Mr Speaker: Order. I have to inform hon Members that I have on 21 May 2018 communicated to the President the Address of Thanks agreed to by resolution of this Parliament on 18 May 2018.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"State of Bilateral Relationship with Malaysia After Last Election","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"1 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs what is the state of our bilateral relationship with Malaysia and how will Singapore continue a collaborative and mutually beneficial relationship between the two countries.
\tThe Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Mr Speaker, Malaysia will always remain our closest neighbour. This is a geographical fact. Our long-term relationship will always be bound by the ties of kinship, culture, history and economic interdependence. Following Malaysia's 14th General Election (GE14) on 9 May 2018, the country's ruling coalition changed. We will, of course, work with the elected government of the day. A stable and prosperous Malaysia is good for Singapore and for our region. We have generally enjoyed a positive and constructive relationship with successive Malaysian governments and leaders, and we believe there is still much for us to achieve together.
There has been a high tempo of bilateral exchanges since GE14 in Malaysia. Prime Minister Lee and I visited Malaysia on 19 May 2018. We had a good meeting with Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad. Dr Mahathir updated us on his immediate domestic preoccupations. Prime Minister Lee emphasised that Singapore wanted to continue cooperating with Malaysia for mutual benefit and that we hoped to keep up our bilateral exchanges, including the annual Leaders’ Retreat.
We have also invited the new Malaysian leaders to visit Singapore. Several of their Ministers have visited Singapore recently, including Defence Minister Mohamad Sabu who was here for the Shangri-La Dialogue in June 2018, the Communications and Multimedia Minister Gobind Singh Deo for the Smart Nation conference on 7 June 2018, and Housing and Local Government Minister Zuraida Kamaruddin who made a working visit earlier this month. I look forward to welcoming my counterpart Foreign Minister Saifuddin Abdullah at the end of this month for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Ministerial Meetings.
But Members may have heard or read various reports on the new Malaysian government’s investigations into the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB)-linked financial flows, Members may have heard of their intentions to cancel or postpone the Kuala Lumpur-Singapore High Speed Rail (HSR) Project, and some Members would also have heard – in fact, I think all of us would have heard – of their expressions to revise the price of water sold to Singapore under the 1962 Water Agreement. I think it is quite appropriate that Members of this House, citizens of Singapore, would be wondering about these issues, and wondering, as Mr Christopher de Souza has said, how they will affect our bilateral ties.
Before I address these specific issues, I want to highlight three fundamental principles of Singapore’s foreign policy that are especially salient for our relationship with Malaysia.
First, upholding international law and respecting the sanctity of international agreements. This is a critical principle for a small state like Singapore. Our very existence as a sovereign independent state is derived from the Separation Agreement of 1965. International agreements, solemnly entered into by countries, are sacrosanct and underpin relationships between sovereign states. They make it possible for countries to co-exist peacefully, build trust and work together for the long-term good of our citizens, regardless of changes of governments or circumstances. The alternative, in which countries can unilaterally revise or abandon terms of agreements, is manifestly a recipe for disaster.
The second principle is that any disputes – here, I must add – in the nature of all relationships, from time to time, disputes will arise, but the principle is that these disputes, if and when they arise, should be resolved in accordance with international law. The recent Pedra Branca cases are illustrative of this principle. The previous Malaysian government had requested the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to revise its original 2008 judgment, and separately to interpret the 2008 ICJ judgment. On the Singapore side, we were confident of the correctness of the original 2008 ICJ judgment, and we were confident of our case. We were fully prepared to argue our case at the ICJ. However, the new Malaysian government requested to discontinue their applications to the ICJ. We agreed. The key point is that both sides followed due legal processes, handled this issue in accordance with international law, and put the matter to rest amicably, as it should be.
The third principle is that we must uphold Singapore's reputation as a credible, trusted and consistent partner, a country that abides fully by our international obligations. This reputation for Singapore, developed over decades, is crucial for our political and economic space, is crucial for Singapore and Singaporeans, and all the more crucial because we are an international financial centre.
These are three fundamental principles that undergird the way we conduct diplomacy and the way we deal with foreign policy issues as and when they arise.
With these in mind, let me turn to the three current specific bilateral issues.
First, 1MDB. Malaysia’s investigations into this issue have intensified following their general election. Members will recall that Singapore has, in fact, been thoroughly investigating 1MDB-related offences that were committed in Singapore since 2015. We have taken firm action against both institutions and individuals who have broken our laws, including pursuing criminal prosecutions. We have shut down two banks and levied fines on other banks for regulatory breaches, and we have jailed and fined individuals who have been convicted on 1MDB-related charges. So far, we are the only jurisdiction in the world to have done so.
We have, in addition, cooperated fully with Malaysia’s official requests for information on 1MDB-related transactions. We received numerous requests for information from Malaysian authorities between March 2015 and August 2016. We responded to each and every single request fully. We have also proactively provided the Malaysian authorities with additional information on 1MDB-related fund flows on multiple occasions. In total, we provided 1MDB-related information in over 30 exchanges with Malaysia during the period, as was, indeed, acknowledged by Malaysia. Further, since the change of government in Malaysia, over the past few months, Singaporean and Malaysian agencies have met on several occasions on 1MDB matters. In fact, the Malaysian authorities have expressed appreciation to Singapore for our cooperation.
We took these investigations and enforcement and regulatory actions not for political calculations, but because it is in our own enlightened national interest to reaffirm and protect Singapore's reputation as a clean, transparent and trusted international financial centre. We do not tolerate the misuse of our financial system as a refuge or conduit for illicit funds. We will continue to assist the Malaysian government in its own investigations. We have also informed the Malaysian government that it can avail itself of due legal processes through our Courts to establish ownership and recover any assets seized in Singapore that can be traced to 1MDB.
Second, the HSR. Members have asked several questions on this, and the Minister for Transport, Minister for National Development and Minister for Finance will all address them in detail. But here, I just want to emphasise that the crux of the issue is the sanctity of international law and agreements. I am heartened to note Malaysian Finance Minister Lim Guan Eng's comments on another project that his Ministry had undertaken with a foreign commercial party. He said that should the foreign commercial party not adhere to the terms of the agreement within the specified period, his Ministry would be entitled to take certain actions. To quote Mr Lim: \"I think we should look at the agreement. We are bound by the agreement\". So, the point is, Minister Lim Guan Eng, himself, recognises the importance of maintaining the sanctity of agreements.
When Malaysia proposed the HSR in 2013, Singapore studied the proposal carefully, all the more so because of its very large financial commitments. Subsequently, after due diligence and study, we agreed to pursue the HSR because we were convinced of its benefits to Singapore and Singaporeans. We signed the legally binding HSR Bilateral Agreement in 2016 in good faith, after both sides had carefully, painstakingly, meticulously negotiated and agreed to all the provisions, including those pertaining to the implementation of the project, as well as those dealing with the eventuality that the project is terminated.
In recent weeks, however, Members would have seen a range of news reports and quotes from Malaysian leaders about the Malaysian government’s position on HSR. These include announcements that a “final decision” had been made to terminate the project, subject to discussions with Singapore, and yet other statements that the project has been \"postponed\" or \"deferred\".
We have sent the Malaysian government a Third Person Note (TPN) requesting clarification of Malaysia’s position. However, the Malaysian government has not yet replied to our TPN. In the meantime, Singapore is continuing to incur costs on this project as we continue to meet our obligations under the bilateral agreement, whilst awaiting Malaysia’s clarification. We look forward to a prompt official response to our TPN from the Malaysian government. Should Malaysia cause the HSR project to be terminated, we will deal with the question of compensation from Malaysia for costs incurred in accordance with the bilateral agreement and with international law. I am sure Members of this House will agree with me that the Singapore Government has a duty to safeguard public funds by recovering these costs.
This brings me to the third bilateral issue, the price of raw water imported by Singapore from Malaysia under the 1962 Water Agreement, a fundamental agreement. Let me reiterate Singapore’s clear and consistent position. We have stated this publicly many times before, including in this very Chamber, and our position is well-known to everyone, including to Malaysia.
The 1962 Water Agreement is not an ordinary agreement. The 1962 Water Agreement was guaranteed by both Malaysia and Singapore. This guarantee is in the 1965 Separation Agreement, which, in turn, was registered with the United Nations. Any breach of the\t1962\tWater Agreement would call into question the Separation Agreement, and Members would remember that the Separation Agreement is the basis for Singapore's very existence as an independent sovereign state. Singapore will fully honour the terms of the 1962 Water Agreement, including the price of water that is stipulated in that agreement, and we expect Malaysia to do so.
Members will recall that then-Foreign Minister Prof S Jayakumar and then-Foreign Minister K Shanmugam had stated our position on this issue comprehensively on 25 January 2003 and on 6 March 2014, respectively. Their key points remain as valid today as when they were first articulated. As was stated then, the core issue is \"not how much we pay, but how any price revision is decided upon\". It is worth reiterating this point. The core issue is \"not how much we pay, but how any price revision is decided upon\". Neither Malaysia nor Singapore can unilaterally change the terms of agreement between our two countries.
Malaysia lost its right to review the price of water under the 1962 Water Agreement in 1987. Again, this is not a new point. We have made this point publicly on multiple occasions. In fact, Malaysia has previously acknowledged that they themselves chose not to ask for a review in 1987 because they benefited from the pricing arrangement under the 1962 Water Agreement. Johor currently buys treated water from Singapore at 50 Malaysian sen per 1,000 gallons. This price and, in fact, even the volume, are provided for under the 1962 Water Agreement. Members of this House will know that 50 Malaysian sen per 1,000 gallons is a fraction of the true cost of treating the water. Hence, in 2002, then-Prime Minister Dr Mahathir, in his first incarnation, said that Malaysia did not ask for a review when it was due as Malaysia knew that any revision would also affect the price of treated water sold by Singapore to Malaysia.
The then-Johor State Assembly Speaker Zainalabidin Mohd Zain also said, and I quote: \"There was no point in [pressing for a review of the water price in 1986] because Johor was dependent on Singapore for its treated water supply, and Singapore would have also increased its price of treated water sold to Johor\". The reason why I am taking pains to recite all these to Members is to make the point that Malaysia took a conscious decision not to review the price when they had the opportunity to do so. And this is why, in fact, even to this date, Johor buys more treated water than it is entitled to, strictly under the 1962 Water Agreement. These additional supplies of treated water that we have been selling to Johor, at Johor's request, are sold at the same rate stipulated by the 1962 Water Agreement. This sale is made on a goodwill basis, and without prejudice to our rights under the 1962 Water Agreement.
In addition, if in 1987, Malaysia had exercised the right to review the price of water, Singapore would have made quite different investment decisions on developing the Johor River and its water catchment areas. One example of this is the Linggiu Reservoir.
In 1990, PUB and Johor signed an agreement to construct the Linggiu Dam to increase the yield of the Johor River in order to enable reliable abstraction of PUB's full entitlement of 250 million gallons (mgd) of water per day. Johor owns the Linggiu Dam, but Singapore paid for its construction and continues to pay for its operation. These sums incurred are on top of the RM320 million – S$208 million at 1990 rates – that we paid to Johor in 1990, as compensation for the land used for the Linggiu Reservoir project and for the potential loss of revenue from logging activities, and as a one-time payment for the lease of that land for the remaining tenure of the 1962 Water Agreement.
Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore and Malaysia will always be closely intertwined and interdependent. We are committed to engaging and cooperating with the new Malaysian government. But we must work with each other on the basis that both sides will fully respect the sanctity of international agreements, and that any disputes will be resolved peacefully in accordance with international law. Provided this condition is met, I am confident that our bilateral relations will prosper, for the mutual benefit of citizens of both countries.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Kuala Lumpur-Singapore High Speed Rail Project","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Malaysian government has, through diplomatic channels, confirmed its intention to terminate its bilateral agreement with Singapore to build the High Speed Rail; (b) if so, what are the expenses and losses likely to be incurred by Singapore as a result of the termination; and (c) what are Singapore's contractual rights to seek compensation for these expenses and losses in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
3 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the costs incurred for the High Speed Rail (HSR) as of June 2018; (b) what other costs does Singapore continue to incur should a decision be not made by the end of 2018; and (c) should Malaysia decide to call off the HSR, what are the existing compensation clauses to safeguard Singapore's interest.
4 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Transport whether he can provide an update on (i) the Kuala Lumpur-Singapore High Speed Rail project, the costs incurred to date and expenses over the next six months and (ii) the Johor Bahru-Singapore Rapid Transit System.
\tThe Minister for Transport (Mr Khaw Boon Wan): Sir, may I take Question Nos 2, 3 and 4 together, please?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMr Khaw Boon Wan: Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, Miss Cheng Li Hui and Mr Ang Wei Neng have asked about the status of the Kuala Lumpur-Singapore High Speed Rail Project (HSR). Many Singaporeans are asking the same question following numerous statements by Malaysian leaders on the HSR Project over the past two months. These statements suggest that Malaysia no longer intends to continue with the Project in accordance with what both countries agreed under the HSR Bilateral Agreement (BA). Let me briefly recap what they have said.
On 28 May 2018, Malaysian Prime Minister, Dr Mahathir, announced in an interview with the Financial Times that the HSR Project would be \"dropped\", and that it was \"a final decision\" but that this would take time because Malaysia had an agreement with Singapore. Dr Mahathir was also quoted as saying that \"It's [\"it\" refers to the HSR Project] not beneficial. It's going to cost us a huge sum of money, we will make no money at all from this operation\". He also said that Malaysia may have to pay \"almost 500 million\" as a \"penalty\" although he was unsure of the currency. On 1 June, Dr Mahathir reiterated that the decision to cancel the HSR Project was done by the Pakatan Harapan government, because from \"the very beginning, we campaigned on that issue and we won't go away from the decision of the party\". On 3 June, Johor Menteri Besar, Dato' Osman Sapian, was quoted in the Malaysian media as saying that \"short-term losses of RM500 million\" from terminating the HSR Project were better than for the Malaysian government to \"bear the debt burden of more than RM100 billion\" if it continues the HSR Project.
On 11 June, in an interview with the Nikkei Asian Review in Tokyo, Dr Mahathir then said that the HSR Project was \"postponed\". Malaysian Transport Minister Mr Anthony Loke and Finance Minister Mr Lim Guan Eng later told the press on separate occasions that they, together with Economic Affairs Minister Dato' Seri Mohd Azmin bin Ali, would visit Singapore to discuss the HSR Project. Various other reports then appeared in the Malaysian media citing an \"alternative\" proposal to the Malaysian Council of Eminent Persons to utilise the existing double-track of Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad (KTMB) to run trains at 200 kilometres per hour (km/h), which would take 130 minutes to travel from Kuala Lumpur to Singapore. According to these media reports, the 'alternative' plan would purportedly mean that Malaysia would \"not need to renegotiate with Singapore\". Malaysian social media also carried articles stating that Singapore has a \"moral responsibility\" not to \"bully\" Malaysia, and to cancel the HSR Project with minimum penalty.
Mr Speaker, when Malaysia proposed the HSR Project to Singapore in 2013, Singapore agreed because we were convinced of the benefits of the Project to Singapore. After several years of discussion, Singapore and Malaysia signed the HSR BA in December 2016. This BA is an international treaty that is binding on the countries that signed it. In other words, both Singapore and Malaysia are legally bound to perform our obligations under the BA, regardless of any changes in the government.
The HSR Project agreed under the BA is a high-speed rail that would allow travellers to commute from Jurong Lake District in Singapore to the Bandar Malaysia development in Kuala Lumpur in 90 minutes. The key success factor of this Project is the 90-minute travel time that provides greater convenience for travellers. Ninety minutes is significantly less than the travel time by road or by the existing railway and is competitive with the 50-minute flight time between Changi Airport and Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA), plus airport transfers. To achieve the 90-minute travel time, trains operating the HSR's international Express Service between Singapore and Kuala Lumpur have to run at speeds of 300 km/h or more on a dual track line designed for a top speed of 350 km/h. This requirement is essential, as otherwise it would make less sense for a traveller to make a day trip from Singapore to Kuala Lumpur, or vice versa, using the HSR rather than by air.
After signing the BA, Singapore acquired land to facilitate the construction of HSR, passed legislation in Parliament, and set up an Infrastructure Company, SG HSR Pte Ltd under the Land Transport Authority. We have formed a team of more than 100 specialists in the company to build, own, fund and maintain the HSR civil infrastructure in Singapore. These staff have worked hard to fulfill our obligations to meet a challenging implementation timeline. The tenders for the HSR civil infrastructure in Singapore, as well as the joint tender with Malaysia to appoint an Assets Company (AssetsCo) are underway. By May this year, SG HSR had called five tenders to construct the HSR civil infrastructure within Singapore. We have also started engaging potential bidders for the remaining major tenders.
All these works cost money, including costs for consultancies to design the civil infrastructure, costs for dedicating manpower to oversee and deliver the Project, and costs for land acquisition. Based on preliminary estimates, the total cost incurred by the Singapore Government for the HSR Project has already exceeded S$250 million by the end of May 2018. This is actual money that has already been spent, our taxpayers' money. We can recover value for some of the expenditure, even if the HSR Project does not proceed. But the significant amount which has been spent will be completely wasted expenditure, if the project does not proceed. The BA provides for how compensation is to be dealt with.
This is why we sent a diplomatic note to Malaysia on 1 June 2018 to seek immediate clarification on Malaysia’s position. To date, Singapore has still not received a reply from the Malaysian government. The public statements made by the Malaysian Ministers and Prime Minister Dr Mahathir himself on the termination of the Project have not been followed through with any official communication to us. At this point, therefore, we have been left with no choice but to continue performing in accordance with the BA and thus continue to incur more costs. In the month of June, we incurred more than S$6 million. For the month of July, this month, we expect to also incur more than S$6 million. These costs will increase rapidly with time. From August to end of this year, we will need to spend at least S$40 million more. These include our ongoing manpower costs, operating expenses and contract costs. It will be most unfortunate if Malaysia has, in fact, decided to terminate but delays in notifying us, because there will be further wasted expenditure.
The HSR BA is a fair treaty, with equal rights and obligations on both sides. It is worth noting again that it was Malaysia which had suggested the HSR and Singapore agreed to the joint project. If the HSR Project is terminated because of the actions of country A, then country A should compensate country B for expenses that have already been incurred by country B, in accordance with the BA. It would not be fair for the taxpayers of one country to bear the cost of another country’s actions. Compensation is not a penalty imposed on the other country. Thus, should Malaysia cause the HSR Project to be terminated, we will deal with the question of compensation from Malaysia for costs incurred by Singapore in accordance with the BA and international law. The Singapore Government has a duty to all Singaporeans to be accountable for the substantial public funds spent on the HSR Project.
Because the costs that we have incurred will add to the total amount of compensation, it is in Malaysia’s own interest to officially inform us of its position on the HSR Project early, to minimise the amounts involved. I highlighted this consideration to Economic Affairs Minister Dato’ Seri Mohd Azmin bin Ali when he called me on 6 June 2018. Dato’ Seri Azmin Ali suggested that both countries’ officials meet to discuss the HSR Project. I welcomed the suggestion. I asked him for details on the scope of the discussion so that the meeting could be productive. He agreed and promised to send me a letter on the details. Our High Commissioner in Kuala Lumpur has also conveyed the same points to Malaysian Transport Minister Mr Anthony Loke and Finance Minister Mr Lim Guan Eng. However, we have yet to receive the details from Malaysia.
Besides costs incurred by Singapore, rail consortia from China, Japan, Europe and other interested parties, such as international financial institutions, have also been incurring costs preparing their bids for the HSR AssetsCo tender, which was jointly launched by Singapore and Malaysia last December. These companies have taken the HSR Project very seriously, including working with their governments to seek clarification on the requirements of the HSR AssetsCo tender over the past seven months. Following the recent statements by Malaysian leaders, the bidders have sought urgent clarification from Singapore and Malaysia on the status of the HSR Project. I understand their deep concern. It is not tenable for them to proceed with their bids without knowing if the project is off, or to put their consortia and resources on hold indefinitely with the attendant opportunity and financing costs.
The Singapore Government will continue to press for official clarification from the Malaysian government. There are appropriate processes at law in case Malaysia should wish to propose changes to the BA, or to terminate it. These due processes should be followed. If the Malaysian Government fails to provide an official response, then we cannot ignore the public statements made by the Malaysian Ministers, and Prime Minister Dr Mahathir himself, on the termination of the Project, and Singapore will act according to its rights.
Let me now update Members on the Johor Bahru (JB)-Singapore Rapid Transit System Link, or RTS Link for short. Every day, several hundred thousand commuter trips are made between Singapore and Malaysia through our land checkpoints. When completed, the RTS Link will ease congestion significantly at our land checkpoints and make it much more convenient for people to travel between Singapore and JB. On 30 May, Malaysian Transport Minister Mr Anthony Loke told Channel NewsAsia that “the RTS will proceed”, although Malaysia would “have to re-study the project in terms of cost and so on”. The following day, he also told our Shin Min newspaper that he hoped the project could be accelerated. However, we have not heard anything officially from the Malaysians on their intentions on the RTS Link.
To proceed or, indeed, speed up the project, many implementation issues have to be sorted out. As with HSR, we also have an RTS Link BA with the Malaysians. It was signed in January this year. Under the terms of that agreement, Singapore’s Singapore Mass Rapid Transit (SMRT) and Malaysia’s Prasarana Malaysia Berhad needed to incorporate a Joint-Venture Company to become the RTS Link operator by 30 June this year. That did not happen, as Prasarana had suspended discussions with SMRT after Malaysia’s General Elections. This means that both countries should now proceed to call an open, international tender to appoint the RTS Link operator, unless we mutually agree on a postponement of the deadline.
In the meantime, we will continue to work with Malaysia to reduce congestion through other means. Earlier this year, both Singapore and Malaysia lowered the tolls during off-peak hours at Tuas Checkpoint to encourage motorists to travel outside the peak periods. We also agreed to Malaysia’s suggestion to increase the number of KTMB Tebrau Shuttle services from 26 to 31 daily, which has been implemented since the middle of February. These measures have helped to alleviate the congestion, but they are not the complete solution. We look forward to the completion and operation of the RTS Link, which will be able to transport 10,000 travellers per direction per hour between Singapore and JB.
Mr Speaker, Sir, cooperation between Singapore and Malaysia is mutually beneficial for our peoples. But it has to be based on the cardinal principle of respecting the sanctity of international law and international agreements. For Singapore, we also need to safeguard Singapore’s hard-earned reputation as a credible and consistent partner, and a country that abides fully by our international obligations. Both Malaysia and Singapore urgently need to answer the questions from interested bidders for the HSR AssetsCo tender, and we await Malaysia’s clarification so that, as responsible partners who have called the tender, we can do so.
Meanwhile, we continue to incur costs on the HSR Project as we conscientiously fulfill our obligations under the HSR BA. These costs will add to the compensation which Malaysia would have to pay, should it cause the project to be terminated. It is, therefore, in Malaysia’s own interest to clarify its position early.
Mr Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.
\tMr Ang Wei Neng (Jurong): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for the very comprehensive reply. I have a few supplementary questions. First is just to clarify one more time, under the agreement, there is no penalty for terminating the contract except for compensation. My second question is: what is the budgetary figure for the HSR for the Singapore portion? The last question is: if things do not go well, what is the recourse for Singapore? Is it an international court or is it a court of Singapore or Malaysia to resolve the issue of termination, if there is?
\tMr Khaw Boon Wan: All these are terms which are covered within the BA. I cannot speak in much detail because I am also bound by the confidentiality clause within the BA. But certainly, compensation is not a penalty. Compensation is for expenditures which are already spent on the project or incurred as a result of fulfilling the obligations. So, these are, as I said, all taxpayers' money. And we, as a Government, have to be accountable to our people.
As for the budget for Singapore's portion of the civil engineering work, the agreement is structured this way: for the civil engineering works, each Government takes care of the bill and foot the expenditure of the portion within its borders. How much will it be? It depends on actual tender bids in due course when we receive and award them. It is not our practice to disclose those sums so as not to bias the tenders.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Short- and Longer-term Impact of Cancellation of High Speed Rail Project on Singapore Government’s Revenues and Expenditures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Finance with regard to Malaysia's decision to cancel the High Speed Rail (HSR) project (a) what implications does the cancellation have on the Government's decision to raise the Goods and Services Tax (GST) sometime between 2021 and 2025; and (b) what was the Government's total expenditure estimate for the HSR project up to its originally envisaged inauguration around 2026.
6 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Finance what are the short-term and longer-term impact of the suspension of the Kuala Lumpur-Singapore High Speed Rail Project on Government revenues and expenditures.
\tThe Second Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong) (for the Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to take Question Nos 5 and 6 together.
\tMr Speaker: Please do.
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Sir, Mr Pritam Singh and Assoc Prof Daniel Goh asked about the financial implications should the High Speed Rail (HSR) Project be cancelled or suspended. I will iterate and reiterate at the outset that, as stated by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Transport, Singapore has yet to receive an official response from the Malaysian government on its position on the project. Unless the project is terminated, Singapore has to meet our obligations under the legally binding HSR Bilateral Agreement (BA) and will continue to incur costs in this regard. In the event that Malaysia causes the project to be terminated, Singapore will exercise our rights under the BA and international law, including with respect to compensation for costs.
Mr Pritam Singh has tried to link the prospect of the HSR project being cancelled to the Government announcement to raise the Goods and Services Tax (GST). But these are two separate matters. The increase in GST was never meant to finance lumpy investments in infrastructure in the first place. We have already made this clear in the Budget Statement. So, let me reiterate the key points.
The main drivers for rising Government expenditure in recent years, and going forward into the future, are healthcare, security and social spending. Healthcare, in particular, is expected to rise sharply over the coming years due to our rapidly ageing population. These are broad-based, structural increases in recurrent spending. So, we have to raise recurrent revenues, of which the planned GST increase is one component, to pay for these ongoing needs year after year. This is the responsible way to ensure that every generation pays for its own spending in a sustainable manner.
We take a different approach to financing lumpy investments in infrastructure. First, where possible, we will save ahead and set aside funding for such investments through initiatives like the Changi Airport Development Fund and the Rail Infrastructure Fund. Second, we will finance infrastructure through borrowing by Statutory Boards and Government-owned companies. This will apply to larger investments that can generate economic benefits over many years, like the Changi Airport Terminal 5, the HSR and the JB-Singapore Rapid Transit System (RTS) Link.
Therefore, the underlying rationale for the GST rate increase is not affected by the outcome of the HSR Project. Our population will continue to age. More Singaporeans will need support to care for their loved ones. Ultimately, the Government will require more recurrent sources of revenue to support these needs.
Both Assoc Prof Daniel Goh and Mr Pritam Singh asked about the specific expenditure impact of the HSR Project. As Minister Khaw said earlier, the Government's practice is not to reveal the costs of projects until tender processes are over, as doing so could affect the behaviour and pricing strategy of bidders. And as he had indicated earlier, pending confirmation from the Malaysian government about its position on the project, Singapore is continuing to fulfill our obligations under the HSR agreement. So, it will not be appropriate for me to highlight the figures at this time.
Mr Speaker, the Government's fiscal approach is sound and sustainable for the long term. We will continue to manage our public finances prudently while ensuring we look after the needs of our citizens and our economy in a responsible manner.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, with regard to the question on Government financing, can I confirm, in the event the HSR is terminated, does the Ministry of Finance envisage lowering the Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) contributions to the Government’s Budget, as a result of not having to pay for HSR, at least the Singapore portion of the HSR?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, again, I think Mr Singh is trying to link things that are clearly of no relationship at all. The NIRC is a separate matter. It is the largest source of revenue for the funding of our overall Budget, and so, that will be seen in the context of funding of our overall budgetary needs. As I mentioned earlier, with regard to infrastructure projects like HSR, we are financing them separately through borrowing. It is the right thing to do because these infrastructure projects are long term in nature, and borrowing will help us to smoothen the expenditure of these projects over the longer period to better match the benefits of the project, which will also be for a long period of time.
I would also say this, that even if the HSR Project were to be terminated, even if that were to happen, the trend of our overall expenditures rising will continue and, in particular, the trend of our recurrent expenditure rising will continue. And I have explained why this will happen, because, primarily, in the case of healthcare, our population is ageing and we will be having to spend more on healthcare.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Cancellation of High Speed Rail Project on Development Plans for Jurong Lake District and Related Areas","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for National Development with regard to Malaysia's decision to cancel the High Speed Rail (HSR) Project, what are the implications for (i) development plans for sites along the Singapore stretch of the HSR, especially in the Jurong Lake District and (ii) land acquisition for the proposed HSR.
\tThe Minister for National Development (Mr Lawrence Wong):\tMr Speaker, the development of Jurong Lake District (JLD) is part of our broader effort to develop urban centres outside the downtown area, so as to bring jobs, amenities and recreational options closer to homes.
We started this endeavour to build urban centres outside the downtown area with the building of our first regional centre at Tampines in 1992, and then we started the work to transform Jurong in 2008. The plans for Jurong Lake District were developed well before Malaysia proposed the HSR Project. It was only in 2015, after further study of the HSR proposal, that we decided to locate the Singapore terminus of the HSR in Jurong. The transformation plans for Jurong Lake District include the following components.
(a) The development of a commercial precinct and the injection of up to 20,000 new homes;
(b) The upgrading of Jurong Lake Gardens, including the Chinese and Japanese Gardens, with a new Science Centre integrated within the Gardens; and
(c) The development of a major transport hub connecting the existing North-South and East-West Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) Lines, as well as the upcoming Jurong Region and Cross Island Lines.
These are some of the key features of our transformation plans. These plans are still relevant today. The land parcels that the Government has acquired are needed to realise these plans. The Jurong Country Club site will provide for new mixed-use developments and community facilities. The Raffles Country Club (RCC) site is needed for the Cross Island Line's (CRL's) western depot and other transport-related uses.
Regardless of the outcome of the HSR Project, the overall impetus and vision for Jurong Lake District have not changed. Some details may need to be adjusted along the way, as circumstances change. But the bottom line is that we have an exciting transformation plan for the whole area, and we will proceed with the implementation of these plans when ready.
Mr Speaker: Mr Alex Yam.
\tMr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. Just a very quick clarification. If and when the HSR Project is terminated, will there be any delays to the surrounding areas of the site set aside for the terminus, as well as the depot?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, as I mentioned, should that scenario come to pass, we may have to adjust some of the plans. It may include the staging, the timing. It would be difficult to speculate now or to give details at this stage. But we are monitoring the situation closely and we will make adjustments, if need be.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Capital Reserve in PUB's Accounts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Finance if he will clarify the $5.3 billion of \"Capital Reserve\" in PUB's accounts and whether this represents surplus funds that are at the disposal of the Government or PUB.
\tThe Second Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong) (for the Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Member for raising this question. There has been some confusion about what the \"Capital Reserve\" in the Public Utilities Board's (PUB's) accounts represent. Mr Pritam Singh referred to it in his speech during the Debate on the President's Address, and I note that the Workers' Party subsequently posted a video clip on its Facebook page questioning why the water price increases were necessary when the PUB's Capital Reserve has increased from $3 billion to $5.3 billion over the last decade.
Mr Speaker, the Workers' Party and Mr Pritam Singh have interpreted the PUB's Capital Reserve as a hoard of cash surplus that the Government is keeping in PUB's accounts. But this is completely inaccurate and demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of accounting fundamentals.
The Capital Reserve does not represent surplus funds that PUB has at its disposal. Rather, most of the funds are already invested in PUB's Property, Plant and Equipment – in accounting terms, it is PPE – and that includes the upgrading of waterworks, water reclamation plant expansions and investment in water treatment processes. These are important investments to ensure a secure and sustainable water supply for Singapore. Therefore, the increase in PUB's Capital Reserve from $3 billion to $5.3 billion over the last decade must be seen in conjunction with PUB’s growing asset base, specifically its PPE, which has grown from $3.9 billion to $7.1 billion over the same period.
In fact, the Capital Reserve alone has not been sufficient to fully cover PUB's investments in water infrastructure. And that is why in the Committee of Supply (COS) debate earlier this year, I explained that PUB has had to borrow from the capital markets for its investments and it will continue to do so going forward.
In short, there is no surplus cash in PUB. It is either ignorant or disingenuous to link the water price increase with the PUB's Capital Reserve, as there is absolutely no basis to do so. I hope this clarification will set the record straight. I also hope the Workers’ Party will refrain from distorting the facts to mislead the public. In fact, having posted the video on its Facebook page and demanded that the Government clarify the matter, I hope the Workers' Party will now also post this explanation on Facebook to correct the record.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, I think it will be appropriate for the Party to put up any corrections, if, indeed, these are warranted. And this is something we will look at.
Mr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, I want to thank the Minister for his clarification so that we can avoid all these very creative interpretations of accounts statements by the Statutory Boards.
I just want to follow up with a question to the Minister. Given the rising demand for water in the coming years, what are the upcoming major investments in the water supply infrastructure in the next decade? What amount of capital expenditure is the Government envisaging? And how are we going to fund them? Is this going to be from PUB’s balance sheet, or from the Government’s injections?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, Sir, for the period from financial year (FY) 2017 to FY2021, PUB will be investing another $4 billion worth of infrastructure in the water domain. In fact, I mentioned this figure during the COS debate as well. These are investments for the development of the new Tuas Reclamation Plant, the renewal of Chestnut Avenue and Choa Chu Kang Waterworks and other pipeline projects. The investments will be financed through a combination of either accumulated surpluses – where there are – and borrowings, because these accumulated surpluses from previous years, as I have mentioned, are not sufficient to finance all of our infrastructure needs. So, PUB will have to borrow in order to finance these future investments. That is the investment quantum that we are talking about from FY2017 to FY2021.
Going beyond that, there are also other major projects that are in the pipeline, including, for example, Phase 2 of the Deep Tunnel Sewerage System, as well as the redevelopment of Kranji Water Reclamation Plant and the expansion of Changi Water Reclamation Plant. These are in the pipeline, and the specific quantum and details will be announced at an appropriate juncture. The bottom line is that we still need to make investments in our water infrastructure and these are very important investments to ensure that we have a secure and resilient water supply, both today and into the future.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would just like to seek some clarification from the Minister. The PUB Annual Report 2017 does not refer to notes on Capital Reserve, like its Annual Report in 2016. Let me just read out that short note that appears in the 2016 Report, but not the 2017 Report. On capital reserve, just a short paragraph, \"Section 40 of the Public Utilities Act 2002 requires the Board to finance a reasonable proportion of its capital expenditure from internal sources. The capital reserve has been utilised to account for the yearly transfer of the retained earnings to finance the Board’s property, plant and equipment\", just like the Minister mentioned. And then it goes on to say, \"The capital reserve comprises the accumulated transfers from retained earnings and amounts paid by Government bodies and private developers towards the capital outlay for the provision of utility, facilities completed before 1998.\" Can the Minister please share some information on the last aspect of this note, how much is this amount that has been transferred prior to 1998; what are we talking about here?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think if you were to look at the figures, specifically, if you were to look at the Capital Reserve in PUB's books, indeed, they have grown from $3 billion to $5.3 billion over the years. And as the footnote explains, these are accumulated surpluses over the years that PUB has been able to earn. But none of these surpluses are left in cash. In fact, over that same period of time, a large part of the accumulated surpluses has been used to invest in water infrastructure, and that is why the PPE has grown correspondingly from $3.9 billion to $7.1 billion. That is the essence of what I am trying to say. The word \"reserves\" is misleading. We think of reserves as cash, but Capital Reserve happens to be an accounting term. It means that the funds were used to invest in PPE, and there are some technicalities about the specific assets, the date of the assets, but those are technical points because the main thrust of what I am trying to say is that there is no surplus cash lying around in PUB's books for PUB's disposal. All of it is being invested in water infrastructure already and we will need more of that for our future water supply as well.
