco products, including vaporisers, or e-cigarettes in various settings.
At the checkpoints, ICA deploys a variety of technologies to detect contraband items, including radiographic scanners, X-ray machines and hand-held screening devices, to ensure that all goods that enter Singapore are lawful and legitimate. ICA also conducts pre-arrival risk assessments and profiling to aid the detection of contraband items. When suspicious items are detected, ICA ground officers will refer the passenger and/or vehicle for further checks.
Any prohibited or controlled items detected will be referred to the appropriate regulatory authority, for example, HSA for e-cigarettes/vaporisers, for follow-up investigation. From 1 January 2022 to mid-April 2022, close to 300 persons were caught for importation of vaporisers and related components at the Causeway checkpoints. While the opening of borders does pose a risk of increased illicit smuggling of vaporisers, these products can also be sourced via e-commerce and enter Singapore via mail packages even when borders are closed.
To address the use of vaporisers within Singapore, we work with various partners and stakeholders to strengthen enforcement measures and public education efforts. The Health Promotion Board (HPB) will roll out a vape-free campaign later in 2022 targeted at youths and younger adults through popular digital platforms, to communicate that vaping is harmful and illegal and penalties will apply for offences related to prohibited tobacco products, such as vaporisers.
Smoking cessation efforts are also in place to support those who wish to quit. Under the \"I Quit\" Programme run by HPB, participants are supported for up to six months to quit smoking. Participants may also join \"I Quit\" repeatedly as some require multiple attempts before quitting successfully, due to the addictive nature of nicotine. Individuals who wish to quit on their own can also tap on resources at HealthHub for tips on various coping methods, such as picking up new hobbies to relieve stress.
Local success rates for unique participants of smoking cessation programmes range from 10% per year for telephone-based interventions, to 20% per year for programmes that combine intensive counselling and pharmacotherapy. This is comparable to international experience where reported rates of successful smoking cessation range from 7.5% to 20.1%.
Persons who wish to quit vaping will not be penalised when they come forward to seek professional help or participate in cessation programmes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Certification by Original Equipment Manufacturers That It Is Safe to Transport People at Rear of Lorries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"75 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) have certified that it is safe to transport people at the rear of their lorries; (b) if so, what are the exact conditions which have been certified to do so; and (c) if not, whether the Ministry intends to ask the OEMs about this issue and what are the reasons if it does not intend to do so.
Mr S Iswaran: LTA and other agencies have engaged the key authorised lorry suppliers in Singapore on enhancing the safety of workers ferried in lorry rear decks last year. They hold a view similar to what we have previously shared with this House – from a road safety perspective, it will be ideal for lorries not to carry any passengers in their rear decks.
However, companies, especially small and medium enterprises in the construction industry, require such form of transportation to facilitate their business operations. Hence, we have been implementing measures to preserve workers' livelihoods, as well as their safety. For instance, LTA has mandated lorries ferrying workers to be fitted with canopies and higher side railings for better safety since 2010. We also recently announced several additional safety measures, such as requiring all lorries to be subject to speed management devices.
Road safety is a shared responsibility. While we will continue to study further measures, we urge employers to do their part to ensure the safety and welfare of their staff and, where possible, utilise alternative modes of transport such as buses, like what some have already done.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rules for Large Cycling Groups on Roads","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"76 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport whether larger cycling groups are allowed or encouraged to conduct their rides in multiple groups of five cyclists in single file, or 10 cyclists if riding two abreast, following at a distance while travelling on the same route and at the same time.
Mr S Iswaran: Under the Road Traffic (Bicycles) Rules, cycling groups riding on roads are required to limit their group size to a maximum length of five bicycles and two abreast. This means a maximum group size of five cyclists if riding in single file, or 10 cyclists if riding two abreast on roads where they are permitted to do so, such as those which have two or more lanes in the same direction. Larger cycling groups are required to organise themselves, such that they adhere to these requirements when riding on roads. These groups are encouraged to maintain a minimum safe distance of approximately two lamp posts or 30 metres, between groups. Cyclists who flout the rule on cycling group size are liable for maximum penalties of up to a $1,000 fine and a three-month jail term.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Use of Traditional Chinese Medicine Lianhua Qingwen Jiao Nang Capsules in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"77 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Health what is the Government's position on the use of the traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) Lianhua Qingwen Jiao Nang capsules in Singapore.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Lianhua Qingwen Jiaonang (LHQW) 莲花清瘟胶囊 capsules are classified as Chinese Proprietary Medicines (CPMs) in Singapore, approved for the relief of cold and flu symptoms. CPMs are not intended for the prevention, treatment or cure of specific diseases.
We are aware of claims circulating on social media platforms that LHQW can be used to prevent or treat COVID-19. To date, there is no conclusive evidence from controlled clinical studies to substantiate those claims. Locally, there is an ongoing local study to investigate the effectiveness of LHQW in reducing COVID-19 symptoms.
78 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health (a) what percentage of polyclinics and general practitioner clinics (GP) are currently able to access the National Electronic Health Records (NEHR) system; and (b) to what extent will polyclinics and GPs be able to access and input details of outpatient consultations for their patients under the proposed Healthier SG initiative.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: As of April 2022, all polyclinics and close to 60% of private medical clinics have access to the National Electronic Health Record (NEHR). All healthcare professionals who are involved in direct patient care can apply to access NEHR.
To support the outcomes of the Healthier SG programme, care providers will be able to access patients' medical records, track their patients' conditions and progress over time, and share the records with other healthcare providers, using NEHR. To govern these processes and to ensure secure data sharing, we intend to table a Health Information Bill.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Child Abuse Cases Investigated by Child Protective Service and Upstream Measures Required","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"79 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) in 2021, how many cases of child abuse have been investigated by the Child Protective Service, broken down by quarterly figures; (b) whether there is a similar number of child abuse cases being investigated in the first quarter of 2022; and (c) what can be done upstream to better prevent such cases from happening.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Child Protective Service (CPS) investigated around 400 to 650 cases each quarter in 2021. For the first quarter of 2022, the number of cases was in the lower end of the range, at 420 cases.
MSF adopts two key strategies to detect child abuse and intervene upstream.
First, it is strengthening efforts to detect and encourage early reporting of suspected child abuse. Frontline professionals in preschools, schools, healthcare institutions and social service agencies (SSAs) are trained to identify signs of child abuse and take immediate action to ensure their safety and well-being. It also educates the public, through the Break the Silence campaign that aims to increase awareness of and encourage members of the public to report suspected violence or neglect. As part of the campaign, we encourage the use of the hand \"Signal for Help\", so that survivors can discreetly indicate that they need help. MSF also set up the 24-hour National Anti-Violence and Sexual Harassment Helpline (NAVH). By end 2022, we will launch a web reporting channel and mobile application for NAVH to further enhance ease of reporting.
Second, MSF prevents and mitigates child abuse in at-risk families through early intervention. The Family Service Centres (FSCs) work with families on their social and emotional needs and coordinate support from other agencies, such as childcare services or financial assistance. Through counselling, parents learn child-management strategies and skills to manage their stressors. Parenting Support Providers (PSPs) also deliver evidence-based parenting programmes and individual consultation sessions to parents of children with behavioural difficulties to better support them. In addition, the Alliance for Action to Strengthen Marriages and Family Relationships (AFAM) will be developing materials to promote respectful relationships to strengthen the bond among couples and to prevent and guard against family violence.
Countering child abuse is everyone's responsibility. With greater awareness and easier ways of reporting violence, we urge anyone who suspects or witnesses child abuse to call NAVH at 1800-777-0000.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Individuals Incarcerated for Sexual Assault Offences","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"80 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many individuals are currently incarcerated for sexual assault offences with sentences exceeding 10 years of imprisonment before remission; (b) of this number, how many are repeat offenders; and (c) how many Singaporeans have been incarcerated for sexual assault at least three or more times in their lives, divided into those who are currently in prison and those who have been released.
Mr K Shanmugam: As of 31 March 2022, there are 195 inmates who are, currently, incarcerated for sexual assault offences with sentences of 10 years' imprisonment or more.
Of these 195 inmates, 95 of them have been imprisoned before. Of these 95, 22 of them have, at least, one prior conviction for a sexual assault offence.
We do not track the number of people in our population who had been incarcerated for sexual assault.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Number of Petroleum Retailing Sites Given Drive Towards E-vehicles","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"81 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for National Development that given the drive towards adoption of more electric vehicles, whether the Ministry will review the number of petroleum retailing sites or re-purpose these sites.
Mr Desmond Lee: Under the Singapore Green Plan, our goal is for all vehicles to run on cleaner energy by 2040. The Government is ramping up expansion of the electric vehicle (EV) charging network to facilitate the transition.
As EV adoption increases over time, EV chargers will be installed within carparks of locations, such as homes, workplaces and shopping malls. We expect demand for petrol and diesel fuel to decrease in tandem. These trends will reshape the role of petrol stations and the needs of the fuel retailing market. Our land use planning will adapt correspondingly, while ensuring that the needs of the different types of vehicles are met. Where appropriate, some petrol stations may be repurposed for alternative uses. We will continue to work with the industry on easing this transition.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Complaints Received Against HDB Accredited or Registered Renovation Contractors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"82 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether it is a requirement for HDB flat owners to use only HDB accredited or registered renovation contractors when applying for renovation permits; (b) what is the list of criteria that a renovation contractor needs to fulfil before its inclusion in the HDB Directory of Renovation Contractors (DRC); and (c) in the last three years, what is the number of complaints received by HDB pertaining to renovations and how many renovation contractors have been taken to task by HDB respectively.
Mr Desmond Lee: Flat owners who are renovating their homes must engage a contractor listed in the HDB Directory of Renovation Contractors (DRC). These renovation contractors would be familiar with HDB's renovation requirements. Flat owners are also required to obtain a renovation permit from HDB for certain renovation works such as demolition of walls and hacking of flooring, that may affect the structural integrity of the building. The works requiring renovation permits are set out on the HDB InfoWeb.
To be listed on DRC, the applicant must fulfil several criteria such as having attended and completed the \"Renovation for Public Housing\" training course by BCA Academy, and having relevant experience in the renovation trade. These criteria are intended to indicate the contractor's experience, capability and financial standing to carry out renovation works in accordance with HDB's requirements and in a manner that safeguards the structural integrity of the building. Details on the application process and criteria are available on HDB InfoWEB.
Over the past three years, HDB received an average of 1,000 cases of feedback per year on renovation contractors and the quality and timeliness of renovation works. As the engagement of renovation contractors is a private arrangement, HDB advises home owners to approach the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) or Small Claims Tribunal if there are any disputes on the service, quality or timeliness of the renovation works.
Renovation contractors who are found in breach of HDB's terms will be penalised under the Demerit Points System, which may result in the company's suspension from DRC and, thus, its inability to take on HDB renovation projects. In the past three years, HDB has penalised about 200 errant contractors. Some examples of infringements include working beyond permitted hours, failing to send written notices to neighbours to inform them of renovation work and dirtying the common area.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Accidents Involving Barriers and Vehicles in HDB Car Parks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"83 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for National Development with regard to accidents involving barriers and vehicles in HDB car parks (a) how many of such accidents have occurred in the past three years; (b) what are the reasons for these accidents; and (c) whether the humps installed at the barriers have assisted in preventing such accidents.
Mr Desmond Lee: HDB manages more than 2,000 residential car parks. In the past three years, there were 121 barrier-related incidents reported to HDB.
These incidents were mainly due to drivers of larger vehicles misjudging the turning radius and knocking into the barrier, or drivers misjudging the speed of the barrier arm and attempting to drive out while the barrier arm was still moving.
The humps located before the barriers are meant to reduce vehicle speed as they approach the car park gantries. These humps have been effective in keeping the number of barrier-related accidents low. To prevent such accidents, it is also important for motorists to drive safely in the car parks, and to exercise care and patience.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Challenges Inhibiting Issuance of Birth Certificate Alongside Death Certificate for Stillborn Singapore Citizen Children Upon Parents' Request","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"84 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Home Affairs what are the (i) administrative and (ii) practical challenges that currently inhibit the issuance of a birth certificate alongside a death certificate for Singapore Citizen children who are stillborn, in cases where these parents wish to have the child's birth certificate issued.
Mr K Shanmugam: The intent of a birth certificate is to serve as a certification of the registration of a live birth and as an identity document for the child, which can then be used for administrative purposes, such as the provision of Government services. Hence, birth certificates are not issued to stillbirths.
For stillbirths, once the Registration of Births and Deaths Act 2021 comes into force, a digital stillbirth certificate will be issued to the parents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Complaints Received on Cicadas in 2021 and 2022 and Actions Taken","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"+85 Mr Desmond Choo asked Minister for National Development (a) what is the number of feedback that the Ministry has received from the public regarding cicadas in Singapore in 2021 and 2022 respectively; and (b) how has the Ministry been dealing with these complaints.
Mr Desmond Lee: There were 26 cases of feedback received regarding cicadas in 2021 and five cases received in the first three months of 2022. The feedback largely pertained to noise from cicadas' calls, as well as cicadas entering residents' homes or common areas in housing estates.
Cicadas are part of Singapore's native fauna, and they play ecologically important roles. The mating calls are a natural phenomenon. Agencies, such as NParks and Town Councils, generally, avoid harming them, as cicadas are part of our local biodiversity and do not bite or sting. Hence, when we receive feedback, we try to seek residents' understanding and advise them to accommodate the noise with simple measures like closing windows, rather than consider extermination.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Deployment Target for Number of E-waste Recycling Bins in HDB Estates and Educating Residents on Their Proper Use","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"86 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether there is a deployment target for the number of e-waste recycling bins in HDB estates; and (b) as more e-waste recycling bins are placed in HDB estates, how does the Ministry intend to educate residents to recycle their e-waste in a better and correct manner.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Under the Extended Producer Responsibility scheme for e-waste, producers, that is, manufacturers and importers, are responsible for the end-of-life treatment of electrical and electronic products that they supply to the Singapore market. ALBA E-Waste Smart Recycling (ALBA), the appointed Producer Responsibility Scheme operator, is responsible for the collection and proper treatment of consumer e-waste on behalf of the producers.
While there is no deployment target for e-waste recycling bins, ALBA and NEA regularly analyse data from e-waste collection points to optimise the collection network. ALBA has deployed more than 550 e-waste recycling bins nationwide, at convenient locations, such as community centres, supermarkets, electronics stores and Government buildings. ALBA also works with Town Councils to organise quarterly collection drives at housing estates and collection of bulky e-waste. These efforts have resulted in 4,300 tonnes of consumer e-waste being collected since the scheme started in July 2021. This is more than three times the amount collected annually under previous voluntary schemes and about 10.5% of the consumer electrical and electronic equipment supplied in 2020.
E-waste contains valuable resources like gold, copper and cobalt. The proper segregation of e-waste for recycling will enable the recovery of these resources for use in the manufacturing of new products. As the e-waste recycling scheme is relatively new, NEA has been working with ALBA to educate residents on why they should recycle e-waste, what e-waste can be recycled and the collection avenues available. The outreach efforts leverage the mass media, including TV channels, digital and social media, as well as publicity platforms of Town Councils, digital panel ads at HDB lift lobbies and Community Development Council collaterals.
To encourage recycling at home, NEA is collaborating with the Singapore Institute of Technology to design a recycling container to help households better organise and collect recyclables, including small e-waste items, such as chargers and cables. More details will be announced later.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Other Measures to Prevent Littering and Amending Law to Impose Corrective Work Order on First-time Offenders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"87 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what other measures can be taken to prevent littering; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider amending the law to impose a corrective work order on first-time offenders for littering.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: To prevent littering and uphold high standards of public cleanliness, my Ministry adopts a multi-pronged approach, including enforcing against litterbugs, encouraging ground-up action and establishing values and norms.
We have been focusing on making enforcement more efficient and effective. Since 2019, NEA has been leveraging data analytics to better identify hotspots and prioritise deployment of enforcement officers. Enforcement officers, clad in operational vests, have been deployed to more places to increase visibility and enhance deterrence. NEA has also worked with stakeholders to display posters and banners prominently at hotspots to highlight the penalties and discourage littering.
To shape positive social norms, NEA works with stakeholders, such as residents, community leaders, Town Councils, schools and other organisations, to foster collective action and social responsibility in keeping our public spaces clean. For example, more than 360 individuals have come on board NEA's Community Volunteer (CV) programme and augmented our ground presence and efforts against littering. To date, the CVs have engaged over 8,000 littering offenders. In another example, the Public Hygiene Council (PHC) has partnered Town Councils to hold quarterly SG Clean Days to emphasise the part that residents play in keeping their surroundings clean.
Financial penalties for littering remain an effective deterrent for the majority of offenders. For recalcitrant offenders, we continue to impose the Corrective Work Order (CWO). The proportion of repeat offenders has remained steady at about 10%. We, therefore, do not see a need to extend CWOs to first-time offenders at this time as we would also like to give first-time offenders a second chance, so that they can learn from their mistakes. We will continue to monitor the situation and review the penalty regime for littering from time to time. We will also persevere with our efforts to engage the community to take greater ownership and keep the environment clean.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Physical Tokens for Less Technologically Savvy Users to Access Mobile and Digital Banking Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Prime Minister whether banks should be required to continue issuing physical tokens to access mobile and digital banking services for those who prefer that method of access, particularly those less technologically savvy or do not have the means to purchase the later models of phones which have the necessary operating systems to allow digital tokens.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) requires banks to implement multi-factor authentication to verify customer identity and authorise online transactions. MAS does not prescribe any particular technology for multi-factor authentication, so that banks can offer the authentication method that best meets their customers' preferences.
Authentication mechanisms that banks offer include hardware tokens, digital tokens, and biometrics. Banks which have replaced hardware tokens with digital tokens have published customer advisories and trained their frontline staff to provide guidance to customers on the use of digital tokens.
While banks like DBS, OCBC and UOB have stopped issuing hardware tokens, by default, to customers who apply for Internet banking, their customers can request for hardware tokens if they prefer this method of authentication.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Steps to Address Potential Use of Social Media Bots to Manipulate Stock Trading in Singapore Exchange","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Prime Minister what steps have been identified to address the potential in the future of the use of social media bots to manipulate stock trading in the Singapore Exchange.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): There have been reports abroad of bots being used to promote securities on social media platforms, which may fuel speculative trading in those securities or trading based on false information.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and Singapore Exchange Regco (SGX Regco) conduct surveillance and post-trade monitoring of the trading activity on SGX. When unusual trading behaviour is detected, analysts conduct further investigations, including surveillance of social media, as needed, to detect and identify persons inciting the trading.
Thus far, MAS and SGX Regco have not detected bots being involved in cases of unusual trading activity. If we do, we will follow up with the social media service provider to identify the person controlling the bots or request the provider to disable the social media account or remove the associated content. At the same time, we will work with SGX trading members to disrupt the suspicious trading activity. Depending on the circumstances, this could include measures like disabling trading accounts involved in the suspicious trades or suspending the trading of securities experiencing unexplained sharp price changes.