Mr Speaker: Mr Low Thia Khiang.
\tMr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied): I would like to seek a clarification from the Minister on the Government's position on such so-called PUB's investment in infrastructure. So, all these investments will be solely borne by Singaporean consumers through water price hikes, or should the Government also provide grants, some capital grants, for instance, for the investment, thereby lightening the consumers' burden?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, in fact, we do a combination of both. For the water treatment plants, water works, water operations, indeed, PUB charges consumers, rightfully so, and then recovers the costs in order to continue to finance future investments. But there is another part of infrastructure which is not charged directly to consumers, and that is our drainage systems, sewage systems, which are an essential part of our water system. And PUB continues to receive Government grants in order to finance that part of the water system. So, when you look at the water system today, there is a component which is charged out to consumers, PUB recovers the costs, the revenues, and then uses that to finance part of the water system. But there is also a significant part of the water system which is already financed by the Government through the taxpayers.
Mr Speaker: Mr Low Thia Khiang.
\tMr Low Thia Khiang: I would like to ask the Minister what is the water borne fee for that you charge? I thought it is for infrastructure. It was increased significantly, I think, a few years ago, if I remember correctly.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, as the water operations are charged out through water tariffs through water borne fee, so that, indeed, covers the operating costs of operating the water system. But there are significant amounts of drainage assets and sewage assets, as part of our water system, which the Government continues to fund through grants to PUB. In fact, these details are in PUB's accounts. You can see very clearly what is the amount that is charged out to consumers and are taken in as revenue on PUB's books, and the amount that is taken as grants from the Government.
\tMr Speaker: We may need a new video series on how to be an accountant.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of US-China Trade War on Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"9 Ms K Thanaletchimi asked the Minister for Trade and Industry with the ongoing trade war between the US and China (a) what is the impact on Singapore; (b) how will this affect Singapore workers, employment prospects and consumers at large both in the short term and in the long term; (c) whether the US' shift towards protectionist trade affects the global norm of free trade agreements; and (d) what is Singapore's strategy to overcome these challenges.
10 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what are the implications on our economy and industries arising from (i) the increasing trade dispute between the US and the rest of the world, (ii) the current outlook of a multilateralism trading system and (iii) the recent efforts of the EU and China in exploring closer trade links.
\tThe Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 9 and 10 together?
Mr Speaker: Please do.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, the United States (US) and China are major economic partners to countries around the world. The trade conflict between the US and China and, indeed, with other trading partners, such as the European Union (EU), taking reciprocal measures in response to the US’ tariffs, will have global consequences. Not only will it inhibit global trade and global growth, there will also be disruptions to supply chains impacting businesses, jobs and consumers.
Our economic agencies are closely monitoring the impact on Singapore which will be transmitted at three levels. First, impact from higher generalised tariffs that are applicable to the majority of countries, including Singapore. This is what we call the direct impact. Second, the indirect impact arising from disruptions to global supply chains due to the tariffs imposed by the US and China directed at each other. And third, the consequences of a broad-based slowdown in global trade flows if escalation of the trade conflict among the US, China and other trading partners spills over to business sentiment and other factors of growth. Let me elaborate on each of them.
First, tariffs directly applicable to Singapore affect a relatively small set of products. These are essentially US tariffs applied globally on solar cells and modules, washing machines, steel and aluminium. Our exports of these products to the US account for about 0.1% of our total domestic exports to the world. While this is relatively modest, specific Singapore-based companies in the general manufacturing and electronics sectors that export such products to the US will become less competitive compared to manufacturers in the US when the tariffs are added on. Our agencies are in contact with impacted companies to facilitate applications for product exclusion and to explore alternative markets.
Second, there will be indirect impact from tariffs that are not targeted at Singapore. Members will have read about the US and China's imposition of tariffs on each other. Tariffs applied to products worth US$34 billion from each country have kicked in, with more on the way. With the EU, Mexico and Canada also imposing retaliatory tariffs on the US for the tariffs on steel and aluminium, there is a significant risk of widening disruption to global supply chains. While these tariffs do not directly affect our exports, they would have spillover impact due to our role in the global supply chains. For example, Singapore companies that produce intermediate goods used as inputs in the production of China’s exports to the US may see softer demand for their goods.
The net impact on the Singapore economy and our workers is less easily quantified, given the fluidity of the US and China’s tit-for-tat responses. The complexity of global value chains is also such that amidst disruptions, there will be potential for firms to mitigate some of the impact by redirecting exports of intermediate goods to other markets. In addition, traders in China which find imports from the US less competitive because of the tariffs may also source more from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) region. There is, therefore, some offsetting effect. Our modelling indicates that based on the tariffs on product lines that have been announced, the net impact is likely to be modest. However, this assumes no further escalation in trade tensions between the US and China. On the whole, bilateral trade between the US and China indirectly contributes to 1.1% of Singapore’s gross domestic product, and any sustained disruption is unwelcome for the region. In the meantime, our economic agencies are working closely with companies to identify any disruptions promptly and restructure their supply chains where necessary.
Third, our greatest concern is the impact from an escalation of the trade conflict into a vicious cycle of tit-for-tat measures among major economies. Should these measures reach a tipping point that triggers a sharp and sustained fall in global business and consumer confidence, or a tightening of global liquidity conditions, the macro-economic environment will fundamentally change. In this scenario, the impact on global consumption and investment on top of the disruption to trade flows will significantly impact Singapore's open economy.
Amidst these developments, there are strengths in the composition and features of our economy that serve us well. These include the strong trading networks and diversified sectors we have developed over the years, which will enable companies in Singapore to navigate the disruptions and seek out new opportunities and alternative suppliers and demand markets. Our agencies will continue to facilitate this process and provide support where needed.
Ms Thanaletchimi and Mr Henry Kwek have also asked about whether the norm of free trade agreements and the multilateral trading system of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) will change. Indeed, the commitment to free and open trade has come under pressure, with greater protectionist instincts and the US’ unilateral measures to address what it has deemed unfair trade practices. Nevertheless, for the large majority of economies, the commitment to the WTO remains unchanged. Numerous economies have made clear their stance on this. The US has stated its openness to bilateral trade agreements and has remained engaged in various international forums to share its views on improving the rules-based multilateral trading system.
Mr Speaker, let me conclude by reiterating Singapore’s stance. Singapore’s external linkages that have made us more resilient in facing uncertainties in the global economy are best safeguarded by a strong set of WTO rules and enforcement, and by our network of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) which we will continue to expand and deepen. We are in good standing with all our trading partners, including the US and China, and have urged that ongoing trade disputes be resolved through negotiation.
We have also forged ahead with like-minded partners to continue paving the way for regional integration to bring about more opportunities and growth. The signing of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) in March this year is a tangible demonstration of the parties’ commitment to the collective goals of greater trade liberalisation and regional integration. ASEAN and our FTA partners are also pressing on with efforts to reach substantive conclusion of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).
Our trading partners are also constantly looking for opportunities to improve trade links. The EU and China, for example, which Mr Henry Kwek has asked about, are working to improve trade connectivity between Asia and Europe to increase economic opportunities. We have an FTA in place with China, and another that is pending with the EU. With the FTAs in place, our companies are better positioned to seek out and benefit from new opportunities arising from new trade linkages and supply chains that are formed.
We will continue to work with all like-minded partners to uphold a rules-based multilateral trading system, and work towards greater regional integration which is the best way of maximising opportunities for our companies and supporting job creation for Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Passing Rate for Private Hire Driver Vocational Licence Test","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Transport (a) since the implementation of the private hire driver's vocational licence, what has been the passing rate for applicants; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider allowing the tests to be conducted in vernacular languages, especially for older drivers.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, the passing rate for the Private Hire Car Driver’s Vocational Licence (PDVL) test is about 80%.
Private hire car (PHC) drivers must be able to read and speak simple English. This is so that they can navigate roads and buildings, the names of which are primarily in English. This also ensures that the drivers can communicate effectively with all commuters, both Singaporeans and tourists. This is why the PDVL course and test are conducted in English. There are no plans to conduct the tests in other languages.
Mr Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
\tMr Desmond Choo (Tampines): I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. Two supplementary questions: the first is, because at base, ride-hailing is fairly straightforward with locations clearly marked out. Is there then scope for us to have a simplified version of tests, especially for those with language difficulties? And second, for those who have engaged in longer-term contracts with the ride-hire companies to rent the vehicles, can there be an extension for them in order to pass the test in time?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the questions. To the first point, ride-hailing, when it goes as intended, is a simple process. But the regulation of this space has to take into account what happens when things go wrong, when accidents occur, when other things occur on the roads, pedestrians and so forth.
So, when things go wrong, there is a need to interface with members of the public, members of the emergency services, rescue services and security services. I take the point that ride-hailing, when it works well and works as designed, it is a simple process, but it operates in a fairly complicated environment, and how we regulate all the users of that environment will have to take all of that into account.
As for longer-term contracts, the Land Transport Authority and the agencies do work with the drivers who are applying, to help try to see what is the remediation that can be applied to help them obtain the PDVL. If there are specific cases that the Member is interested in, he can perhaps write to me and I could follow up on how we might assist these drivers.
Mr Speaker: Mr Seah Kian Peng.
Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Can I just ask the Senior Minister of State would the Ministry consider allowing tests to be conducted for persons with hearing disabilities? I ask this because I actually have some residents who are in those situations.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: I thank the Member for the question. I need to study the matter and I will do so. If the Member has specific instances of drivers who would like to apply, maybe he can write to me and I could follow up on that.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Unconsumed Funds in Respect of oBike's Exit from Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Transport in respect of oBike's exit from the Singapore market, whether the Ministry will ensure that oBike will refund all unconsumed subscription fees to its subscribers.
13 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the notice period required by any shared bicycle operator to give to the LTA when it wants to cease operations; (b) what is the redress for users who have paid deposits for their services; and (c) what assistance can LTA give to these depositors.
14 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Transport what statutory measures are in place to prevent private companies offering shared bikes or PMDs from defaulting on their public and customer commitments, such as service provision and deposits before the company goes into liquidation.
15 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether there are safeguards in place for consumers to obtain refunds on their oBike deposits; (b) what recourse do consumers have should there be no refunds; and (c) how can the interests of consumers be protected when bike-sharing firms exit the market.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to take Question Nos 12 to 15 together.
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, oBike's sudden exit from Singapore has inconvenienced many Singaporeans. It has raised some concerns and questions. Let me address them comprehensively.
First, oBike has attributed its decision to Government over-regulation. I suppose that is a convenient excuse. Dockless bicycle-sharing services offer Singaporeans a convenient travel option. We had deliberately adopted a light touch regulatory approach at the start, so as not to kill off this new innovative business model prematurely. Now that we have actual experience of both the benefits, and the significant social disamenities caused by indiscriminate bicycle parking, we have decided to tighten regulations. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) will license bicycle-sharing operators under the Parking Places Act, so that only operators with responsible and sustainable bicycle management plans can operate in Singapore. The licensing regime will reduce indiscriminate parking by requiring operators to internalise the costs of the social disamenities caused by their businesses, failing which, they should not be operating at all.
We are mindful to minimise compliance costs for operators, as they could, in turn, be passed on to users. LTA finalised its regulations only after extensive consultation with the bicycle-sharing operators, including oBike. We note that several operators have expressed their support for the new regulations.
Our licensing regime will kick in by October 2018. Licence applications closed on 7 July 2018 and LTA has received seven applications. LTA will evaluate each application based on the strength of the proposal, especially the plans to minimise indiscriminate parking.
Secondly, allow me to speak about the consequences of oBike's sudden exit from Singapore. LTA and the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) have met oBike to emphasise the importance of refunding user deposits and removing their bicycles from public spaces. On 1 July 2018, about one week after oBike announced its exit, oBike's Chairman Shi Yi had publicly and personally committed to a full refund of user deposits. oBike is now working out a process with CASE to refund user deposits. I would like to emphasise again that it is oBike's responsibility to have a concrete plan to refund user deposits and remove its bicycles from public spaces. If LTA has to step in to remove its bicycles, we will impose fees on oBike for doing so. LTA and CASE will continue to engage oBike on its responsibilities.
Concurrently, as the company is in liquidation, CASE has advised that affected consumers should file their Proofs of Debt against oBike with the appointed liquidator, FTI Consulting. Those who are unsure about how to file a Proof of Debt may contact CASE or the appointed liquidator for assistance.
Following oBike's exit, MoBike announced on 29 June 2018 that it would be waiving deposits for its Singapore users. With this change, none of the licence applicants require user deposits. If the operators eventually do require user deposits when the licensing regime is implemented from October this year, LTA will study the need for bicycle-sharing operators to place a security deposit or performance bond.
Going forward, LTA will monitor and strengthen the licensing regime as necessary, as well as work with relevant organisations, such as the Personal Data Protection Commission, CASE, the National Parks Board and the Town Councils on public education and outreach, so as to strike the right balance between the viability of the industry and the interests of users and the general public.
Mr Speaker: Mr Seah Kian Peng.
\tMr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Just a few supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. First, I thank the Senior Minister of State for sharing that the subscribers to oBike will have some recourses that the Ministry will look at together with CASE. I wonder, given that the large number of subscribers that are affected, I understand close to a million, whether something could be done proactively to make it easier for each of these subscribers to get their subscription fees reimbursed, given the huge numbers involved.
My second supplementary question is, I understand the light touch that the Ministry and, for that matter, the Government has adopted, to allow all these new innovations to take place. But I guess a learning point from this episode is that we may need to recalibrate this light touch in the quest to bring these conveniences to consumers. We have seen the bad side of this happening. And this comment goes beyond the Ministry of Transport (MOT), rather the whole of Government, for any new innovations that are being introduced. We need to just be aware that, sometimes, the light touch may be too light.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: I thank Mr Seah Kian Peng for the questions. The first, whether it can be easier to get refunds, it is ultimately oBike's responsibility to refund the user deposits and I think we should not minimise that it is something for them to settle, something for them to seek out means and ways to serve their consumers and serve their customers as best they can. We will continue to watch that space.
As far as the light touch is concerned, I do agree with the Member. I pointed out, it has not actually been that long since these business models appeared; it is just over a year. From a business point of view, there does need to be some runway for the business model to evolve, for the finances to be settled down, so we have to get the balance correct.
Where there are issues which are critical or dealing with personal safety, yes, we should be far more aggressive. Where it is about social disamenities and behavioral change, perhaps we also need to learn the lessons so that, as a regulator, as well as potential future operators, we can find a way to best serve future customers and consumers of such a service. Because, ultimately, these types of bicycle-sharing services are good for us because it will allow Singaporeans to make use of bicycles to close that last-mile gap in personal transport. It is also good for health; it is a possible leisure activity. So, we do not want to remove these services in particular, and I think the general point that the Member is making is about how we need to have the right calibration between a light touch approach as well as leaving room for innovation and dealing with the social disamenities is absolutely correct. That is exactly what we are doing now. The imposition of this new licensing regime is a recalibration of the light touch that we have taken in this phase.
Mr Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
\t
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State how many oBike users are there, and can MOT force them to delete away all the users' data so that their data are not abused?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Certainly, oBike, like all private companies, will need to comply with the Personal Data Protection Act. So, when they have no longer any use for the data that they have collected on their customers or their subscribers, and once they have settled all the issues with refunds and so on and so forth, there should be a full expectation that they remove all that data.
The other question was how many accounts they have. They had a fleet size of 20,000 to 30,000, and oBike has reported that they had just over a million users.
Mr Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.
\tMr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker, the media reports do say that oBike says that they have about a million users and, if indeed most of them had paid deposits to oBike, then there is quite a large sum of money with oBike. If these funds are with oBike, then I suppose the consumers will get back their funds. But many consumers have expressed concern that after liquidation, they will not be able to receive their refunds.
In the event that the consumers are unable to receive refunds from oBike, would LTA consider making a Police report against the directors of oBike to ensure a proper accounting of the funds that should be with the company but are no longer available for refund to the consumers?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: I think it is possible. But I think this issue falls under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act which is overseen by the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI). The short answer to the Member's question is yes. But as to how that plays out and what actions are taken and so forth, I think I would have to ask the Member to file the question for MTI as to how this might be managed in a way to serve the needs of Singaporeans as well as the businesses.
\tMr Speaker: I will stretch a little for one more question. Mr Zainal Sapari.
\tMr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol): One of the things that oBike did was to force its members to subscribe to its Super VIP (SVIP) using their deposit. Will these customers be able to get a refund for these as well, because the decision to subscribe to the SVIP membership was done unilaterally without the customers' consent?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, the matter as to whether or not that was done appropriately or inappropriately really depends on the terms and conditions of the service agreement. I do not know if it would be for me to comment about whether the service agreement between the users and oBike was appropriate. Whether the practice as a whole was fair or unfair, actually again, it is a matter for MTI and the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore to look into and perhaps make a decision about and take further action thereafter.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Companies (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"\"to amend the Companies Act (Chapter 50 of the 2006 Revised Edition\",
presented by the Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah), read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore Tourism (Cess Collection) (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Chee Hong Tat) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Trade and Industry, I beg to move, “That the Bill be now read a Second time.”
The Singapore Tourism (Cess Collection) Act, or Cess Act, was enacted in 1972 to allow the collection of cess from tourist establishments for the promotion of tourism. When the Cess Act was first enacted, cess was a broad-based tax imposed on sales made and charges levied or collected by tourist hotels, food establishments and public houses.
The Cess Act was amended in 2008 to make cess more targeted by linking it to specific tourism events. These refer to strategic events that entail higher staging costs using public funding and would enhance Singapore’s global branding, while bringing economic benefits to the country. Since then, cess has only been imposed on tourist hotels during the period of the Formula One Singapore Grand Prix.
In this Bill, we propose three categories of amendments. The first is to clarify the scope of cess, and the second is to update the scope of the Cess Act to keep pace with business developments and industry trends. The third is to enhance existing administrative requirements.
Let me start with the provisions that will clarify the requirements under the Cess Act. Our aim is to provide clarity and ensure a consistent basis of taxation for all parties that are liable to pay cess. There is no change to the underlying principle of our cess policy, which is to ensure that business groups likely to benefit commercially from a strategic tourism event play their part in defraying the costs of organising the event.
The new definition of “transaction” under clause 2, as read with clause 4, seeks to clarify what is subject to cess. For example, in the context of cess for tourist hotels during the Singapore Grand Prix, the value of the hotel room will be used to calculate cess, regardless of the mode of payment. Whether the customer pays using credit card, cash or vouchers, the hotel needs to pay cess based on the value of the hotel room. The same rationale applies to rooms which are redeemed using loyalty points under the hotel’s membership programme, or those offered by the hotel as part of wedding or corporate packages. The hotel will need to pay cess based on the value of the hotel room. Given the evolving business practices and variety of room packages that are offered by different hotels, this approach will ensure a consistent basis of taxation.
There can be other commercial entities which benefit from a strategic tourism event, but are not tourist hotels, tourist food establishments and tourist public houses which are the taxable persons in the current Cess Act. Hence, we want to update the Act so that our laws can be applied fairly as business models continue to evolve, and we see the emergence of a greater variety of products and services that serve similar needs in the tourism landscape.
Mr Speaker, the second category of amendments thus seeks to update the scope of the Cess Act to apply to other taxable persons. The changes are proposed under clauses 2 and 4 of the Bill.
We are making these changes to the Act to provide flexibility to deal with future changes in business models and industry trends. There are no current plans to include new tourism events or to impose cess on new categories of tourism event establishments, beyond the Singapore Grand Prix or hotels respectively. The imposition of cess will continue to be targeted and calibrated, based on the current set of policy considerations. The Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) will consult the industry and stakeholder groups if there are plans in the future to gazette new tourism events or to impose cess on new categories of tourism event establishments.
We are also proposing a few amendments to enhance existing administrative requirements.
Clauses 5 and 7 will enable the Chief Executive of the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) and other authorised persons to obtain information from any persons for the purpose of providing views to the Minister on the cess policy, and to administer or enforce the Cess Act.
Under clause 6, the records retention period will be increased from two to five years, which is aligned to the requirements under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act.
In the process of amending the Cess Act, MTI and STB launched a public consultation exercise in March 2018 and conducted an engagement session with hoteliers. Their feedback and comments were considered and addressed during the consultation. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): Tourism is a major industry that not only has knock-off effects for local businesses, but also for our city branding and international reputation. We have done well in many aspects, especially in urban and heritage conservation, to make Singapore a unique destination with an old-world colonial port city charm. Balancing this, we have also become a global city of choice for meetings, conventions and events with iconic developments, such as Marina Bay, and signature events, such as the Formula One night race.
The Cess Act has been closely tied with Formula One. The Act was last amended in August 2008, just months before the inaugural F1 race. It was changed from a consumption tax to a business tax to be used in a targeted manner to fund strategic tourist events. Cess collection has been limited to hotels benefiting from the F1 race.
With this amendment Bill, it looks like the last 10 years of taxing hotels to fund the F1 race was a successful experiment to see whether such a tax was viable to fund a tourist event and would not hamper the growth of tourism. Could the Government give greater details of the results of the experiment? How much cess was collected in the last 10 years compared to the expenditure of co-funding the F1? What has been the principle involved in identifying which hotels pay cess for F1? Why has cess collection not been extended to tourist food establishments and public houses?
At this point, I would like to sound a caution on over-expansion of cess collection, though the Government has allayed fears by saying that there are no immediate plans to do so. Even with F1, expanding cess collection beyond hotels will have to be done in a judicious manner so as not to inadvertently hurt local businesses. It may be trickier, for example, to identify using geographical markers tourist food establishments that are benefiting specially from F1, especially when many establishments actually make losses during the event due to road closures.
The other question I have for this amendment Bill is, where does the collected cess go? Since the cess collection is very targeted and the specified aim for cess collection is to fund strategic tourist events, there is a case for ringfencing the collected cess to further the national interest of tourist development. I would like to suggest that the collected cess be directly deposited into the Tourism Development Fund.
Some quarters among the public have been critical of F1 as an exclusive event enjoyed by the global and local elites. In order to allay this perception, we need to show more tangible benefits arising from the event, spread the proceeds from the event to the sector as a whole. Having the collected cess go directly into the Tourism Development Fund may be just symbolic in the end, since I suspect Government funding of the event exceeded the proceeds, but it sends an important signal to the public.
More than it being symbolic, we could also do something for retail businesses affected by the road closures and traffic redirection linked to F1 and, in the future, other tourist mega-events. We could have a special innovation and marketing scheme under the Tourism Development Fund that targets affected retail businesses to see how they can reinvent themselves for the tourist visitors and market themselves during this special event.
Mr Speaker, Sir, with major strategic tourist events, such as F1, that involve high costs and extraordinary traffic control measures, there will be winners and losers, and critics who fail to see any tangible benefits. The role of the Government would be to make sure the winnings are more equitably distributed. And tourism cess collection is a good instrument in this respect. I support the amendments in this Bill. But we need to address perceptions and mitigate the inadvertent losses suffered by the losers. To this end, tying the cess collection more directly to the Tourism Development Fund could kill many birds with one stone.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Chee Hong Tat.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I thank Assoc Prof Daniel Goh for his suggestions and giving his support for the Bill. Last September, we renewed the Formula One Singapore Grand Prix for another four years from 2018 to 2021. The decision was made after careful consideration of the projected costs and benefits from a national perspective. The direct cost of organising the race is around $135 million per year, with the Government’s share at 60%. We assessed the overall benefits to outweigh the costs, including indirect costs, such as inconveniences due to road closures during the race period. Over the last 10 years of hosting the race, we have attracted more than 450,000 international visitors, contributing about $1.4 billion in incremental tourism receipts. As Assoc Prof Daniel Goh pointed out, there are also indirect benefits through the international media coverage and high global viewership, which boost Singapore’s image as a vibrant and dynamic city.
After MTI amended the Act in 2008, only gazetted tourist hotels needed to pay cess during the period of the Singapore F1 race. These are hotels which cater mainly to tourists. We have not extended cess collection to food establishments and public houses. In making the assessment, we are guided by the principle of our cess policy, which is to ensure that business groups which are likely to benefit commercially from a strategic tourism event would play their part in defraying the costs of organising these events. I agree with Assoc Prof Daniel Goh that any expansion in cess collection has to be done in a judicious manner.
The amount of cess collected from gazetted tourist hotels varies each year, depending on the industry’s performance that year. Historically, the F1 hotel cess collected has averaged about $13 million each year. The cess collected goes to STB and supplements the Tourism Development Fund to support the costs of the F1 project.
Over the years, Government agencies have worked closely with the race promoter and affected stakeholders to improve the race execution. For instance, we have halved the number of days for road closures from 12 days when we first started in 2008 to six days in 2017. The opening of the Circle Line and Downtown Line stations also increased accessibility to the race vicinity during the F1 period.
To help tourism stakeholders, including retailers and food and beverage (F&B) outlets, capitalise on the buzz created by the F1 race each year, STB works closely with them to launch the Grand Prix Season Singapore (GPSS). This is a season of lifestyle events complementing the race experience. Businesses have also used GPSS as an opportunity to innovate and testbed new commercial concepts.
Beyond F1, we started the Kickstart Fund, with a budget of $10 million, to encourage more ground-up initiatives from the industry to try out innovative event concepts. For instance, the Fund has helped to launch new events, such as the Spartan Race and Singapore Cocktail Festival. We hope to collaborate with the industry to support more events in the coming years. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Chee Hong Tat.] (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; 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":"Customs (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Second Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong):\tMr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The purpose of the Customs Act is to enable Singapore Customs, or Customs in short, to effectively carry out its mandate of trade facilitation and revenue enforcement. The Ministry of Finance and Customs regularly review the Customs Act to ensure that the Act remains up to date and in line with policy intent. The Customs Act was last amended in 2012. Since then, we have carried out another review, and the Customs (Amendment) Bill 2018, or the Bill in short, aims to support policy changes on fuel taxes, improve Customs’ operational efficiency, and provide legal clarity on current policies. A public consultation exercise on the draft Bill was held from 9 May to 5 June last year. The Ministry of Finance (MOF) and Customs have published a summary of comments received and our responses.
Mr Speaker, let me now take Members through the key amendments in the Bill.
The first set of amendments seeks to support policy changes on fuel taxes. Diesel taxes were restructured in Budget 2017, with the introduction of a volume-based duty on automotive diesel, industrial diesel, and the diesel component in biodiesel. At the same time, the existing lump sum special tax on diesel vehicles was reduced. The shift from a lump sum tax to a usage-based tax was to incentivise users to reduce diesel consumption.
We have three amendments in the Bill to support these tax changes.
First, we will broaden the definition of “motor fuel” in the Customs Act to include diesel and any fuel that may be used to power a means of transport. The Customs Act empowers Customs to enforce revenue collection and customs laws relating to motor fuels that attract duties. For instance, by law, Singapore-registered vehicles are required to have a minimum amount of motor fuel – three quarters of the tank – when leaving Singapore at land checkpoints. This is to prevent drivers from evading payment of Singapore’s fuel duties.
However, the current definition of \"motor fuel\", which these laws rely on, only includes petrol and compressed natural gas (CNG), but not diesel. With the introduction of volume-based duty on diesel, there is a need to include diesel in the definition, so that Customs can enforce the relevant rules. So, we have broadened the definition of “motor fuel” to include any fuel, including diesel, that can power a means of transport. Clause 3 provides for these changes.
Second, we will amend the Act to clarify the processes by which Customs will deal with changes to the rate of special taxes for motor vehicles. Currently, special tax is levied on diesel vehicles and is paid together with the tax for the vehicle licence for either a six-month or a 12-month period. The Customs Act does not state what happens when the special tax rate is changed in the middle of a period that has already been paid for, or the \"current period\" for short. For instance, the special tax rate was reduced at Budget 2017, on 20 February 2017, which would have been during the current period for some vehicle owners.
So, we need to amend the Act to provide greater clarity going forward on how the amount of special tax payable should be calculated when there are different special tax rates within the current period. In particular, the amendment will allow the Minister for Finance to prescribe the effective date of the new rate and the treatment for overpayment or underpayment of special tax. For example, the Minister can prescribe that any overpayment can be offset against any other tax, levy or fee payable under the Road Traffic Act in respect of the motor vehicle. Clauses 7 to 9 provide for these changes.
Third, we will give authorised Customs officers the discretion to let vehicles which have flouted the three-quarter tank rule, but cannot U-turn at the checkpoint, to leave Singapore after imposing the fine. I spoke earlier about the minimum motor fuel requirement for motorists departing Singapore. Currently, motorists caught flouting this rule at the land checkpoints will be fined and must U-turn to top up their fuel tank before they can leave Singapore. With the expanded definition of \"motor fuel\" mentioned earlier, the rule will now apply to diesel-powered vehicles.
But it may not always be possible for larger diesel-powered vehicles like coaches and trucks, to U-turn if they are caught, due to infrastructure constraints. So, for practical reasons, such motorists have to be allowed to leave Singapore while still being held liable for trying to leave Singapore without the required minimum amount of fuel. Clause 15 gives Customs officers the discretion to allow this. Customs will explore imposing a comparatively higher penalty for such vehicles, to maintain parity with vehicles made to U-turn.
Next, I move to the second set of amendments which seeks to improve Customs' efficiency in carrying out its daily operations, and there are three key changes.
First, we will extend the time limit for the recovery of short-levied and erroneously refunded duties, taxes or other charges from one to five years, and remove the time limit for the recovery of duties due to fraud and willful default.
Short-levied and erroneously refunded duties can arise due to incorrect calculations or deliberate attempts to defraud Customs on the duties and GST payable. Some cases of underpaid duties and GST may only be uncovered more than one year after the event of underpayment.
So, this change will give Customs greater operational flexibility to seek the recovery of short-levied and erroneously refunded duties and GST. The revised time limit will be aligned with the requirement for companies to keep records for five years under the Income Tax Act and GST Act, and clause 11 provides for the changes.
Second, we will extend the time limit for submission of claims for refund of duties, taxes or other charges overpaid or erroneously collected from one to five years.
Currently, Customs is unable to accept claims for refunds made more than one year after overpayment or erroneous collection. Such situations can arise when traders, after tallying their accounts at the end of their financial year or through audits, realise that they have overpaid duties and GST on their import permit applications made more than a year ago.
So, this amendment will give more time for traders to discover any errors in payment to Customs. And this will also align the time allowance in the Customs Act with that of the GST Act. So, clause 10 provides for this change.
Third, we will allow the Director-General of Customs (DG-Customs) to delegate powers granted to him by the Act, without needing to seek the approval of the Minister for Finance. Currently, approval from the Minister for Finance is required for DG-Customs to delegate any of his powers to senior officers of Customs. Some powers, such as waiver of payment and granting of licences, may need to be delegated from time to time to ensure efficiency of Customs’ daily operations. These powers tend to be operational in nature. And this amendment will streamline the administrative processes for such delegation.
This particular amendment also aligns the administration of the Customs Act with that of the GST Act and the Regulation of Imports and Exports Act (RIEA). These latter two Acts empower the Comptroller and DG-Customs to delegate powers without needing to seek the approval of the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Trade and Industry respectively. So, clause 4 provides for the changes.
Next, I turn to the amendments to provide legal clarity to current policies and I would like to highlight two key changes pertaining to collection and reimposition of duties.
First, we will provide clarity that there will be collection of customs or excise duties and import GST on goods used or consumed in a Free Trade Zone (FTZ).
Duties and import GST are imposed on goods imported into Singapore for use and consumption. On the other hand, transshipment goods stored in the FTZs, which are designated areas at the ports and airport that facilitate entrepot trade, enjoy temporary suspension of customs or excise duties and import GST, as they are not meant for usage and consumption here.
However, if these goods are used or consumed within the FTZs, then the suspension ceases to apply.
Currently, the Act is worded generally to impose liability for duties and GST for any goods in FTZs that cannot be accounted for. This change will provide legal clarity that goods used or consumed within FTZs are liable for duties and GST, in line with the existing policy intent. And clause 14 provides for the change.
Second, Customs will be given the flexibility to reimpose duties on goods which cease to be duty-exempt, based on the value at the time of importation or at the time the exemptions cease.
Certain goods may enjoy duty exemption upon import, and then be liable for duties later on when the conditions of the exemption no longer hold. One example is that embassies are entitled to duty exemption when they import motor vehicles for official use. But if the motor vehicle is subsequently sold to a person that is not eligible for the exemption, the duty exemption will cease to apply, and duties will need to be levied and paid on the motor vehicle.
Customs currently reimposes duties on a good based on its value either at importation, or when the exemption expires, depending on the circumstances. This is determined by Customs based on factors, such as the nature of the good and the conditions of the exemption.
So, this amendment will provide clarity in the Act that Customs has the flexibility to reimpose duties based on the value either at importation, or when the exemption ceases. And clause 6 provides for the change.
In summary, Mr Speaker, the Bill will help Customs to implement the recent tax changes on diesel and enable Customs to carry out its day-to-day operations more efficiently. The Bill will also provide legal clarity to current policies. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Lawrence Wong.] (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":"Rearrangement of Business","subTitle":"Suspension of Standing Orders","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Government Whip (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That, the proceedings on item 4 on the Order Paper for today be taken now.\"
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That, the proceedings on item 4 on the Order Paper for today be taken now.\" – [Mr Chan Chun Sing.] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Intellectual Property (Border Enforcement) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) (for the Minister for Law): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, “That the Bill be now read a Second time.”
Under our current Intellectual Property (IP) border enforcement regime, Singapore Customs (Customs) can seize or detain goods that are suspected to have infringed trademarks or copyright at the borders in two different situations.
First, upon the IP right holders' request, that is, right holder-initiated actions, for imports only.
Second, by ex officio action, that is, Customs acting on their own volition, for imports, exports and goods in transit with local consignees.
Following the conclusion of the European Union-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (EUSFTA) in 2014, Singapore agreed to add new border enforcement measures to deal with goods infringing various IP rights. As such, amendments are required for our Copyright Act, Trade Marks Act, Registered Designs Act and Geographical Indications Act, collectively known in this speech as the \"various IP Acts\". The border enforcement measures for geographical indications have already been introduced in the new Geographical Indications Act (GI Act), that was passed in April 2014 but not yet brought into force.
This Bill now seeks to amend the Copyright Act, Trade Marks Act and the Registered Designs Act to implement our EUSFTA obligations as follows.
Firstly, to enhance existing border enforcement measures in the Copyright Act and Trade Marks Act; and second, to establish a new border enforcement regime in the Registered Designs Act.
Next, the Bill will provide new powers for Customs to obtain and provide information relating to the goods they seized or detained to facilitate the taking of infringement action.
In addition, this Bill will standardise and clarify the terms and provisions relating to border enforcement across the various IP Acts.
I will now take the House through the main features of this Bill.
First, the Bill will implement our EUSFTA obligations to enhance existing border enforcement measures in the Copyright Act and Trade Marks Act and establish a border enforcement regime in the Registered Designs Act.
Currently, a right-holder-initiated action under the Copyright Act and Trade Marks Act is limited to only suspected infringing goods which are to be imported into Singapore. No such equivalent power is found in the Registered Designs Act currently.
The amendments in the Bill will now allow Customs to seize, on the right holders’ request, (a) goods which are suspected of infringing copyright or trade marks that are to be exported, and (b) goods which are suspected of infringing registered designs that are imported or are to be exported.
These measures are set out in Part 1, Division 2; Part 3; and Part 4, Division 2 of the Bill.
An owner of a valid copyright or registered trade mark in Singapore, or a licensee with the power to give a notice of seizure, will be able to avail themselves of these new measures. The same applies to an owner or an exclusive licensee of a registered design.
Similar safeguards under the existing border enforcement regime will also apply to ensure that these new measures are not abused. For example, right holders must provide a security deposit if they would like Customs to seize certain suspected infringing goods. Also, a person aggrieved by the seizure can apply to the Court for compensation, if the right holder fails to take infringement action after filing a request for seizure.
The second set of new features are powers for Customs to detain and provide rights holders with information relating to the infringing goods seized or detained by Customs. These powers will be provided for in the various IP Acts, and are set out in clauses 4, 7, 25, 39, 47, 53, 57, 60 and 78 of the Bill. They are intended to complement Customs’ border enforcement duty and facilitate right holders in instituting IP infringement proceedings.
The power to provide information to right holders will be a narrow exception to Customs’ obligations to keep any information obtained under the Customs Act and the Regulation of Imports and Exports Act confidential.
The information to be provided will be limited to the names and contact details of any person connected with the import or export of the seized or detained goods that are necessary for instituting IP infringement proceedings.
In order to guard against right holders abusing this power to “fish” for information, the information sought will only be provided after Customs have seized the infringing goods, and the IP rights holders have provided Customs with a security deposit and supporting documents evidencing their IP rights.
The third feature of the Bill involves standardising and clarifying the terms and provisions relating to border enforcement across the various IP Acts. For example, clauses 25, 47 and 78 of the Bill will clarify the processes for ex officio seizures in the Copyright Act, the Geographical Indications Act and the Trade Marks Act. These changes will streamline Customs' border enforcement operations and procedures.
The changes sought under this Bill, together with the enhanced border enforcement measures under the GI Act passed already in April 2014, will be implemented in three stages to meet Customs’ operational needs, provide businesses with sufficient time to adapt and also correspond with our obligations under the EUSFTA, which is in the process of being ratified. Sufficient notice will be provided before the commencement of the relevant provisions.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, these amendments will ensure Singapore’s obligations under the EUSFTA are implemented and also cement and enhance Singapore’s reputation as a jurisdiction that respects IP. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill because it strengthens our border enforcement of IP rights and honours our international obligations.
IP rights are important. They promote creativity, innovation. The four statutory IP rights regimes, which this Bill seeks to amend, relate to copyright, registered design, geographical indicators, and trade marks. At this point, I should declare that I am a practising lawyer whose practice includes IP Law.
IP rights allow branding and quality assurance through exclusive access to goodwill of products from a particular brand or a place of origin. They also allow “creators” to support themselves through their creations by recognising and protecting the property within their creations. In fact, the Copyright (Gramophone Records and Government Broadcasting) Act 1968 was enacted to “deal with the increase in the importation and sale of pirated records of copyrighted musical works”, which “threatened the livelihood of local artistes, composers and musicians”. Therefore, protecting IP rights prevents theft – not of tangible goods per se, but of an intangible good. The protection of IP provides an incentive for and rewards creativity and innovation, extending even to software creation! By promoting innovation and art, society benefits through the protection of IP rights.
How this Bill strengthens the enforcement of IP rights is through the framework of detention, further supported by easier access to information.
Detention is important because the protection of the intangible IP right rests in the tangible goods which bear the IP right. This Bill expands the scope of the power to detain to include, not just the import, but also the export of copies of alleged infringing goods. Additionally, detention can be initiated by the IP right holder and not just a state official.
However, the consequences of a wrongful detention of allegedly infringed goods can be very costly and disruptive to the importer and exporter. To prevent abuse, a balance has been struck by getting the requestor to pay compensation for loss or damage as a result of the seizure if the requestor requests to detain the suspected infringing goods but did not institute any infringement action in the end.
While the test is not new, for example, section 140IA of the current Copyright Act, I would like to ask how effective has this test been in striking the balance between swift and effective action and deterring potential misuse of power.
I would also like to seek more clarity on the difference between what the Director-General can prescribe and what the Minister can make rules on. This is in relation to the notice to request for detention of suspected infringing goods. The Director-General is to determine the form of the notice, which is supported by such documents and information as the Director-General may require, yet the Minister is to make rules for the manner in which notices are to be given and for the giving of information and evidence to the Director-General.
Additionally, the explanatory statement says that clause 35 enables forms of notices “to be determined by the Director-General (instead of being prescribed in the rules).”
Because of the distinction drawn by the High Court in the case of Cheong Seok Leng, between actions that have a legislative effect and those that are executive or administrative, rule prescription and executive decisions do not seem interchangeable. Therefore, I would like to seek clarification from the good Senior Minister of State the respective roles of the Minister and Director-General in this area.
This power to detain is supported by making it easier for the authorities and the IP right holder to get certain information. As the phrase “any information or document that the officer considers relevant for”… “statistical or research purposes” is quite broad, I would like to seek, therefore, clarification on what sort of document, information, research or statistic is envisioned behind the grounds to get such information.
This broad access to information is augmented by preserving the privilege against self-incrimination. I am referring to the new section 140EA(5) of the Copyright Act as inserted by clause 4 and other similar clauses. I have two questions regarding this. One, would a bare assertion that the information would expose a person to criminal liability be sufficient to trigger this provision; and two, the provision says that the document or information is not admissible in evidence against the person in criminal proceedings except under some circumstances, for example, where false information was provided. But, for example, in a normal criminal trial, if the accused chooses to give evidence, he would generally need to answer any question or risk having an adverse inference drawn against him. Therefore, to what extent is this provision meant to operate?
This Bill, which implements our obligations under the EUSFTA, will be implemented in phases, as indicated in the press release and reflected in the Bill. According to the press release, this is “in accordance with Singapore’s EUSFTA obligations and Customs’ operational needs.” Therefore, I would like to ask, what is being done to ensure that we have sufficient operational resources such that the relevant officers will have the necessary knowledge or expertise to be able to discern what information is necessary “to enable any action to be taken in relation to future shipments of goods” and whether information sought is, indeed, “necessary” to institute infringement action?
This Bill also seeks to rationalise border enforcement procedure across the four statutory regimes under the Copyright Act, Trade Marks Act, Registered Designs Act, and Geographical Indicators Act 2014. In relation to this, why is it that the distinction between goods in transit that are consigned and those that are not consigned is not drawn for the Geographical Indicators Act and Registered Designs Act at clauses 47 and 53 but are drawn for the Copyright Act and Trade Marks Act at clauses 7, 25, 60 and 78?
Because costs involved in exports and imports have tended to decrease and exported and imported goods have become more widely available, this Bill plays an important role in enhancing our border enforcement of intellectual property.
Besides enhancing our border enforcement of IP rights, this Bill helps us honour our obligations under EUSFTA.
Furthermore, international agreements are particularly important in IP law because of the principle of territoriality which states that “IP rights granted and recognised in one country are protected within the territory of that country only.” In an increasingly interconnected world and globalised market, the importance of international agreements is heightened further.
Therefore, Mr Speaker, because of these two broad reasons, first, this Bill honours our international obligations, and second, it strengthens the enforcement of IP rights across our border, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Azmoon Ahmad.
Mr Azmoon Ahmad (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, the IP (Border Enhancement) Bill, which seeks to address and enhance our position as a champion of IP rights and our tough stand on IP infringement, has my full support. This Bill, which also runs in tandem with the Copyright Act, the Geographical Indications Act 2014, the Registered Design Act and the Trade Marks Act, is timely and in accordance with our obligation under the proposed FTA between the EU and Singapore.
A report made in September 2017 by the International Property Rights Index, which ranks countries according to their protection of physical and IP rights, has placed Singapore as the best in the region for protection of IP rights.
An article reported by Forbes last year, stated that numerous global studies revealed that countries with the strongest IP protections have the tendency to employ more full-time researchers, leading to greater investments in research and development (R&D) and Foreign Direct Investment. This results in large portions of their workforce in higher paying IP-intensive organisations and industries. Thus, inventions, artistic works and brands are meaningless and determined to have no value without IP rights. It is estimated that income per capita to be 13 times greater in countries with strong IP protections than those with weak protections.
With no natural resources, and human capital as its only offering, it is by no chance that Singapore will have to emerge as a champion of IP rights, competing with other developed economies.
While I support the Bill, I would like to highlight the following concerns with regard to the Enhanced Border Enforcement Measures under EUSFTA.
Pursuant to the EUSFTA obligation, it is my understating that upon request by the IP Right (IPR) holder, it is allowed to seize suspected infringing goods that are exported under the Copyright Act and Trade Marks Act, as stipulated in clause 12 section 140B of the Copyright Act and clause 65 section 82 of Trade Marks Act.
Now, my questions: how does one qualify a suspected infringing goods as genuine? What would happen if suspected infringing goods are proven to be not correct? For the enforcement under these clauses, when can we expect that these are to be implemented and enforced?
Similar to the above, the seizure of suspected infringing goods that are imported or to be exported under the Registered Design Act, when is this expected to be implemented and enforced? Will it be on a different timeline and schedule? Or will it be done at the same time as the above?
Moving ahead, this Bill is also intended to allow Customs to provide IPR holders with names and contact details of any persons connected with the import or export of the seized goods in facilitating IPR infringement proceedings. These are stipulated in clause 4 of new sub-section inserts 140EA, 140EB, 140LD and 140LE of the Copyright Act.
While I can see the rationale and merits to these changes, thus speeding up and facilitating fast and efficient IPR infringement proceedings, nevertheless, I have the following queries: (a) why was this not implemented before? Was there a specific reason that this has to be changed and implemented now? (c) Is this in any way related to EUSFTA? (d) Even if the information can be provided to the IPR holder after the seizure of infringed goods and security deposit has been placed and supporting documents are submitted, how do we ensure that such information is well-protected and does not fall into the wrong recipient? (e) Lastly, if there is a lapse in (d), is there any clause that states the course of action?
Mr Speaker, the right to IP is as valuable as any physical property. Protection of IP rights must be taken with utmost importance and its infringement must be severely and appropriately dealt with. The IP (Border Enforcement) Bill is a step forward in the right direction. I truly believe that not only will it re-enforce our position as a champion of IP rights; it will also bring us as one of the many international IP hubs.
With that, Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the comments and suggestions made, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef.
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of this Bill. Being a country at the crossroads of the world, between east and west, north and south, as well as one of the busiest travel hubs, we must certainly put in the effort to prevent and reduce breaches in IP and our Border Enforcements. Officers and staff have to be highly vigilant, observant and astute, knowing the high numbers they have to deal with.
It is critical for our Customs officers to work together with IP rights holders to protect their IPs, to conduct product training session and how to differentiate between genuine and counterfeit products. These differences can be so subtle, so easily missed if not handled with a high index of suspicion. How often and how extensive are the training provided for our officers? The range of products is tremendous and ever increasing, thus the need for extremely robust and updated training and knowledge. How do we cope with this?
How do our officers assess goods and products that are in transit? Are there certain guidelines to ensure these are not missed or overlooked?
Are there border measures in Singapore for parallel imported goods? Or goods carried in travellers’ private luggages?
Once the goods and products that are counterfeit are confiscated, are they all destroyed? Will there be a conduct of a fact-finding mission or an evidence-based assessment? Are our laws and policy in this aspect well aligned with other jurisdictions for some degree of uniformity? Otherwise, there may be contrasting issues that arise and can be challenging to resolve, I feel. Also, as it is being implemented in phases, how is the practical execution going to be done and what is the proposed timeline?
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I welcome this move to standardise border enforcement provisions across our IP Acts. These provisions allow information and documents possessed by the Government to be shared, upon request, for private purposes, such as research, or to institute infringement proceedings.
I would like to raise questions and comments on amendments relating to requests for information, retention of allegedly infringing goods and implementation of Singapore's EUSFTA obligations.
Amendments to the four IP Acts provide authorised officers or senior authorised officers the power to require a person to provide information or documents for three purposes. One, to satisfy a request for information; two, to enable actions to be taken relating to future shipments of goods; and three, for statistical or research purposes.
I would like to ask, at the point of request, will the person whose information or document is being requested, be informed about the basis for this request?
Furthermore, will the period which the information or document be retained be limited to the purpose for which it has been requested?
As for amendments allowing officers the power to require a person to provide information or documents for a statistical or research purpose, can the Senior Minister of State clarify whose statistical or research purposes these provisions refer to?
What safeguards are there to ensure that the information and documents will be kept confidential during the research process?
In addition, amendments to the four IP Acts provide officers powers to require a person to provide information or documents to fulfil future requests for the information to institute infringement actions. How would the officer determine what information or documents might be required for the hypothetical proceedings? Would this lead to indiscriminate seizure of information or documents?
Also, how long would these information or documents be retained for? Would the retention period be subject to the limitation period of potential claims? When the information or documents are obtained, would the person be informed of the possibility that their information would be provided to the copyright holder for the purposes of instituting private proceedings?
Next, I understand that the amendments also allow the Director-General to provide a person information for instituting an infringement action. The language of the provision which allows the provision of information relating to “any person connected” with the import or export of the seized goods is very broad. What are the categories of connected persons intended to be covered by this provision? Is there a limit again to the period that a person may request for the information to institute an infringement action? Would the person whose information is being provided be informed of the fact that the information has been shared?
The IP Students’ Association (IPSA), comprising law students in both the National University of Singapore and Singapore Management University, raised a number of concerns on the retention of allegedly infringing goods after their seizure and detention.
Currently, the Copyright and Trade Mark Acts simply states that the Director-General will specify a retention period for the goods, after which, it will be returned to the owner unless the objector files an infringement suit.
Can the Senior Minister of State clarify the retention period for alleged infringing goods if an infringement suit is started? Will they only be released after the decision of the infringement suit is out? In the meantime, what remedy does the importer or exporter have?
Even if the goods are released to the original owner, pending the decision of the infringement suit, does this confer an automatic injunction on the original owner to sell the goods within Singapore? If yes, does this injunction extend to being prohibited from further exporting the returned goods to another country and selling them there? This could cause potential losses to the importer or exporter that may not be sufficiently remedied through the provision of security or damages.
One recommendation suggested by IPSA would be to have a review process called an “Indication” where a committee or the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) tribunal has an expedited process for evaluating if the goods are, indeed, infringing. They can issue an “Indication” which operates as a non-binding preliminary opinion on the matter. This can inform the objector or IPR holder and the alleged infringer on how they should choose to resolve the matter. Has the Ministry looked into setting up a similar review process?
I also have a number of clarifications to make on the implementation of Singapore's EUSFTA obligations. These were similarly highlighted to me by IPSA.
First, Article 10.50 of EUSFTA requires customs authorities to adopt a range of approaches to “facilitate the effective enforcement of IP rights”. Under EUSFTA, this includes patents. Given that one of the purposes of the Bill is to “standardise the terms and provisions relating to border enforcement across the IP Acts”, why are patents not afforded the same enforcement processes as copyrights, geographical indications, trademarks and registered designs? Further, can the Minister clarify why ex officio actions are not provided for the imports and exports of registered designs?
Next, there is a minor inconsistency between the definition of “counterfeit trademark goods” under EUSFTA and the Bill. Under the EUSFTA Article 10.48(b), it is defined as goods bearing a trademark that is identical or “which cannot be distinguished in its essential aspects”. In contrast, it is defined under section 3(5) and (6) of the Trade Marks Act as a good that has a sign that is identical or is so identical “as to be calculated to deceive”. This requirement of an intention to deceive is noticeably lacking from the EUSFTA’s definition, which, therefore, appears to be slightly broader than that under the Trade Marks Act. Can the Senior Minister of State clarify the rationale for deviating from the EUSFTA definition of counterfeit trademark goods?
Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai:\tMr Speaker, I thank the Members who have spoken and for their full support of the Bill. I also appreciate the IPSA's inputs to Mr Louis Ng and I thank them for their contributions as well.
Members have raised several points for clarification and I would break them down into four main areas. They are, firstly, the scope of the Bill; secondly, the border enforcement process and how it compares with other jurisdictions; and thirdly, Customs’ powers to request and provide information or documents; and finally, the timeline for implementing the Bill. I will address them in turn.
In relation to the scope of the Bill, Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef and Mr Christopher de Souza enquired specifically about goods in transit. Goods in transit are, by definition, here for only a short duration of time. This makes any border enforcement action challenging. In addition, enforcement actions have to be balanced against the need to maintain our port efficiency. So, generally, for goods in transit, Customs officers do not detain the goods. However, Customs officers will still perform the usual checks, and when they detect suspected IP infringing goods, they will convey the information to their counterparts in the destination country. This then allows for effective enforcement to be undertaken in the destination country.
However, as part of our existing international obligations, for suspected copyright infringing copies or counterfeit trade mark goods in transit which are consigned to a local party, Customs officers have the power to initiate ex officio action to detain such goods, because there is a local consignee. Therefore, to address Mr Christopher de Souza's question, there are no similar international obligations for geographical indications and registered designs, and we, therefore, make no distinction between goods in transit with a local consignee and goods in transit without a local consignee for geographical indications and registered designs. To aid Customs, IPR holders can provide information on shipments that are suspected to contain IP infringing goods.
Mr Louis Ng also asked why the Bill does not implement border enforcement measures for patents and ex officio action for registered designs, as part of our obligations under Article 10.50 of EUSFTA. Article 10.50 provides that \"the customs authorities shall adopt a range of approaches to identify shipments containing counterfeit trademark goods, pirated copyright goods, pirated design goods, and counterfeit geographical indication goods\". There is no obligation, under this Article, to implement border enforcement measures for patent infringing goods.
In addition, it is also impracticable to do so because the detection of a suspected patent infringing good generally requires a higher level of specialised technical knowledge and expertise. Patents are, therefore, unlike copyright, trade marks, registered designs and geographical indications, where a visual inspection can usually be used to detect the IP infringement. Given the high level of specialisation required to detect patent infringing goods, it is not feasible for Customs officers to make such assessments.
There are also no international obligations to take ex officio action in relation to registered designs. Unlike copyright or trade marks, it is difficult for our Customs officers to identify whether particular goods infringe a registered design without any information. However, where a registered design owner files a formal request for seizure with specific information to identify a shipment with goods suspected of infringing registered designs, for example, when the shipment will reach Singapore, our Customs officers can assist in detecting and seizing such goods. I hope that addresses Mr Louis Ng’s queries.
Mr Louis Ng also sought clarification on the rationale for the difference between the terminology and definition of \"counterfeit trademark goods\" between the EUSFTA definitions and section 3(5) and 3(6) of the Trade Marks Act. The definitions in both provisions are substantially similar and Mr Louis Ng may also know that the definition was put into force in the Trade Marks Act in 2004, which is about 14 to 15 years ago, and we have kept that definition throughout. And the intention is to remain with that definition, but the level of obligation would not deviate substantially or materially from the EUSFTA definition.
Assoc Prof Fatimah asked whether our border enforcement regime covers parallel imports and goods in travellers' personal luggage. Parallel imports are not counterfeit goods and are, therefore, not considered infringing under our IP laws. Therefore, in such a situation, they would not be detained. However, goods in travellers’ personal luggage may be detained if they are suspected of infringing IP rights and right holders are prepared to take action. This has been the case even before these amendments apply.
I will now turn to questions on our border enforcement processes. By definition, in enhancing the border enforcement provisions through this Bill, it necessarily comes with enhanced powers and with some additional degree of intervention. With that, Members have raised several queries on the processes involved where goods are seized, for example, the period of detention, whether they will be destroyed, how a defendant can show that the goods are genuine, and the remedies available where the goods were wrongly detained and found to be non-infringing. I think the majority of the Members raised questions around these few issues.
Let me, first, be clear that Customs are not allowed, without more, to destroy the goods which are seized. The various IP Acts all contain a framework to ensure that there is due process in the manner in which seized goods are dealt with, and I will now briefly describe this framework. Upon seizure, Customs will notify IPR holders to verify the authenticity of the goods and commence civil actions for IP infringement against relevant parties within the period specified in Customs’ notice, or any extended period, as may be so notified. The status of the goods will then depend on whether an infringement action is commenced.
Where an infringement action is commenced, the importer or exporter will be notified by the IPR holder if he is the defendant to the action and have the opportunity to defend himself in Court. Therefore, to address Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef's query, the Court process will entail fact-finding and an evidence-based assessment, in relation to the relevant copyright and IP provisions that are currently in place. Within three weeks of instituting an infringement action, IPR holders will need to obtain a Court order to prevent the release of the goods. So, there is a three-week timeline. Whether such a Court order is granted or not, will be decided by the Court on a case-by-case basis, applying again, the relevant IP provisions and laws.
Where there is no such Court order, the goods shall be released. Whether an individual is liable for IP infringement or not will be determined by the Courts based on the facts of a particular case. Where the infringement action succeeds, the Court may then, as part of the order, also order that the goods to be destroyed. However, where the infringement action fails or is dismissed or is discontinued, the Court may order that the IPR holder pay compensation to the defendant. The goods will then be returned to the importer or exporter as the case may be.
In a situation where no infringement action is taken, any person aggrieved by the seizure may then apply to the Court for an order of compensation for any loss or damage suffered as a result of the seizure. Mr Christopher de Souza raised a question on that, and quite rightly so. The legal regime does protect the person in such a situation where no subsequent follow-up infringement action is then taken by the right holder. The Court may order compensation in such amount as the Court thinks fit. The goods will then be released to the importer or exporter.
Mr Christopher de Souza asked: \"how effective [the mechanism] has been in striking the balance between swift and effective action in deterring potential misuse of power”. I think it is a question quite rightly asked. We do not track the requests for compensation via civil actions under this mechanism, but the Member will be assured to know that, to date, we have not received any complaints of IPR holders abusing our border enforcement measures, given this mechanism and the other safeguards, such as the need to provide a security deposit, before the goods are seized.
I now move on to the proposed expedited review process or indication that Mr Louis Ng and, through the help of IPSA, has raised. The proposal is a thoughtful one, and one that we can consider further. But so far, the evidence we have suggests that IPR holders are already capable themselves of making a quick assessment on whether there are goods which have infringed their IP rights or not. In fact, it will be in their interest to do so, because if someone is peddling infringing goods, then it will be in the right holder's interest to move quickly and act swiftly.
Where an expedited decision is required, parties can seek a summary judgment from the Court. That is also a procedure they can avail themselves of, setting out their grounds. Nonetheless, we welcome IPSA to provide us with more details, as I said earlier about this proposal, which we can then consider further.
I will now turn to deal with Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef's question on the training that is provided for our Customs officers to identify counterfeit goods. Presently, Customs has already worked with a number of brand owners to conduct training for officers from Customs, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) and the Singapore Police Force IP Rights Branch to look at, evaluate and discern between genuine and counterfeit goods. It is not always easy, but it is something that we work very closely with the brand owners. Upon detecting suspected counterfeit goods, our officers will also engage the IPR holders to seek verification of the authenticity of the goods.
Mr Christopher de Souza sought clarification on the difference between what the Director-General of Customs can prescribe and what the Minister can make rules on, particularly in relation to the notice to request for detention of suspected infringing goods. The clauses 12, 25, 35, 47, 53, 65 and 78 of the Bill grant the Minister the power to make the necessary rules and regulations to provide for, amongst others, the manner in which notices have been given, and for the giving of information and evidence, where the rules and regulations have a legislative effect. I know that Mr Christopher de Souza drew our attention to the case in question but, in this case, the Customs Director-General is given the discretion to determine the specific form of notice – in other words, what exactly is the form he needs, what are the documents or information that is required in that particular case – having had the powers already prescribed. These are administrative in nature and, therefore, need not be legislated by the Minister, as the case is generally for forms that are administered by public agencies. These are forms which will be readily accessible to the public on the website of Customs.
I turn now to address Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef's query on whether our border enforcement laws and policy align with those of other jurisdictions. The short answer is, generally yes, although inevitable differences will exist from one country to another, depending on the local context and flavour. Singapore is also part of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement, where all WTO countries are required to put in place border enforcement measures. These measures allow IPR holders to request Customs officers to seize suspected copyright and trade mark infringing goods that are imported into the country.
Many other established jurisdictions, such as the US, the EU and Australia also provide further border protection mechanisms which extend to ex officio action and other types of IP infringements. Some of these jurisdictions also cover goods which are to be exported as well, as we are now seeking to do.
Finally, let me move on to address the Members' queries relating to Customs' powers to request and provide information under the various IP Acts. Customs has been and will continue to handle sensitive commercial data obtained from traders. They are empowered to disclose such information as necessary to IPR holders or use such information internally for border enforcement purpose. These powers are given to Customs so as to facilitate the administration of justice and uphold our reputation of having a strong IP enforcement regime.
Nonetheless, let me reassure traders at the outset that confidentiality of their data will be respected. Their data will remain confidential and will be used or provided only under limited circumstances in relation to the border enforcement matters as legislated.
I wish to now address the Members' queries on this matter in some greater detail: first, on the rationale for introducing these powers; and second, Customs' power to request information; and finally, Customs' power to provide the information.
The Member, Mr Azmoon Ahmad, asked for clarification on why the new powers for requesting and providing information are being implemented now and were not implemented before and whether they are related to the EUSFTA. These new powers are not implemented pursuant to our EUSFTA obligations but are intended to complement Customs’ border enforcement duties. In the course of Customs’ border enforcement work over the years, this was one area that was identified that needed some streamlining and which they felt would facilitate the work that it had, with these adjunct and peripheral powers. The need to amend our legislation to fulfil our EUSFTA obligations now gives us the opportunity to do so. And I would also add that the EUSFTA, whilst concluded in 2014, was a subject of some challenge. It was only in the course of last year, 2017, that the EU Court of Justice pronounced that the EU entering into it was competent to do so and was able to proceed with it, and hence, we waited till this time to introduce our Bill.
Various Members have asked about the scope of Customs' power to request information, the relevant safeguards, and the privilege against self-incrimination in relation to the requested information. To be clear, Customs will only be empowered to ask for any information that is relevant to border enforcement for the three defined purposes, and they are very clear. First, to provide IPR holders with the name and contact details of any person connected with the import or export of the seized goods, where necessary, for instituting infringement actions. We will regard that as quite basic information before such actions can be instituted. Second, to facilitate enforcement against future shipments of goods; and third, for other statistical or research purposes relating to border enforcement.
Various Members have raised this point about information being requested. What does it entail? It would more likely than not in most cases include commercial invoices, packing lists, bill of lading, airwaybill or shippers’ details and so on. In other words, information that will allow one to identify the goods, identify the source and the shipper and perhaps its destination. These are all useful for identifying the relevant parties involved in suspected IP infringement and the activities around the IP infringement.
As for the type of information that can be requested for “statistical or research purposes”, this refers to information that can help Customs build profiles of high-risk shipments and also enhance their capabilities to anticipate and target shipments which tend to be involved in shipping IP infringing goods. These will be details, such as the names and contact details of the importer or exporter, and the description of goods and so on. In other words, to add to the Customs database, to ensure that, in future, these mechanisms become more and more sophisticated and Customs can be better equipped to anticipate and also target these specific shipments in question.
Mr Louis Ng and Mr Christopher de Souza also asked what is being done to ensure that Customs are able to determine or discern the necessary information that should be requested for the three stated purposes. Customs will conduct relevant training for their officers. This is also a new area in terms of the enforcement and so training will be done for the officers. They will seek to put in place a standard operating procedure as far as possible to make the guidance available to Customs officers to guide them in terms of seeking the relevant type of information and to be more discerning and to be able to raise the right questions and focus their minds on the right issues and the right observations in relation to the three stated purposes.
Mr Louis Ng also asked whether there is a limited period that Customs will retain the information for, and what this period will be. Customs will retain the information to the extent the purpose for collecting the information remains relevant and also, generally, in accordance with the Government’s record-retention policy, depending on the platform on which the information is received.
Next, I will address the concerns raised by Mr Louis Ng and Mr Azmoon Ahmad on the safeguards relating to the information requested by Customs.
First, a person will be informed about the purpose for Customs’ request for his information at the point of request, and not when the information is shared with an IPR holder for the purposes of instituting infringement actions.
Second, there are safeguards to ensure that the information will be kept confidential, particularly during the research process. The information must be used strictly and only for the three purposes, as explained earlier. Each request for the information and each proposed use of the information by Customs officers for research or statistical purposes will be considered carefully.
In addition, as provided in the Bill, any person who discloses or uses the information for any other purposes shall be guilty of an offence and be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $6,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both. In addition, the information disclosed to the domestic public agencies will also be governed by the Official Secrets Act.
Mr Christopher de Souza raised two questions regarding the privilege against self-incrimination that is provided in connection with the obligation to provide information as requested by Customs.
First, he asked whether a bare assertion that the information would expose a person to criminal liability will be sufficient to trigger the privilege.
The short answer is yes, even if the information may not turn out to be self-incriminating ultimately. This would, of course, also be something which the Court takes into account as may be appropriate as it would do with any proposed adverse influences to be drawn, as Mr Christopher de Souza raised.
Second, he also sought clarification on the extent to which the privilege against self-incrimination is meant to operate.
Where a person claims that his statement is self-incriminating and claims the privilege, the statement then cannot be admitted against him in criminal proceedings for any offences. The statement cannot be used at trial, whether as corroboration or for impeachment, as Mr Christopher de Souza knows. And the Prosecution's case then has to be based on other evidence.
However, where a person provides false information, that is quite a different situation. Such information may then be admissible against him in a prosecution for an offence for providing false information. It will not be justifiable to shield or protect a person from being prosecuted for providing false information as this will be entirely contrary to the interests of justice.
Next, I will clarify the points that Mr Louis Ng raised about the scope of Customs’ power to provide information. There are several points.
The first relates to the categories of persons whose names and contact details may be disclosed to IPR holders. These are persons, whom I think I referred to earlier, who are likely to be the importer, exporter, consignee or any other person involved in the shipping chain from which the IP infringing goods were seized.
The second point that Mr Louis Ng raised concerns the timeframe within which a person may request for information to institute an infringement action. There is no specific timeframe in the Act itself. But, for reasons that I have outlined earlier, it will be in the interest of the right holder to move expeditiously. That is also because there is a stipulated timeline within which he must institute infringement action in relation to the seized goods. Therefore, I think it would be expedient to seek the information within this timeline, and not outside. In this context, he has also got to do so after providing Customs with a security deposit and supporting documents evidencing their IP rights.
Finally, I wish to elaborate on the timeline for the implementation of the new border enforcement measures for copyright, trade marks and registered designs, as requested by Mr Azmoon Ahmad.
The enhanced border enforcement measures for copyright and trade marks will be effected once the EUSFTA enters into force or comes into force. As explained earlier, it has not yet come into force. So, we will have the measures coincide with that.
The new border enforcement measures for registered designs will be effected within three years after the EUSFTA enters into force. As I have explained at the outset, it gives time for businesses and people to adjust to it. And as I mentioned earlier, sufficient notice will also be provided before the commencement of the relevant provisions.
Finally, in conclusion, I wish to thank all Members who have spoken and supported the Bill. The Bill represents our commitment to honour our international obligations by strengthening our border enforcement processes and also instill in us the importance of upholding IP rights, as Mr Christopher de Souza mentioned. This is critical not only to IP but also to various aspects of business in Singapore. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai.] (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":"National Library Board (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister for Communications and Information (Mr S Iswaran): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, “That the Bill be now read a Second time.”
The National Library Board Act establishes the National Library Board (NLB) and sets out its functions and powers. The NLB Act was last amended in 2012 to incorporate the National Archives function. It allows NLB to collect and preserve the rich body of written and creative works of Singapore for posterity. These resources are widely consulted by researchers, historians, authors and curators, and frequently used for exhibitions, or cited in books and articles. Collectively, all these help to nurture Singapore’s heritage and culture, and allow current and future generations of Singaporeans to reflect on our shared history and identity.
Today, NLB has the mandate to be the repository of all library materials published in Singapore. This collection is referred to as the Legal Deposit, and it has more than one million items covering the published history of Singapore. Some interesting examples of Singapore publications in the Legal Deposit include magazines from 1961 that vividly depict Singapore life in a different era. I may give you some examples: “Malayan Penfriends” for letter writing pen pals, and “The Scooterist: the magazine for all scooter riders”. There are also publications that have endured the test of time, such as the first edition of “Her World” from 1960, and newspaper collections, such as The Straits Times that date all the way back to 1845. So, it is a rich and important collection and is part of our collective heritage.
To effectively build the Legal Deposit collection, the NLB Act stipulates that every publisher is required to deposit with NLB two copies of library materials published in Singapore. The Act also allows NLB to acquire materials which may not have been first published here but nevertheless speak about us and Singapore. However, the current legal mandate only covers materials that are in the printed form or are contained in some other physical form, such as music in a compact disc (CD).
The Act has to be updated to keep pace with technological change.
With the Internet and other advancements, there is a vast and growing amount of written and creative work that is produced, distributed and published only in the electronic form, such as e-books and e-magazines. As recently as April this year, Mediacorp announced that 8-Days and i-Weekly, its popular magazines on local entertainment, are moving to a digital-only format.
More and more content is also being generated and published only on the Internet. For instance, there were more than 179,000 websites in the .sg domain as at June this year and this number is growing rapidly. Such electronic and online materials are important resources which capture the stories and collective memories of Singapore. If such digital material is not systematically collected in a timely manner, we will lose a significant part of Singapore’s published heritage.
Therefore, we propose to amend the NLB Act to give NLB the powers to collect Singapore-related material in the electronic form. This will ensure that such material remains accessible for reference and research even after an e-magazine is no longer available in any digital repository online, or long after a once popular website ceases to operate. The systematic collection and preservation of such digital resources will allow future generations of Singaporeans to better understand and appreciate the evolution of our society.
Others have already taken steps to do this. The United Kingdom (UK), Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea are examples of countries that have amended their legislation to allow their national libraries to collect and preserve electronic materials and websites.
In preparing this Bill, NLB conducted a public consultation last year to gather feedback on the amendments. In addition, NLB consulted publishers, academics, researchers, writers, librarians and bloggers through various stakeholder engagement sessions. Overall, there was broad support for the proposed amendments.
Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now elaborate on the proposed amendments to the Act.
The first set of amendments expands the definition of \"library materials\" beyond the printed form to include electronic and online material. The definition of “library materials” in section 2 of the NLB Act will be amended to include materials in the electronic form, such as e-books. The definition of “library materials” relating to films, videos, sound recordings and other similar materials will also be broadened to include electronic forms, including streamed content.
The expanded definition of \"library materials\" will also include any online material that is made available on what is called a \"Singapore website\", which is defined as a website under the .sg domain. A Singapore website or electronic service that is not under the .sg domain can also be included in this definition, if it is determined by NLB to be associated with Singapore; for example, where there are non .sg sites that have content that is considered to hold significant cultural or heritage value.
The second set of amendments pertains to web-harvesting. At present, NLB has to seek the written consent of website owners before making copies of online content that is of historical value to Singapore. This is cumbersome, and typically only a small percentage of website owners respond, perhaps because they are unaware of their websites’ significance to Singapore’s history and heritage. To address this, section 7 of the NLB Act will be amended to empower NLB to make copies of any online material published on a Singapore website through automated web-harvesting, without requiring NLB to seek written consent from the owners or producers.
In line with international practice, NLB will only collect material from websites that are publicly accessible; material will not be collected from websites that are password-protected or restricted to members or subscribers. Most websites will be web-harvested once a year, although Government sites will be archived more regularly in order to capture major developments in national policies or programmes. Other selected sites may be harvested more frequently, during periods in which they showcase events of significance to Singapore, such as official websites for National Day or the Southeast Asian Games. NLB will also archive more frequently websites which contain content on current affairs and are read by many Singaporeans, such as Mothership.sg.
These amendments are similar to web-harvesting legislation in the UK, Australia and New Zealand. In the UK, the British Library is empowered to harvest online works available to the public through websites with domain names relating to the UK or to a place within the UK or works which have been created or published within the UK. The national libraries of New Zealand and Australia have similar powers.