MAS, the Commercial Affairs Department of the Singapore Police Force and SGX Regco have previously issued public advisories1 on the risks related to trading in securities based on discussions on social media platforms. Members of the public should be wary of stock recommendations on such platforms, as the recommendations may not be made with good intent or even by real individuals.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : MAS and SGX: Beware of risks related to trading incited by online discussions; Singapore-Hong Kong Joint Operation against suspected cross-border pump-and-dump syndicate; SGX Regco warns public of pump-and-dump activities exploiting Telegram chats and other social media channels; Police advisory on pump-and-dump scams involving overseas listed companies."],"footNoteQuestions":["2"],"questionNo":"2"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Local Banks Exposure to Commodity Trading and Commodity Financing and Assessment of Risks to Financial Sector from Commodity Market Volatilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Prime Minister (a) what is the current size of local banks' exposure to commodity trading and commodity financing; (b) whether MAS has been approached and is prepared to provide liquidity support to commodity trading firms; and (c) what is the assessment by MAS of the risks to the financial sector arising from commodity market volatilities and ongoing lockdowns across China.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): MAS has been closely monitoring developments in the international commodity markets and the broader external environment and their potential impact on Singapore's financial system.
Singapore's local banking groups had an aggregated commodities financing exposure of S$109 billion as at end-2021, which is around 9% of their total credit exposures.
In the face of sharp spikes in global commodity prices, commodity trading firms have increased their demand for working capital to meet higher margin requirements. They have had to use a variety of derivatives more widely to hedge their exposures against price volatility. Firms which do not manage their risks well may run into difficulty in servicing their loans.
As for China, the mobility restrictions are expected to have some impact on production and supply chains. There is uncertainty over how long these restrictions would persist and their spillover effects on commodity markets and regional economies, including Singapore.
Banks in Singapore have, understandably, stepped-up monitoring of their exposures to borrowers that might be adversely affected by these developments. Measures taken include performing stress tests on borrowers' balance sheets to assess the impact of supply chain disruptions, heightened commodity prices and energy supply constraints. MAS will continue to engage key banks to ensure they are working with borrowers to manage these risks as the situation evolves.
There is no need for MAS to provide liquidity to commodity firms and MAS would, at most times, prefer not to engage in direct provision of liquidity to corporate borrowers. The banking system continues to provide credit to the commodity trading sector to meet firms' liquidity needs. Enterprise Singapore's interactions with the commodities sector also suggests that financing conditions for commodity traders remain stable. Commodity traders also tap on a diverse pool of financing, including banks overseas and international capital markets.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Percentage of Employment Pass Holders, Permanent Residents and Singaporeans Holding Senior Roles in Finance Sector","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Prime Minister what is the current percentage of Employment Pass holders, Permanent Residents and Singaporeans holding senior roles in the finance sector.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): As at end-2021, about 71% of the financial sector workforce were Singapore Citizens, 14% were Permanent Residents and 15% were work pass holders. For senior roles1, based on MAS' survey results for 2020, about 46% were Singapore Citizens, 21% Permanent Residents and 33% work pass holders. These proportions have remained stable over the years, with a gradual increase in the proportion of Singapore Citizens holding senior roles in the finance sector.
In absolute terms, more than 3,000 Singapore Citizens now hold senior positions in the financial sector, an increase of more than 80%, compared to 2016.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Senior financial professionals with more than 15 years of related work experience and undertake executive decisions in the company."],"footNoteQuestions":["4"],"questionNo":"4"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Spending on Organising and Running General Elections in 2011, 2015 and 2020 Respectively","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Prime Minister how much is the Government's spending on organising and running the General Elections in 2011, 2015 and 2020 respectively, including but not limited to, the cost of manpower, security, publicity and materials.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): The expenditures incurred by the Elections Department (ELD) for the 2011, 2015 and 2020 General Elections were $13.5 million, $23.2 million and $30.3 million respectively.
Across elections, expenditure will fluctuate depending on manpower, info-communications technology, transport and other logistical needs. For example, GE2015 was fully contested, unlike GE2011, and more election officials were deployed. Higher logistics costs were also incurred as election equipment, such as polling booths and counting tables, were due for replacement. In GE2020, which was held during the COVID-19 pandemic, almost $8 million was spent on safe management measures.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Number of Requests to Deregister from TraceTogether Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Prime Minister for each month in the last year, how many users have requested to be de-registered from the TraceTogether programme.
Mrs Josephine Teo (for the Prime Minister): From January 2021 to April 2022, about 5,900 users, or an average of 370 users per month, were de-registered from the TraceTogether programme at their request.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Allow Full-time National Servicemen to Pursue Part-time Courses Relevant to Future Employment or Education during National Service","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Defence whether the Ministry will not only consider allowing full-time National Servicemen (NSF) to undertake part-time courses during their National Service (NS), but also actively encourage NSFs to pursue such training or education that will be relevant to their future employment or further education.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: During full-time National Service (FTNS), the priority of full-time National Servicemen (NSFs) is their military training and duties. However, MINDEF/SAF does encourage and support our NSFs' efforts to prepare for further education or work.
Under our SkillsFuture@NS initiative, every NSF is provided $350 of Electronic Pre-Release Employment Programme (E-PREP) credits that can be used to pay for more than 3,000 courses offered by local education institutes and e-learning vendors. These include part-time classroom or online courses that span a broad range of disciplines relevant to further education and jobs. Some of the courses are credit-bearing towards qualifications awarded by local education institutes.
To encourage and guide NSFs to plan their education and career post-NS, MINDEF also conducts career and education fairs for NSFs who are in their final three to six months of FTNS. Known as the Enhanced Career and Education Fairs, these events feature companies and Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) that provide NSFs with information on career and education opportunities. At the fairs, NSFs can also attend workshops to learn more about available pathways after NS and Government resources available for lifelong learning. They are also provided with a Career Starter Pack that equips them with resources for their job search.
Apart from SkillsFuture@NS, MINDEF/SAF has, since 2018, launched five Work-Learn Schemes in Cybersecurity, Logistics and Supply Chain Management, Aerospace Engineering, Electrical Engineering and Artificial Intelligence. These schemes enable our Servicemen to upskill and maximise their contributions during their service with SAF. The Servicemen can attain a MINDEF-sponsored ITE, Polytechnic diploma or partial University credits, while undergoing military training and applying their skills in a mixture of Regular and National Service.
MINDEF/SAF remains committed to supporting NSFs in their post-NS transition to higher education or into the workforce, while fulfilling the SAF's operational needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Assist Singapore Companies in Managing Myanmar Junta's New Regulation on Exchange of Foreign Currency According to Mandated Rate","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs what plans are in place to assist Singapore companies with interests in Myanmar in managing the junta's new regulations requiring exchange of foreign currency, according to a mandated rate.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: The Central Bank of Myanmar (CBM) announced on 3 April 2022 that all foreign currency deposited in banks in Myanmar must be converted to the Myanmar Kyat at a mandated rate within one business day. Subsequently, on 20 April 2022, CBM exempted certain entities from the directive, including approved foreign investments, foreign missions and international organisations.
This latest development is yet another setback for Myanmar's economy, which has already been severely disrupted since the military coup on 1 February 2021. The Singapore Embassy in Yangon, like many other foreign embassies and international business chambers, has expressed our concerns about the impact of the CBM's directive on Singapore companies operating in Myanmar. We have sought clarification over the scope of the regulations and requested for exemptions to be applied to Singapore companies and are still waiting for CBM's response.
Given the heightened uncertainty associated with doing business in Myanmar, Singapore companies must make their own commercial assessments about the Myanmar market.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Sign-ups for Safe Driving Course under Driver Improvement Points System and Its Success in Improving Driving Behaviour","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many drivers have signed up for the Safe Driving Course introduced under the Driver Improvement Points System since 1 November 2017; (b) how many drivers have signed up to reinstate their driving licence after their suspension period is over; and (c) how successful has the course been in ensuring that these drivers no longer repeat their offences.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Safe Driving Course was introduced in 2015 as a voluntary programme to help motorists who have accumulated demerit points, but not yet liable for suspension, improve their driving behaviour. The course was revised on 1 November 2017, to widen the eligibility criteria and raise the number of demerit points expunged from motorists' records, so that more motorists would be able to benefit from attending it.
From 1 November 2017 to 28 February 2022, 41,278 motorists had signed up for the Safe Driving Course.
The course has seen some success in improving driving behaviour among participants. Since 1 November 2017, 78% of motorists who had completed the course remained offence-free for at least one year after completing the course.
Motorists whose licences were suspended are not eligible for the Safe Driving Course. Those with licence suspension of less than 12 months will have their licence automatically reinstated at the end of their suspension period. They do not need to apply to reinstate their licences.
Motorists whose driving licences have been suspended for 12 months or more, will have their licences revoked. They would be required to retake the necessary driving tests of competency before they can drive again.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Prosecution of Harassment of Public Servants or Public Service Workers in Execution of Their Duties","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Home Affairs with regard to harassment of public servants or Public Service workers in the execution of their duties (a) how many of such cases have been prosecuted in 2019, 2020 and 2021 respectively; (b) what was the average sentence for the convicted cases; and (c) whether the criminal offences under the purview of the Protection from Harassment Act 2014 can be expanded to protect other frontliners like private healthcare workers.
Mr K Shanmugam: Under the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA), offenders who are convicted of harassment are liable for a fine of up to $5,000 or an imprisonment term of up to six months, or both. Where the victim is a public servant or Public Service worker, the punishment is higher – offenders are liable for a fine of up to $5,000 or an imprisonment term of up to 12 months, or both.
In more egregious cases, offenders can be charged with other offences under the Penal Code, where the punishments are higher. For example, under section 332 of the Penal Code, offenders who are convicted for voluntarily causing hurt to a public servant are liable for an imprisonment term of up to seven years and are also liable for a fine, or caning.
One hundred and seventy-five, 185 and 114 cases of harassment against public servants or Public Service workers were prosecuted for offences under POHA in 2019, 2020 and 2021 respectively. We do not track the average sentences of such cases.
The Member asked whether POHA can be expanded to protect other frontliners like private healthcare workers. To clarify, any offender can be convicted of harassment under POHA, regardless of who the victim is, including private healthcare workers.
For the purpose of additional protection, POHA classifies individuals as Public Service workers if their job serves the general public and not just patrons of a private business or establishment. These include healthcare professionals in public healthcare institutions, such as public hospitals and polyclinics.
Most recently, in 2021, we expanded the list of Public Service workers, for the purposes of additional protection under POHA, to include private healthcare workers directly involved in COVID-19 operations. This group of private healthcare workers are serving the general public, as part of the national healthcare framework dealing with COVID-19 and not just their private clients. MHA will continue to regularly review this list of Public Service workers under POHA.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Cheating Cases at 2020 Part B Bar Examinations and Steps taken to Eliminate or Minimise such Cheating Cases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Law with regard to the 11 cheating cases at the 2020 Part B Bar Examinations (a) whether the Ministry can provide any updates in relation to the matter; (b) whether there were any cheating cases detected at the 2021 Bar Examinations; and (c) what steps are taken to eliminate or minimise such cheating cases.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Member's question on the incidents of cheating at the 2020 Bar Examinations has been addressed in the reply to Question Nos 3, 4 and 5 and published in the Questions to Oral Answer section for the 9 May 2022 Sitting.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Management Corporation Strata Title of Condominiums to Pay Residential Rates for Electricity Bills","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Management Corporation Strata Title of condominiums pay commercial rates for electricity bills; and (b) if so, whether they should be paying residential rates instead, amidst rising electricity prices.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: As stated in the Electricity (Contestable Customers) Regulations 2018, the electricity accounts for the Management Corporation Strata Title (MCST) of condominiums are not considered residential premises. MCST accounts typically consume sizeable amounts of electricity. Besides using electricity for common areas and facilities, such as lifts and lighting, MCSTs may also use electricity for business operations or for premises that are leased to businesses, such as provision shops.
Since they are considered non-residential, MCST accounts that consume an average of four megawatt-hour (MWh) a month or more cannot opt to switch from the contested market to regulated tariff. Electricity offered through the regulated tariff is purchased by SP Group (SP) through long-term vesting contracts with generation companies (gencos). Contestable consumers who wish to return to the regulated tariff are allowed to do so, except larger consumers who consume an average of more than four MWh of electricity monthly. This is due to the limited quantity of the long-term vesting contracts. To offer the regulated tariff to large consumers, which includes most MCSTs, SP would need to buy additional electricity from the Singapore Wholesale Electricity Market. This would cause the regulated tariff to rise.
For MCST accounts and others who are not eligible for regulated tariffs, the Energy Market Authority (EMA) has worked with gencos and retailers to provide various contracting options. More information can be found at EMA's website: https://www.ema.gov.sg/electricity-contracting-options-consumers.aspx.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Outcome of Drone Food-delivery Pilot by Sentosa Development Corporation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what are the lessons learnt by the Sentosa Development Corporation from its drone food-delivery pilot that took place from 22 March 2022 to 9 April 2022; and (b) whether more drone-food delivery trials are being planned.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: From 22 March to 9 April 2022, Sentosa Development Corporation (SDC) teamed up with ST Engineering and FoodPanda under the Sentosa x Enterprise Scheme to pilot drone delivery from Sentosa's food and beverage establishments to St John's Island. The pilot aimed to study the feasibility and operational requirements of drone food deliveries. Such drone deliveries could provide more food options for guests on the Southern Islands.
The pilot successfully demonstrated the technical feasibility of a drone food delivery service delivering packaged food to St John's Island in a timely and reliable manner. SDC is studying the commercial case for a larger-scale deployment of the delivery service, taking into account consumer demand, manpower requirements and affordability.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Anticipated Increase in Incoming and Outgoing Travellers for Tourism in 2022 and 2023","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the anticipated increase in tourists into Singapore for the rest of 2022 and 2023; and (b) what is the anticipated increase in Singaporeans travelling overseas for tourism.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: With the implementation of the Vaccinated Travel Framework (VTF) and streamlining of COVID-19 border measures, the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) expects inbound tourism demand to pick up gradually this year. In the first quarter of 2022, there were close to 250,000 visitor arrivals, representing a year-on-year growth of over 250%. Forward booking data suggests that visitor arrivals will gather pace in the second half of this year, when the Formula One Singapore Grand Prix and a number of other high-profile events are scheduled to take place. However, it may take several years for visitor arrivals to recover to pre-pandemic levels.
As many countries and regions have also reopened their borders to allow fully vaccinated travellers to enter without the need for quarantine, we expect more Singaporeans to travel overseas this year. STB does not collect data on the number of Singaporeans going overseas for tourism.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Aviation Industry and Airports' Preparation for Expected Surge in Tourism and Challenges in Meeting Increased Travel Demand","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Transport in view of the recent relaxation of COVID-19 border measures under the Vaccinated Travel Framework (a) how have the local aviation industry and airports prepared for the expected surge in tourism; and (b) what are the challenges to meeting the increase in travel demand since the relaxation of COVID-19 border measures.
Mr S Iswaran: MOT, Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) and other Government agencies are working closely with the Changi Airport Group and other aviation stakeholders to ensure that Changi Airport operates smoothly and safely, amidst the growth in travel demand.
The air transport sector lost nearly a third of its workforce during COVID-19. Over the past few months, key stakeholders have ramped up recruitment efforts, recalling experienced workers and hiring new workers to replace those who left. The Government had earlier announced a $500 million \"OneAviation Resilience Package\" in the 2022/2023 financial year, which includes $60 million for manpower support.
To ensure that we uphold high safety standards given the higher flight volumes, CAAS has also stepped up safety oversight activities to ensure that flights operate safely.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on LTA's Milestone 2 and Milestone 3 Tests for Autonomous Vehicles","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport (a) to date, how many autonomous vehicles (AV) have passed LTA's Milestone 2 test which allows AVs to be trialled in residential areas with a safety operator; and (b) whether any AV developer is on track to apply and pass the Milestone 3 test which allows AVs to be trialled with or without a safety operator.
Mr S Iswaran: As of 31 March 2022, one autonomous vehicle (AV) has passed LTA's Milestone 2 test.
The Milestone 3 test is being developed by LTA. LTA will continue to shape the Milestone 3 requirements, in tandem with AV technology development, to ensure that roadworthiness and safety are not compromised.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics and Trends in relation to Ships Calling at Ports of Singapore to Refuel and Plans to Boost Singapore's Status as Bunkering Hub","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the statistics and trends in relation to ships calling at the ports of Singapore to refuel, as well as bunker fuel sales by value or amount; (b) whether any studies have been done to identify the causes of any trends, including how delays in China's ports are causing vessels to skip a stopover in Singapore; and (c) how Singapore intends to maintain and further boost its status as a bunkering hub.
Mr S Iswaran: The Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) tracks vessel arrivals, bunkering operations and bunker sale volumes as indicators of our bunkering hub's competitiveness.
The number of ships that called at the Port of Singapore for refuelling decreased by 13% from 10,294 in the first quarter of 2021 to 8,940 in the first quarter of 2022; and the total bunker sale volumes decreased by 12% from 12.8 million tonnes to 11.3 million tonnes.
Based on industry feedback, this decline is driven by two factors: higher crude oil prices globally which reduce overall bunker demand; and congestion at other ports around the world due to supply chain delays.
Congestion at overseas ports results in ships burning fuel while waiting to load or unload cargo. Some ships have decided to refuel while they wait at these upstream ports. They either choose not to refuel at Singapore or end up purchasing less fuel when they, subsequently, call at the Port of Singapore.
To keep Singapore competitive as a global bunkering hub, we will continue to enhance the efficiency and reliability of our bunkering operations while preparing the marine fuels sector for a multi-fuel bunkering transition. MPA has provided close to S$3 million in funding for eight projects to accelerate the development of secured digital and automated workflows for bunkering document submissions, regulatory reporting and bunkering data transmission and to optimise terminal and bunker craft scheduling and utilisation.
We are also preparing the Port of Singapore for a multi-fuel transition to remain future-ready as the shipping industry invests in new technology to lower its carbon emissions. We started the supply of Liquified Natural Gas bunker from truck-to-ship in 2017 and from ship-to-ship in 2021. MPA is also supporting trials with industry partners to facilitate the development of biofuels for ocean-going ships.
MPA and 14 private sector partners have established the Global Centre for Maritime Decarbonisation to help the maritime industry reduce its carbon emissions by shaping standards, piloting green fuels for international shipping and deploying technologies, such as shipboard carbon capture, storage and utilisation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Percentage of Public and Feeder Bus Services Operating with Headways of No More than Five Minutes during Peak Hours and No More than 10 Minutes during Off-peak Hours","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport in the last six months, what percentage of (i) all public bus services and (ii) feeder bus services, operated with headways of no more than five minutes during morning and evening peak hours, and no more than 10 minutes during off-peak hours, respectively.