The third set of amendments provides for an electronic legal deposit. The current legal deposit scheme requires publishers to deposit with NLB two physical copies of library materials that are published in Singapore. Going forward, section 10 will be amended to require publishers of library materials in electronic form to also deposit a copy of these with NLB within four weeks of the date of first publication. The copy deposited must be free of any technological protection or access restrictions, such as password protection, to enable NLB to digitally preserve the content for posterity and provide access to researchers at the library premises.
With the proposed amendments to the NLB Act, there will be consequential amendments to the Copyright Act to permit NLB to copy any online material made available on a Singapore website, for the purpose of performing NLB’s statutory function of acquiring and maintaining a comprehensive collection of library materials relating to Singapore. Although the content is already available to the public on Singapore websites, current copyright laws generally require obtaining the consent of the copyright owner of the content on the website prior to copying the content.
A new section 49A will, therefore, be created in the Copyright Act to allow NLB to make copies of online literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works. A new section 113A and an expanded section 116 will provide likewise for online sound recordings and cinematograph films, and published editions of literary, dramatic, musical and/or artistic works, respectively. These amendments are necessary to make clear that NLB is not infringing any copyright laws while web-harvesting Singapore websites to collect and preserve them.
The Copyright Act will also be amended, via an expansion of section 45(7A) and a new section 113B, to allow the web-harvested content of Singapore websites to be made available on computer terminals within the premises of libraries and archives in Singapore. This is to make the preserved content accessible for research and reference within libraries and archives, where there are safeguards to prevent users from further copying or distributing the work.
Mr Speaker, in summary, the proposed amendments will allow NLB to more effectively fulfil its mandate to collect, preserve and make accessible our nation’s published heritage in both print and electronic forms. This is important so that today’s Singapore stories will be kept alive for future generations of Singaporeans. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text)\tQuestion proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I stand in support of this Bill. The library is a common ground where diverse groups of people come together, be it young children eagerly browsing picture books at the children's corner, or students in reading rooms preparing for their examinations, or the elderly engrossed in their daily newspapers – the library is an identifiable icon in our cities and in our hearts.
At the same time, as Singapore progresses to a Smart Nation, so must our libraries.
I commend the efforts by NLB to upgrade our libraries to adopt the technologies of audio-visuals while preserving print books. I was delighted to see how Yishun library was transformed after its renovations earlier this year, to include digital learning zones, quick response (QR) code borrowing systems and more.
The proposed amendments to the NLB Act are a step forward to preserve and eternalise Singapore’s digital heritage, by collecting electronic publications through legal deposits, and by preserving Singapore domain websites through web archiving.
Sir, I stand in support of the Bill, but I would also like to raise a few clarifications.
Firstly, I would like to clarify what implications these amendments will have on publishers and their interests. Part of the amendment mandates publishers to deposit one copy of any electronic publication within four weeks of publication, on top of existing requirements to deposit two physical copies.
Also, under section 7(2)(f) of the Bill, it is stated that NLB is allowed \"to make copies of any online material made available on a Singapore website, at the times and in the manner the Board considers appropriate.\" Unlike physical copies where there is a limited number of books deposited in libraries, such an amendment will technically allow the Board to make unlimited digital copies of the publisher's work.
I also understand that within the Bill, amendments are made to the Copyright Act. Under section 113 of the Copyright Act, cinematographic film and sound recordings are now included as online material that will be collected by NLB. These materials will also be made available within the premises of the library.
Can the Minister clarify how the interests of publishers will be guaranteed to ensure that the sales of their hard work are not affected by the digital access provided by NLB? Is there a grace period after publication before content will be made available in the libraries?
Next, web archiving is a practice observed in other countries, such as the British library, as the Minister mentioned, and the National Library of South Korea. Both the British and Korean libraries also have their web archives made available for public access. In the same vein, will all our web archives, without exclusions or exemptions, be made available for public access on NLB’s Web Archive Singapore portal or on other platforms?
Web content that is available today may not be as easily located or may even be taken off decades later. With a proper database of Singapore-specific websites and content, it will be easier for academics, researchers and businesses to conduct research on Singapore.
Prof Ang Peng Hwa from the Wee Kim Wee School, also suggested to have indices and abstracts of archives made available online for citizens and researchers to have greater access. Will the Ministry consider this?
Sir, notwithstanding the above clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Darryl David.
Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, NLB can trace its roots to Sir Stamford Raffles who, in 1823, started a small collection of books in the Raffles Library. While the Raffles Library was an exclusive book club that limited its access and membership to the elite, the NLB now serves all residents in Singapore through its 26 public libraries and national archives.
As part of the process of preserving our national heritage and identity, the National Library Act mandated that two copies of every Singapore publication made available for sale or distribution should be deposited with the National Library for the purpose of posterity. This was mentioned by the Minister earlier on.
Up to date, close to 1.3 million items have been archived and a vast majority, if not all of these items, are in the form of physical \"hardcopy\" publications, such as books, magazines or written papers. These materials are invaluable in providing us with records of how our society’s narratives and discourses have evolved over the years, and how such narratives have shaped and continue to shape our community, our society and, indeed, our country.
In 1995, the Library Review Committee identified technology as a game changer that will disrupt the operations of libraries. In order for libraries to remain relevant and continue to serve the needs of the nation, the Committee recommended that NLB embrace technology and consider how technology could be used to promote and enhance the establishment of Singapore as an international information hub.
The Committee's recommendations were prescient, as technology has, indeed, changed the way information is published, disseminated and stored. As more information gets published online and with physical copies of books giving way to electronic publications, the process of archiving information becomes challenging. We need to re-examine how we can continue in our quest to preserve parts of our history and identity in the digital age, or risk social amnesia where important electronic information is lost due to the lack of means to archive them.
As the Minister mentioned earlier, NLB currently relies on two main ways to archive online content. First, publishers and authors can voluntarily deposit electronic copies of their publications with NLB. Second, NLB would seek explicit consent from owners of websites to take a snapshot of their sites and archive those snapshots in a restricted access database. Both methods can be cumbersome and laborious, often yielding results that are not proportionate to the effort that is put in.
So, I agree with the proposed changes to the Act that will empower NLB to archive online materials more expeditiously and facilitate the records keeping process. One of the key benefits of the amendments is to allow NLB to create a more complete picture about online discourses, especially those that shape social or political narratives.
The open nature of the Internet allows for more pluralistic expressions of opinions and views. With more conversations taking place on online platforms like blogs, websites, forums and social media, it makes sense for us, as a nation, to archive those conversations so that our future generations can gain access to important records about how their social or political landscape has been shaped by the generations before them.
While most people would agree that we need to preserve websites and digital materials for records and posterity, we need to consider several aspects of this practice.
First, with new websites and digital content being published or created daily, the amount of information that NLB needs to manage could be increasingly large. With such a wealth of information, how would NLB ensure that the information is stored securely while yet remaining publicly accessible? And while the Bill has made provisions for the archival information to be made accessible, can we consider easing the rules of how this archived content could be accessed and used so that more people can benefit from them?
Secondly, while NLB is vested with the authority to take digital snapshots of websites, and publishers of online content are legally obliged to provide NLB with a copy of their e-publication free of protection and restrictions on access, we need to be cognisant that these publishers continue to hold the copyrights to their publications. NLB, in this instance, needs to clarify and explain the boundaries of public and private copyrights, and how it intends to protect private copyright and IP when digital copies of such e-publications are made publicly accessible.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the increase in technology and its use have intensified the shift from traditional print media to online digital content, and the increase in reliance on online platforms to disseminate information means that the electronic and digital universe will become an increasingly important space where many conversations, dialogues and other expressions of thought will take place. Such expressions of thought are important reflections of our community and I agree with the amendments to the Act that will allow such e-publications and websites to be archived. I thus end my speech in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Ong Teng Koon.
Mr Ong Teng Koon (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Speaker, it is timely that the NLB Act is being amended. The proliferation of digital media means that more and more content is being generated by a more diverse range of sources. Anyone can create a blog, write a post or self-publish an e-book online. This has several implications for NLB's archival functions.
First, focusing on traditional sources is not enough. Second, taking an annual snapshot might not be enough, given the speed at which content is created and then replaced. Therefore, the move to expand the definition of \"library materials\" to include electronic materials and any online material made available on a Singapore website is an important one. This updates the intent of the Act fit for our modern circumstance.
Similarly, the move from a scheme based on voluntary deposit of content to one where NLB has the right to make copies of library materials is a sensible reflection of the current media environment.
However, how does NLB define the scope of online material which may be web-harvested? Will it be clear to the content creators whether each particular piece of content would qualify to be web-harvested? Do they have the right to reject web-harvesting? And if web-harvesting applies only to \"Singaporean websites\", would this create an incentive to post content on overseas sites, with the deliberate intent to avoid archiving?
The ephemeral nature of the Internet means that old content may disappear forever. This archive may be the only place that future researchers will be able to access such content. Is an annual archiving exercise sufficient? Websites are updated daily, sometimes even more than once a day. How much could be lost between each archiving exercise? But unless NLB is Google, it would be impossible to archive the entire Internet constantly. So, a line will need to be drawn. The question is whether annual is the right line.
Conversely, having collected such a comprehensive catalogue of materials, how will NLB use and make accessible the electronic publications and archived websites so that more people can benefit from valuable content about our country?
We have to be conscious of the need to balance the public interest with that of the copyright holders and ensure that access to the material is controlled.
The Copyright Act is being amended to enable the content to be archived without violating copyright. It is, of course, critical to protect the rights of content creators but, at the same time, it is in the national interest to allow access to the treasure trove of archived documents. The current proposal is to restrict access to two terminals at NLB. This is similar to the offering in other countries, such as the UK, where there is one user per legal deposit library, and New Zealand, which allows only three users at a time.
But does this achieve the right balance between the need for access and the protection of copyright? How did the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) determine the number and location of access terminals?
For example, should researchers at universities be allowed to access the materials with some safeguards? Also, how would users who are unable to travel physically to the NLB site access the data? Should some level of online access be allowed, but carefully tracked to avoid abuse?
In fact, one may argue that the speed with which content is created means that the value of \"old\" news decays faster online than it does in the print world. In that case, perhaps the balance of the Act should be settled in favour of the user rather than the copyright holders. After all, it would take great determination to wait a year to queue up at two terminals to read content.
The other facet of the Internet is the diversity of views, which can be published online without any filters or approvals. Compared to the old days of publishing, there is likely to be a lot more controversial content – content of low quality or accuracy, or downright threats to our national security.
The furore around Fake News in Singapore and around the world is a testimony to the pervasiveness of this phenomenon. What will NLB do about websites with objectionable content, for example, content which could pose a threat to national security?
While it seems that the NLB should archive these for the sake of posterity, what safeguards will be put in place to restrict access? Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Minister Iswaran.
Mr S Iswaran: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me, first, thank the Members Mr Louis Ng, Mr Darryl David and Mr Ong Teng Koon who have all spoken in support of the National Library Board (Amendment) Bill. They have raised several valid questions. Let me now endeavour to address them in some detail.
Mr Ong Teng Koon has asked about the scope of online material which may be web-harvested, and whether it would be clear to website owners which elements of their websites would be web-harvested. The intent of this amendment is to ensure that Singapore-related content, which is increasingly found online, is collected and preserved for future generations so that they can better understand the evolution of events here. So, in the first instance, NLB will collect material from all .sg domain websites. This means that NLB will not be collecting material residing in social media, such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, that are not within the .sg domain. For .sg websites, NLB will archive all the pages within the websites, including images, portable document format (PDF) documents, audio files and video files, that are hosted within the websites themselves. However, content hosted on external websites, such as links to videos hosted on YouTube, will not be archived.
In addition to .sg domain websites, we also recognise that there are other non.sg websites which may also contain valuable content about Singapore. For such websites, NLB will proactively approach the site owners for permission to archive the sites.
Mr Speaker, I want to reiterate here that NLB will only be collecting material that is publicly available; it will not collect material that is behind a paywall or open only to subscribers or members.
Mr Ong Teng Koon has also asked if an annual web-harvesting exercise would be sufficient, given that the content on the Internet changes so quickly and frequently. We do not intend to emulate Google, I assure Mr Ong, but the proposed frequency of harvesting the .sg domain websites is generally in line with international practices. However, as I mentioned earlier, there will be instances where some websites will be archived more frequently. So, it becomes a judgement call in terms of the currency and relevance. But by and large, an automated annual exercise should suffice to provide that snapshot that is being sought.
On the specific issue of whether NLB will be web-harvesting objectionable material, such as content which could pose a threat to Singapore’s national security, to be clear, what NLB endeavours to do is to preserve a comprehensive record of Singapore-related websites through web-harvesting. As these are important resources that chart Singapore's cultural and social changes over time, it is essential that we capture them as they are so that they can accurately reflect the cultural and social landscape of our nation at different points in time.
If the websites archived are found to contain content that is found to be objectionable under the relevant laws or codes, then NLB may block access to that content. In other words, NLB will still archive the content, but may not allow access to it.
Mr Ong Teng Koon has also asked if website owners could decline to be web-harvested. He also pointed out that some website owners might post their content on non .sg sites to avoid being archived. In general, if you are publishing content on a website, one assumes that you want it to be read, and it is counter-intuitive to then say that \"I want it to be published but I do not want it to be archived\". In fact, our public consultation with website owners last year showed that they were generally receptive and supportive of the web-harvesting initiative as they understood that the intent is for us to retain the collective memories of our nation. Furthermore, this will allow them to have their content captured and stored for posterity. So, I think it is an alignment of interest. We recognise that website owners have the right to choose the platforms on which they distribute their materials, but we hope that they will join us in our efforts to keep a part of our history alive.
Several Members, Mr Louis Ng in particular, had also asked how NLB would be ensuring that publishers' rights and content creators' copyrights and IP are protected, while making collected material easily accessible to people. This is an important point. How do we strike that balance?
All three Members asked whether we can consider making access to digital archived content more accessible, so that more people can benefit from them. Indeed, it is important that we ensure that the nation's published heritage is accessible to future and current generations of Singaporeans, and for all the good reasons that we have emphasised.
But at the same time, we also share their concerns regarding the protection of commercial interests of publishers of electronic materials, and they have asked how we will ensure that these interests will not be compromised in any way through the amendments to this Act. These are valid concerns. We have also heard these concerns from stakeholders, like book publishers, in our consultations.
To strike a balance as we embark on this new scheme, NLB will, for a start, provide public access to the collected electronic publications and websites at the Lee Kong Chian Reference Library located at the National Library Building. These materials can only be viewed at the computer terminals with no downloading, copying or printing allowed. Two concurrent users will be able to view each item in the collections at any one time. This approach mirrors that of NLB's current Legal Deposit policy for physical materials, which requires two copies to be deposited. We think this strikes a good starting balance between safeguarding publishers' IP interests and giving public access to these materials.
There are, however, instances where the content of the collected electronic materials or websites are made available to the public beyond the library's premises. This is now done where express permission has already been given by the copyright owner or when the copyright has expired, and the content will be made accessible via NLB's digital services and websites, such as BookSG and Web Archives Singapore. For example, the archived websites of the W!ld Rice Theatre Company (www.wildrice.com.sg), the Eurasian Association Singapore (www.eurasians.org.sg) and Singapore National Olympic Council (www.singaporeolympics.sg) are made available online as prior consent has been given, while the digitised copy of Hikayat Abdullah (Stories of Abdullah), published by the Mission Press in 1849, is also available online as the copyright has expired. In time to come, we hope to be able to share a greater collection of materials on NLB's digital platforms through the support of content creators and publishers as they join us in our efforts to make our nation's published heritage accessible in more ways.
I want to assure all Members that under the proposed amendments, the copyright of digital content continues to reside with the content creators and publishers. In the event that members of the public or researchers wish to use the content beyond just research and study, they will still have to approach the copyright owners for permission.
Mr Louis Ng has asked if there was a grace period after publication before content will be made available in the National Library. As there are several steps involved in the processing of material, which includes quality check and cataloguing, it may take one to six months from the date of collection – depending on the type of material collected – before it is made accessible to the public. For instance, in the case of websites, it may take up to six months from the last archiving exercise before a website is ready for public viewing.
The online material collected via web-harvesting will also be made available in an easily accessible form. Mr Louis Ng asked if NLB will be making indices and abstracts of archives available online for citizens and researchers to have greater access. I am very happy to share with him that NLB is at present already cataloguing and indexing websites for which they have obtained permission to archive. Archived websites can be found on NLB's digital platform One Search, and their Web Archives Singapore has an alphabetical and subject listing of all archived websites to date.
As Mr Darryl David has pointed out, there is a large amount of information collected via Legal Deposit and Web Harvesting which NLB needs to ensure is stored securely while remaining publicly accessible. On this point, I want to highlight that NLB has a secure digital infrastructure that is protected in accordance with robust Government standards. There are regular reviews of the security and resilience of our system, including the necessary firewalls and antivirus software, to protect against malicious cyber activities. Alongside this, NLB’s digitisation and preservation policies will ensure that deposited content is preserved. This includes the migration of content to updated formats from time to time, which will prevent content from being corrupted or lost when formats become obsolete.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe I have addressed substantively the points that have been raised by the Members. I want to reiterate that the proposed amendments to the Act will be an important step forward in allowing NLB to preserve the materials which document Singapore's history and culture, so that these can be made available to our future generations. These amendments are especially crucial in this digital era, given that more and more valuable materials are now residing online and available in electronic formats. We must focus our collection efforts on such materials now so that we do not lose important pieces of our culture, heritage and history.
On this note, I want to once again thank all three Members who have spoken in support of the Bill. Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr S Iswaran.] (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.00 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.36 pm until 4.00 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.00 pm
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Deposit Insurance and Policy Owners' Protection Schemes (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister for Education (Mr Ong Ye Kung) (for the Prime Minister):\tMr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister in-charge of the Monetary Authority of Singapore, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The Deposit Insurance and Policy Owners’ Protection Schemes Act (DI-PPF Act) protects bank depositors and insurance policy owners in Singapore under the Deposit Insurance (DI) Scheme and the Policy Owners’ Protection Scheme respectively. Banks, finance companies and insurance companies that are covered under the two schemes are called Scheme Members.
The DI Scheme was introduced in 2006 to provide a basic level of protection to small depositors. At that time, the Scheme insured Singapore dollar deposits up to S$20,000 per depositor per full bank or finance company. In 2011, the insured amount was raised to S$50,000.
The Policy Owners’ Protection Scheme was set up in 2011 to protect policy owners for commonly purchased insurance policies. The Scheme provides compensation for life, accident and health, compulsory and specified Singapore personal lines insurance policies, such as motor, personal property or travel insurances, in the event that a direct life or general insurer fails.
Both Schemes are supported by Funds established under the DI-PPF Act, which are, in turn, built up through contributions from Scheme Members and investment returns. The Singapore Deposit Insurance Corporation (SDIC) administers both Schemes and the respective Funds.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) conducts regular reviews to ensure that the Schemes continue to provide adequate protection to depositors and policy owners, enhance operation of the Schemes and to take into consideration developments in the Singapore financial market and international practices, standards and guidance.
In MAS’ most recent review, it also consulted the industry and other stakeholders on its proposals to enhance the Schemes. This Bill proposes legislative amendments to give effect to the following changes: one, strengthen the protection for depositors and policy owners; two, facilitate an efficient compensation payout process; and three, align the Schemes more closely with international standards and norms.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will now go through the main enhancements proposed in the Bill, starting with the DI Scheme.
There are two main changes to the DI Scheme.
First, the maximum level of coverage under the Scheme will be increased from S$50,000 to S$75,000. While there is no international standard on the level of coverage, our objective is to ensure that the vast majority of depositors should be fully covered.
A survey by the International Association of Deposit Insurers found that the international norm is to fully cover about 90% of all insured depositors. For example, the US, UK, Hong Kong and Malaysia reported full coverage for over 90% of insured depositors.
When we raised the limit to S$50,000 in 2011, it fully covered over 90% of insured depositors. Since then, incomes have grown and savings have also increased. As a result, S$50,000 fully covered about 87% of insured depositors today. Increasing the limit to S$75,000 will restore the percentage of fully insured depositors to above 90%, ensuring that the DI Scheme continues to serve its objective.
The second change is to raise the annual premium contributions to the DI Fund. Currently, every DI Scheme member makes annual premium contributions of two to seven basis points of their insured deposit base to the Fund. The Bill will raise the contribution by up to one basis point per Scheme member, to support the higher coverage limit of S$75,000. At the same time, we will extend the fund build-up period from 2020 to 2028.
The premium increase of one basis point strikes a balance between a reasonable fund build-up period and the financial costs to the industry.
Sir, I will now explain the changes to the Policy Owners’ Protection Scheme.
The Bill will introduce a definition for “personal” insurance policies, to be one that is owned by a natural person. The effect of this amendment is to extend protection to claims on damage to properties owned and used by individuals, even if these properties are sometimes used for commercial purposes. This change addresses a potential protection gap today, given that more individuals are using their personal properties for commercial purposes, such as using their cars to provide private hire transport services.
The Bill will also give MAS the flexibility to prescribe, in regulations, caps on compensation payouts for specific classes or types of policy or claim event insured under the Scheme.
Currently, there are caps on compensation payout for life insurance, but not for specified Singapore personal lines insurance policies. This means that the fund could potentially be exposed to very large claims which could translate into higher premium rates for all consumers. This amendment will allow MAS to mitigate the exposure of the Scheme to very large claims and contain the potential of rising premium rates.
Sir, the Bill will also introduce new or revised provisions to improve the administration of the two Schemes. Let me highlight three key operational enhancements that will facilitate prompt payouts to insured depositors and policy owners.
First, the Bill will include voluntary winding up as a trigger for compensation payout under both Schemes. Currently, MAS may make a determination for compensation to be paid out when: one, a Scheme member is wound up by a Court in Singapore or elsewhere; or two, MAS is of the opinion that a Scheme member is insolvent, unable or likely to become unable to meet its obligations or about to suspend payments.
Hence, there is no trigger for payout in the event of a winding up of a Scheme member that is voluntary and not ordered by a Court. This could potentially result in uncertainty and undue delays in payments to depositors and policy owners. The amendment closes this gap and expedites the compensation process.
Second change. The Bill will enhance legal protection for directors, employees, officers and agents working for SDIC, the administrator of the Schemes.
Currently, SDIC officers are provided legal immunity against liability if they carry out their duties in good faith and with reasonable care. One of SDIC’s primary objectives is to ensure that compensation is made out to depositors and policy owners as quickly as possible in the event a payout is triggered. While we expect SDIC to perform its duties with care, making it a strict legal standard could impair the ability of a deposit insurer to carry out their functions expeditiously in a crisis. The officers may become overly cautious to ensure that their actions are unquestionably reasonable.
The Bill proposes to remove this requirement of “reasonable care”, which may present a distraction to SDIC and undermine its effectiveness. The removal of the requirement for “reasonable care” will bring SDIC in line with DI agencies internationally. SDIC officers will still be subjected to the standard of “good faith”. Fraudulent and malicious acts will continue to be excluded from legal immunity.
The amended Act will also provide indemnification for reasonable legal costs and expenses incurred by SDIC officers in connection with actions or omissions in good faith.
These amendments are aligned with the recommendations in the Core Principles for Effective DI Systems, developed by the International Association of Deposit Insurers, and will provide greater assurance to SDIC and its officers in performing their duty to make compensation payments promptly, while maintaining accountability by retaining the requirement for the officers to act in good faith.
Third change. The Bill will accord SDIC increased budgetary autonomy. The current Act requires SDIC to present annual estimates of its income and expenditure and the Funds to the Minister for approval. The amended Act will allow SDIC to submit three-year block estimates instead. This will enable SDIC to make longer-term plans to enhance its operations. SDIC will continue to submit to the Minister annual reports of its expenditures and revenues and be accountable for the management of its budget.
Sir, this Bill will strengthen protection for small depositors and policy owners in line with market developments and international norms and improve the administration and compensation process of the two Schemes for the benefit of depositors and policy owners. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
Mr Yee Chia Hsing (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. This Bill has laid out several key amendments to ensure the level of protection for depositors and policy owners remains adequate. Today, I have a few points to highlight as well as offer some suggestions.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, many people buy life insurance without informing their family members of the insurance they have bought and from which insurance companies.
In such situations, family members of the policy holder who has passed on have to see if there are any notices of premium payments or insurance statements to have an idea of which insurance companies to contact. This is getting more difficult with paperless e-statements. Sometimes, we have also had a situation where the policy holder may not stay with the other family members and statements are sent to the address of the policy holder only. As such, family members and beneficiaries may not even know of the existence of such insurance policies.
Right now, there is an online register launched by Life Insurance Association Singapore for members of the public to check on unclaimed insurance payouts. But this is only where the insurance companies already knew that the insured has passed away and the amount has become claimable. I would like to ask whether insurance companies check their databases against the register of deaths at regular intervals so that they will know that the insured policy holder has passed on.
Insurance companies are also not the best party to contact the next-of-kin of the policy holder as, very often, such contact information is not collected or, if collected, is not updated regularly.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to suggest that the Registrar-General of Births and Deaths take on the role of managing a central registry of life insurance policies. All insurance companies offering life insurance policies must submit the policy details to the Registrar. When the Registrar becomes aware of the death of a policy holder, the insurance companies will be notified. The Registrar will also assist to contact the next of kin or beneficiary to inform them of the existence of the policy.
I believe there is a similar situation for cash in bank accounts where the account holder has passed on but the family members do not know of the existence of the bank account and so do not approach the bank to submit a claim on the money in the account. As such, it would be good if a central registry can also keep track of what bank accounts each individual has.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my suggestion of having a Central Registry of Life Insurance Policies and Bank Deposits will reduce the hassle that family members have to go through as it will become a one-stop central registry which family members can check what insurance policies and bank accounts their deceased family members have.
The cost of operating this Central Registry can be recovered by legislating that all monies which are unclaimed despite the best efforts of the Registrar to contact the next of kin will go to the state. I hope the relevant authorities can take into account my suggestions that I have made today.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, SDIC is the administrator and manager of the DI Fund and Policy Owners Protection Fund that aim to ensure prompt compensation to depositors and policy owners in the event of a member bank or insurer failing.
The aim of this Bill is largely to clarify technical issues and enhance the operational efficiency of the two schemes administered by SDIC. It also raises the DI coverage from $50,000 to $75,000 which would achieve 91% coverage of fully insured depositors.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not oppose these changes, which are a step in the right direction. However, I will pose some questions relating to the Bill’s provisions and the nature of these two schemes.
At this point, I declare my interest as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of a market research and business consulting firm that works with various commercial and governmental entities in the financial services sector locally and globally. Firstly, the winding-up process should a member bank or insurer become insolvent can be time-consuming. How prompt would be the compensation to depositors and policy owners?
Of course, this would vary on a case-by-case basis, depending on the complexity of each case. But does SDIC aim for a specific timeframe within which the compensation should be paid, such as, for example, one month, three months or six months? The longer the process takes, of course, the higher the potential loss of interest income and, hence, the opportunity cost to depositors and policy owners.
Secondly, how does SDIC manage the DI Fund and PPF Fund monies? For the DI Fund, it is stated on the SDIC’s website that “the DI Fund will be invested in safe and liquid assets, such as securities issued by the Singapore Government or MAS, deposits with MAS, any debenture or debt security issued by Singapore Sukuk Pte Ltd, and other assets approved by the Minister.”
For the PPF Fund, it is stated that, “The PPF Life Fund and PPF General Fund will be invested in safe and liquid assets, such as securities issued by the Singapore Government or MAS, deposits with MAS, any debenture or debt security issued by Singapore Sukuk Pte Ltd and other assets approved by the Minister.”
Does SDIC outsource the management of the Funds to asset management institutions to manage? And, if so, what is the mandate for these asset management institutions, given that the Minister can approve investment in assets other than Singapore Government instruments?
Are there prescribed limits to the kinds of asset classes and asset characteristics that investments can be extended to, for example, weighted fixed income products with a specific high rating from independent credit rating agencies?
Thirdly, is the ability of the DI and PPF Funds to meet their obligations in respect of the coverage limits regularly reviewed and stress-tested by MAS, or required to be self-reviewed and stress-tested? In an insolvency case involving a large bank or insurer or a number of these, this ability could be put to the test.
Fourthly, on the change whereby the accounts of SDIC need not be audited by the Auditor-General's Office (AGO) or an agency appointed in consultation with the AGO, I would like to ask why the AGO need no longer play a role with respect to the external audit for these Funds?
And Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, lastly, on the website of SDIC, it is stated that MAS may exempt life or general insurers from being members of the PPF scheme. May we know how many insurers are so exempted and what measures are in place to protect policy holders in these cases?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendments to the Bill come at a timely moment when global financial markets are prone to disruptive forces. As a regional financial hub, this also makes us more susceptible to fallouts from any global financial crisis. With the changes in US trade policies and its demand to renegotiate pacts signed by the previous government, which have created bouts of insecurity, anything can happen if the talks do not turn out well. So, it is prudent for us to shore up the levees before the storm.
Increasing the DI coverage limit from $50,000 to $75,000 per depositor per Scheme member is good news for all Singaporean depositors.
We are known to have a strong culture to save our money, and I am aware of people who would open several bank accounts with different banks in order to get their deposits fully covered under the existing scheme. This enhanced policy will give better protection to those depositors. Also, in an ageing community, some of the savers are retired seniors and the protection would certainly give them much comfort.
On this note, I would like to also emphasise the importance of communicating the coverage of DI to the elderly so that they understand the span of coverage. This way, they will not be lulled into a sense of complacency and, in a crunch, find themselves put in a dilemma.
But following the increase of the DI coverage, MAS will also raise the premium rates which are charged to banks. My concern is that this additional premium will eventually be passed down to customers down the road. This may take the form of decreased returns to customers, or higher costs and premiums for financial products and so forth. So, I would like to ask the Minister if MAS takes an oversight of how the banks impose charges on their products and services as a result of this latest move.
Next, Mr Deputy Speaker, in a gig economy, many freelancers and self-employed people are using their personal properties for commercial purposes. By extending the coverage of the Policy Owners' Protection Scheme to such properties, these freelancers can have assurance that they are adequately protected against life’s uncertainties. However, in doing so, who bears the additional cost of coverage? And, once again, I will ask: will this result in a rise in premiums?
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill is a clear indication of MAS' resolve to give Singaporeans better financial protection in an era of constant disruptions. And with the expansion of the legal protection for SDIC officers to perform their role in making prompt compensation payments, along with voluntary winding up as a new trigger for compensation payouts, consumers protected under these schemes will experience a shorter waiting time for their money.
With these amendments, there is a need to step up on educating the public on these various schemes so consumers can make wise choices and benefit from the available policies. Community centres are a good choice for the elderly to be informed about these latest changes as well, in terms of DI, for example. And as schools start recognising the importance of imparting financial literacy to students, such Government schemes should be shared with students at secondary or tertiary levels. Agents and providers of financial products should also be more proactive in keeping consumers informed of their rights, in particular, the latest changes in the DI Scheme and their limits. Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Ong Ye Kung.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank all the Members who have spoken on the Bill and voiced their support for the Bill. On behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister-in-charge of the Monetary Authority of Singapore, let me now address their questions.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat is concerned that costs of higher premium contributions may be passed on to customers. MAS had considered the potential cost implications on Scheme Members when proposing these changes. The premium increase of one basis point to the banks as Scheme Members is not material relative to a bank's overall operating costs. To illustrate, the increases in costs for the three local banks, which are the largest Scheme Members, will be less than 0.1% of their operating costs on average. We do not expect the Scheme Members to pass these costs to customers.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked who would bear the additional cost for extending the coverage of the Policy Owners’ Protection Scheme to cover the personal properties used for commercial purposes, and if this would result in a rise of premiums.
The current annual contributions paid by the Scheme Members make up less than 0.2% of the total gross premiums written by the general insurance industry for insurance policies covered under the Scheme. The extension of coverage of the Scheme accounts for a small fraction of the 0.2%. Hence, the increase in contributions paid by the Scheme Members will also not be material. We do not expect Scheme Members to pass the cost to policy owners.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat also highlighted the importance of educating the public on the coverage of the Schemes. I agree with Mr Saktiandi. Proper awareness of the coverage of the Schemes will help depositors and policy owners to make informed financial decisions. SDIC has in place a public education programme already and we will take in Mr Saktiandi Supaat's suggestions in future efforts. SDIC and MAS will continue to work together to raise awareness of the changes to the Schemes.
Mr Leon Perera asked several questions. First, he asked how promptly can we expect compensatory payments to be made. SDIC aims to make payouts to most insured depositors within seven working days, in line with international standards and has relevant mechanisms and procedures in place to facilitate this.
Mr Leon Perera also asked how the DI-PPF Fund monies are managed. The Fund's monies are managed by SDIC, the administrator of the Schemes and Funds. The management of the Fund is circumscribed by the DI-PPF Act. And under the Act, the Fund may only be invested in safe assets, such as securities issued by the Government or MAS, deposits with MAS or such other investments, with the objects of capital preservation and maintenance of liquidity. The management of the Funds are not outsourced.
The SDIC Board, therefore, oversee the management of the Funds directly. It has established an investment policy for the Funds, covering investment philosophy and objective, permitted investments and markets, authority limits and asset allocation guidelines.
The procedures, internal controls and disclosure and reporting on the investment holdings are audited by a public accounting firm annually and this is in accordance with the requirements of the DI-PPF Act and the Singapore Financial Reporting Standards.
Mr Leon Perera also asked what kind of insurers are exempted from being PPF members. Actually, all licensed direct life and general insurers are, by default, PPF Scheme Members except for captive insurers and certain insurers that write very specialised risks. So, licensed direct insurers that do not write any of the insurance policies that are covered by the PPF Fund can seek exemption from being PPF Scheme Members.
Mr Yee Chia Hsing suggested that a central repository be set up to assist a deceased's next-of-kin and beneficiaries to find out what life insurance policies and bank accounts the deceased had.
The question is not related to the Bill. Notwithstanding, there is currently a process in place for the next-of-kin to find and claim the assets of a family member who has passed on. Depending on whether the deceased had made a will, the next-of-kin may apply to the Court for a Grant of Probate or Letters of Administration. Once the Grant or Letter is issued, the next-of-kin may bring the Grant or Letter to the banks and life insurance companies to find out if there are monies or assets belonging to the deceased.
A central repository could offer the prospect of a convenient one-stop shop. However, a central repository works best if it is provided with up-to-date information and there is universal participation by the financial institutions, depositors and policy owners. There could be privacy concerns if participation in the repository is made mandatory. A central repository also does not eliminate the need for the next-of-kin to gather supporting documents to prove their claim to the estate.
Nonetheless, Mr Yee Chia Hsing’s proposal highlights the importance of Singaporeans keeping their family and loved ones informed of their financial arrangements.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill introduces important enhancements to the DI and Policy Owners’ Protection Schemes in Singapore, which will strengthen protection for depositors and policy owners. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera: I thank the Minister for his responses. I just have two questions which I believe had not been addressed yet, unless I missed it.
Firstly, is the ability of the DI and Policy Owners' Protection Fund to meet the obligations in respect of the coverage limits regularly reviewed or stress-tested either by MAS or required of MAS to be stress-tested by SDIC? Secondly, there was a change made in terms of the accounts of SDIC, it need not be audited by the AGO or any agency appointed in consultation with the AGO. I just want to know why that change was made.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: On stress-testing, because the investment policy is a conservative one, targeted at preservation of principal, therefore, no stress-testing is actually required because we actually require a capital preservation.