Mr S Iswaran: LTA monitors the performance of our bus operators against the standards stipulated under the Bus Contracting Model (BCM).
Under BCM, basic bus services have scheduled headways of 15 minutes or less during the morning and evening peak periods. At least half of these services are required to have scheduled headways of 10 minutes or less. Feeder services run at shorter intervals, with scheduled headways of no more than eight minutes during peak periods. In the last six months, bus operators have adhered to the standards set by LTA.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singaporean and Permanent Resident Households with Electricity and Water Bills in Arrears at End of 2019, 2020 and 2021","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment how many Singaporean and Permanent Resident households were in arrears of (i) at least three months and (ii) more than six months, with regard to their electricity and water bills respectively at the end of 2019, 2020 and 2021.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: There are about 1.4 million Singaporean and Permanent Resident (PR) households. The number of these households whose electricity and water bills were in arrears for (i) at least three months and (ii) more than six months, at the end of 2019, 2020 and 2021 are as follows:
20 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Education with regard to the naming of a pair of schools to be merged, where the name of one school is retained over the other (a) what are the reasons that the Ministry had in its consideration against retaining the names of Tanglin Secondary School and Stamford Primary School; and (b) whether the Ministry will reconsider the naming of these merged schools in view of appeals from the public and alumni of these schools.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: In the naming of merged schools, MOE considers factors which include the schools' history and heritage, the final site of the merged school, stakeholders' sentiments and whether retaining or combining the names of the merging schools would be appropriate. School leaders engage staff, students, parents, alumni and the School Advisory Committee on key issues, such as school name, programmes, identity and values of the merged school.
The merged schools will encompass the identities, strengths and cherished distinctiveness of both merging schools. While names are important, they will not fully capture the rich heritage. The history and legacy of the merging schools will be preserved in a heritage space and taught to every new batch of students in the merged school.
For most of the schools merging in 2023, the English name for one merging school and the Chinese name for the other have been retained. The English names of Tanglin Secondary School and Stamford Primary School were not retained in this merger process, in view of the above considerations. The Chinese names of Tanglin Secondary School (东林中学) and Stamford Primary School (史丹福小学) are phonetic translations of their respective English names and were not retained as they may not be meaningful for the merged school.
To preserve the rich history and heritage of Tanglin Secondary School as a technical school, the Design and Technology block at the merged school site will be named the \"Tanglin Design Centre\". For Stamford Primary School, the parade square will be named \"Stamford Square\" in the merged school. These are additional efforts to better preserve heritage and memories of these school names in the merged schools.
As the engagement process has been completed, MOE and the schools will proceed with these names and focus on the merger processes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extend Tuition Grant to All Graduate Law Students in Local Universities Even If They have Utilised Grant for Their First Degree","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked the Minister for Education whether the Government will consider extending the MOE Tuition Grant to all graduate law students in local universities, even if they have utilised the grant for their first degree, so as to encourage more diverse entrants into the legal profession.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: MOE provides substantial subsidies to all Singaporean students in the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) pursuing their first tertiary-level qualification, including undergraduate degrees. Students who have previously received an MOE subsidy or Government sponsorship for their first degree are not eligible for further MOE subsidies to pursue a second degree at the Autonomous Universities. This is to ensure parity in subsidy allocation for Singaporeans to access tertiary education at our publicly-funded Universities.
The National University of Singapore (NUS), Singapore Management University (SMU) and Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS) offer the Juris Doctor (JD) programme, which is a basic law degree for students with an undergraduate degree in other disciplines.
Students in the SUSS JD programme who do not qualify for MOE subsidies may apply for the MinLaw-SUSS Study Award to offset their course fees. The majority of students in the SUSS JD programme are mid-career adult learners, with prior careers in roles, such as paralegals, law enforcement officers and social workers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Long-Term Plans to Increase Recognition of Skills and Vocation-based Training with Tiers for Experience and Skills Certifications","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Education whether there are long-term plans for increasing Government's recognition of skills and vocation-based training, with tiers for experience and skills certifications issued by the Ministry, such as the apprentice-journeyman-master system used for certain trades in Germany and the United States.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Singapore Workforce Skills Qualifications (WSQ) is a national skills credentialing system that supports the training, development, assessment and certification of skills for the workforce. The WSQ framework is aligned to the SkillsFuture Singapore's (SSG) Skills Frameworks, which are validated by employers, unions, trade associations and chambers (TACs) and professional bodies. There are six levels of WSQ qualifications ranging from WSQ Certificate to WSQ Graduate Diploma. SSG reviews the WSQ framework regularly to ensure that it meets manpower development objectives and focuses on skills that matter to our economy.
The WSQ framework provides an Assessment-Only Pathway (AOP) to certify an individual's knowledge and skills without the need to undergo additional training. The AOP is available across different sectors, from oil and gas, to building and construction, and is applied to more than 500 skills and competencies.
In addition to WSQ, SSG is also promoting greater recognition of skills acquired at the workplace, by partnering sectoral lead agencies and Professional Bodies as \"Skills Development Partners\". These partners will develop industry-recognised certification pathways to accredit skills acquired by individuals at the workplace, in addition to identifying in-demand and emerging skills needs. SSG will pilot this approach in the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) sector, before progressively expanding it to other sectors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Average Expenses in Caring for Special Needs Child between Ages of Seven and 18 for Education, Therapy Support and Rehabilitation Treatment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Education for 2010 to 2020, what is the annual average expense in caring for a special needs child between the ages of seven and 18 for (i) education (ii) therapy support and (iii) rehabilitation treatment respectively.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Students aged seven to 18 with Special Educational Needs (SEN) may have needs ranging from mild to severe and thus require different kinds of support. The cost of supporting students' needs, including their family's out-of-pocket expenses, can, therefore, vary widely, especially if families opt for private services to support their child's SEN. To this end, the provisions offered through mainstream and SPED schools are very important in providing access to affordable support to all students with SEN.
Eighty percent of students with SEN attend mainstream schools. They may have SEN, such as dyslexia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, mild autism, sensory or physical impairment. They can access a range of SEN support provided by the schools at no additional cost. For example, they may be supported by SEN officers, formerly known as allied educators specialising in learning and behavioural support, in consultation with MOE Educational Psychologists. They may also take part in targeted interventions such as School-Based Dyslexia Remediation, Facing Your Fears (a transition support intervention for Secondary students) and TRANSIT (a self-management skills intervention for Primary One students).
MOE also partners organisations such as AWWA, The Singapore Association for the Deaf and the Dyslexia Association of Singapore (DAS), to provide specialised support services for students with specific needs. In addition to the grant that MOE gives DAS directly to offer the Main Literacy Programme (MLP) for students with Dyslexia, MOE also provides means-tested financial assistance to defray the cost of MLP fees. About 30% of the students on MLP pay no fees at all. MOE also provides funding for Assistive Technology devices for students with Sensory and Physical Impairment. These devices are fully funded by MOE for eligible students in Primary schools. In Secondary schools, Junior Colleges and Millenia Institute, eligible students co-pay 5% of total cost of the devices (capped at $50 for each application) and they keep the devices upon graduation.
Students with moderate to severe SEN and who require more intensive and specialised assistance attend our Special Education (SPED) schools. Their SPED teachers, allied professionals, such as Speech and Language Therapists and Occupational Therapists, as well as other specialised personnel such as Job Coaches are fully funded by MOE and community funding administered by the National Council of Social Service and SG Enable. Parents do not need to pay additional charges for these services.
Currently, SPED school fees range between $14 and $250 for Singapore Citizens per month. Eligible students from lower-income families may tap on the MOE SPED Financial Assistance Scheme, which fully covers school fees and the cost of textbooks and school attire. It also covers subsidies for school meals and public transport. For school bus transport, students can apply for the Voluntary Welfare Organisation (VWO) Transport Subsidies, administered by SG Enable.
MOE is committed to helping students with SEN in both mainstream and SPED schools access the support they need. Together with our schools and with greater commitment from society and employers, let us all work towards maximising the potential of students with SEN towards leading independent and meaningful lives.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Accomodating Sick Children Who Do Not Have COVID-19 and Do Not Have Alternative Help from Family Members at Infant Care and Childcare Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Social and Family Development with regard to children who do not have COVID-19 but experience mild symptoms such as runny nose, and whose family members are unable to take care of them due to work, limited leave and have no alternative help available to them (a) whether there are any provisions at infant care and childcare centres to accommodate these children; and (b) if so, what are they.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The health and well-being of children and staff in preschools are of utmost importance to the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA). To minimise the spread of infectious diseases, all preschools must adhere to the infection control guidelines issued by MOH. These include ensuring high levels of personal and environmental hygiene, and monitoring children and staff closely for symptoms, such as fever, cough or runny nose.
These protocols pre-date the COVID-19 pandemic as they are also effective in minimising the spread of other infectious diseases, such as influenza and Hand, Foot and Mouth Disease (HFMD). This is why our preschools require parents to keep their unwell child at home to rest and only return to the preschool when fully recovered.
Preschools do make reasonable exceptions in certain cases. For example, a child may suffer from runny nose due to allergies. If the child is assessed by a doctor to be non-infectious and certified fit to return to school, the preschool should allow the child to return. In other instances where it is difficult for the preschool to ascertain if a child who has symptoms is contagious or otherwise, we seek parents' understanding if the centre takes the necessary precautions by asking the child to stay at home, to protect the majority of children.