Second, on AGO, because SDIC is a company and, therefore, under the Companies Act and in accordance with the Act, it is a public accounting firm that audits it, rather than AGO, which audits Government agencies.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text)\tBill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Ong Ye Kung.] (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; 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":"Tokyo Convention (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Lam Pin Min) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Transport, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The civil aviation sector is a key component of Singapore’s economy, contributing 6% of Singapore's gross domestic product (GDP). Changi Airport’s excellent connectivity to the world makes Singapore a global city and a vibrant economic hub. It also enables Singaporeans to fly to various parts of the world for business and leisure.
Unruly passengers can affect the safety of air travel. According to International Air Transport Association (IATA), between 2007 and 2016, airlines reported more than 58,000 incidents involving unruly passengers on flights, or about one incident every 1,000 flights. There was an increasing number of serious incidents that resulted in injury to air crew or other passengers. As air travel grows, the problem of unruly passengers may worsen.
Given the importance of civil aviation to Singapore, it is crucial that we uphold Singapore's reputation as a safe and secure aviation hub for all passengers travelling through Changi Airport. Also, as a responsible member of the international civil aviation community, Singapore must do its part to address unruly passenger incidents.
That is why the Government will accede to the Protocol to Amend the Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft, also called the Montreal Protocol 2014 to the Tokyo Convention 1963. The Montreal Protocol 2014 expands the jurisdictional scope of the Tokyo Convention 1963, which Singapore is a party to, by extending the criminal jurisdiction of a Contracting State to include both the State of landing jurisdiction and the State of the operator jurisdiction.
The Tokyo Convention (Amendment) Bill will give effect to the provisions of the Montreal Protocol 2014 and strengthen Singapore's ability to address unruly behaviour on board an aircraft. It will enable Singapore to exercise the State of landing jurisdiction for offences committed on board an aircraft that lands in Singapore, and the State of the operator jurisdiction for offences committed on board an aircraft leased without crew to a lessee whose principal place of business, or whose permanent residence, is in Singapore. These jurisdictions are in addition to the State of registration jurisdiction which enables Singapore to exercise jurisdiction over offences committed on board an aircraft that is registered in Singapore.
I will now highlight the key provisions of the Bill.
Clause 3 enables Singapore to exercise the State of the operator jurisdiction. The definition of \"Singapore-controlled aircraft\" is revised to include an aircraft that is leased without crew to a lessee whose principal place of business, or whose permanent residence, is in Singapore.
Clause 4 enables Singapore to exercise the State of landing jurisdiction over offences committed outside Singapore on board an aircraft that is not a Singapore-controlled aircraft, which subsequently lands in Singapore with the offender still on board. With this amendment, Singapore can treat any act or omission committed on board an aircraft outside Singapore by an offender who is still on board the aircraft when it lands in Singapore as though it is an offence in Singapore, provided that the act or omission constitutes an offence in Singapore, and take action against the offender accordingly.
Clause 6 empowers the commander of an aircraft to take certain actions, such as restraining an unruly passenger, if the commander has reasonable grounds to believe that a serious offence has been committed on board the aircraft. The commander can also obtain the assistance of a member of the crew, a passenger or an air marshal on board the aircraft in restraining a person whom the commander is entitled to restrain. In addition, any crew member, passenger or air marshal on board the aircraft, can, without authorisation of the commander, take measures under the Act against a person on board the aircraft to protect the safety of the aircraft, or persons or property on the aircraft.
Clause 7 accords protection from personal liability to certain persons, for example, the commander of an aircraft, a member of the crew, a passenger or an air marshal, when such persons take action permitted under the Act to protect the safety of the aircraft, or persons or property on the aircraft.
Consequential amendments will be made to the Air Navigation Act and the Police Force Act.
The Bill will be brought into force in two phases. The provisions establishing Singapore's State of landing jurisdiction will be brought into force after the Bill is passed. This will enhance Singapore's ability to manage incidents of unruly passengers on flights travelling to, through and from Singapore, and give added protection to passengers on these flights before the Montreal Protocol 2014 comes into force.
The remaining provisions will be brought into force on the date the Montreal Protocol 2014 comes into force, which will take place after 22 ratifications have been made. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef.
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Tokyo Convention signed on 14 September 1963 covers certain offences and other acts committed on board planes and aircraft. With the current practice and guidelines, Singapore can only take action if the person or persons arrive on a Singapore Airlines (SIA) plane or other Singapore carriers. If they are on other airlines and land here, they may get off scott-free. That is the loophole. Thus, this is a very timely update to the Bill as we continue to tackle the growing issue of unruly passengers on board aircraft.
The Tokyo Convention 1963 was updated through the Montreal Protocol signed on 4 April 2014. That is 51 years later, and a lot of technological changes and also aviation changes have come on since then. This will now serve as a better, more widespread deterrence and will help to enhance our standing as a safe and secure air hub. This is necessary, as there is substantial air traffic growth every year.
I have a few clarifications to make. One, this unruly behaviour usually happens not just when airborne. In fact, in many cases and case studies, it was noted that the negative behaviour commenced even at check-in, at the airport and waiting lounges. Thus, how are we training our frontline staff to recognise and take the relevant actions, such as reporting and highlighting these characters and their suspicion? This is also where frontline staff will need to have some communications channel with airport Police and security.
Secondly, there are a few organisations involved in aviation mentioned in the Act, namely, the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS), the Air Accident Investigation Bureau under the Ministry of Transport (MOT) and also the National Civil Aviation Security Committee under the MOT as well. Can I ask the Senior Minister of State to help delineate clearly the roles and responsibilities of these different organisations and bodies for the purpose of understanding and clarity? Do they work together? Which then means there could be no wrong-door policy approach towards reporting and handling the incidences.
Thirdly, as we move into the future, will the same rules apply to unmanned aircraft, and also what about military customs and Police aircraft?
Fourthly, have there been any case or cases that have arisen in Singapore to date which can be cited as an example where the upgrade to the Montreal Convention will be helpful for us?
Fifth, will the sentence or punishment with the new Act be served in the passenger's own country or the country where the aircraft landed, or where the aircraft is at, that is, the state of the country of offence or the country of registration? In the same context, who will claim extradition, and would extradition law and treaties in existence have to be evoked as well?
The sixth point, on the clause on the powers of the aircraft commander, can the Senior Minister of State clarify, in particular, the role of the aircraft commander ascribed to flights that commence or terminate outside the country of registration? With that, Sir, I support the Tokyo Convention (Amendment) Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Tokyo Convention (Amendment) Bill seeks to introduce new laws dealing with unruly passengers on board aircraft arising from the Montreal Protocol of 2014 to the Tokyo Convention.
The incidence of unruly passengers on board aircraft continues to be an important concern in the industry as the number of passenger flights around the world are increasing each year, and, especially with the proliferation of budget airlines all over the world, the safety of passengers and crew on board all passenger aircraft should remain a priority.
We have read news of unruly passengers causing flight delays, flight cancellations and even unscheduled landings, not to mention distress and annoyance among crew and passengers on board flights having to put up with unruly behaviour.
The lives and safety of passengers and crew should not be easily put at risk or be endangered by any unruly passenger. Neither should crew and passengers have to put up with unnecessary delays or inconvenience caused by unruly and unreasonable passengers, unreasonably or wilfully uncompliant with the instructions of the flight commander, that is, the captain, or their crew. Having good and enforceable laws, as well as solid enforcement procedures, in this respect may also assist in dealing with, or preventing disruptions by passengers with terrorism-related intentions. I, therefore, support the adoption of the provisions to the Montreal Protocol of 2014 giving Singapore the jurisdiction as a state of landing or the state of the operator to take punitive action against unruly passengers who may have committed offences against penal law or carried out acts which may jeopardise the safety of an aircraft or of persons or property in such aircraft, or which jeopardise good order and discipline on board.
I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State to share with this House how many cases of unruly passengers Singapore has experienced in the past five years, whether for inbound or outbound flights. What are the nationalities of such unruly passengers? How many of these cases would have come under the provisions of this amendment Bill had such provisions been in force earlier?
Next, while I suppose after the passing of this Bill, Singapore may be able to seize jurisdiction for applicable cases, as the state of landing or as the state of the operator, how would Singapore resolve the conflicts of another jurisdiction wanting to exercise jurisdiction, for example, Singapore can be a state of landing while the state of registration or the state of the operator is another country who also wants to exercise jurisdiction?
The Montreal Protocol introduced in the Tokyo Convention the concept of in-flight security officers. Under this Bill, we call such \"in-flight security officers\" by the name \"air marshals\". The new section 5(3)(b) under this Bill provides that the aircraft commander may, \"request or authorise but not require any ... air marshal to render assistance in restraining any person\".
So, under this provision, it seems that the aircraft commander does not need to seek the help of air marshals onboard if he does not wish or, presumably, when he thinks that it is not necessary.
On the other hand, the new proposed section 5(3B) under this Bill also allows an air marshal onboard to take any measures against any person onboard the aircraft without being authorised by the aircraft commander when he has reasonable grounds to believe that such action is necessary. Under the existing unamended section 5, the aircraft commander appears to have the ultimate command or responsibility to take suitable actions during the flight. The above-mentioned new provisions may well give rise to an element of conflict leading possibly to both the aircraft commander and the air marshal taking independent actions without coordination. The new provisions introduced in Article 6 by the Montreal Protocol and in the proposed amended section 5(3B) stopped short of stating that the air marshals must always defer to the ultimate authority and instruction of the aircraft commander. Will there also be complications affecting states assuming jurisdiction in cases where there is a conflict or disagreement between the aircraft commander and the air marshal?
Next, I would also like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether our existing laws, together with the proposed amendments and inclusions under this Bill, are adequate to include all offences listed in the International Civil Aviation Organisation's (ICAO's) Circular 288? Do we foresee any further changes required to adopt all offences in Circular 288?
Finally, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State why Singapore has taken four years to introduce this Bill. Has there been some apprehension, perhaps shared by the many countries which have yet to ratify the Protocol? Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill. The statistics from IATA are alarming. Over 58,000 unruly passenger incidents were reported on aircraft in flight between 2007 and 2016. An IATA survey in 2015 also found that handling unruly passengers is one of the key concerns of cabin crew, along with unexpected turbulence and inadvertent slide deployment.
As highlighted by the Senior Minister of State, Singapore is a major air transport hub with more than 7,000 weekly scheduled flights. This means an aircraft takes off or lands at our Changi Airport roughly once every 90 seconds.
It is timely, therefore, that our legislation is updated to ensure that flight delays due to unruly passengers are minimised.
Every delay is precious time and resources wasted, affecting not only the airlines, but also passengers and corporations. The amendments will also serve to ensure the safety of both passengers and cabin crew in a closed environment.
Having said that, I would like to seek some clarifications from the Senior Minister of State. First, is there a clear definition of an unruly passenger and what must he or she do for enforcement actions to be taken against him or her? Let me explain.
On 9 April last year, United Airlines wanted to bump four passengers off the flight as it was overbooked and Dr David Dao was one of the selected passengers. He refused and airport security was alerted. He was then forcefully dragged off the plane. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of United Airlines deemed the screaming passenger as \"disruptive\" and \"belligerent\" in the initial press release. In his definition, Dr David Dao was an unruly passenger, though the CEO later issued an apology when the video went viral on social media. In my view, it is important to have a clear definition of what constitutes “an unruly passenger” and having a clear list of offences or what would be deemed as “unruly behaviour” would certainly be useful to set the out-of-bound (OB) markers.
Next, I would like to touch on enhancing training for our aviation workers. Is the current training sufficient? According to IATA, the top three factors causing an unruly behaviour inflight are intoxication through alcohol and narcotics, compliance with smoking and other regulation, and disputes between passengers. While cabin crew today are trained to handle unruly behaviour on board the flight, I think training should address the primary causes of unruly behaviour so that we can equip cabin crew to prevent an unruly incident from happening in the first place.
As my colleague, Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef, has mentioned, what about training for ground staff and even retailers at the airport? Can these frontline staff be trained to identify potential “problematic” passengers before they board the plane? For example, are food and beverage (F&B) retailers at the airport trained to look out for passengers who already appear to be intoxicated while in transit or while waiting to board?
Mr Deputy Speaker, unruly passengers are not confined to one airline or one airport. Would the aviation authorities consider working together to establish a common database among airlines to centralise details of recalcitrant unruly passengers? Such a database would allow the airlines to take appropriate precautionary actions against these passengers, including refusal of service. The database could also serve as a forewarning system for cabin crew and ground staff to pay particular attention to these passengers on board the aircraft. Unruly behaviour, in extreme cases, can threaten the safety of everyone on board the aircraft.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the aviation industry is a key driver of Singapore’s economy, providing more than 160,000 jobs and contributing to about 6% of Singapore’s GDP. The steady growth in our aviation industry is expected to continue, with Asia as the centre of economic growth in the next decade. The amendments to this Bill are timely and essential in ensuring the safety and security of both the passengers and our workers in the industry. With that, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State.
Dr Lam Pin Min: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef, Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Melvin Yong for their comments and support for the Bill. Let me address the points raised.
The civil aviation sector is a key contributor to Singapore’s economy. Thus, it is important for us to ensure that Singapore remains a safe and secure air hub.
The Government is committed to maintaining high standards of aviation security in Singapore. This includes ensuring that aviation security measures are coordinated and consistently applied across the aviation sector. Civil aviation security policies and implementation of new measures are discussed and decided collectively by a multi-agency committee known as the National Civil Aviation Security Committee, which comprises various Government agencies, such as MOT, the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Singapore Police Force (SPF) and CAAS. The recommendation for Singapore to ratify the Montreal Protocol 2014 was made by this Committee. The Government agencies also engage with the industry on aviation security issues and measures. Mr Dennis Tan asked why did it take four years before we introduced this new amendment Bill. That is because there is a need to consult the industry widely. At the same time, there is also a timeline for the legislative calendar, and we tried to put this legislation up as soon as possible.
The security measures are implemented by the civil aviation operators, such as Changi Airport Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd, ground handling agents, and the airlines operating in Singapore. Compliance with the measures is closely monitored and enforced by SPF.
I agree with Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef and Mr Melvin Yong that the airport staff have a role to play in ensuring the airport and aircraft security in Singapore. The Government has included all airport personnel, from airport security screeners to check-in counter staff as part of the Threat Oriented Passenger Screening Integrated System (TOPSIS). Airport personnel that are in the TOPSIS are trained to look out for and to notify SPF when they detect any passenger displaying suspicious behaviour. With TOPSIS, airport personnel have become our eyes and ears. They support our security agencies in ensuring that Singapore remains a safe and secure environment for air passengers.
Mr Dennis Tan asked about the incidences of unruly passengers in Singapore. Based on the information that I have, there are, on average, about less than 10 cases per year over the last five years, and many of these took place on SIA Group aircraft. And because they occurred on SIA Group aircraft which are Singapore registered, we have the jurisdiction to actually take action against these unruly passengers.
The Montreal Protocol 2014 will enhance Singapore’s ability to handle unruly incidents on board a non-Singapore controlled aircraft. This is particularly important as most aircraft operated by foreign airlines are not registered in Singapore. For example, if an unruly passenger commits an offence on board such aircraft while in airspace outside Singapore en route to Singapore, we will be able to deal with the offender when the aircraft lands in Singapore.
There are overseas cases of unruly passenger incidents that have caused disruption to flights to the extent that the pilot decided to divert the plane to land and disembark the unruly passengers. For example, on 9 September 2016, a British Airways flight from London, the United Kingdom (UK), to Orlando, the United States (US), was forced to land in Boston in the US after a drunk passenger had tried to get off the aircraft in mid-air. While interventions had been made by the air stewards and pilot to keep him seated, it was subsequently decided to divert the flight to Boston to deplane the drunk passenger. The Bill will enable Singapore to have the relevant legal capacity to exercise enforcement powers and take the necessary action as warranted in such cases.
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked who would be punishing the unruly passenger, that is, the state of landing based on where the aircraft lands, the state of registration based on where the aircraft is registered, or the state of nationality based on the nationality of the passenger, or any other jurisdictional bases that are not mentioned here. Clause 5 of the Bill repeals and re-enacts section 4 to provide for the application of the Extradition Act to offences committed on board an aircraft in flight. With the change, any offence committed on board an aircraft in flight is treated as if it had been committed not only in the place at which the offence occurred, but also within the countries exercising the state of registration jurisdiction, state of the operator jurisdiction or the state of landing jurisdiction. Any of these states in whose territory the unruly passenger arrives would be able to take enforcement action to punish him. Extradition of the unruly passenger can happen when there is an extradition treaty in place between Singapore and the state that is requesting the extradition of the unruly passenger and the requirements under the Extradition Act are satisfied.
Mr Melvin Yong asked what would constitute as “unruly passenger”. ICAO's guidance material on this matter refers to \"unruly passengers” as passengers who fail to respect the rules of conduct on board aircraft or to follow the instructions of crew members and thereby disturb the good order and discipline on board aircraft. ICAO has provided guidance to identify the incidents which involve various types of offences, ranging from assault on cabin crew or passengers, sexual assault, to illegal consumption of drugs on board the aircraft.
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked for clarity on the powers of the aircraft commander under the Montreal Protocol 2014. The aircraft commander can impose measures, including restraint, on an unruly passenger and obtain the assistance of the cabin crew, passengers or air marshals. The aim of doing so is to ensure the safety of the aircraft, other passengers and their properties on board.
I would like to assure Mr Melvin Yong and the House that the aircraft commander as well as the cabin crew, passengers and air marshals must act reasonably. Protection of the aircraft commander from personal liability would only apply if the aircraft commander had reasonable grounds to believe that the passenger has either committed an offence or is about to commit an offence or an act which may jeopardise the safety of the aircraft or of persons, property or order and discipline on board. The measures taken must also be reasonable.
Training is important to prepare the aircraft commander and the cabin crew in properly assessing the situation and responding to unruly incidents in an appropriate manner. Airlines have internal guidelines which would prevent unnecessary escalation of a dispute or misunderstanding into a serious unruly incident that would require more serious intervention. Airlines also have in place training programmes for their cabin crew. Such programmes equip them with restraint techniques aimed at not imposing unnecessary harm to the unruly passengers as well as to other passengers on board the aircraft. IATA has also provided guidance materials to assist their member airlines with the aim of preventing unruly passenger incidents from happening in the first place and to manage them effectively when they do occur. The guidance provides information on significant risk factors and recommendations to assist in the prevention and management of such events.
Mr Dennis Tan asked about the role of air marshals. The air marshal, just like the commander and the other passengers, may also take measures if the air marshal has reasonable grounds to believe that the measures are immediately necessary to protect the safety of the aircraft or persons on board the aircraft from any act of unlawful interference or commission of any serious offence. However, these measures taken by air marshals are subject to any agreement between Singapore and the country that is party to the Montreal Protocol 2014 relating to the deployment of air marshals on board an aircraft for ensuring the safety and security of the aircraft and persons on board the aircraft.
Mr Melvin Yong asked if it is possible that a common database of unruly passengers be maintained among aviation authorities. Indeed, some countries that have experienced serious unruly passenger situations have introduced “No-Fly List”. For example, India introduced a national No-Fly List in 2017, which identifies unruly passengers and prohibits them from boarding flights. Depending on the seriousness of the offence, the flight ban on the passenger ranges from three months to a possible life ban. We are currently monitoring the development of such No-Fly Lists by the other countries and will assess if it is feasible to introduce and address some of our context in Singapore.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I agree that we need to stand ready to handle future safety and security threats to Singapore’s civil aviation system. The Montreal Protocol 2014 does not apply to aircraft used in military, Police and customs services. However, we can introduce new or amend legislation if the need arises.
In the area of unmanned aircraft, Singapore is actively participating in international discussions on the issue of security for remotely piloted aircraft systems, including at ICAO. We will continue to ensure that we are ready to protect our aviation system from current and future threats, so as to safeguard our reputation as a safe and secure air hub. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: I thank the Senior Minister of State for his clarifications on some of the points I have raised. On the point I raised about the aircraft commander and the air marshal, I am not sure that the Senior Minister of State understood my question correctly. I think I was raising this possibility that there is an element of conflict between the aircraft commander and the air marshal because section 5(3B) stopped short of stating that the air marshal must always defer to the ultimate authority and instruction of the aircraft commander. So, I am raising the concern and the question whether there will be complications if there is a conflict or disagreement between the two persons.
There is one other question I would like the Senior Minister of State to confirm. Does he foresee there will be any further changes to include further offences which are listed in ICAO's Circular 288 which may not currently be in our Penal Code?
The other question I would like to ask is: how would Singapore deal with the situation when the states of landing – assuming Singapore is the state of landing – the state of landing, the state of the operator or the state of registration, more than one state wants to exercise jurisdiction, how would Singapore, as a state of landing, for example, deal with a situation like this?
Dr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank Mr Dennis Tan for the clarifications. With regard to the last question, there are existing procedures between and among states concerning the exercise of jurisdiction where more than one has jurisdiction. So, I think there is some understanding whereby the contracting states can decide who should be the country that actually prosecutes the unruly passenger.
As to Circular 288, currently, we do have similar offences in our legislation but we do review them regularly and, if necessary, we can also include some of them where necessary.
With regard to the role of the air marshal as well as the aircraft commander, the air marshals are deployed in the aircraft for a certain reason, and they have very strict rules of engagement. However, should there be a conflict, the commander of the aircraft will take control because he is, ultimately, the overall in-charge of the aircraft. I hope I have answered Mr Dennis Tan's queries.
[(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. – [Dr Lam Pin Min.] (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":"Small Claims Tribunals (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) (for the Minister for Law): Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
Mr Deputy Speaker, the Small Claims Tribunals (Amendment) Bill introduces amendments in two main areas. First, it expands the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Tribunals (the Tribunals) and, second, it improves the Tribunals’ processes and strengthens their powers to manage cases. In all, the amendments will strengthen access to justice by allowing the Tribunals to hear more claims in a quicker and more cost-effective manner.
The Tribunals were established in 1985 to provide a quick and inexpensive forum to resolve small claims arising from disputes between consumers and suppliers. To this end, the Tribunals’ processes have been designed to be straightforward, inexpensive and quick.
Over the years, the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) has been working closely with the State Courts to review and enhance these processes. For example, in 2017, MinLaw supported the launch by the State Courts of an electronic case filing and management system called the Community Justice and Tribunals System (CJTS) for claims under the Small Claims Tribunals Act (the Act). CJTS benefits Court users by allowing them to file claims in the Tribunals with ease, monitor their case developments and even actively negotiate an amicable settlement with the other party from the comfort of their own homes.
This Bill proposes amendments to expand the jurisdiction of the Tribunals and improve their processes, whilst also building on these past initiatives. I will now take the House through the key features of this Bill.
Over the years, we have been exploring the possibility of expanding the jurisdiction further so as to allow the Tribunals to decide more claims. After carefully reviewing this issue with key stakeholders, such as the State Courts and the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI), we have decided to expand the Tribunals’ jurisdiction. Let me explain what the expansion of this jurisdiction will entail.
First, the monetary limits of claims filed at the Tribunals. The current claim limit is $10,000 by default, which can be increased to $20,000 if all parties agree. Clause 4, read with clause 2 of the Bill, raises that limit to $20,000 by default, and that limit can also be increased by the consent of all the parties to $30,000. The new claim limits are broadly in line with similar tribunal limits in the UK, Australia and Canada. This will allow more parties to resolve their claims before the Tribunals at less cost using the streamlined procedures available at the Tribunals.
Second, the Bill also expands the types of claims which can be brought before the Tribunals. Currently, the Tribunals already hear a variety of claims, such as those relating to contracts for the sale of goods or the provision of services, claims in tort for damages caused to property, as well as to certain tenancy disputes. With the amendments, the Tribunals will be able to hear hire purchase claims under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (CPFTA). This is in addition to certain consumer claims under CPFTA which are already being heard by the Tribunals, such as claims in relation to unfair practices.
In addition to raising the monetary limits of claims as well as the types of claims which can be filed, the proposed amendments will also extend the limitation period for lodging a claim in the Tribunals from one year to two years. The new limitation period will give parties more time to negotiate and settle their disputes amicably, whilst ensuring that there remains enough time for them to file their claims should they not settle amicably. It is also aligned with the limitation period for consumer claims in respect of unfair practices under CPFTA, which are also heard by the Tribunals.
In expanding the jurisdiction of the Tribunals, we have sought to strike a balance between the objectives of enhancing access to justice while ensuring that the Tribunals stay true to the purpose of providing effective and swift redress for small claims. If the Tribunals’ jurisdiction is expanded too far, they will have to deal with not just an increased caseload but the cases will also involve more complex and complicated legal issues. This is undesirable as cases involving such complex issues are best dealt with in the usual civil Courts which remain accessible and which parties can still avail themselves of.
In addition to expanding the jurisdiction of the Tribunals, the Bill also introduces changes to make it easier for Court users to determine if their claim is within the scope of the Act.
Currently, these users have to refer to section 5(1) of the Act, as well as other pieces of legislation, such as the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act, the Housing and Development Act and the Singapore Business Federation Act, where applicable. So, you have to look at different pieces of legislation to then determine if your claim falls within or under those pieces of legislation and can be heard by the Tribunals. Clause 20 of the Bill consolidates these different provisions within the framework of the Act to assist those wanting to find out whether their claims fall within the scope of the Act, with the only exception being the claims with regard to CPFTA which falls within the jurisdiction of the Tribunals. This is not referred to in clause 20 of the Bill, but will continue to be provided for in CPFTA itself.
To further assist users of the Tribunals, clause 2 of the Bill clarifies how the value of a claim in relation to a contract should be calculated for the purposes of determining whether it falls within the scope of the Act or not. At present, there may be some uncertainty as to whether it is the value of the contract or the value of the quantum of the claim that should apply for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction. The Bill clarifies this by setting out how the value of a claim should be calculated depending on the nature of the claim being brought, for example, depending on whether the claim is for the rescission of a contract, recovery of a progress payment under the contract, or for breach of contract.
Currently, parties typically go through three main stages when they file claims at the Tribunals.
First, parties will file their claims and monitor their case online through CJTS. Parties will also have the opportunity to negotiate and settle their dispute online, as I mentioned earlier.
If it is not resolved at this stage, the Registrar will then invite parties for a consultation session where they will have a second opportunity to resolve the dispute amicably, and this I will refer to as the “Consultation Stage”. That is Stage 2 of the process itself.
Finally, if the dispute is still not resolved, parties may then proceed for a hearing on the merits of the claim before a Referee, who will make an order after hearing from both parties, and this I will refer to as the “Adjudication Stage”.
The Bill makes various enhancements to the processes outlined above, and I will touch on the key enhancements.
Currently, at the Consultation Stage, the Registrar has the power to invite parties to attend a consultation session, where the Registrar will try to effect a settlement acceptable to all parties. However, if that does not resolve the dispute, the Registrar or the tribunal does not have the power to further order the parties to attend mediation even if that may assist the parties in resolving their disputes amicably. To address this situation, clause 7 of the Bill empowers the Registrar or a tribunal to order parties to attend mandatory mediation at the Community Mediation Centre, or before any other person. While this power may be exercised at any stage of the proceedings, it will be most helpful for parties to attend mediation at the Consultation Stage. And this is in line with the Tribunals’ objective to promote and facilitate an early settlement of disputes.
We have also proposed changes to strengthen the powers of the Tribunals to manage cases. Clause 9 of the Bill requires a tribunal to adopt a judge-led approach at the Adjudication Stage. The tribunal will identify the relevant issues in a case and will guide the parties to adduce the relevant evidence before the tribunal. This will help to focus the attention of parties on key issues, and lead to cost and time savings for all.
The tribunal may also direct any party to the proceedings to appear before it, summon any person to give evidence or to produce documents in the proceedings, and give directions for the just, expeditious and economical disposal of the claim.
Clause 11 provides that while a tribunal’s proceedings are to be conducted in private, the tribunal may allow certain individuals to be present to either assist in or to observe the proceedings. Such individuals can include mediators, whom I mentioned earlier, who can assist in resolving the claim amicably; or assessors, such as industry experts, who may have the necessary skills and experience to assess and to assist the tribunal at the Adjudication Stage to deal with the industry-specific stage. They can also include law students from the University Court Friends scheme who are assisting the parties on a pro bono basis.
Clauses 14 and 15 also give the Tribunals broader powers, including the discretion to: (a) dismiss a claim if the claimant is absent without reasonable cause, and I think one can see why; (b) order a tenant to deliver vacant possession of rented premises in the case of unpaid rent; and (c) order costs against parties generally.
The changes I have mentioned will require the Referees of the Tribunals to play a key adjudication and case-management role in proceedings. To better reflect their roles and to align with the nomenclature used in the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT), clause 3 of the Bill renames the “Referees” as “tribunal magistrates”.
Last, but not least, we have also refined the appeals procedure for cases before the Tribunals. In 2005, we amended the Act to require a party who wishes to appeal against a decision of a tribunal to first obtain leave from the District Court. The rationale for that change was to ensure that parties will not be put to unnecessary expense, for example, in cases where there is simply no prospect of the appeal succeeding.
Clause 16 of the Bill now further refines this procedure by providing that a District Court may, even if it refuses leave to appeal, remit the case back to the tribunal for reconsideration, or order a rehearing presided by a different tribunal magistrate. This gives the District Court greater flexibility and latitude to ensure that justice is done in each individual case.
In summary, these amendments are part of our continuous efforts to improve the Tribunals’ processes and enhance access to justice. They will enable the Tribunals to continue to fulfil their mission of providing an efficient, effective and, at the same time, inexpensive avenue for the resolution of small claims. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill.
First established in 1985, the Tribunals provide a quick and inexpensive forum for the resolution of small claims between consumers and suppliers. This forum has been utilised quite heavily. Starting out with a caseload of about 3,000, the Tribunals disposed of approximately 39,000 cases in 1998 and 1999. In the most recent statistics available, the numbers were 10,908 in 2015; 10,266 in 2016; and a projected 9,700 in 2017. This Bill further enhances the Tribunals' bid to promote access to justice in a few ways.
Sir, allow me to expand on some important features of this Bill, but before I do so, please allow me to declare my interest as a practising lawyer.
Firstly, this Bill expands the scope of the Tribunals' jurisdiction. The threshold in terms of quantum of claim has been raised. This is a welcome update of the threshold and is not the first time the jurisdiction threshold has been amended. In 1984, the threshold was $2,000, with the rationale that resolving such claims through the normal civil Courts may be seen to be costly. It was raised in 1995 to $5,000 and then $10,000 with consent; and, subsequently, to $10,000 and $20,000 with consent in 1997.
There have also been important clarifications made to ensure that the monetary limit is applied meaningfully. Under clause 13, the aggregate value of the claims of persons represented in a representative claim must not exceed the monetary limit. While this will not restrict others from bringing their claims through the Tribunals by not aggregating their claim under that representative, it makes sure that a defendant will not face a high-stake claim that exceeds the monetary limit. A similar restriction is applied to claims being heard together by order of the tribunal under section 26 of the current Act because of a common question of fact or law, or because the claims arose out of the same cause of action or because of the interests of justice.
Another expansion of the jurisdiction is through the inclusion of some hire purchase agreements, that is, those that fall under the scope of the Consumer Protection Fair Trading Act. Previously, cases related to cancellation of timeshare and timeshare-related contracts during the cooling-off period, deposits paid in motor vehicle sale contracts and disputes arising from a contract to buy or sell foreign currency notes made with a licensed moneychanger were brought within the jurisdiction of the Tribunals through the amendment to the CPFTA of 2008. However, at that time, hire purchase agreements were not included and, therefore, would the Minister kindly explain the previous rationale for restricting the jurisdiction regarding hire purchase agreements and why the same concerns do not arise today?
Yet another expansion of jurisdiction is the extension of the limitation period from one to two years. This provides a bit more leeway for parties to explore different ways to resolve their disputes before bringing the claim before the tribunal. This is especially important in trade relationships where parties may value a continuing working relationship more than a full and open assertion of each other’s rights.
Secondly, clause 9 puts into statute an active judge-led approach to Tribunal cases. It requires the tribunal to identify the relevant issues and to ensure that relevant evidence is adduced before it.
However, I would like to enquire about the rationale for imposing costs. Why is it necessary to impose costs since there is no legal representation? What will be done to ensure that costs will not inject uncertainty into the system? Would the good Senior Minister of State also ensure costs will not deter legitimate claims being brought by those who may be afraid of getting hit with a costs order? Lastly, in the series of questions, can the public be assured that any costs order will still be less than those for claims filed in the State Courts?
This Bill also uses an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, that is, mediation, to further enhance its tools for dispute resolution. Clause 7 gives scope for a heavier reliance on mediation.
In conclusion, Sir, this Bill helps enhance access to justice through the enhancement and clarification of the Tribunals’ jurisdiction. And, therefore, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I first declare my interest as a practising lawyer.
This Bill proposes to introduce various important amendments to expand the jurisdiction of the Tribunals, as well as to enhance the powers of the Tribunals to facilitate a more efficient and effective resolution of cases. The Workers’ Party supports the proposed amendments in this Bill.
This Bill proposes, first, to raise the default monetary limit of the Tribunals to $20,000, and the upper limit to $30,000 with the consent of all parties to a dispute.
The Bill also proposes to expand the Tribunals' subject-matter jurisdiction to include hire purchase claims under CPFTA.
The raising of the monetary limits will allow more claims to have access to the Tribunals. This is good for many people, particularly for the man in the street, who either may not afford the usual legal fees for the same claim to be tried in Courts, or may find the fees not worthwhile, given the quantum of their claim. The raising of the monetary limits will allow people more options of bringing claims up to $20,000 or $30,000 to the Tribunals, instead of filing such claims in the Magistrates' Courts.
Together with new hire purchase claims also under the Tribunals, the increase in the monetary limitation may hopefully reduce the caseload in the Magistrates' Courts and enhance the handling of cases in the Magistrates' Courts.
I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State: what is the projected increase in the caseload which the Government is expecting from the new jurisdictional limits? Two, what, if any, is the expected increase in the number of tribunal magistrates to deal with any increase in the caseload, and when will the capacity increase for tribunal magistrates as well as administrative staff be put in place?
Next, the Bill also proposes to increase the time bar for claims under the Tribunals from one to two years. I agree with the Ministry’s rationale to align the time bar for claims under CPFTA and also claims under other tribunals, such as the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals, as well as to allow more time for parties to explore methods to resolve their dispute before bringing the claim to the Tribunals. I believe that the time bar of one year is too short anyway. Hence, I welcome the extended time bar of two years.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I also support the introduction of various new measures to facilitate the speedy and effective resolution of cases, measures to enhance the powers of the tribunal, such as allowing and requiring the tribunal to adopt a judge-like approach in identifying relevant issues, ensuring relevant evidence is being adduced, making suitable orders, and even requiring parties to attend mediation as well as granting costs orders. I hope all these measures will serve to enhance the quality of justice at the Tribunals. But I also hope that, in their attempt to process cases more efficiently and effectively, the Tribunals and its staff and magistrates will always be motivated to balance the imperative of efficiency with justice and public service. This is all the more so as, unlike in the State Courts or the High Courts, lawyers are not allowed to represent members of the public using the Tribunals. All claimants and respondents will handle their own claims and deal directly with both tribunal magistrates and staff.
Notwithstanding the relatively lower quantum of claims being decided at the Tribunals, I hope that the Tribunals will always ensure that both the quality of justice as well as service quality should always be maintained at a high level. I also hope that suitable training and guidance will always be given to all tribunal magistrates, including those who have not had prior or adequate civil litigation experience.
Next, may I also suggest that the administrators of the Tribunals consider compiling and make available to the public its decisions or judgments, not unlike the current reported decisions for State and High Courts available on LawNet. Making such decisions and judgments available to the public will encourage better and consistent decisions and judgments.
Justice must always be seen to be done in the eyes of all users of the Tribunals, whether they are claimants or respondents.
I hope that all tribunal magistrates will exercise empathy and patience when they deal with the claimants or respondents directly. I hope that the Tribunals will always aim to ensure that all users of the Tribunals will go away feeling that they have been heard fairly and have a fair day in Court. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill.
I have been calling for a review of the jurisdiction of the Tribunals since 2013 so that more people can have access to economical and expedient orders and judgment in their contractual claims. Raising of the monetary limits of the Tribunals’ jurisdiction will be a boon for claimants and freelance workers alike as I know of professional freelancers who take their clients to task at the Tribunals for non-payment of work done under their contracts for service. The revision is also due as the last review of the Tribunals’ jurisdiction was conducted in 1997 and adjustments ought to be made to factor in inflation and rising costs of living.
I am also supportive of the extension of the limitation period for cases to be brought to the Tribunals as members of the public who are not familiar with legal processes may not consider legal recourse until the dispute has remained unresolved for some time. It is thus reasonable to extend the limitation period from one year to two years for the claimants to avail themselves of the opportunity to bring their small claims to the Tribunals.
At the inception of the Tribunals in 1984, the then Second Minister for Law and Home Affairs Prof S Jayakumar said that the objective of the Tribunals was to provide \"a speedy and inexpensive machinery to handle small claims arising from disputes between consumers and suppliers\". As articulated by Mr Ong Chin Heng in his paper on \"Rethinking Tribunals Justice – Serving the Community” in 2011, then a Senior Referee of the Tribunals, the raison d'etre of the Tribunals must be to serve the community and “the processes, programmes and procedures must be user-friendly and community-oriented so that end users are able to obtain the best substantive as well as procedural justice available\". I believe that the Tribunals' raison d'etre must remain the same today.
The cornerstone of the Tribunals is that the proceedings before the Tribunals are to be conducted in an informal manner. Whilst the adoption of judge-led proceedings through this Bill would help parties to focus on key issues arising from the claim, thereby saving them time and costs, there is a need to ensure that the Tribunals' proceedings are conducted in a manner which still retains its informal nature. Care must be taken to reduce the use of jargon and legalese and maintain the use of simplified procedures so that laypersons are not intimidated when presenting their cases at the Tribunals.
In 2017, the Tribunals adopted an electronic case filing and management system called CJTS, in place of the manual filing system. To assist claimants in preparing to file their tribunal claim, there is a pre-filing assessment tool available on the State Courts' website for their use. I tried completing the pre-filing assessment form and I was asked these questions to which a \"Yes\" or \"No\" response was required. The questions were: are you claiming against the correct party with whom you have a contractual obligation? Does your claim relate to a contract for services received/rendered? Was the claim filed more than one year after the due date of performance? Is contract evidenced in writing? Has the date for service to be rendered lapsed? Are you seeking a Money Order or a Work Order?
I would imagine that an average layperson would find some of these questions challenging to provide a \"Yes\" or \"No\" answer to. There is a need to simplify the language further or to provide a glossary for users’ easy reference.
After completing the pre-filing assessment, I was given a list of notifications with instructions to read them before I proceed to file my claim. The instructions were: please consider how you are going to support your case at the tribunal, by showing evidence or supporting documents. You should engage the other party to discuss remedial works or other acceptable solutions before filing your claim at the tribunal. You must show evidence or supporting documents to show the breach by the other party. You should wait till the contracted service performance date is due before filing your claim. You cannot bring a claim against a person or entity who is out of jurisdiction, that is, outside of Singapore. The tribunal cannot hear the matter if service has not been performed, that is, you have not brought the claim to the attention of the other party personally.
The question is: would these notifications deter the ordinary man on the street from filing his claim in the Tribunals? While we want to expedite the claim processes, we must be careful to ensure that the Tribunals do not become too intimidating for claimants to access.
One other area of concern which I hear from the ground is the issue of enforcement of orders. Take, for example, a case where the claimant has taken time and effort to seek recourse at the tribunal and he has successfully completed the process of pursuing his claim and obtained an order for the counterparty to pay him the sum of monies claimed but the counterparty refuses to pay up. Those who are unfamiliar with the legal system would be surprised or dismayed to find out that they would have to take additional steps and expend more time and costs to enforce the order with no guaranteed outcomes.
In a survey conducted in the UK in 2010, it was found that one in four small claims court users who won their case only received part of the payment they were awarded, while 6% end up receiving nothing. According to the State Courts Annual Report 2017, 9,700 cases came before the Tribunals in 2017. Of these cases, how many orders were fully satisfied? For those which were not satisfied, how many of the orders were enforced? Does the success rate of enforcement of tribunal orders differ from that of judgments made by the Courts?
In the same way that processes to access the Tribunals have to be simplified so that end users are able to obtain the best substantive as well as procedural justice available, the process to seek enforcement of tribunal judgments should also be simplified and made more accessible so that enforcement arrangements do not impact the efficiency of the small claims procedure. To mitigate this issue, the Tribunals can do more by better informing claimants of the potential problems of enforcement, incorporate processes to filter out claims which should not be pursued because of the poor chance of collection and explore ways to better ensure efficient enforcement of its orders, given the nature of the Tribunals. To conclude, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Small Claims Tribunal (Amendment) Bill has two advantages.
First, from the workers’ point of view, freelancers and the self-employed people will be able to claim a higher amount, hence, there is better protection for them. Second, from the consumers’ point of view, their interests will also be better protected.
However, for workers and consumers, the claim process is too complicated. Hence, I have two suggestions. First, simplify the claim process to give people easy access to the Tribunals. Second, improve the efficiency of the enforcement process.
(In English): With that, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Thanaletchimi.
Ms K Thanaletchimi (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the amendments to the Bill. The Tribunals, indeed, provide an expeditious and cost-effective way for resolution of disputes between suppliers and consumers. It may be viewed to function somewhat in a similar way to the Employment Claims Tribunal that aims to provide quick and economical solutions to smaller claims. I welcome the notion that it frees up the Criminal Justice System and engage mediators instead of lawyers for the Tribunals. The pool of mediators can then be enlarged to facilitate the process expeditiously.
As Singapore moves towards a digital economy, the transformation of the Courts towards digitalisation is commendable. The CJTS provides for pre-filing assessment to determine case eligibility and, most interestingly, has an e-negotiation function where settlements can be made without going to the Court. This is much welcomed. But there must be assistance given to those who may not be familiar with the digital form.
The following adjustment to allow greater scope by the Tribunals is, indeed, laudable.
Increasing limits from $20,000 to $30,000, compared to the current $10,000 to $20,000 respectively, will be well received by consumers. This is necessary with the increase in cost of living and prices. Further, it allows the Tribunals to hear more cases and, semantics-wise, this claim limit amount is still fair to be considered a \"small claim\". If the intent of the Tribunals is to provide a quick and cost-effective resolution to claims, then this amount should be periodically reviewed to be relevant to the trends and cost of purchases without having ordinary Singaporeans to incur exorbitant costs in recovering their claims in an open Court.
Section 5 – including hire purchase claims: increasingly, sellers/institutions allow instalment payments, and this is a norm that should be included in the \"Nature of Dispute\" as well.
Section 2 and section 35(1) – making work orders relating to property damage and short residential leases. Giving the Tribunals more flexibility to order other forms of compensation and not just monetary order is a step in a right direction so as to allow more equitable compensation of varied forms.
I welcome the step taken to enhance the Tribunals' powers and improve the Tribunals' processes. Renaming “Referee” to Tribunal Magistrate confers the judge the authority and respect that should be accorded in facilitating the tribunal process.
Section 17 – empowered to order mediation which is known to be helpful in facilitating resolution. This is a great step forward and, from my experience, mediation has been effective when dealing with employment-related disputes handled by the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) and the Ministry of Manpower's (MOM’s) Labour Relations Department. Many disputes arise from miscommunication which can be easily addressed and settled amicably with a win-win outcome.
Under sections 26 and 27, with regard to cases like o-Bike, can class action be taken if the case satisfies the criterion that the combined value of the claims heard together does not exceed the Tribunals' monetary jurisdiction?
Last but not least, I would like the relevant authorities to create greater awareness and educate Singaporeans that there is an avenue for them to turn to if, for some reason, they are faced with purchase issues of goods and services. Many, especially those who are less literate, may not know whom to turn to and what to do. Sometimes, their purchases may not even have relevant receipts as evidence of purchase. This is concerning. More needs to be done to empower our consumers, enlighten and educate both our consumers and our retailers.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef.
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Tribunals started in 1984, under the State Courts. It represents an inexpensive and readily accessible way to resolve claims between consumers and suppliers.
I have a few points to make on this Bill.
Firstly, I support the increase in limits for the claim amounts. This would certainly give more flexibility and options to consumers, and, in fact, these limits have not been reviewed for a long time. The new amounts also make it more competitive and comparable with other jurisdictions, such as the UK, Canada and Australia. It also helps us address inflation rates and increases in the cost of living.
The review is also timely to ensure enhanced efficiency and effectiveness in the operating framework.
Can the Minister explain a little more on the use of mediation by the Tribunals? Are there specific guidelines? Will there be plans to make this compulsory, as it is probably the direction which we should be taking?
Can we also have an idea of the total average number of cases handled annually and what are the commoner types of cases that we seek?
Also, have there been issues with the affordability of payments amongst the low-income consumers and claimants? There are administrative fees, legal fees, filling fees and even other ancillary fees to be considered.
There has also been a major move towards electronic filling and fixing of dates as well as appointments. The system also has an e-negotiation feature, which allows parties to negotiate and, hopefully, reach settlement on a disputed claim. How popular or frequently is this in use? How about those claimants who are not information technology (IT)-savvy and still need to do manual filling and have the face-to-face meet-ups as usual? How many are those who are not so familiar with the use of the English language? Will there be interpreters? Like you and I know, interpretation can certainly lose some of the meaning that is intended. Perhaps, some finetuning is needed in this direction to make it widely user-friendly. In all, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am pleased that the prescribed limits for Tribunals are being revised upwards. The new default limit of $20,000 is timely and appropriate. In situations where there is mutual consent by both parties, the default will be raised from $20,000 to $30,000. Prices of goods have gone up and raising the limits would reflect the current market condition.
Nonetheless, Sir, I feel that a higher default limit of $50,000, in the absence of mutual consent, be set. This is because in many home renovations, for example, the bill often runs much higher. So, the claimant should be allowed to seek redress to at least get back some compensation, if not all of it.
Also, with more people taking up freelance and contract work in the gig economy, we can expect disputes from time to time which may well be beyond the prescribed limit. For high-value purchases like interior design packages, high-end sound systems, the increase in claims limit is welcome relief, but it should be pegged higher as Singaporeans are proud home owners and they would spend a lot to furnish their homes.
I would also like to raise this question. Often, when we buy, say, a leather settee, the material of the leather may not be clearly described in the invoice. How then could the claimant establish his case before the Tribunal against the respondent if he finds the settee supplied is deficient? How detailed should the description be in the invoice? In current practice, most invoices merely state the model number and a generic description of the furniture.
I note that disputes from hire purchase, which has been a popular mode of transaction, will be addressed. The limitation period for disputes to be brought to the Tribunal is also raised from one year to two years. This amendment is good because, in the case of hire purchase, it usually runs beyond a year.
In the case of a dispute in a tenancy agreement, most of these are for more than a year, with the option for both parties to mutually extend by another year. Now, in a tenancy agreement, details are clearly spelt out and the document is signed by both parties, with a witness, and stamp duty paid. In this instance, apart from the landlord seeking vacant possession and any damage to the property, can he also claim for stamp duty paid if the tenant did not fulfil his full tenancy? How is the landlord to establish the value of the property damaged? Not many people keep invoices unless there is a warranty attached to it. What would be the proof required?
The implementation of these enhancements is insufficient when vulnerable groups, such as the elderly, lack awareness and fail to claim their rights. They also do not have the necessary tools to utilise this avenue. I am concerned for the elderly who are less educated and who may not know what avenues are available for them to seek redress. This is more so since last year when filing for small claims will have to be done online via the State Courts' CJTS. Even the submission of documents and monitoring of case developments are to be done online.
May I ask if the Ministry has done any study to assess whether it is easy for the elderly to use the platform? Has any outreach programme been conducted to generate awareness among this group of people? With more elderly living alone and having no children to depend on, how and where can they obtain assistance and guidance from the State Courts with regard to the process?
May I also ask the Ministry to consider setting up a hotline to make the process more inclusive, such as for those who are visually impaired, illiterate and can only speak their mother tongue or dialect? Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In addition, concerned family members have shared with me about how their elderly family members would get pressured into buying things. This particularly applies to hire purchase items whereby they are usually misled by the low upfront cost, only to regret when they realise later that the full payable amount is, in fact, much higher. Even when prices are stated clearly, the elderly sometimes fail to notice the small print or they simply get confused by all the different numbers. A badgering sales assistant only complicates matters. I hope a two-week cooling off period, like that for insurance products, can be implemented and enforced by the Government.
(In English): This reminds me of the controversial goodie bag sales which sees victims, many who are senior citizens living in the heartlands, forking out $100 for various household items that they did not need. While not illegal, the perpetrators clearly use tricky marketing tactics. While it may not be possible to apply such a warranty to all products, it could have a deterrent effect on those who take advantage of the vulnerable.
I note the Bill gives more power to the Tribunals to resolve conflicts. The Tribunals will adopt a judge-led approach during Tribunal proceedings or the parties to attend mediation and costs awarded against parties where appropriate. Mediation, as a primary resolution, is good as it relieves all parties of the time, trouble and resources from escalating the case to the State Courts.
However, it becomes a cause for concern when either party uses it as an excuse to drag out the case. I would like to know the normal timeframe and number of mediation sessions required to settle the claims. Will there be penalties for deliberately uncooperative parties?
Sir, overall, these amendments are good, and should they be implemented, I hope the Ministry will generate greater awareness of them. Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. It is good that the amendments spell out clearly what are the specific claims that would be heard by the Tribunal, so that more claims can be heard and in a more expeditious manner. This offers clarity for the parties to a contract.
Hire purchase is a popular purchase contract for many people, and disputes may arise after the contract is signed. This is especially if the lifespan of the product is shorter than the period of the hire purchase, or when the after-sales service is not delivered as promised. For the consumers to be able to turn to the Tribunal, this would help save them much time and it will probably be more cost-effective. It is, indeed, good that the limitation period is raised from one year to two years. I think this is a good start, but I would like to ask that the Ministry continually review this limitation period with a view to extending it to three years.
Given that there is now this amendment to the Act, may I ask if the Minister would consider making it mandatory for all hire purchase contracts to include a clause that says something to the effect that in the event of a dispute or disagreement within the period of two years, both parties may turn to the Tribunals to resolve any dispute? The inclusion of this clause would make the buyers aware of their rights, as well as flag out to the sellers that they have their obligations to fulfil under the hire purchase terms.
In the case of tenancy contracts, which are also another high-volume contract, given that many apartments and offices are being leased out by owners, there is the limitation that the lease should be for a two-year period to qualify for hearing by the Tribunal. For clarification, there are many contracts where the owners offer options for renewal for a third year. Can I ask in this instance if there is a dispute under such a contract during the third year, could the parties be allowed to turn to the Tribunal for resolution? After all, the initial contract signed was for a two-year period.
I am also pleased that the monetary limits have been increased from $10,000 to $20,000 and the extended limit subject to both parties’ concurrence is raised from $20,000 to 30,000. This limit should be continually reviewed so that it reflects the market conditions, such as inflation and the rise in the cost of items purchased.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as a practising lawyer. The Small Claims Tribunal (Amendment) Bill introduces various amendments to the Act aimed to expand and enhance both the jurisdiction and powers of the Tribunals. The amendments reflect the rising costs of living and, therefore, the quantum of disputes, and also promotes greater access to justice through the quick and relatively inexpensive forum of the Tribunals. The Bill is introduced after public consultation on the proposed amendments. The approach taken by MinLaw in involving members of public to give feedback on the Bill before it is debated here is particularly commendable.
I support the amendments and take the opportunity to make a few short points on the proposed amendments.
First, sections 26 and 27 of the Act presently allows for the consolidation of claims involving a common question of fact or law, as well as representative claims or class action claims. Clauses 12 and 13 of the Bill amends these sections to clarify that the aggregate value of the class action or consolidated claims does not exceed the monetary limits prescribed by the Act.
I understand that the amendments are proposed out of a recognition that the Tribunals may not be equipped to deal with a large number of consolidated claims, whose total aggregate value may exceed the Tribunals' limit by a large margin. However, there is a danger that the proposed amendments, which link the combined value of the claims to the Tribunals' monetary jurisdiction for a single case, may substantively impact on the original policy behind the statutory intent to allow consolidation of claims, as enshrined in the provisions as it stands now.
The main rationale underlying the consolidation of proceedings is to ensure an efficient hearing of related actions under a common umbrella. This can be done through trying all the cases in one go or trying a \"test case\" where the Court's findings may bind the rest of the parties in the consolidated action.
Where there are claims giving rise to common questions of law or fact or that arise out of the same events, there is compelling logic to have the same tribunal to have the power to order that the claims be heard together. Apart from savings of time and resources, there is also an issue of substantive fairness and justice, namely, to militate against inconsistent findings of fact by different tribunals arising from the same events.
I am also concerned about the practical effect on the resources of the Tribunals which may consequently have no choice but to hear cases arising from the same subject matter separately.
Given that the order of consolidation is a discretionary judicial remedy, I wonder if it would have been better to leave it to the Tribunals to decide whether or not to grant the order, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the specific kind of issues involved and whether it is equipped to deal with these issues. Another intermediate solution would be to provide for a higher limit for the aggregate value of consolidated or class action claims so that a balance can be struck between the two competing policies that I have identified.
Second, clause 15 of the Bill repeals sections 35 to 37 of the Act and introduces a new section 35 that expands and improves the type of orders that the Tribunals may make. In particular, the proposed amendment aims to provide the Tribunals the power to order a party to pay costs where the Tribunal thinks fit to do so. In the Ministry's public consultation paper, it was explained that this was to enhance the Tribunals' case management powers since sections 31 and 32 of the Act presently provides that no costs shall be awarded, save in respect of frivolous or vexatious claims.
Proceedings before the Tribunals, as pointed out by the hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza, exclude representation by a lawyer. As explained by the then Minister for Labour and Second Minister for Law and Home Affairs Prof S Jayakumar to this House in 1984, to ensure that a litigant will not be at a disadvantage because he is unable to afford legal representation and to keep costs to a minimum, parties are to present their own case. This is why it is provided that, unless a claim is frivolous or vexatious, no costs, apart from disbursements, may be awarded. In these circumstances, since no legal representation is allowed before the Tribunals, how is a party's costs to be judged and quantified? Finally, how can we ensure that the practice of awarding costs under the new provision would not discourage litigants with bona fide claims from presenting their claims in the Tribunal for fear of being penalised in costs? I believe this is the same point that was raised by the hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza earlier, too.
The proposed new section 35 of the Act will also now empower the Tribunals to order vacant possession of the premises in cases involving unpaid rent by a tenant. This is in addition to an order for the tenant to pay outstanding rent. Notwithstanding that the Tribunals' jurisdiction is only in respect of claims relating to a contract for the short-term lease of residential property not exceeding two years, an order for possession, which may be enforced by a writ of possession, is, I would suggest, an onerous remedy against the tenant. It also, in effect, deals with a subject matter, in form of the res, that usually exceeds the Tribunals' monetary jurisdiction. In fact, as it stands, under section 52(1A) of the State Courts Act, even the Magistrate's Court, which is a forum where parties may have legal representation, does not have the civil jurisdiction to hear and try an action where there is no claim for any sum of money or the relief sought in addition to the claim amount is in respect of the subject matter which exceeds the Magistrate Court's limit. I am concerned whether the Tribunal is the best forum to determine this issue, especially since parties do not have legal representation.
The hon Senior Minister of State would know that when it comes to orders of delivering vacant possession, it is associated with also the calculations of mesne profits in the situation of holding over or calculation of double rent under the Civil Law Act. So, these are issues that perhaps the Tribunal may not be able to handle. Will there be any safeguards put in place to minimise the risk of injustice in the form of allowing such orders to be appealable as a matter of right, or to provide guidance to the Tribunal on when the power to order vacant possession should be exercised?
Third, section 38 of the present Act provides that there will be no appeal to the High Court against the Tribunal’s decision unless it involves a question of law or jurisdiction. In addition, leave to appeal must be granted by the District Court before an appeal may be brought. Clause 16 of the Bill proposes to amend this section to allow the District Court to, in cases where leave to appeal is refused, order that the matter be remitted back to the same tribunal for reconsideration or that the case be reheard by a different tribunal.
It appears that the effect of the proposed amendments is to give the District Court supervisory jurisdiction over the Tribunals. However, this seems to be inconsistent with section 19(3) of the State Courts Act, which explicitly states that the District Court does not have any supervisory jurisdiction. May I please seek clarification on the basis of this proposed amendment, and how the proposed amendments to allow the District Court to remit the matter back to the Tribunals for rehearing may be reconciled with this point?
Further, the proposed amendments would allow a case to be reheard on a ground involving issues of fact. This effectively expands the scope for an appeal, by allowing a rehearing of cases on the basis of a question of fact. This approach seems to be different from the approach taken by the Ministry in 2005, where the then Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Law Prof S Jayakumar stated that the scope for an appeal was deliberately narrowed in order to promote finality, and to avoid the high costs in appealing that may exceed the sums in dispute. Could the hon Senior Minister of State please clarify if the approach has changed and, if so, why is there a need to expand the scope for appeal?
Notwithstanding the clarificatory points I have raised, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I welcome this update to the Tribunals which provides a time and cost-efficient dispute resolution channel for many. In particular, I welcome the move to carve out greater space for mediation for the resolution of small claims. This recognises the value of collaborative conflict resolution that preserves relationships even where the claim amounts are relatively low.
I have three points for clarification. As mentioned, I am very supportive of the Registrar now having the power to refer a claim for mediation under section 18A. There is a presumption of alternative dispute resolution for all civil cases under the State Court Practice Directions. The Court will automatically refer all cases to the most appropriate mode of alternative dispute resolution, including mediation, unless parties opt out. Will there be a similarly strong effort to channel most Tribunal claims to mediation first?
For claimants in civil cases, solicitors are required by the Legal Profession Professional Conduct Rules to evaluate the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes in an appropriate case. Further, claimants are required to fill in an ADR form which provides them with information on ADR processes to guide their decisions. Given that Tribunal claimants will be acting in person, often without the benefit of legal advice, will similar information be provided to Tribunal claimants?
Next, a Registrar now has the power to order a party to pay costs under section 35(1)(a). Can the Senior Minister of State clarify the situations under which a party may be ordered to pay costs? Under Order 59 Rule 5(c) of the Rules of Court, the Court may take into account parties’ conduct in resolving the matter by mediation in ordering adverse costs. A successful defendant may be deprived of a portion of costs they would otherwise have been awarded if found to have unreasonably refused to engage in mediation. Would the refusal to participate in mediation or clear bad faith participation in mediation be a ground for or be taken into consideration when ordering costs?
Can the Senior Minister of State also clarify what sums a party might be ordered to pay as costs? Given the limits on the sums that can be claimed at the Tribunal, would it be appropriate to limit the amount of costs that can be ordered against a claimant at the Tribunal?
Next, in a written response to a 2017 Parliamentary Question, Minister Shanmugam estimated the total cost of enforcing a money order of the Tribunal can be between $400 and $600. This is about a quarter of the claim limit of $2,000 before the Tribunal. For the average claimant, enforcement of a money order does not seem cost-efficient. Therefore, are there plans to relook the costs involved in enforcing a Tribunal money order to make it more cost-efficient for the average Tribunal claimant?
Given the efforts to align the Small Claims regime with the Employment Claims regime, would the Ministry also consider carving out separate enforcement processes for low-value claims? Sir, notwithstanding the above clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Rahayu Mahzam.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Mr Deputy Speaker, I first declare my interest as a practising lawyer. In recent years, great strides have been made to strengthen access to justice to the public. Enabling access to justice must remain a cornerstone of our legal framework, as robust and efficient dispute resolution greatly aids businesses and consumers alike.
I am, therefore, pleased to hear of the amendments to the Act to strengthen access to justice in Singapore.
I note that in 1984, the Tribunals, through the joint efforts of MinLaw and MTI, were introduced to allow for a speedy and inexpensive machinery to handle small claims arising from disputes between consumers and suppliers.
It sought to ensure that (a) there is consumer protection with speedy dispute resolution that is not belaboured by strict rules of evidence or Court procedures; (b) cost is kept to a minimum; and (c) a litigant in person is not disadvantaged by the inability to afford legal representation.
As we review the existing Act, we should continue to be guided by these principles. In this vein, I have some comments to make in relation to some of the proposed amendments in this Bill.
The jurisdictional limit of the Tribunals was $2,000 in 1984. This limit, over time, has been increased to $10,000. The amendments propose an increase in the quantum of jurisdictional limit to S$20,000, by default, and up to S$30,000 if parties agree to the same. This is welcomed. However, it is notable that the last revision on the limit was done in 1998, almost 20 years ago. Some may express concerns that the proposed limit is still too low, especially as the litigation costs, even for claims slightly above S$30,000, can sometimes be quite high. On the other hand, lawyers may feel that more work is being taken away from them as more processes are made simpler for litigants-in-person. I note that there will always be challenges as we seek to set limits. I trust, however, that the Ministry remains open to review this limit at the appropriate junctures.
The limitation period for bringing a claim to the Tribunals has also been increased from one year to two years. This is a good alignment with the limitation period for bringing claims in other tribunals in the State Courts.
Additionally, the amendments also seek to broaden the types of claims that can be heard at the Tribunals, such as hire purchase claims, in addition to pre-existing categories, such as any contract for sale of goods or provision of services; claim in tort in respect of any property; and contract for the lease of residential premises that does not exceed two years.
While the inclusion of hire purchase claims is a welcomed addition, another common area of need for many Singaporeans is a platform to resolve disputes arising from personal loans. Currently when parties enter into IOUs or written personal loans, they are unable to use the Tribunals to assist with resolving their dispute.
Previously, Members of this House had also asked about platforms to arbitrate personal injury or property damage claims relating to the use of personal mobility devices. As the needs of Singaporeans continue to change, we must constantly evaluate the types of claims that can be arbitrated under the Tribunals. I, therefore, urge the Ministry to consider including some of these claims, perhaps in the next review or amendment of the Act.
This amendment also seeks to empower the Tribunal to award costs against parties where necessary. Currently, the Tribunal does not have the power to make cost orders except when the claim brought forward is frivolous and vexatious. This was envisioned to give the litigant in person with genuine claims a piece of mind to air their concerns and be given an opportunity to be heard. Often, litigants in persons may be unable to see the other parties’ perspective easily and may be over-zealous in pursuing their claims. I would urge that the exercise of these powers to order costs be done very judiciously so as not to penalise lay persons too quickly.
I also support the enhancement for the Tribunal to order mediation. As a mediator, I definitely see value in mediation being a key step in dispute resolution. Mediation is, however, a consensual process. I, therefore, hope that in mandating mediation within this process, the Tribunal takes the effort to ensure that parties understand and appreciate the purpose and value of mediation so that they are attending such mediation sessions with an open mind to resolving such disputes. If it becomes clear that the gap between parties is too big, then mediation may not be the most appropriate option, and parties should be able to go through the process without any delay.
Currently, there is no avenue to appeal unless a question of law or jurisdiction arises. This had led to some dissatisfaction by some who have come before the Tribunal. It is a fine balance between providing finality of outcome and ensuring just outcomes.
In this regard, I am happy to note that District Courts would be empowered to remit a matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration or order a rehearing by a different tribunal and grant a stay of execution where appropriate.
It may be useful to give litigants in person more time to file a notice of appeal, especially where they are seeking determination on a question of law or jurisdiction. Fourteen days may be too short a time to seek legal advice and prepare the notice of appeal.
As the Tribunal will be a place where the public interact with the justice system to seek recourse for their grievances, we must also evaluate the experience one goes through and, often, the experience can greatly impact one’s impression of the justice system.
I am happy to note that the Tribunal will be empowered to issue its own Practice Directions, which would be made available to the public. I trust these Practice Directions will not take the usual form as the ones issued to legal practitioners and will be easy and simple to follow.
Since 10 July 2017, the CJTS allows for parties to file claims from the comfort of their homes. It is also important for this system to be supported by a call centre where calls about procedure are dealt with. I believe this is similar to the suggestion by fellow Member Ms Joan Pereira. These calls can be managed by a trained pool of paralegals who may be the best placed to assist. At the Tribunals, we must continue to remain open to assist those in need of guidance, keeping in mind that such officers can render legal advice.
In conclusion, while the proposed amendments greatly enable access to justice, we must continue to create awareness about such resources amongst our residents and, minimally, information about these Tribunals should be available at every community club. The awareness is a critical enabler to access justice. Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Mr Deputy Speaker, allow me to declare my interest in speaking on this Bill as the President of the Consumers Association of Singapore, or CASE for short.
In the second reading of the Small Claims Tribunals Bill in 1984, the then Second Minister for Law and Home Affairs Prof S Jayakumar said that \"the primary purpose of this Bill is to provide for a speedy and inexpensive machinery to handle small claims arising from disputes between consumers and suppliers.”
After 34 years, this rationale still holds true today. Every year, CASE receives many requests for assistance from consumers whenever they have disputes with businesses. Wherever possible, we strive to mediate a settlement between the parties. However, in some cases, a mediated settlement is simply not possible because of the different expectations between parties. In such cases, where the disputes concern a lower quantum, below $10,000, referring consumers to the Tribunals allows them to have their dispute adjudicated in a speedy and inexpensive manner. And that is the thrust of what a Tribunal is about.
Hence, CASE supports the extension of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to $20,000 and the prescribed extended limit is increased to $30,000. CASE is also supportive of the increase in the limitation period from one year to two years. These amendments will widen the jurisdiction of the Tribunals and enable more consumers to have access to the Tribunals to seek a fair decision in their disputes. The alternative is for consumers to engage their own lawyers to argue their case in Court and this would invariably result in higher legal costs.
Sir, allow me to raise three issues for consideration.
There has been feedback from consumers that when they bring their cases to the Tribunals, decisions made by the Referee were not explained clearly to the consumer. The end result is that the consumers have no idea as to the reasons why their claims were dismissed. Sometimes, they feel aggrieved at the perceived injustice. It also affects their decision whether to appeal to the High Court if they are still dissatisfied with the decision.
Could I urge the Presiding Judge of the State Courts to ensure that all Tribunal Magistrates appointed to hear disputes at the Tribunals are not only legally qualified personnel but also experienced officers who are trained to deal with members of the public who are not conversant with legal principles? As the Tribunals will deal with large numbers of the public, this will allow the public or the businesses to better understand the reason why their case was not successful.
The next issue concerns the jurisdiction of the Tribunals which was previously defined under section 5 of the SCT Act. Recently, when o-Bike announced that they were ceasing to operate in Singapore, many consumers wanted to submit their claims to the Tribunals to ask for the refund of the rental deposits. However, section 5 of the SCT Act does not provide for claims for refund of rental deposits. Nor will it be considered provision of service as low skill or labour is involved in the supply of such rental bicycles.
May I urge the Ministry to consider reviewing all common consumer claims and to expand the jurisdiction of the Tribunals to cover more common consumer disputes?
Finally, Sir, last year, during the Committee of Supply debate on consumer protection, I spoke on the need to ensure that consumers are protected when making purchase transactions online. The research by CASE shows that there are several companies which provide for an arbitration clause in their online standard terms and conditions. This means that consumers who buy online would have to agree to the arbitration when transacting with these online companies. The consumers have no negotiating power to ask for the arbitration clause to be removed.
Thus, for example, if an online business makes a consumer sign up as a customer and imposes a monthly charge without the consumer’s consent, this may be an unfair practice under the CPFTA. But if the business is unreasonable, the only way for the consumer to seek legal recourse may be to go for arbitration even if the business is clearly engaging in unfair practices. So, you cannot go to the Tribunal to seek redress. Because of the arbitration clause, the consumer has no choice but to refer the matter for arbitration.
In a recent case, when CASE wrote on behalf of a consumer to a company regarding a defective furniture worth $1,134, the company declined to go for mediation. And what did the company do? The company asked the consumer to seek legal redress by going to the Singapore International Arbitration Centre for the settlement of the dispute, a dispute of $1,134.
So, in reply to my speech last year at the Committee of Supply debate, Senior Minister of State Dr Koh Poh Koon said that \"in line with the principle of the freedom of contract, businesses are free to enter into consumer contracts, as long as it is mutually agreed to by the contracting parties\". With greatest respect to Senior Minister of State Koh, this misses the point of why the Tribunal was set up in the first place, which is to protect consumers and to ensure that consumers have a speedy and inexpensive way to resolve disputes.
The reality is that most consumers do not read the fine terms and conditions of a thick set of contractual terms when they buy something of low value. For the Government to expect consumers to knowingly agree to arbitration for contracts of small value is unrealistic because the cost of arbitration is very high.
If the Government is intent on protecting consumers from being taken advantage of by unscrupulous businesses, surely, we can specify that businesses cannot oust the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for claims that are clearly within the jurisdiction or the prescribed limit of the Act. I urge the Government to rethink this point and not simply assert that \"consumers are free to contract\".
The Unfair Contracts Terms Act would also have no meaning as businesses which impose unfair contractual terms can assert that \"businesses are free to enter into consumer contracts, as long as it is mutually agreed to by the contracting parties\".
Hence, I urge the Minister to consider inserting a new clause to amend the Act, which should not allow businesses to oust the jurisdiction of the Tribunal by referring disputes within the specified limit for arbitration. With this, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Tribunals are an important platform to resolve small claims between consumers and retailers or suppliers. With the rise of entrepreneurship, and also the advent of online shopping, the cases of disputes between parties are likely to rise. The simplicity of the process and the ease of access of the Tribunals are, therefore, important. Certainly, it is an opportune moment to introduce some enhancements to the Small Claims Tribunals Bill. I will raise three points today: preventing abuse of the mediation process, legal representation for individuals, and public education.
When it comes to solving disputes and conflicts, I am a firm believer in mediation. If implemented effectively, it could stop a dispute from escalating into a Court case, saving resources and time for everyone. In Nee Soon South, we have even set up a Mediation Club and hope to train many more grassroots leaders in mediation.
Yet, while mediation is an important tool for problem solving, it may be abused as an excuse to delay resolution. A party with more time and resources can drag out the mediation, hoping the other party runs out of resources or gives up. How will the Ministry ensure that this does not happen? Will the Community Mediation Centre (CMC) limit the mediation to one day, just like it does for Magistrate-referred cases?
My second point is on legal representation for individuals. Lawyers are not allowed in Tribunals or community mediation. But often, the disputes are between an individual and a company. Usually, the company will have a lawyer to advise them outside the Courts.
To better address the imbalance of bargaining power and prevent issues arising from the individual not understanding his or her legal rights, can layman be allowed legal representation during Small Claims Tribunal Mediation?
Third, I also hope more can be done to reach out to the elderly and vulnerable so that they are aware of how and where to get help should they encounter a need to raise a dispute. I hope some form of public education can be launched to help the public to know and understand the process available to them. Sir, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Disputes at the Tribunals are often those between an individual and a company. Although lawyers are not allowed at the Tribunals and Community Medication Centres, a company would usually have a lawyer to advise them. However, an ordinary person would not have these resources. This is not fair. It is like the big bullying the small. Can we allow ordinary citizens to seek legal representation at the Tribunals?