We recognise the challenges working parents face when their child falls sick. Each working parent of a Singaporean child below seven years old is eligible for six days of paid childcare leave per year, in addition to parents' annual leave provisions. In the event parents have consumed all their leave provisions, the tripartite partners encourage employers to provide flexible work arrangements (FWAs), so that working parents can better balance their work alongside their family responsibilities.
The Government will continue to work with the tripartite partners to encourage and support employers to implement FWAs and other family-friendly measures.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Applications for New Family Service Centre or Satellite Family Service Centre Accepted and Rejected in Past 10 Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how many applications for a new Family Service Centre or a satellite Family Service Centre were rejected in each of the past 10 years; (b) how many such applications were accepted; and (c) what are the top three reasons for rejecting such applications.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Family Service Centres (FSCs) provide publicly-funded services and rely substantially on public funds to be financially viable. Hence, the creation of new main or branch FSCs are based on whether existing centres can meet the projected demand and are accessible to clients. Should a new FSC be required, MSF will approach social service agencies (SSAs) with relevant experience and track record to operate the service. There is, therefore, no process where an SSA applies for a new FSC.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Preschool Enrolment Rate of Families Residing in HDB Public Rental Flats Compared with National Average Enrolment Rate","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) in each of the past five years, what is the average preschool enrolment rate of families residing in HDB public rental flats; (b) how does this rate compare with the national average enrolment rate; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider making preschool education compulsory.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The preschool participation rate of Singapore Citizen children aged five to six years residing in public rental flats is comparable to the national average of 95%. The preschool participation rate of children aged three to four years residing in public rental flats is slightly lower than the national average, with about 80% enrolled in preschools, compared to about 88% nationally.
The early years are important to a child's development, particularly for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. ECDA works closely with the community to help lower-income families enrol their children through KidSTART and the Preschool Outreach programme. We have also enhanced our preschool subsidies, such that families under HDB's Public Rental Scheme and MSF's ComCare schemes are automatically eligible for maximum preschool subsidies, regardless of the mother's working status. Lower-income families pay $3 per month for full-day childcare and $1 per month for half-day kindergarten at Anchor Operator preschools.
Rather than a broad policy of compulsory education at the preschool years, our approach is to ensure the provision of accessible, affordable and good quality preschool services across the board. Together with proactive outreach and targeted assistance for children from disadvantaged backgrounds, we address the practical barriers to preschool education that lower-income families face. ECDA will do more in the coming years to raise preschool participation among lower-income families, such as via the nationwide rollout of KidSTART.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Steps Taken to Delay and Prevent Dementia and Increasing Awareness for Need for Community Screening","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry can provide an update on the steps taken to delay and prevent dementia among Singaporeans; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider (i) conducting community screening for pre-dementia in the form of Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) and (ii) taking steps to identify the causes and treat MCI to prevent deterioration to dementia.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The onset of dementia can be prevented or delayed through the adoption of healthy lifestyle habits, including having regular physical activity, maintaining a balanced diet, not having excessive alcohol intake and not smoking. Screening for chronic conditions, such as diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol, would enable early detection and timely intervention to reduce the associated risk of dementia.
However, there is no clear evidence internationally that population-wide dementia screening in persons without recognised signs or symptoms of cognitive impairment is an effective public health intervention.
Hence, our current efforts continue to be more targeted, focusing on increasing dementia literacy and awareness, early identification of persons at risk or suspected to have dementia in the community and referral for early interventions. Over the last year, our community outreach teams have reached out to 150,000 persons and provided assistance to 4,000 persons who were at risk of developing dementia and/or mental health conditions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Completion Date of New Serangoon Polyclinic Located at Junction of Upper Serangoon Road and Serangoon Central","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Health whether there is any delay in the completion date of the new Serangoon Polyclinic located at the junction of Upper Serangoon Road and Serangoon Central.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Serangoon Polyclinic project is on schedule with the demolition works completed and construction works expected to commence by end of this year. The polyclinic is on track to open by 2025, barring any unforeseen circumstances.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Smoking Cessation Programmes and Persons Caught Possessing E-cigarettes and Related Accessories at Causeway Checkpoints","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) what percentage of the participants of the smoking cessation programmes are able to successfully quit smoking; (b) whether these programmes have the long-term goal of encouraging smokers and vapers to adopt healthier coping methods; and (c) whether there are penalties for those who have been vaping illegally, but wish to seek professional help to quit.
30 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) since January 2022, how many persons have been caught having e-cigarettes and related accessories in their possession when clearing customs in Singapore at the Causeway checkpoints; and (b) what measures will the Ministry take to increase detection and prevent such imitation tobacco products from being brought into Singapore.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: These questions have been addressed by the reply to Question No 74 in the Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time section for the Sitting on 9 May 2022.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Increase Egg Freezing Age Limit to Benefit More Women","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Health with regard to egg freezing in Singapore (a) whether the age limit can be raised to 40 so as to benefit more women; (b) whether appeals will be considered for egg freezing for those over the age of 35; and (c) if so, what are the considerations.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The current upper age limit for elective egg freezing (EEF) is determined based on international scientific evidence and professional consensus that egg quality declines significantly after 35 years of age and considering that egg freezing is an intrusive procedure that is not without downsides or risks to the women undergoing it.
Hence, the age limit helps manage expectations, avoids giving false hope and safeguards women against Assisted Reproduction (AR) providers promoting the retrieval of frozen eggs beyond the age limit. MOH will continue to monitor medical advances and review the age limit from time to time.
Nevertheless, we will consider appeals from women who miss the upper age limit slightly. Women may seek their AR practitioner's assistance to appeal on their behalf when EEF is implemented. More details will be provided to AR centres in due course.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Provision of Centralised Hotline to Provide Assistance and Guidance to Families whose Loved Ones Passed Away at Home","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health whether there can be (i) a centralised hotline to provide assistance and guidance to families whose loved ones have passed away at home in the wee hours of the morning when most medical clinics are closed and (ii) an arrangement to bring on board more medical professionals who are able to respond to such cases outside of the normal hours.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Individuals who are diagnosed with advanced illness and passed away at home are usually already under the care of their regular family doctor, home medical or home palliative services. The care providers would usually advise family members to contact them, including outside office hours, for assistance in the event of death.
Individuals may also suddenly or unexpectedly pass away at home from natural causes. Some private general practitioners can conduct house calls for their regular patients to provide certification of their death. Families can also contact private medical providers who provide 24-hour house call services to certify death.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mandatory Counselling before Abortion Procedures to Include Booklets on Various Alternatives to Abortion and Avenues of Support for Single Mothers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Health whether the mandatory counselling, before the procedures for abortion are to be carried out, can include booklets on the various alternatives to abortion, such as adoption, and the avenues of support for single mothers.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: MOH, MSF and HPB have just recently updated the contents of the pre-abortion counselling booklet which is made available as part of mandatory counselling. This booklet includes the alternatives to abortion, such as raising the child or putting the child up for adoption, as well as resources and social support available for each of these choices. The updated booklet has been circulated to all approved institutions under the Termination of Pregnancy Act as of 31 March 2022.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Total Amount of Quarantine Order Allowance Distributed to Affected Persons since 2 November 2021","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"34 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Health what is the total amount of Quarantine Order Allowance that has been distributed to affected persons since 2 November 2021.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Between 2 November 2021 and 30 April 2022, $19.35 million had been distributed to eligible applicants under the Quarantine Order Allowance (QOA) Scheme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Median Waiting Time for Booking of New Appointment at Specialist Outpatient Clinics in Public Healthcare Institutions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"35 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Health for each year in the past five years (a) what is the median waiting time for the booking of a new appointment at specialist outpatient clinics in public healthcare institutions for (i) all patients, (ii) private-paying patients and (iii) subsidised patients; (b) what percentage of patients have transferred to private healthcare; and (c) what is the number of non-urgent procedures that have been postponed.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The requested data is shown in the table below:
Based on available data, the majority of the public hospitals and National Specialist Centres reported around 3% to 5% postponement of non-urgent procedures in 2021. The statistics of patients who have chosen to seek care at private healthcare institutions instead are not tracked by public hospitals and National Specialist Centres.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tracking of Local Companies which Experienced Cyber Attacks over Past Two Years and Measure to Equip Companies with Capabilities to Enhance Cyber Resilience","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"36 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) whether the Government tracks the number of local companies which experienced cyberattacks over the past two years; (b) whether companies which have experienced cyberattacks are required to report to the authorities; and (c) what are the current measures to equip local companies with the capabilities to enhance cyber resilience and to deal with cyberattacks.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Cybersecurity Act requires owners of computers or computer systems designated as Critical Information Infrastructure (CII) to report cybersecurity incidents related to CII to the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore (CSA). This enables CSA to monitor and safeguard the cybersecurity of CII, which are crucial to the continuous delivery of essential services.
Beyond CII, CSA encourages all companies to report cybersecurity incidents to SingCERT at www.csa.gov.sg/singcert/reporting, even if the affected systems are not designated as CII. Doing so helps to augment CSA's awareness of the latest threats, and allows us to alert other companies to minimise the risk of them falling victim to similar cyberattacks.
In 2021, CSA received 1,238 reports of cybersecurity incidents from businesses and other organisations. In the preceding year, CSA received 972 such reports.
CII owners are required by the Cybersecurity Act to put in place measures to meet cybersecurity standards set by CSA. This helps to safeguard CII against cyberattacks and ensure their cyber resilience. For non-CII enterprises, in addition to SingCERT's advisories and alerts, CSA launched the SG Cyber Safe Programme in 2021 to encourage and help companies strengthen their cybersecurity posture. As part of this programme, CSA recently rolled out a cybersecurity certification programme for enterprises – comprising the Cyber Essentials and Cyber Trust marks – to recognise enterprises that have implemented good cybersecurity practices. They are visible indicators for companies to differentiate themselves and demonstrate that they have adopted the necessary cybersecurity measures to protect themselves and their customers. CSA has also developed cybersecurity toolkits for companies of various profiles to guide enterprise leaders and their employees on cybersecurity best practices.