In addition, many ordinary citizens, especially the elderly and the vulnerable, do not understand the process at the Tribunal. They suffer in silence and do not dare to seek recourse. Can we strengthen public education, so that people can better understand their rights?
(In English): Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in today’s debate on the Bill. The changes in consumer behaviour and the nature of service provision require that our Tribunals evolve its reach and jurisdiction to remain relevant as another arm of consumer protection. There are two major changes in consumer behaviour that will make evolution of the Tribunals timely.
First, services are increasingly being performed by freelancers in the gig economy for companies. For example, the media and tour guiding industry are dominated by freelancers. They do not have the security provided by the Employment Act and some use the Tribunal as a main recourse to pursue unpaid services or when disputes in the provision of services occur. Therefore, the increase in monetary value of claims and the adoption of judge-led proceedings will help the freelancers. This is especially so as the monetary value of their services increase over time.
I also suggest that the Ministry can work with the tripartite partners to develop industry-specific claims mechanisms to help our freelancers. While the claims process has been simplified over the years, the process can be intimidating for many freelancers. For example, the process requires the person to identify the breach and evidenced it in writing. This can be intimidating, especially for those less acquainted with the legal process, as also brought up by hon Member Mr Patrick Tay. And our freelancers may frequently come up against larger companies which have access to legal counsel, though lawyers cannot be present during proceedings.
Establishing industry-specific claims mechanisms for freelancers may help to level the playing field. For example, the Tribunals can mandate certain cases to be mediated by the tripartite partners with consensus made enforceable by the Tribunals. This process is important in establishing new longer-term forms of protection for Singaporeans joining the freelance industry. This is also an expanding part of the Singapore workforce that operates outside of the ambit of the Employment Act. The Tribunals can form a key thread in the fabric of support.
The other significant change to the consumer landscape is the fast growth of micro transactions involving larger groups of consumers. For example, there are many disputes involving customers who purchase items through Facebook or Carousell and where the expected services are not rendered properly, leading to disputes. In such instances of micro transactions involving multiple parties and claimants, it is often not economically feasible for the individual to file such claims. However, does the Tribunals allow for a larger group of consumers to file for such claims collectively? The evolving nature of online retail is such that many consumers can be affected very quickly over a very short period of time. Perhaps the Ministry can consider for such collective action without everyone having to file individual claims, as perhaps also expounded by the hon Member Mr Murali Pillai.
The Tribunal was set up in 1985 to provide a quick and inexpensive forum for the resolution of small claims between consumers and suppliers, as stated also by hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza. While the cost of filing claims in the Tribunals is affordable, at 1% of the claim amount for consumers, this cost quickly escalates in the enforcement of the claims.
From the perspective of the claimant, having a judgment without enforcement defeats the purpose of filing a claim. Should the other party resist compliance, a writ of seizure may need to be issued and the administrative and ancillary costs may come up to $400 to $600 easily. While the claimant can appeal to the Registrar to waive or defer the payment or claim the cost from the judgment, it is not guaranteed to happen.
Consumers will weigh the cost and benefit and feel that perhaps it is not worth the time and money over a claim as the original claim amount could be lower than what they would have to pay for enforcement. The process could also be complex and may take time. Hence, consumers might just give up if the amount is not large and the cost outweighs the benefits. Rogue business owners or service providers may then be able to get off scot-free. We must guard against these businesses hiding behind the veneer of cost barriers to law enforcement. Consumers must also be made aware of the difficulties of enforcing claims at the time of purchase rather than at the point of making claims. Mr Deputy Speaker, please allow me to continue in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]\tMr Deputy Speaker, increasing the jurisdiction of the Tribunals and strengthening the claims process will help more people to solve disputes through legal channels, and expedite the process of hearing their claim. This would improve consumer protection. Meanwhile, it is also a safeguard for freelancers.
For many Singaporeans, especially for the elderly and people without any legal experiences, dealing with the legal processes can be very daunting. When I tried to experience the claims process, I noticed that certain wordings and processes, indeed, require some time to digest. For people without any legal background, this is obviously a major barrier. I hope MinLaw can continue to simplify the claims process and reduce legal jargons, in particular, the process of enforcing the Court judgment should be streamlined.
(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the changes to the Tribunals must occur to reflect its relevance in the new norms of consumer behaviour. At the same time, it must strike a careful balance between inadvertently fostering a litigious society and consumer rights. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members for all their comments, suggestions and, ultimately, the unanimous support of the Bill. When the Small Claims Tribunal was first conceived over 20 years ago, its overriding philosophy was to provide a straightforward, quick and inexpensive way of resolving claims of low value. That remains true to this day, and we must strive to keep to that philosophy.
While I am grateful for suggestions to further enhance the jurisdiction and accessibility of the Tribunals, and we have heard many today, we must keep in mind the need to delicately balance what we seek to achieve through the Tribunals and what these suggestions might then take the process towards. Whilst many of these suggestions are good ones, and they do take us closer to what it might be like to appear in Court, we must not forget that, at the end of the day, whilst the claims can be brought in the Tribunals, with all its limitations that we have heard about, there is nothing to stop a party from going to Court with lawyers, as Er Dr Lee Bee Wah has suggested, if they wish to, or without the limits, as some of the other Members have suggested.
So, we must bear in mind that at the end of the day, the Tribunals sit in a system, an ecosystem, of a series of options available to a party, and we must bear in mind at the end of the day that we are trying to reach a quick, expeditious and inexpensive resolution. And it is with this philosophy in mind that I address the concerns that have been brought up. I would like to do so with three broad overarching themes, and these are: first, the coverage and jurisdiction of the Tribunals, what do they cover; second, the accessibility and affordability of the Tribunals; and finally, the conduct of proceedings at the Tribunals.
Various Members have raised the possibility of expanding the jurisdiction of the Tribunals. They suggested that the Tribunals cover other types of claims; that the claim limits could be increased; and the limitation period for claims before the Tribunals could also be lengthened.
I am heartened to hear such support for the work of the Tribunals being voiced, to the extent that my fellow Members here in this House agree, or urge, that the jurisdiction be further expanded. I would like to assure Members that we have been, and will continue to, periodically review the jurisdictional claims limits of the Tribunals, and also the types of claims that should come before the Tribunals, to ensure that they continue to remain relevant, given societal changes. In fact, Mr Christopher de Souza's question as to why hire purchase has not been brought in is precisely one of those points, that it is now more prevalent and a lot more germane to what parties seek dispute resolution over, and so they are now part of the rubric of the Tribunals as well.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Ms Rahayu Mahzam have highlighted the newer types of claims arising from, I would say, new consumer behaviour – I think Mr Lim Biow Chuan mentioned o-Bikes as well. These claims for unreturned deposits, yes, they do cause a degree of angst, but they are also new types of claims brought about by somewhat new advents in the new economy. And so, whilst the claims do exist, and they do need to be resolved, I think it would be necessary to study them and the ecosystem in which they occur to determine the extent to which they are suitable for resolution by the Tribunals. Again, I urge all of you to bear in mind that there is nothing to stop these claimants from going to avail themselves of Court services.
Nonetheless, we assure Members that my Ministry will closely monitor these developments in these new areas and continue to review their suitability for inclusion within the Tribunals' coverage at a later stage.
Members also suggested taking stronger measures in relation to cases of consumer claims that fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunals.
Specifically, Mr Lim Biow Chuan queried if businesses could be prohibited from inserting arbitration clauses in their contracts with consumers which purport to oust the jurisdiction of the Tribunals to hear any dispute. In a similar vein, Mr Saktiandi Supaat also suggested mandating that all hire purchase contracts include a clause that both parties may approach the Tribunals in the event a dispute arises within two years of entering the contract. Ms Joan Pereira also suggested introducing a two-week cooling-off period for all hire purchase contracts.
As a general principle, the Government adopts a balanced approach to supporting a pro-enterprise environment, while at the same time protecting consumers, and I would urge Members to bear in mind that we are looking at it in a very balanced way, and not only from the viewpoint of the consumer. A too heavy-handed intervention in favour of either party could lead to market distortions or unintended consequences. Hence, we wish to be slow to mandate the use of specific clauses in commercial contracts between private individuals and businesses. Likewise, this is why the Government has not introduced cooling-off periods for hire purchase contracts.
That is not to say that there is no recourse for unfair terms imposed on consumers today. As Mr Lim Biow Chuan, President of CASE, correctly pointed out, contractual terms which are substantively unfair, based on widespread international consensus, can still be voided under the Unfair Contract Terms Act (UCTA). And on that point, Mr Lim Biow Chuan commented on the use of UCTA, that notwithstanding that there is an agreement between parties, if it is shown that it falls within UCTA, the provisions can still be set aside under UCTA.
Similarly, CPFTA also provides consumers with protection against unfair practices, such as pressure selling and false claims. Consumers who have reason to believe that sellers have engaged in such practices may also approach CASE with details of these practices for CASE to assist them in seeking redress.
In addition, a key way to protect consumers and ensure they have a level bargaining field when disputing a contract is to improve their awareness of institutions, such as the Tribunals, through public education. I thank the various Members, including Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, for raising this point, and I will speak about more of this shortly.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat queried whether a tenant who has entered a two-year lease contract with an Option to Renew may make a claim in the Tribunals. That, I think, really depends on the context in which it arises, the specific negotiation of that case, and the extent to which parties have regarded that as an Option to Renew, as opposed to a fresh lease. I am not saying that it is not covered, but one needs to look at it quite carefully to determine those legal and factual questions.
On a separate note, Mr Desmond Choo asked if the Ministry could work with the tripartite partners to develop industry-specific mechanisms for freelancers. I think he mentioned the gig economy on this. Steps have already been taken to enhance this area. For example, the Tripartite Standard on Contracting with Self-Employed Persons, a set of guidelines on best practices for engaging freelance services, was launched in March 2018 with the support of the Government. We will no doubt convey Mr Desmond Choo’s suggestion to allow certain disputes involving freelancers to be mediated by the tripartite partners to MOM.
I turn now to accessibility and affordability of the Tribunals, which both Ms Joan Pereira and Ms Rahayu Mahzam touched on. It is important to ensure accessibility to the Tribunals. There are three aspects to it – awareness, user-friendliness and cost-effectiveness of the Tribunals, and I will deal with all three.
First, the State Courts have, through various outreach programmes, educated various segments of the public on the Tribunals and their key features. CASE has also been referring consumers with eligible claims to the Tribunals. This includes elderly consumers who approach CASE. We will look further into the suggestions raised by Ms Joan Pereira and Ms Rahayu Mahzam in this regard, as we continue to work with the State Courts to generate greater awareness about the Tribunals and improve accessibility.
Second, efforts have also been taken to ensure that the Tribunals are user-friendly, even for claimants who are less IT-savvy, and, as some Members have pointed out, are in need of assistance, either language-wise or expertise-wise, in navigating the judicial process.
As a starting point, the State Courts provide a complimentary pre-filing online service to all potential claimants. By answering a few general questions, claimants can better ascertain the viability of their intended claims and whether those claims can, in the first place, be filed in the Tribunals. This process generates a summary of issues, known as “notifications”, which informs potential claimants of the requirements they must meet or the documents they must prepare to proceed with their claim. This ensures, at the very early stage, that proceedings before the Tribunals progress smoothly, parties will come prepared with the necessary evidence and the documentation to support their case.
Parties may then file their claims on the electronic filing system CJTS. On that CJTS platform, parties may, one, engage in e-Negotiation and e-Settlement, as I mentioned at the outset; or two, schedule hearing dates and times in an electronic diary if the settlement is not reached; three, view their case details and correspondence with the Court; or four, submit documents; or fifth, make payment.
Several Members suggested that CJTS could be supported by a hotline or call centre, and that special arrangements be made for those who are visually impaired or illiterate. I thank these Members for the opportunity to clarify that, indeed, these avenues are already in place to help members of the public who may not be comfortable navigating CJTS on their own. One option is for them to call the Tribunals at a number that is listed on the website or available on the brochures, if they have any queries on the Tribunals’ process or services. This hotline provides a multilingual service for users who may not speak English. Another option is for them to go in person to the Tribunals, where there are student representatives and trained officers from the State Courts who can guide them through the filing process in their own mother tongue.
During the hearing itself, Court staff and interpreters are also on hand to provide assistance during proceedings. Parties who are visually impaired or illiterate may, in those cases, be represented by a third party, who may sit in with them and assist them in the course of the hearing.
In relation to CJTS, Mr Patrick Tay expressed some concern that an average layperson would find some of the pre-filing questions challenging to answer. He suggested simplifying the language or providing a glossary for Court users’ easy reference. Those are good suggestions.
However, as mentioned before, there are trained State Courts’ officers and also student representatives from local law schools who are on hand to assist the users. They assist to answer questions, explain the process of the Tribunals, and manually guide them through the process of filing a claim. That said, we have noted the feedback on how it can be further improved, and we will certainly look into it with the State Courts as part of our efforts to continuously enhance the accessibility of Court services.
Mr Patrick Tay also asked if the list of notifications on the points that one should take note of before filing a claim using CJTS may intimidate or otherwise deter some claimants from filing their claims. Our experience so far has been to the contrary, as some claimants have commented that the pre-filing assessment and list of notifications, in fact, helped them better understand the jurisdiction of the Tribunals, and see in advance the potential issues of their case so that they are better prepared.
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef queried how frequently the e-Negotiation system on CTJS has been used. Between 10 July 2017 and 15 June 2018, e-Negotiation has been used by parties in 755 cases. In about one-third of those cases, parties reached a settlement online. These are encouraging early indicators.
Third, on the affordability of the Tribunals. Allow me to assure Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef that the Tribunals’ cost structure is specifically designed to be affordable to the wider public. Let me just illustrate that with some of the numbers.
When filing a claim, a party is required to only pay a lodgement fee. Today, lodgement fees for consumer claims range from $10 for claims up to $5,000 in value, or up to $200 for the maximum limit of a $20,000 claim. It is, otherwise, 1% of the claim amount. For non-consumer claims, the lodgement fees range from $50 for claims up to $5,000, or to $600 for claims up to $20,000, or 3% of the amount in question. Further, in some cases, the successful parties may also apply to recover their fees or disbursements, or a portion of it, from the losing party. Mr Louis Ng mentioned that in a previous Parliamentary Question, the cost was in the range of $400 to $600 for a $2,000 limit. Even in that situation, even before these amendments, the limit was already $10,000 for Tribunal jurisdictional limits.
In most cases, parties must appear in person, a point that Er Dr Lee Bee Wah raised. That, itself, reduces the need to pay legal fees. Parties, however, who require legal assistance at the hearing may also approach the Community Justice Centre at the State Courts for free onsite legal advice. So, free onsite legal advice is provided at the State Courts for any user of the Tribunals who wishes to avail himself or herself of legal advice. We must also bear in mind, taking into account Er Dr Lee Bee Wah's suggestions that the model we are trying to build for the Tribunals is really one that is inexpensive, fuss-free as far as possible, and quick. Sometimes, the introduction of lawyers into this does not quite provide for all of those. It may be a little bit less inexpensive, and it may just take a little bit longer. So, we are trying to find the right balance and the Tribunal amendments try to deal with that proposition.
Members have asked about the amendments to allow costs to be ordered at the discretion of the Tribunals. Let me say a few words about this.
Today, costs can only be imposed in a very narrow situation where a claim is frivolous or vexatious. This has limited the Tribunals’ ability to manage litigants who conduct their cases in an abusive manner.
Thus, the amendments allow the Tribunals to order costs at their discretion. The intention is for such cost orders to be made only in the most egregious of cases, where a party has been unusually disruptive, uncooperative or contemptuous, even if the claim itself cannot be said to be frivolous.
So, it is really directed at the conduct of the proceedings. One bears in mind that with the amendments that we have in place, there are three stages to the proceedings, as I mentioned at the outset. The process can, in fact, be unreasonably stretched out by an unreasonable litigant and the discretion for costs is designed to give redress to that.
Several Members have asked how we can ensure that the practice of awarding costs under the new provision will not discourage litigants with bona fide claims from bringing their claims before the Tribunals, for fear of, and I quote Mr Christopher de Souza, \"getting hit with a costs order\". Mr Murali Pillai also raised this point. And I think these are very valid concerns.
I would like to assure Members that, since legal representation is not allowed in the Tribunals, save for the very narrow band of persons, the costs for litigants will be kept low. Costs will be calculated according to the general rules, according to governing costs for litigants-in-person. For example, a litigant-in-person will be reasonably compensated for the time he has expended, for example, taking leave to attend the hearing, and other such related costs, in addition to expenses reasonably incurred, for example, transport costs. So, one can see that the paradigm is very different from where one seeks party-and-party costs in a situation where lawyers are involved. I hope this addresses the Members' concerns.
In light of these guiding principles and our Courts' own experience and expertise in quantifying cost orders, as Mr Louis Ng pointed out, Order 59 of the Rules of Court already set out the parameters in which cost orders ought to be granted, we do not see the need at present to limit the amount of costs that can be ordered against either party in the Tribunals. But Members should be assured that they will be judiciously considered each time.
Finally, I turn to the comments and suggestions which Members raised in relation to proceedings in the Tribunals. As I mentioned at the outset, the guiding principle which underpins these amendments is to facilitate an efficient, effective and inexpensive avenue for the resolution of small claims.
The Tribunal Magistrates play a key role in ensuring that the Tribunals meet the desired goals. To achieve this, the State Courts ensure that all the Tribunal Magistrates are not only legally qualified but also experienced in hearing cases involving members of the public. Tribunal Magistrates, referred to as referees today, also typically render brief oral grounds after each case, setting out the reasons for their decisions clearly. They also address queries and clarifications which parties may have at that juncture. This is to ensure that all parties, as far as possible, are aware of and can understand the reasons for the decision.
Mr Dennis Tan raised the question about whether or not the State Courts will have sufficient training for these Magistrates. Rest assured that the Courts regularly – in fact, it has been in the past and will continue to be the case – conducts training and continuing education for its judicial officers, and that would include the Tribunal Magistrates.
I note Mr Lim Biow Chuan's feedback that some users of the Tribunals, however, are not fully aware of the reasons as to why their cases did not succeed. We will continue to work with the State Courts to look into how this can be improved to ensure that the work of the Tribunal Magistrates in terms of how we have come up with the decision and the views of the case can be properly and best conveyed to the users of the Tribunals.
Mediation at the Tribunals, something that Er Dr Lee Bee Wah brought up – and I agree with her – that as far as possible, we would like the cases to be mediated, which is why it is now designed to be two-stage. At one stage, it happens outside, online. And if that does not happen, the parties can then be asked to attend mediation. That, as far as we are concerned, is the best outcome in a case. Even if there is a dispute, one should not rule out an amicable settlement even at a late stage.
I mentioned earlier that the proposed amendments to empower the Registrar or the Tribunals to order parties to attend mediation at the CMC or before any other person. Mediation facilitates the just, expeditious and economical resolution of cases. Therefore, Tribunals will, where possible, encourage parties to strongly consider mediation.
Some Members have raised a concern about uncooperative parties using mediation as a tool, or an excuse, to drag out the case, and asked whether penalties will be imposed on deliberately uncooperative parties. Er Dr Lee raised that point.
The majority of parties, generally, approaching mediation, has done so in good faith, and they do so hoping to resolve their differences amicably. Some do it because they wish to see an end to the dispute, others do it because there is a continuing relationship with the party against whom a claim is being made and they wish to preserve that relationship. So, for a variety of reasons, we have seen the parties come forward, still in good faith, to undertake mediation. Mediators are also trained to help facilitate constructive discussions between parties, while Court counsellors also provide counselling services to users at the same time.
If, however, a party is wholly unreasonable in refusing to mediate, is unusually disruptive or is very uncooperative or takes a very unreasonably disruptive stance during mediation, then the Tribunals can and should take this into account when deciding on costs at the end of the day. It is difficult to legislate upfront what can or cannot be done in the mediation because mediation, by its own definition, has really got to be dynamic. It has got to respond to the parties' needs, it has got to respond to how the parties each see their position and see their case. So, I do not think it can be legislated upfront as to what should happen, But rest assured that the conduct of the parties and the way which it is going will be taken into account by these facilitators, the mediators and, ultimately, the Tribunal Magistrates.
Mr Louis Ng queried if parties will be provided with information on ADR processes to guide them on whether to go for ADR. Such information is currently already available through pamphlets and guides at the State Courts, and it is certainly a big part of the suite of services offered at the State Courts. So, State Courts are not just about the litigation of dispute resolution process by going to Court. ADR is very much a part of it.
In addition, parties can also approach the State Courts staff or the Community Justice Centre at the State Courts if they have any further queries or require any guidance on ADR.
On the case management powers, several Members have spoken about such powers of the Tribunals, in particular, the powers to consolidate claims, order costs on parties and so on. I will address them as follows.
On the question of consolidation, Mr Murali Pillai raised the question whether the higher limit for the aggregate value of consolidated claims can be brought in the Tribunals. I can see where Mr Murali Pillai is coming from. But this, again, is really a question of striking the right balance.
Allowing claims involving a common question of fact or law to be jointly heard and decided in the Tribunals can reap the rewards of efficiency and also consistency, as Mr Murali Pillai pointed out.
On the other hand, allowing too many of such claims with high aggregate values to be heard in the Tribunals may well be unfair to the respondent, may well become a very high stakes issue for the respondent, and significantly increase his potential liability, without at the same time affording him the corresponding benefit of the stricter procedural and evidentiary rules and also of the prospect of being represented by a legal counsel.
This question was also looked at by the High Court in Freely Pte Ltd vs Ong Kaili, a 2010 decision, where the Court commented that the Tribunals are not the most appropriate forum for dealing with a large number of consolidated claims involving multiple parties. The simple processes of the Tribunals were really designed for a single complainant to bring a small claim, which is relatively straightforward and not legally complicated, for it to be resolved inexpensively and expeditiously.
Nonetheless, we will continue to monitor the need or demand for such actions, and also consider Mr Murali Pillai's suggestion of an \"intermediate solution\" of stipulating a higher monetary limit for the aggregate value of consolidated or representative claims in our next review.
Ms K Thanaletchimi and Mr Desmond Choo also queried whether class-action suits in relation to bicycle-sharing arrangements and micro transactions can be heard in the Tribunals. This will, of course, depend on the ceiling limit – the aggregate value ceiling limit of the claims in the actions. The Tribunals can hear such claims so long as the aggregate value of the claims does not exceed the Tribunals' claim limit.
Ms Joan Pereira asked how claimants can establish their claims in the Tribunals where documentary evidence is not available. Again, this is one of those occasions where we need to strike a balance and also, bear in mind that there is a need to, whilst allowing a claimant to bring his case, also ensure that fairness and justice are being done to the respondent who has to face this claim.
Generally, documentary evidence would usually be the best and most probative type of evidence. However, it is not the only evidence which a Tribunal, including the Tribunals, can consider. The Tribunals would also look at, for instance, evidence as to whether the seller, for example, had made an oral representation, and what those terms of the oral representation might be, whether or not the goods that were sold were objectively of a satisfactory and acceptable state or otherwise. So, there will be other non-documentary and non-written type of evidence available.
Relatedly, Ms Joan Pereira asked whether, where the tenant breaches the tenancy contract, the landlord may recover the stamp duty paid as damages. That also depends on the facts of the case, for example, the nature of the contract and the provisions that are in the contract itself, but I would not, by simply looking at the face of the Tribunal rules, rule it out on that score alone.
Next, I would like to touch on some points on appeals which various Members have spoken about.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of a Sitting","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Does not look likely that you will end before 7.00 pm. Pursuant to Standing Order No 2 (5)(d), I propose to extend the time of this day's Sitting beyond the moment of interruption for a period of up to 30 minutes.
Please proceed.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Small Claims Tribunals (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Edwin Tong.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked if it would be useful to give litigants-in-person more time beyond 14 days to seek legal advice to prepare the notice of appeal. It is important to remember that the 14-day deadline is only for parties to file the Notice for Leave to Appeal. At this stage, the appellant need only set out the points of appeal briefly.
If the District Court gives leave to appeal, the appellant then has one month from that date to file his Notice of Appeal. The Notice of Appeal is in a prescribed form which is contained in the Tribunal Rules, which only requires the appellant to state the grounds of his appeal in brief.
It is only when the appellant files his Petition of Appeal, 21 days after serving the Notice of Appeal, that he is then required to set out in greater detail the particulars of the matters in regard to which the Tribunals are alleged to have erred. The appellant only has to make fuller submissions on his appeal on the day of the hearing before the District Court. I hope that this reassures Ms Rahayu Mahzam that an appellant will have ample time to seek legal advice on the appeal, if necessary.
On clause 16, Mr Murali Pillai asked whether allowing a case to be reheard on a ground involving issues of fact is, in fact, consistent with the previous approach of narrowing the scope of an appeal from the Tribunals to the High Court.
Clause 16 empowers the District Court to direct cases be remitted back to the Tribunals for reconsideration or rehearing by a differently constituted Tribunal only in limited cases, such as where new facts become available and it is manifestly unjust to allow the original decision to stand. In such cases, even though leave to appeal to the High Court has not been granted as it does not concern an issue of law or jurisdiction, it is nonetheless important that parties are provided with an appropriate and right of recourse through the reconsideration and rehearing by Tribunals.
This, I will add, is also consistent with the practice in tribunals in other jurisdictions, such as those in Hong Kong and New Zealand.
On a related note, Mr Murali Pillai asked if empowering the District Court in this manner effectively gives the District Court supervisory jurisdiction over the Tribunals. That is not the intention nor the desired effect of this clause. The District Court's power to remit cases for reconsideration, or order a rehearing, does not fall within the definition of \"supervisory jurisdiction\", and this is explained by the Court of Appeal in the case of Citiwall Safety Glass vs Mansource Interior. If Mr Murali Pillai wants the citation, it is [2015] 1 SLR 797. In particular, the District Court which remits a case or orders a rehearing is not reviewing the proceedings and decisions of the Tribunals below. It is merely directing that new evidence which was not previously considered, be considered by the Tribunals.
I now turn to the enforcement of Tribunals' decisions, on which a few Members spoke about. While the State Courts do not currently track statistics on the success rates of enforcing Tribunals' decisions, I fully agree with Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Desmond Choo that the enforcement process must be simplified and accessible to Court users.
The Tribunals have made steps in this direction. When an order is made, the Tribunal Magistrates will brief the claimant and respondent on (a) the consequences of non-compliance; with the hope that in doing so, the respondent will be more aware of the consequences of not obeying the order in favour of the claimant; (b) the options which a claimant has to enforce his order; so right at the outset, the claimant is aware of the suite of options that he has available; (c) provide information which the claimant may consider, in deciding whether it is worthwhile to commence enforcement proceedings or not; and (d) the typical enforcement fees that he might incur. So, all these are given upfront and told to the parties at the stage where the order is made. The Tribunal Magistrates will also give parties a brochure at the end of the hearing and address any questions that parties may have about the judgment. Members of the public may also approach the Tribunals' staff in person or through the Tribunals' hotline if they have any queries on the enforcement process.
Mr Louis Ng and Mr Desmond Choo asked if there are plans to relook the costs involved in enforcing a money order issued by the Tribunals, to make it more cost-efficient for the average claimant to enforce his order.
I thank Mr Louis Ng and Mr Desmond Choo for their suggestions. Indeed, MinLaw is currently reviewing the process of enforcing civil judgments and orders and this includes orders by the Tribunals as well, with the aim of making the enforcement process more affordable and, as far as possible, more effective. We will also study Mr Louis Ng’s suggestion to carve out separate enforcement processes for low-value claims.
I would add also, in relation to the proceedings, a suggestion brought up by Mr Dennis Tan that today, any individual, whether a party or a non-party to the Tribunal proceedings, can ask for and obtain a copy of the judgment, to find out what has happened and what was ruled and how it was ruled in each particular case.
On vacant possession, Mr Murali Pillai raised some concerns about the enforcement of a specific type of order which the Tribunals can make, namely, the power to order delivery of vacant possession in claims for unpaid rent. This was on the basis that not even the Magistrates' Court has jurisdiction to hear and try such action where there is no claim for a sum of money. And I think he is referring to section 52(1A) of the State Courts Act. Mr Murali Pillai asked if there will be safeguards when the Tribunals make this order. Insofar as Mr Murali Pillai is concerned that the Tribunals are being given the power to make an unduly onerous remedy, I would like to set out the following points in response.
First, the Tribunals have been hearing tenancy claims involving unpaid rent for some time now since 2005, and they have developed the relevant expertise to deal with this type of claims. Vacant possession is a usual remedy for unpaid rent. It is one of those follow-on consequences. If rent is not paid, particularly when it is not paid persistently, then it is only right that the landlord has an option for getting vacant possession back from the tenant. So, it is related to unpaid rent. And empowering the Tribunals to order the delivery of vacant possession where necessary broadens, in my view, fairly, the suite of orders available to ensure that justice is done.
Second, while it is correct that Magistrates Courts do not currently have the power to hear claims which are exclusively non-monetary in nature, they do have the power to hear claims for unpaid rent and make orders of vacant possession. The amendments merely extend this same power to the Tribunals for claims of lower value. And I have noted Mr Murali Pillai’s point on mesne profits and double rent as well. And all of that is really subject to the overarching jurisdictional limit. So, no more than $20,000 for rent – mesne profits or double rent.
Third, to ensure safeguards, the State Courts will also be instituting internal guidelines which will set out the factors for the Tribunals to consider before making an order for the delivery of vacant possession. That further enhances and strengthens and prevents any risk of such orders being made erroneously.
Finally, I wish to touch on the workload of the Tribunals, a point that Mr Dennis Tan also raised.
The various amendments and expansion of jurisdiction are likely to lead to an increase in workload. And that, ultimately, is the overall policy objective of these amendments. Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked about the average number of cases handled by the Tribunals annually, and what the common types of cases were.
From 2015 to 2017, the Tribunals handled an average of more than 10,000 claims annually. The common types of cases are disputes over contracts for sale of goods and provision of services, followed by claims arising from damage to property, and leases of residential premises.
While the caseload of the Tribunals is likely to increase after the expansion of jurisdiction, I wish to assure Members that the Tribunals are prepared to deal with the increased caseload, and they will also, on their own, regularly review their resources to ensure that the Tribunals remain an efficient and effective avenue for the resolution of small claims.
Mr Dennis Tan also asked what is the anticipated growth in the number of cases. Just as a ballpark indicator, the number of cases filed in the State Courts where the claim was between $10,000, the current limit, and $30,000, the new limit, with consent, is about 9,000. So, there are about 9,000 cases which fall into that category. But bear in mind that this range includes claims from $20,000 to $30,000, cases which can only be brought to the Tribunals with consent. And there are also, on top of that, subject matter limitations, in terms of the kinds of cases that can be brought. So, we do not expect all of those 9,000 cases to surface in the Tribunals. There will be a portion of those. And certainly, that is the reason for these amendments – to drive more of the cases to the Tribunals as far as possible.
In conclusion, I wish to thank all Members who have spoken and supported this Bill. Refining the Tribunals to improve their processes and enhance access to justice requires an ongoing, long-term effort. The many helpful suggestions and thoughtful comments by each of the Members who have spoken today contribute to this worthy endeavour. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai.] (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":"Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn to 12.00 pm tomorrow.\" – [Mr Chan Chun Sing.]
Adjourned accordingly at 7.08 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Placement of Children with Special Needs in Mainstream Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"17 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for Education (a) what are the efforts to support placement of children with special needs in mainstream schools apart from deploying allied educators; (b) whether there is a comprehensive training plan for teachers in mainstream schools to cope with special needs students; (c) whether there are protocols to guide mainstream schools on the sharing of information between teachers and staff on caring for special needs students; and (d) whether briefing sessions for mainstream students can be arranged to improve their understanding of special needs for better integration with such students studying in their midst.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Depending on their needs, students with Special Education Needs (SEN) in mainstream schools receive various support. These include specialised support programmes and services, such as assistive technological devices, to support the integration and learning needs of students with visual, hearing or physical impairments and itinerant school-based services from voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs). They are also supported by specialised personnel, such as teachers trained in special needs (TSNs), psychologists who provide consultation and advice, and Allied Educators.
In addition, schools have teams that oversee SEN support in a systemic way to facilitate the learning experiences of students with mild SEN in mainstream schools. As students' build their coping strategies, they can typically progress through the system with little or even no support services.
Since 2005, teacher trainees have been provided with a basic understanding on supporting students with SEN and learning differences during their pre-service training at the National Institute of Education. The Ministry of Education (MOE) has also been equipping a core group of teachers in all schools with deeper knowledge and skills in supporting the teaching and learning of students with special needs, through the TSN training programme, a certificate level training in SEN. MOE is also building up the numbers of Senior Teachers in SEN.
Teachers and Allied Educators regularly share strategies and skills with each other to enable them to better support students with SEN. Form Teachers meet frequently with their Year Heads to discuss the needs of their students, including those with SEN, and how they can be supported. In addition, MOE Psychologists and VWOs provide consultation and conduct teacher training and customised workshops to build the capacity of school staff to support students with SEN.
We will continue to provide more professional development opportunities for our teachers to build their competencies in supporting students with SEN in their schools.
MOE has also developed a transition support framework. It provides guidelines for schools to facilitate a smoother transition for students with SEN across schools and levels. This framework covers guidance on the transfer of information as well, and includes rules on safeguarding confidentiality. These include obtaining parental consent for the transfer of information and sharing SEN-related information strictly on a need-to-know basis among relevant personnel. Teachers may also talk about a child’s needs with his peers, but they should avoid using labels, such as the diagnosis.
It is important that other mainstream students can empathise with students with SEN. Empathy building is one of the key socio-emotional competencies taught in Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) in schools. There are CCE lessons that raise awareness of disabilities and how each person can play a part in developing an inclusive society. Schools have also forged partnerships with VWOs and special education schools to provide opportunities for students to interact meaningfully and deepen mutual understanding.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Problem of Stray Dogs and Attacks on Public","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"20 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for National Development (a) which are the areas where stray dogs have been reported but the problem has yet to be resolved; (b) whether there has been any reports of attacks by stray dogs on members of the public; and (c) how is AVA working with the various stakeholders to take concrete action to ensure public safety.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) receives feedback on different animals, including stray dogs, from various parts of Singapore. The majority of the feedback regarding stray dogs is about dog sightings and nuisance cases like barking.
Upon receiving feedback about stray dogs, AVA conducts surveillance operations to assess public health and safety risks. If AVA determines that there are threats to public health and safety, for example, when stray dogs have acted aggressively, AVA will remove the dogs. If found suitable, these dogs are offered to AVA’s Animal Welfare Group (AWG) partners for rehoming.
To address the issue of stray dogs holistically, AVA also takes upstream measures. First, AVA will take enforcement action against errant pet owners who abandon their dogs. A person found guilty of pet abandonment may be fined up to $10,000 and/or jailed up to 12 months. Second, AVA implemented a licensing-at-source scheme in 2017 to enhance the traceability of dogs and further discourage abandonment. Pet businesses must now license all dogs before they are sold. They must also transfer the licences to the new owners when any dog is sold or transferred.
Third, AVA works with Town Councils, Government agencies, grassroots leaders, AWGs and members of the public to raise awareness about responsible pet ownership, responsible community feeding, and to advise members of the public on what to do when they encounter stray dogs.
Fourth, AVA intends to embark on a nationwide Trap-Neuter-Release-Manage (TNRM) programme later this year. This programme, in partnership with several AWGs, adopts a humane and science-based method to reduce the stray population through widespread sterilisation. After the dogs are sterilised, AVA will work with its AWG partners to rehome as many dogs as possible. Those that cannot be rehomed will be released at suitable locations to live out their lives naturally. Our target is to sterilise more than 70% of the stray dogs in Singapore within five years. If we are successful, this humane approach will result in a permanent reduction in the stray dog population after five years.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Details and Framework of Workings of The Special Needs Trust Company","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"22 Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what are the details and framework of the workings of The Special Needs Trust Company, in particular, its objectives, potential partnerships and alignment with SG Enable.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Special Needs Trust Company (SNTC) is the only non-profit trust company in Singapore that provides affordable trust management services for persons with special needs. It is a registered Charity and an Institution of a Public Character.