CSA encourages all companies to apply for the Cyber Essentials and Cyber Trust marks and take advantage of the toolkits and resources available on CSA's SG Cyber Safe website.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons for Delay to Completion of Woodleigh Hillside and Other BTO Projects","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"37 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the reasons for the further delay to the completion of Woodleigh Hillside and such other BTO projects; (b) whether the new completion dates conveyed by HDB are expected to be firm; and (c) whether there is any possibility that these projects may be completed ahead of the new completion dates given the removal of COVID-19 related restrictions in Singapore and other countries.
Mr Desmond Lee: The construction industry has been hit hard by the COVID-19 pandemic with unprecedented global supply chain disruptions and tightened border controls over the past two years. This has caused significant delays to both public and private sector projects.
In 2020, the progress of construction projects was significantly impacted by the two-month circuit breaker, a slow resumption of construction activities thereafter, as well as stringent safe management measures (SMMs) put in place at construction worksites.
In 2021, the situation was further exacerbated by the Movement Control Order in Malaysia which disrupted the inflow of some key supplies needed for HDB Build-To-Order (BTO) projects, and the significant tightening of border controls for workers from South Asia which lasted for several months until the end of 2021.
Over the past two years, HDB has implemented various measures to expedite onsite construction works and assist our BTO contractors. These include helping contractors prioritise work areas, expedite regulatory clearances and securing the manpower and material supplies needed to complete BTO projects.
The impact of COVID-19 on BTO timelines over the last two years has been significant and continues to be felt. HDB has been working hard to catch up and has reduced the delays for most BTO projects to between six months and a year. The extent of delay varies by project and depends on site-specific factors, such as manpower availability, on-site technical challenges, the contractor's performance and available supply of materials.
The ongoing global geopolitical uncertainties and the worsening COVID-19 situation in China add to further supply chain uncertainties, which we continue to monitor very closely for potential impact on our projects.
HDB recognises that the construction delays have caused inconvenience and affected the life plans of flat buyers. HDB will continue to work closely with the project contractors and consultants to expedite construction works as much as possible, without compromising the safety and well-being of workers, as well as the quality of the project. These efforts include various support measures, such as:
(a)\tCost-sharing of COVID-19-related cost increases to help contractors tide over this difficult period;
(b)\tProviding contractors with advance payments and increasing the frequency of progress payments to improve contractors' cash flow situation;
(c)\tWorking with other agencies to expedite clearances and approvals; and
(d)\tProviding exemptions to allow construction activities which are less noisy to be carried out on Sundays and public holidays, where possible.
HDB will continue to keep flat buyers updated periodically as construction progresses and arrange for flat buyers to collect the keys to their flat as soon as it is ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Sufficient Supply of Public and Private Housing to Meet Demand and Projected Increase in Private Residential Prices in 2022","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"38 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the current supply of public and private housing is sufficient to meet demand; and (b) what is the projected increase in private residential prices in 2022.
Mr Desmond Lee: In December 2021, the Government announced plans to increase supply to meet housing demand.
We will ramp up BTO supply to launch up to 23,000 flats per year in 2022 and 2023. This will be a significant increase of 35% from the 17,000 flats launched in 2021. We are prepared to launch up to 100,000 flats in total from 2021 to 2025, if needed.
For private housing, there will be around 2,800 units on the Confirmed List of the Government Land Sales (GLS) Programme for the first half of 2022. This is a 40% increase from the Confirmed List of the previous GLS Programme. There is also a good selection of sites on the Reserve List, to give developers the flexibility to initiate additional private housing supply, if they assess that there is market demand. We will step up the GLS supply even further, if demand remains strong.
These supply measures, coupled with the cooling measures implemented in December 2021, help to support a stable and sustainable property market. For instance, the increase in private residential property prices moderated to 0.7% between 4Q2021 and 1Q2022, from 5% between 3Q2021 and 4Q2021. Similarly, HDB resale prices rose by 2.4% in 1Q2022, compared to 3.4% in 4Q2021. The Government will continue to monitor the economic and property market conditions closely, with a view to ensure that residential housing prices move broadly in line with economic fundamentals.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Allow One Year for Disposal of Additional HDB Flat for Couples Aged above 35 Who Each Own an HDB Flat Prior to Their Marriage","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"39 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB can change the six-month requirement to one-year for the disposal of the additional HDB flat for couples aged above 35 years who each own a HDB flat prior to their marriage.
Mr Desmond Lee: To manage demand for public housing, each eligible family unit may own only one HDB flat. A married couple is considered one family unit and can thus only own one HDB flat at any one time. Individuals who each own an HDB flat before marriage are, therefore, given six months from the date of their marriage to relinquish ownership of one of the flats they own. Similarly, all other flat owners who have collected the keys to another BTO or resale flat also have up to six months, from the time of key collection, to dispose of their existing flat.
This six-month period is, generally, sufficient for flat owners to market and sell their flat or to transfer the flat ownership to eligible family members. Flat owners who need more time to relinquish their interest in the flat can approach HDB for assistance. HDB will consider the circumstances of the case and exercise flexibility on a case-by-case basis.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Turnover Rate Amongst Town Council Property Officers by Junior, Middle and Senior Categories","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"40 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry monitors the annual turnover rate amongst Town Council property officers; and (b) if so, in each of the past 10 years, what is the average annual turnover rate of Town Council property officers (either directly employed by Town Councils or by their managing agents) broken down by junior, middle and senior categories.
Mr Desmond Lee: Town Councils are autonomous legal entities formed under the Town Councils Act and managed by elected Members of Parliament. Town Councils are responsible for managing their own manpower and other resources required to carry out their duties.
Given the autonomous nature of Town Councils, MND does not monitor the annual turnover rate of Town Council property officers. We therefore do not have information on the average annual turnover rate of Town Council property officers for the past 10 years.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulatory Sandboxes to Encourage Residents and Commercial Entities to Experiment and Develop Innovative and Environment-friendly Solutions for HDB Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"41 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB will set up regulatory sandboxes to encourage residents and commercial entities to experiment and develop innovative and environment-friendly solutions for HDB estates to reduce its carbon footprint and create a more sustainable environment.
Mr Desmond Lee: MND is committed to the Singapore Green Plan 2030 and there are various programmes through which agencies seek innovative and sustainable solutions from residents, the research community and commercial entities.
MND's Cities of Tomorrow (CoT) Research & Development (R&D) Programme supports efforts to address urban sustainability challenges. Prototypes developed under the CoT R&D Programme can be test-bedded in our HDB estates, as well as in dedicated facilities, such as BCA's Skylab and HDB's Centre of Building Research (CBR). In March 2022, MND announced that it would invest an additional $110 million to support more innovative efforts to transform the built environment and enhance urban sustainability.
The Cool Ideas Enterprise (CIE) programme was launched in 2018 by HDB in partnership with Enterprise Singapore. The initiative helps enterprises and aspiring entrepreneurs, including residents, to develop and refine innovative solutions to issues and challenges in HDB towns, including sustainability-related issues. Interested parties can submit proposals through the year and successful applicants will receive funding support, mentorship, as well as access to test-bedding facilities and pilot implementation opportunities.
While HDB does not presently run regulatory sandboxes, individuals and enterprises can approach BCA to participate in the Built Environment Living Lab Framework (BE LLF). The BE LLF aims to facilitate the test-bedding of innovative proposals in living laboratories by linking companies with the right agency to testbed their proposal. Agencies will then provide support to companies to facilitate regulatory clearance, if needed, and a regulatory sandbox can be introduced to test new technologies and solutions in a controlled environment.
Individuals and organisations can also submit their sustainability proposals to the SG Eco Fund administered by MSE. This initiative supports ground-up projects that involve the community and advance environmental sustainability. Since its launch, 105 individuals and organisations have been awarded $6.6 million in funding.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of HDB Flats Suitable for Redevelopment under Selective En-Bloc Redevelopment Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"42 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the total number of HDB flats which make up the 5% of all HDB flats deemed to be suitable for redevelopment under the Selective En-bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS); (b) what is the number of such flats remaining which have yet to be selected for the scheme; and (c) what is the number of flats added to and/or removed from the list of suitable flats in the last five years.
Mr Desmond Lee: Currently, HDB manages about one million flats. Of these, only about 5% are estimated to be suitable for the Selective En-bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS). This is not a target and most of the projects with high redevelopment potential have already been selected.
To date, about 41,000 flats across 82 sites have been announced for SERS and we do not expect many more sites to be eligible. As SERS information is market-sensitive, we cannot share the details on the remaining blocks to be redeveloped or other related information ahead of any SERS announcement.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review Criteria for Selective En-Bloc Redevelopment Scheme to Allow Priority for Older Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"43 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will review the criteria for the Selective En-bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) to allow older flats priority for SERS due to the deteriorating condition of these flats.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Selective En-bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) was introduced in 1995 as part of our estate renewal strategy for older HDB estates. It allows us to optimise land use through the redevelopment of selected HDB precincts which have high development value.
SERS involves compulsory acquisition and is, therefore, highly selective. The identification of suitable sites and the pace of SERS require careful site-by-site evaluation of various factors, including the redevelopment potential of the site, the availability of suitable replacement sites to rehouse the flat owners involved and the Government's financial resources. While the age of the precinct is a consideration, there is no fixed age criterion to determine if a precinct is suitable for SERS.
For ageing flats that are not chosen for SERS, there are many other programmes in place for estate renewal, such as the Remaking Our Heartland (ROH) programme, Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP) and Home Improvement Programme (HIP). We have also announced HIP II, which will provide a second round of upgrading for all flats when they are about 60 to 70 years old. These programmes will keep our HDB estates vibrant and the flats in good condition.
In the longer term, as our flats and estates get older, we will implement the Voluntary Early Redevelopment Scheme (VERS) to facilitate the orderly redevelopment of HDB towns and estates. This will also allow more households to benefit from redevelopment before their flat leases expire, starting from when the flats reach around age 70 or older. VERS is a complex undertaking, involving detailed long-term town planning. We are in the midst of working out the details, such as how to identify the precincts, how to pace the redevelopment over time, the specific terms of the Government's offer and how to ensure fiscal sustainability in the long run.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number and Proportion of Public Rental Flat Applicants above Age of 60","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"44 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for National Development between 2020 to 2022, what are the number and proportion of public rental flat applicants who are seniors above the age of 60.
Mr Desmond Lee: From January 2020 to March 2022, about 1,850 applicants above the age of 60 were approved for public rental housing. This was about 26% of all approved public rental applicants in that period.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Percentage of Seniors above 60 Who Sold Their Flats before Applying for a New BTO or Resale Flat from 2020 to 2022","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"45 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for National Development from 2020 to 2022, what is the percentage of seniors aged above 60 who have already sold their flats before applying for (i) a new BTO or Sale of Balance Flat or (ii) a resale flat.
Mr Desmond Lee: Table 1 indicates the total number of unique new and resale flat applications HDB received in 2020, 2021 and the first quarter of 2022 from senior households comprising applicants above 60 years old1, as well as the number of senior households that had sold their flats before submitting their applications2.
Applications for new flats are subject to a ballot. Where there are more applicants than flats, some applicants may not be able to secure a flat. In contrast, resale flat applications are submitted after the buyer has exercised the Option to Purchase and, therefore, there is greater certainty that resale flat applicants will be able to secure their flat of choice. The greater certainty and shorter waiting time for resale flats may explain why a higher proportion of senior households sold their flats before submitting an application for a resale flat, compared to a new flat.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : This refers to households where all applicants are aged above 60.","2 : These applicants did not own a property at the point of application and their last-owned property was an HDB flat."],"footNoteQuestions":["45"],"questionNo":"45"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Avenues to Verify Collection of Donations on Purported Religious Grounds and Safeguards Available for Public to Raise Concerns if Collections are Not Used Legitimately","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"46 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what are the avenues for the public to verify the collection of donations on purported religious grounds, such as tithe or zakat; and (b) what are the safeguards available for the public to raise concerns if such collections are not used for legitimate or religious purposes.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: All fund-raising appeals conducted in Singapore for charitable, benevolent or philanthropic purposes are regulated by the Commissioner of Charities (COC) under the Charities (Fund-Raising Appeals for Local and Foreign Charitable Purposes) Regulations 2012. The Regulations spell out the duties and obligations of fund-raisers, which include disclosure of clear and accurate information; proper management and usage of donations; as well as keeping accounting records of donations received and disbursed.
While Singaporeans are generous in responding to appeals made on religious grounds, we urge donors to remain vigilant and be discerning. Donors who wish to support charitable causes, be it for religious or other causes, can practise the steps of \"Ask, Check, Give\":
First, donors should ask the fund-raiser basic questions such as what their tithes or donations will be used for and how they can receive updates about the usage.
Next, check via the Charity Portal (www.charities.gov.sg) if the fund-raiser is a registered charity in Singapore. Donors may also refer to the annual report, audited financial statements and published information of the charity to verify the usage of the tithes and donations. If the giving is for local religious purposes and does not involve house-to-house and street collections, it will not require any permits from the COC and Police.
Lastly, donors can give with peace of mind after ensuring that their tithes and donations are going to a genuine charitable cause.
Should donors have any concern or doubt that an appeal for donations is not legitimate, do not feel pressured to give. If there are serious concerns regarding any fund-raising activity, donors should report the matter to the COC at mccy_charities@mccy.gov.sg. If fraud or scams are suspected, donors should file a Police report immediately.
The COC takes a serious view of violations of the regulatory requirements under the Charities Act and will look into cases where improper fund-raising activities are suspected and reported to the COC. The COC can also take action to suspend, restrict or prohibit the conduct of any fund-raising appeal if there is reason to believe that the appeal has been improperly administered.
Zakat collections are administered by the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) under the Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA). Nevertheless, MUIS has also put in safeguards and mechanisms to help the public identify bona fide collections. The Muslim community is encouraged to refer to MUIS' zakat website for the list of authorised zakat collection centres, and the security advisory about scams when they transact online. Should members of the community have any queries or concerns to report about zakat collections, they may contact MUIS or use the link on the MUIS zakat portal (www.zakat.sg/contact).
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Utilisation of CDC Vouchers and Heartland Merchants On board CDC Vouchers Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"47 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) to date, what is the proportion of (i) heartland merchants that have onboarded the CDC Vouchers Scheme out of all eligible merchants and (ii) CDC Vouchers utilised out of the total given; and (b) whether the Government will consider adapting the CDC e-voucher system to enable charities and philanthropic individuals to use the platform to give e-vouchers to be spent at heartland shops.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The CDC Vouchers 2021 using the digital vouchers was launched on 13 December 2021. It was to thank Singaporeans for their solidarity during the COVID-19 pandemic and to support hawkers and heartland merchants in their businesses. As at end March 2022, more than 15,000 participating hawkers and heartland merchants are on board the scheme.
About 1.12 million Singaporean households have claimed their vouchers. Over $72 million has been spent at participating hawkers and heartland merchants.
The CDC Vouchers scheme uses the RedeemSG platform developed by GovTech's Open Government Products. It is a general voucher system that serves various Government schemes. RedeemSG makes it easy for campaign organisers, merchants and recipients to use digital vouchers as a form of payment and redemption. It is currently used by some organisations and is being developed to cater to a wider range of needs that could be used by various organisations, such as Government agencies and charities, and for philanthropic causes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Workers Receiving Only Seven Days of Annual Leave","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"48 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the current percentage of workers who receive only seven days of annual leave; and (b) what are the mean and median salaries of workers receiving only seven days of annual leave.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Employment Act stipulates that employees are entitled to a statutory minimum of seven days of annual leave in their first year of service if they have worked with their employer for at least three months. With each year of service, an employee's statutory annual leave entitlement increases by one day, up to a minimum entitlement of 14 days.
In 2021, about 17% of full-time employees had worked for their current employer for less than a year and were entitled to the statutory minimum of seven days of annual leave, although some may receive more from their employers. The mean and median incomes1 of these employees were about $4,700 and $3,500 per month respectively.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Refers to gross monthly income, including employer CPF."],"footNoteQuestions":["48"],"questionNo":"48"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assistance to Support Transition of Safe Distancing Ambassadors to Other Jobs Following Reduction in Number Deployed","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"49 Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked the Minister for Manpower for Sustainability and the Environment whether there are any measures to assist safe distancing ambassadors (SDAs) to transit to other jobs following the reduction in the number of SDAs deployed.
Dr Tan See Leng: As of April 2022, around 6,400 workers in short-term COVID-19 roles, such as Safe Distancing Ambassadors and vaccination centre workers, were employed by the public sector, Government-funded institutions or private sector medical service providers. Around 1,200 of these workers will be redeployed into longer-term roles, but the other 5,200 will be looking for new jobs when their contracts end over the coming months. Workforce Singapore (WSG) and NTUC's Employment and Employability Institute (NTUC's e2i) are providing employment facilitation support. Employers who are interested to consider these workers can reach out to WSG and NTUC's e2i.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Singapore Firms with Foreign PMETs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"50 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the current percentage of firms in Singapore with more than 30% foreign PMETs; and (b) of the firms in Singapore with more than 25% foreign PMETs from a single foreign nationality, what percentage has (i) more than 25 PMETs and (ii) less than 25 PMETs respectively.
Dr Tan See Leng: Amongst firms hiring at least one employee, around 20% have a foreign PMET share of 30% or more. Out of firms that have a single foreign nationality comprising at least 25% of its PMET employees, 3% hire 25 or more PMET employees and 97% are small firms that hire fewer than 25 PMET employees. This is similar to the share of small firms in the overall economy.
However, it should be noted that the workforce ratios of small firms are easily skewed by their small base. Of these small firms where a single foreign nationality comprises at least 25% of its PMET employees, the median number of PMET employees is two. In a firm with two PMET employees, if there is one Singaporean and one foreigner, the share of foreigners from a single nationality would already be 50%. Therefore, it is not meaningful to look at the distribution of small and large firms in this way.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":5041,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Ng Ling Ling","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220509/vernacular-9 May 2022 - Ms Ng Ling Ling - Adoption Bill.pdf","fileName":"9 May 2022 - Ms Ng Ling Ling - Adoption Bill.pdf"},{"vernacularID":5042,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Don Wee","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220509/vernacular-9 May 2022 - Mr Don Wee - Adoption Bill.pdf","fileName":"9 May 2022 - Mr Don Wee - Adoption Bill.pdf"},{"vernacularID":5043,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Joan Pereira","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220509/vernacular-9 May 2022 - Ms Joan Pereira - Adoption Bill.pdf","fileName":"9 May 2022 - Ms Joan Pereira - Adoption Bill.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}