SNTC plays an important role in supporting caregivers in planning for the long-term financial and care needs of their dependants with special needs. Through SNTC's trust and care planning services, caregivers can safeguard the monies they intend to leave behind for their special needs dependants.
SNTC is backed by a team of Case Managers who work with the caregivers to develop a Care Plan for their special needs dependant. The Care Plan projects the amount to be set aside in the trust to provide for the dependant's long-term needs. During the caregiver’s lifetime, SNTC will review the Care Plan with the caregiver to ensure its relevance to the evolving needs of the dependant. Following the demise or incapacity of the caregiver, SNTC will make home visits to check on the well-being of the dependant, monitor the trust funds and continue to review the Care Plan with the appointed caregiver.
SNTC works with community partners, including the Social Service Offices (SSOs), to reach out to caregivers of persons with disabilities. It plans to partner more stakeholders, such as the special education (SPED) schools, hospitals, family service centres, the Institute of Financial Literacy and lawyers to educate caregivers on the importance of planning ahead for their loved ones with special needs. In addition, SNTC will be building networks with professionals, such as financial advisors, so as to better advise clients who have dependants with disabilities.
SG Enable aims to help persons with disabilities find employment. It is also taking on the role of building a network of support for caregivers of persons with disabilities, without duplicating the roles played by existing disability service providers and SNTC.
The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) will draw on synergies between SNTC and SG Enable in supporting caregivers. For instance, SNTC clients will be able to reach out to other caregivers at the SG Enable Caregivers' Space at the Enabling Village, which will be set up by end 2018. Information on SNTC schemes is already available on SG Enable's website.
MSF also announced at this year's Committee of Supply that ComCare applicants with disabilities will be able to get information on schemes and services for persons with disabilities, such as those offered by SNTC and SG Enable, at the SSOs from the third quarter of this year. By the end of this year, the SSO at Geylang Serai will also pilot video-conferencing links with SNTC and SG Enable, so that ComCare applicants who are caregivers for persons with disabilities or who are themselves persons with disabilities will be able to consult SNTC and SG Enable staff without having to travel to SNTC's or SG Enable's offices unless necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Temporary Occupation Licences Issued to Commercial Plant Operators in East Coast/Marina Bay Area","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"24 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Law (a) how many temporary occupation licences (TOLs) have been issued to commercial plant operators in the East Coast/Marina Bay area; (b) what is the purpose of issuing such TOLs; and (c) whether any traffic impact assessments or environment impact assessments have been carried out before the TOLs were issued.
Mr K Shanmugam: Temporary Occupation Licences (TOLs) are issued by the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) for the temporary use of state land. Common temporary uses include the use of state land for community events or to support public infrastructure projects.
As of 31 May 2018, a total of 13 TOLs have been issued in the East Coast/Marina Bay area for commercial plant operations. These comprise mainly concrete batching plants that support works carried out by contractors undertaking various public infrastructure projects, including the development of the Thomson-East Coast Line and the North South Corridor, which are critical transport infrastructure developments.
SLA works with the relevant Government agencies, such as the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and National Environment Agency (NEA), to assess all TOL applications. Factors, such as the need and urgency of the project, traffic and environmental impact, and availability of alternative sites, are taken into consideration. Government agencies work with TOL operators to minimise potential disamenities. For example, the concrete batching plants in the East Coast/Marina Bay area are required to maintain a buffer from nearby residential premises to minimise nuisance from noise and dust. A Traffic Impact Assessment on the TOL sites at Marina East was also carried out, and two signalised junctions were implemented in the area to ensure smooth and safe traffic.
There may still be instances where some traffic or environmental impact on users of nearby areas is unavoidable. In such cases, Government agencies will work with the TOL operators and stakeholders to implement suitable mitigation measures. With regard to the TOLs issued in the East Coast/Marina Bay area, monthly stakeholder meetings are held to address any issues which require immediate attention, such as ground pollution. If TOL operators fail to implement the required mitigation measures satisfactorily, warning letters will be issued. In cases involving recalcitrant operators, the TOLs may be rescinded.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Lengthen Time for Student Movement between Classes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"26 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry can lengthen the time for student movement between classes to give students more time to get to their class and settle down as rushing from class to class causes anxiety and reduces concentration during lesson time.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Schools plan students' daily timetable with their well-being as an important consideration. Hence, they incorporate sufficient breaks and constrain the length of school day, while ensuring adequate time for learning.
An increase in the time for student movement between classes will lead to school days ending later. Teachers are mindful to end lessons on time for students to move to the next venue if need be, as well as allow the students to settle down before commencing the next lesson.
Between class movement is usually not a source of student stress. Teachers are equipped to observe signs of stress in students and will provide the needed interventions if a case arises.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Consumption Rate of Pioneer Generation Fund","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Mr Azmoon Ahmad asked the Minister for Finance (a) what is the annual consumption rate of the $8 billion Pioneer Generation Fund since its inception in March 2015; (b) what is the estimated number of Pioneer Generation individuals serviced under this fund; and (c) how long is the fund expected to last based on the current consumption rate.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: About 450,000 Pioneers have benefited from the Pioneer Generation Package. As of May 2018, more than $1.3 billion has been disbursed from the Pioneer Generation Fund. This works out to an average of about $430 million disbursed annually1. The remaining fund balance is about $7.2 billion, inclusive of interest earned. The Fund Financial Statements are presented in Parliament at the end of each financial year and are also available online.
Based on our current estimates, the Pioneer Generation Fund, with accumulated interest over time, remains adequate to meet the full cost of the Pioneer Generation Package.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Average disbursement over financial year (FY) 2015 to FY2017, inclusive of administrative cost."],"footNoteQuestions":["27"],"questionNo":"27"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Promoting Awareness of Assistance for People with Mental Illnesses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"29 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Health what is being done to make people with mental illnesses aware of the help they can receive, including those who may have yet to be diagnosed due to fear of social stigma.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: There are various initiatives by the Government, as well as healthcare and community providers, to proactively reach out to increase awareness of mental health conditions and provide information on avenues to seek help.
In the school environment, the Health Promotion Board (HPB) runs a series of psycho-emotional programmes to equip students with skills to manage stress and emotions, and collaborates with the Ministry of Education to equip educators and school counsellors with skills to provide support in challenging times. Students needing greater support are referred to school counsellors and mental health professionals, such as the Child Guidance Clinic at the Institute of Mental Health (IMH). Peer support structures are also being put in place in mainstream schools and Institutes of Higher Learning to support students in distress and encourage them to seek help early.
To encourage a more supportive workplace environment for employees, HPB organises a workshop for managers to help them identify staff who are facing difficulties at work or may have mental health issues, as well as equip these managers with skills on how to approach, support and encourage staff to seek help early.
In community settings, the Ministry of Health and HPB conduct a series of healthy ageing workshops, which include tips on dementia and depression education to facilitate seeking help early. The Community Resource, Engagement and Support Teams (CREST), set up by the Agency for Integrated Care, reaches out to persons who may be at risk of mental health issues or dementia. CREST teams also provide mental health information and education to the public through their outreach activities. For persons screened to have mental health or dementia symptoms, the teams offer basic emotional support for them or their caregivers and link them to appropriate services in the community.
To reduce stigma of mental health conditions, the National Council of Social Service (NCSS) will be embarking on a multi-year public education campaign that aims to promote an inclusive society for persons with mental health issues, with support from Tote Board. This is in addition to NCSS' publication of the Removing Barriers booklet on Interacting with Persons with Mental Health Issues.
IMH also spearheads annual World Mental Health Day events and public forums and collaborates with various Voluntary Welfare Organisations and schools to promote understanding of mental health through a variety of activities and events. We will also continue to work with grassroots and community partners to empower the broader community to recognise residents at-risk and better support them in the community.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review Licensing Regimes to Ensure Singapore Continues to be Attractive Location for Work and Play","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Home Affairs how is the Ministry evolving its licensing regimes to ensure that Singapore continues to develop into an attractive location for work and play without compromising on our public order.
Mr K Shanmugam: To ensure Singapore remains an attractive place for work and leisure, public safety and order have to be maintained. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) regulates activities which present risks to public safety, security, and law and order.
MHA consults stakeholders, such as Ministries, industry associations and businesses, when developing the regulations. We take into account business and other community interests, and adopt a calibrated, risk-based approach that is reviewed regularly.
For example, nightclubs, bars and similar nightlife establishments are regulated under the Public Entertainments Act to maintain law and order and public safety at these establishments. When the Public Entertainments Act was recently reviewed, we consulted extensively with the Singapore Nightlife Business Association. Their inputs were considered and taken in, for instance, in updating the demerit points regime under the Public Entertainments Act.
But where there are law and order problems on the ground, MHA has a responsibility to act firmly. Due to a rise in violent crimes in Clarke Quay, we have, since 2013, restricted liquor licensing hours in Clarke Quay from 6.00 am to 3.00 am the day after on weekdays and 4.00 am the day after on weekends and the eve of Public Holidays.
In addition to regulations, regular Police patrols and enforcement, the Police also work with licensees and the community to promote responsible business operations and help maintain law and order. The Police, the Singapore Tourism Board and precinct stakeholders collaborated to make Clarke Quay a safer entertainment zone for patrons. Through this collaboration, Clarke Quay has strengthened training of security officers, improved sharing of information, and introduced a code of practice that sets out best practices for entertainment outlets, such as the serving of complimentary water to patrons who consume liquor to slow down the rate of intoxication, and bag checks.
These efforts contributed to an improvement in the law and order situation in the precinct between 2013 and 2016. As a result of these improvements, we recalibrated the restrictions, and allowed extended hours on some Fridays each month and for special events, such as F1-related festivities. Where we can, we have taken in suggestions from our partners and relaxed the regulatory requirements, but public safety and order must always be our key priority.
We monitor law and order closely and have noticed an increase in crimes, such as fighting and drunkenness, in Clarke Quay over the past year. This may be due to the increased number of patrons visiting Clarke Quay. We will continue to monitor the situation closely, make adjustments if necessary, and partner stakeholders to ensure that our city maintains its attractiveness without compromising on our public order.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Security Concerns from Foreign Workers and Foreign Domestic Workers Congregating in Large Numbers in Public Places","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"31 Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the Ministry's position on foreign workers and foreign domestic workers congregating in large numbers in public parks, shopping malls, cultural hubs and other specific areas; and (b) whether this is viewed with a changed perspective in this age of uncertainty.
K Shanmugam: The Police are generally concerned whenever very large crowds gather as the public safety and security risks are higher.
In this context, the Police monitor areas with large congregations of foreign workers closely. They also conduct regular patrols and law enforcement operations in these areas, and there has not been any serious public order, or law and order issues in recent years.
The vast majority of foreign workers in Singapore are law abiding and do not engage in criminal or terrorism-related activities. The Ministry of Home Affairs works closely with the Ministry of Manpower, employers and community partners, such as the Migrant Workers' Centre, to advise foreign workers on Singapore's multiracial and religious setting, our social values, the dangers of radical ideology and to abide by our laws.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Section 89 of Employment Act to Allow Coverage of Community Hospital Stay","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Ms K Thanaletchimi asked the Minister for Manpower whether the hospitalisation of an employee under section 89 of the Employment Act covers his stay at community hospitals and, if not, whether the Ministry will consider reviewing this as more patients may be treated in community hospitals.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Under the Employment Act, an eligible employee is provided with paid sick leave of up to 14 days and paid hospitalisation leave of up to 60 days per year. To qualify for hospitalisation leave, the employee must be certified by a Government doctor or a doctor appointed by the employer to be ill enough to be hospitalised in an acute hospital or national centre. An employee who is so certified shall be entitled to the hospitalisation leave, regardless of whether he recuperates in an acute hospital, community hospital or at home.
An employee who is not certified to be ill enough to be hospitalised in an acute hospital or national centre but is nevertheless certified to be unfit for work would still be entitled to paid sick leave.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Implementing Tripartite Standards on Managing Workplace Abuse and Harassment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"33 Ms K Thanaletchimi asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry will consider having tripartite standards on managing workplace abuse and harassment; and (b) if so, whether a review will be conducted to formulate the existing Tripartite Advisory on Managing Workplace Harassment as a set of guidelines.
Mrs Josephine Teo: We take a multi-pronged approach in protecting employees from workplace harassment. The Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) was introduced in 2014, followed by the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Workplace Harassment in 2015.
In October last year, the Tripartite Standard on Grievance Handling was introduced. This Standard specifies a set of verifiable and actionable employment practices that companies can follow to manage workplace grievances more effectively. Employers adopting this Standard are committed to putting in place clear processes for handling their employees' grievances to ensure they are adequately dealt with. The same processes apply to grievances regarding workplace harassment. To date, more than 630 employers, which collectively employ about 380,000 employees, have pledged to uphold this Standard. We look forward to the strong support of our tripartite partners to promote adoption of the Standard to benefit more workers.
We urge all employees who experience any workplace harassment to promptly report such incidents to their employers, so that the management can conduct proper investigations. Affected employees can also report such incidents to the Ministry of Manpower or the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) or seek redress through the Courts or Police.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Top Three Sectors with Highest Number of Salary-related Dispute Cases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"36 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what are the current top three sectors with the highest number of salary-related dispute cases involving Work Permit holders; and (b) in how many of these cases are the salaries of the Work Permit holders paid electronically.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) handles salary-related dispute cases, including cases lodged by Work Permit holders. From its inception in April 2017 to December 2017, there were 3,100 salary claims involving Work Permit holders. The top three sectors with the most number of claims were Construction, Manufacturing, and Wholesale and Retail Trade, which accounted for 2,600 claims, or 83% of all salary claims. Of these 2,600 claims, 280 workers or 11%, had their salaries paid electronically.
Our laws already require employers of Work Permit holders to pay salaries electronically if their workers make the request. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has been facilitating the process of opening bank accounts for foreign workers during the Work Permit application process since 2014. In addition, MOM and our partners, such as the Migrant Workers' Centre have been working to encourage salary payment through electronic means. A recently concluded survey conducted by MOM showed that 76% of foreign workers were paid electronically, higher than the 67% in 2014. We will continue to work with stakeholders to improve take-up rates and also consult them on the option of mandating electronic salary payment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans for Heavy Vehicle Parking Spaces in Housing Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether he can provide an update on plans for heavy vehicle parking spaces in housing estates; (b) how many heavy vehicle parking spaces are there in Yishun; and (c) how many applicants are on the waitlist for season heavy vehicle parking lots in Nee Soon Group Representation Constituency.
Mr Lawrence Wong: On a nation-wide basis, the 42,280 heavy vehicle parking (HVP) spaces far exceed the 34,000 heavy vehicles registered with the Land Transport Authority. Today, around 30,000 of these HVP spaces are within one kilometre of residential estates. While heavy vehicle drivers prefer to park near where they live, other residents have raised safety and noise concerns arising from heavy vehicular traffic in residential areas. In addition, land near residential estates is needed for housing and community needs, making it difficult to continue providing heavy vehicle parks in residential estates.
This is why, if and when existing public HVPs in residential estates are phased out due to development plans, they will be replaced with HVPs in industrial sites sold through the Government Land Sales programme near the area, where possible. Business owners should work out with their drivers the appropriate transport options to commute to work, especially for those who have to drive during the wee hours.
There are 1,246 HVP spaces in and around Nee Soon Group Representation Constituency, of which, 845 are public heavy vehicle parking spaces. All of these are subscribed with some 370 applicants on the waitlist.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Affordability of Current Private and Public Housing Compared to Five Years Ago","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for National Development how does the affordability of current private and public housing compare with that of the previous five years and with that of other leading international cities.
Mr Lawrence Wong: In the past five years, affordability in both the private and public housing markets has improved. Between end-2012 and end-2017, the median resident household income grew by 18.5%, whereas the prices of private residential properties, as reflected by the Urban Redevelopment Authority's (URA's) Property Price Index, decreased by 8.4%. In the public housing market, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) Resale Price Index decreased by 9.6% over the same period. Enhancements to housing grants have also helped to improve affordability for both resale and new HDB flats.
Based on the 2018 International Housing Affordability Survey by Demographia, the ratio of median residential property price to median annual household income was 4.8 for Singapore, as compared to 5.7 for New York, 8.5 for London, 12.9 for Sydney and 19.4 for Hong Kong.
In recent quarters, we have seen a recovery in the private property market, while the HDB resale market has remained stable. We will continue to monitor market conditions closely and will not hesitate to act when necessary to ensure a stable and sustainable property market.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Marketing Scams Targeting Senior Citizens","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"39 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in light of reports on sales persons marketing so-called \"freebie\" bags to senior citizens (a) whether the Ministry will investigate these vendors to assess if they are using deception to sell their wares; and (b) whether the Ministry will work with other Government agencies and the Consumers Association of Singapore to look into any loopholes in the law that need a review.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: We are aware of recent reports of sales persons attracting passersby to their booths by using offers of free gifts and thereafter marketing certain products to them.
If consumers have reason to believe that these suppliers have engaged in practices, such as pressure-selling or false claims, they can approach the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) with details of these practices for CASE to assist them in seeking redress from the suppliers. The Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (CPFTA) provides consumers protection against unfair practices, such as false claims and pressure selling. Under CPFTA, CASE can invite suppliers to cease their unfair practices through a Voluntary Compliance Agreement. The Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore, as the administering agency of CPFTA, is also empowered with investigation and enforcement powers to take action against errant retailers who persist in unfair practices.
Consumers are also encouraged to take pre-emptive measures to protect themselves against unfair practices. For example, they can check the reputation of the supplier, ask questions about the products and examine the products before making the purchase. CASE will also continue to educate consumers to be alert to the free gifts sales tactics through its outreach efforts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of CCTV Monitoring Zones in Deterring Parking and Alighting of Passengers in Prohibited Areas","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"42 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Transport (a) how effective have the CCTV Monitoring Zones been in deterring motorists from parking and alighting passengers in places where they are prohibited to do so; and (b) how often are the CCTV footages reviewed for enforcement.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has used closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras since 2014 to deter motorists against illegal parking. This has proven to be effective, reducing the number of illegal parking offences by as much as 90% at some locations.
LTA's CCTV system will automatically detect parking offences from the recorded footage, which will then be further reviewed by LTA's enforcement team daily.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Outcome of Investigation into Causes of Collapse of Viaduct Structure at Upper Changi Road East","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"43 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the outcome of the investigation by LTA on the causes of the collapse of the viaduct structure linking PIE and TPE at Upper Changi Road East in July 2017; (b) what are the lessons learned; (c) what are LTA's plans for the completion of the viaduct; and (d) whether there will be any new measures to improve (i) construction of highways and other public works and (ii) workplace safety.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The investigations by the Ministry of Manpower, the Building and Construction Authority and the Singapore Police Force on the collapse of the viaduct from Tampines Expressway towards Pan Island Expressway (Tuas) and Upper Changi Road East have been completed. The Attorney-General's Chambers has filed charges against various parties. Separately, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has appointed an independent Professional Engineer to investigate the cause of the collapse. This matter is now before the Courts. At this time, it is inappropriate for me to comment on the proceedings.
LTA has reached an agreement with Or Kim Peow Contractors (Pte) Ltd to mutually terminate the contract to construct the viaduct. LTA will engage a new contractor to demolish any structures deemed unsafe, including all the crossheads, and complete the construction of the viaduct. The project timeline and completion date will be reviewed, after the award of the new contract.
LTA will continue to work closely with its contractors to ensure that they comply with workplace safety and health requirements. This includes appointing site supervisors to oversee the daily operations at worksites, and monthly and ad hoc inspections. LTA also organises regular dialogues and workplace safety trainings with the contractors' management and staff.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Consider Mandatory Basic Coding Skills for Primary School Curriculum","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"44 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Minister for Education what are the challenges and implications faced by the Government when assessing whether basic coding skills should be made compulsory in our mainstream primary school curriculum.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Our primary school curriculum is designed to build a strong foundation in literacy, numeracy and the 21st Century Competencies (21CC) that will prepare students well for future learning.
Coding skill is, however, more specific and involves learning particular programming languages which can become outdated quickly. We should instead focus on the underlying and enduring skills, such as problem solving, logical reasoning and data-handling.
These foundational skills are currently developed through the learning of subjects, particularly mathematics and science.
Instead of making it compulsory, we are working towards exposing a broad group of students to basic coding and technology through enrichment programmes and co-curricular activities. The Ministry of Education works with the Infocomm Media Development Authority to offer programmes, such as \"Code for Fun\", \"Lab on Wheels\" and the \"Digital Maker\" programmes. Since 2014, 93,000 students have embarked on the \"Code for Fun\" programme.
Students with strong foundation in the underlying skills are able to pick up basic coding readily and learn programming languages smoothly at later stages of their education, such as in offering Computing as a formal subject at the GCE \"O\" or \"A\" level.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Maternity Leave for Teachers During School Holiday","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"45 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry will review the policy on maternity leave for female teachers who give birth during the school holiday period, given that they lose out on the number of leave days as the school holiday period is akin to their annual leave.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Maternity leave granted by the Ministry of Education is in accordance with the Civil Service guidelines and the Child Development Co-Savings Act. This means the first eight weeks of the maternity leave are paid leave, can commence either during the four weeks immediately before the date of confinement, or immediately after confinement. They are also to be taken in a continuous stretch so that a female employee has time to recuperate and bond with her newborn child. The subsequent eight weeks of the maternity leave can be taken flexibly over a 12-\tmonth period from the birth of the child, subject to mutual agreement between the female employee and her supervisor.
The nature of teachers' work is unique in the Civil Service. Teachers in schools are on a fixed cycle of work schedule. They work very hard during the school terms and can often slow down the pace and take a breather during the school holidays, which is about 12 weeks in a year and longer than leave entitlements for other civil servants.
To foster family-friendly workplaces, the Civil Service also provides pro-family options, such as part-time employment, for officers to look after young children, and leave provisions, such as childcare leave, unpaid infant care leave and no-pay leave for childcare. These measures will support parenthood.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Traffic Summons Issued to Drivers of Heavy Vehicles along Fort Road, Tanjong Rhu Road and Meyer Road","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"46 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) since 2016, how many traffic summonses have been issued to drivers of heavy vehicles travelling along Fort Road, Tanjong Rhu Road and Meyer Road; (b) what is the nature of the traffic violations committed by the drivers of such heavy vehicles; and (c) what else can be done to ensure the safety of other road users for that stretch of roads.
Mr K Shanmugam: There has been a high volume of heavy vehicle traffic along Fort Road, Tanjong Rhu Road and Meyer Road. This is due to their proximity to major construction and unloading sites, such as those for the Thomson-East Coast Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) Line and the Marina East Staging Ground.
In 2016 and 2017, Traffic Police detected a total of 170 traffic violations committed by heavy vehicle drivers along Fort Road, Tanjong Rhu Road and Meyer Road. Along these roads, the most common violation committed by heavy vehicle drivers was unauthorised U-turns.
Aside from deploying more officers to the affected roads and taking enforcement action against errant drivers, Traffic Police has also been engaging construction site operators in the area and fleet-owners whose vehicles ply the roads frequently. This allows Traffic Police to enlist their support and work with them to promote good driving behaviour among their drivers.
To manage road safety risks arising from high heavy-vehicle traffic, the Land Transport Authority has also developed traffic control plans for the area. As part of these plans, the travelling time and routes of heavy vehicles are carefully managed, such that peak hours and residential areas are avoided where possible. Site operators also conduct regular monitoring to ensure that heavy vehicles adhere to the control plans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Rising Minimum Fixed Monthly Salary Required for Employment Pass and S Pass Holders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"47 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Manpower in light of the rising minimum fixed monthly salary required for Employment Pass and S-pass holders for the bringing of family members on dependant passes (a) whether this discourages the hiring of cheap foreign talent and favours expensive foreign talent; (b) how many Employment Pass holders and their families affected; and (c) how many SMEs and which sectors are most affected by this.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The qualifying salary threshold for bringing in dependants on Dependant’s Pass is regularly updated. This is to ensure that Employment Pass (EP) and S Pass holders continue to be able to upkeep themselves and their dependants in Singapore. To minimise disruptions to families which are already here in Singapore, Dependant Passes issued before the updated threshold takes effect remain valid, as long as the main pass holder remains with the same employer.
Most new EP and S Pass holders do not apply to bring in their dependants. However, for those who do, the salary thresholds are made known and consistently applied. Following the increase in qualifying threshold at the beginning of the year, about 1% of Dependant Pass applications did not meet the updated threshold and were, therefore, rejected in the first half of 2018. These were distributed across sectors, such as Professional Services, Infocomm and Construction. The rate of rejection was similar for those employed by small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and non-SMEs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Making Available Judgments of Employment Claims Tribunal Accessible","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"48 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Manpower whether judgments and grounds of decision of the Employment Claims Tribunal can be made available for access and reference.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Today, any individual may request for a copy of the judgment or grounds of decision by the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT), including both parties and non-parties to the proceedings. In assessing requests, ECT will consider factors, such as whether the information requested is necessary for the administration of justice, whether it is necessary to fulfil a legal requirement, or any other legitimate reason. This practice is consistent with applications for judgments and grounds of decisions of the State Courts, including other tribunals, such as the Small Claims Tribunals.
The Ministry of Manpower will make applications to the ECT to publish the judgment and grounds of decision for cases that are useful references to parties, including employers, employees and mediators. This will promote greater awareness of employment laws, as interpreted by the Courts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Traffic Impact Assessment for Construction of Staging Ground at Marina East","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"49 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether a traffic impact assessment had been carried out prior to having the construction staging ground located at Marina East; and (b) when will this temporary staging ground be relocated.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The temporary occupation licence (TOL) for the construction staging ground at Marina East was first issued to the Land Transport Authority (LTA) in 2014, before activities in the area generated significant traffic impact. In 2016, arising from new TOL applications in the East Coast/Marina Bay area, a joint Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) was carried out for the TOLs in the East Coast/Marina Bay area, as they share the same access road.
The Marina East staging ground is segregated from the existing residential area by East Coast Parkway and East Coast Park. Nevertheless, LTA has adopted measures to minimise disamenities to road users in the vicinity. For example, queue bays are provided in the staging ground, and throughput has been enhanced so that heavy vehicles do not overflow onto public roads. LTA is also working closely with the developers and contractors in the area to develop localised traffic control plans to improve safety and minimise inconvenience to other road users. These include managing the schedules and routes of heavy vehicles to avoid peak hour traffic and residential areas, where possible. There are also signs to alert motorists to slow down and watch out for heavy vehicles.
From a land-use perspective, the Marina East staging ground currently supports LTA's rail and road infrastructure projects. When these projects are completed, we will review whether to continue the use of this staging ground, in connection with the timing of future development plans for the area.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Boosting Competitiveness of Singapore as Aircraft Leasing Hub","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether an update can be provided on measures to boost the competitiveness of Singapore as an aircraft leasing hub vis-à-vis countries like Hong Kong and Ireland.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Currently, around 40% of commercial aircraft used by airlines are leased rather than directly purchased, and the size of the global aircraft leasing industry stands at US$261 billion. Driven by a burgeoning middle class and increasing air connectivity in the Asia Pacific region, the total number of commercial aircraft is expected to more than double by 2036. This represents a significant business opportunity for aircraft lessors.
Ireland has been a pioneer in aircraft leasing since the 1970s and continues to capture the largest global market share at 65%. Singapore is the top aircraft leasing hub in the Asia Pacific with 20% global market share. Today, we host operations for eight of the top 10 aircraft leasing companies. Nonetheless, we are keenly aware of the strong competition. Hong Kong, for instance, is stepping up in aircraft leasing, buoyed by the increase in air travel from China, and aspires to expand its market share to 18% in 20 years' time2.
Singapore's strong reputation as a major aircraft leasing hub is founded on several factors. First, we have an extensive network of Avoidance of Double Taxation Agreements (DTAs) with more than 80 jurisdictions, including growing Asian markets, such as China, India and Vietnam.
Second, Singapore's strong financial industry, together with our growing professional services ecosystem of law firms, banks and tax advisory firms, provide support and financing options to the aircraft leasing business, making us an attractive base for the top aircraft lessors in the world. Companies looking to develop aircraft leasing capabilities in Singapore may also avail of the Aircraft Leasing Scheme, which provides concessionary tax rates on qualifying income from leasing of aircraft or aircraft engines. The professional services Industry Transformation Map (ITM), launched in January this year, will further support various industries, including aircraft leasing, as we enhance capabilities and spur greater innovation in our professional services firms.
Third, our aircraft leasing industry is complemented by deep knowledge and strong support from our aviation and aerospace industries. Changi Airport is one of the busiest airports in the world, and we have an established base of aerospace companies and talent to provide quality maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) services to support key aviation players, including lessors. The aerospace ITM, also launched in January, will chart our efforts to transform our aerospace industry and strengthen our MRO sector.
Even as we are doing relatively well today, we need to continue to work with stakeholders to nurture a comprehensive aviation and aerospace ecosystem and a robust financial sector critical for aircraft leasing activities. By ensuring our competitiveness as Asia's aircraft leasing hub, the industry will continue to generate economic spinoffs and good jobs to benefit Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["2 : “Recommendation for Developing Hong Kong as an Aircraft Leasing and Financing Hub” by Hong Kong Financial Services Development Council, July 2017."],"footNoteQuestions":["51"],"questionNo":"51"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Employment Assistance for Fresh Graduates from Private Universities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"52 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry has plans to assist fresh graduates from private universities to gain employment in the workforce and to change the perception of their value-add to the marketplace amongst employers.
Mrs Josephine Teo: To help graduates from private education institutions (PEIs) secure good employment outcomes, PEIs must equip graduates with industry-relevant skills and take responsibility for the employment outcomes of their graduates. This is why the Ministry of Education (MOE) regularly highlights to PEIs the importance of maintaining the relevance of their programmes to meet the changing needs of industry and potential employers, and why PEIs offering degree programmes are assessed via the EduTrust scheme on their graduate outcomes. MOE is also helping our students make better informed decisions in the career and learning journey. We have (a) stepped up Education and Career Guidance (ECG) efforts in schools; and (b) made it mandatory for PEIs with degree programmes to conduct and publish the PEI Graduate Employment Survey, which is similar to the Graduate Employment Survey by the autonomous universities.
Increasingly, employers look beyond education qualifications to identify candidates with good fit. Together with our tripartite partners, the Ministry of Manpower also promotes progressive hiring practices which encourage firms to assess candidates holistically, including through the use of competency assessment tools or work trials where appropriate. These practices are outlined in the Tripartite Standard on Recruitment Practices which was launched in November last year. Employers which voluntarily sign up to the Standard commit to adopt fair, merit-based and inclusive recruitment practices. As of June this year, more than 560 employers, accounting for about 340,000 workers, have adopted this Standard.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Purchase of HDB Flats while Retaining Ownership of Local or Overseas Private Properties","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"53 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for National Development (a) currently, how many Singaporeans are allowed to purchase resale HDB flats while retaining ownership of local or overseas private properties; (b) under what circumstances will HDB allow a waiver of its rule which is to dispose of the private property within six months from buying a resale flat; and (c) whether this policy has achieved its intended outcome of cooling the property market.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats are meant for owner-occupation. To reinforce this principle, buyers of HDB resale flats are not allowed to retain ownership of local or overseas private properties.
However, on a case-by-case basis, HDB will consider appeals from flat owners to retain private properties, taking into account factors, such as the owner's share in the private property, and why the private property cannot be recovered for his own use.
This policy has achieved its objective of dampening demand for resale flats from buyers with no urgent housing need. Together with other cooling measures introduced since 2009, it has helped to stabilise prices in the resale market and to ensure that HDB flats remain affordable to Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cat Ownership in HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the rule disallowing cat ownership in HDB flats may be abrogated and replaced with rules promoting responsible cat ownership; and (b) whether there are plans to expand the pilot HDB cat ownership programme in Chong Pang to other constituencies.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Housing and Development Board's (HDB’s) pet ownership policies have to strike a balance between residents who are pet lovers and those who are not. A necessary precondition is responsible pet ownership. Most cat-related disamenities are due to the irresponsible behaviour of certain owners. Pet owners must ensure that their pets do not adversely affect the living environment in high-rise, high-density Singapore.
The Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) works closely with HDB, Town Councils and Animal Welfare Groups to encourage responsible behaviour among pet owners. In May this year, AVA appointed the Cat Welfare Society (CWS) as a third-party mediator for cat-related issues nationwide. We hope that this will help bring affected parties together to achieve amicable solutions to cat-related disputes. AVA and HDB will continue to closely monitor the effectiveness of these measures, as well as to engage stakeholders on cat ownership issues.
The Member asked about the Project Love Cats pilot in Chong Pang. This is a community-owned project and requires the sustained support of residents, grassroots leaders and Members of Parliament. Its success is contingent on responsible pet ownership and neighbourly conflict resolution between residents. Among other measures, CWS has been working with the Chong Pang community to sterilise the cats to minimise the risk of disamenities and to microchip them to strengthen owner accountability. These are required for the long-term success of this pilot. We can consider further expansion when the Chong Pang pilot meets these outcomes and when there is strong community support in other parts of Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Managing Growth in Demand for Foreign Domestic Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"55 Assoc Prof Randolph Tan asked the Minister for Manpower whether the growth in demand for foreign domestic workers (FDWs) is sustainable and whether there are measures in place to address the long-term issues associated with a large and growing FDW population.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Over the last 10 years, the number of foreign domestic workers (FDWs) in Singapore has increased by about 40% to 240,000 in 2017. Most of the growth can be attributed to households with elderly caregiving needs, but households with no seniors or young children also hired more FDWs.
We are developing more options to support Singaporeans with caregiving needs. This will help to moderate the growth in the number of FDWs and manage the risk of over-dependence, especially if improved job opportunities in the FDWs’ home countries make it less attractive for them to seek domestic work overseas.
From 2011 to 2017, the Government has more than doubled centre-based day care and home-care capacity for the elderly, and we are on track to meet our targets of 6,200 centre-based and 10,000 home-care places by 2020. Caregivers can also tap community-based care services. For elderly persons without an available caregiver, services, such as Meals-on-Wheels, ensure that they can have access to regular meals while the Medical Escort and Transport service helps them to attend their medical appointments.
Likewise, we are continuing to expand full-day preschool capacity to support the childcare and infant care needs of families with young children. Over the past five years, the Government has facilitated the creation of 50,000 full-day preschool places. By 2023, another 40,000 places will be developed, 30% more than today.
Families wishing to hire an FDW to meet their general household needs, such as cleaning, may also consider other alternatives. For example, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) started the Household Services Scheme in September 2017, which lets domestic cleaning service companies have additional foreign worker quotas in order to meet the demand for part-time household services.
At the same time, levies for FDWs must be regularly adjusted to reflect income changes and moderate demand. As was announced during the 2018 Budget Statement, from 1 April 2019, the monthly levy for the first and second FDW employed without levy concession will be raised from $265 today to $300 and $450 respectively. In addition, the qualifying age for the levy concession for aged persons will be raised from 65 to 67 years, as more Singaporeans live and remain in good health longer. Households who need help caring for young children, the elderly or family members with disabilities will, however, continue to enjoy a monthly concessionary FDW levy of $60.
Due to our population density, a sharp increase in the FDW population may also result in social friction. Today, we already require all new FDWs to go through a Settling-In Programme. It provides them with tips on adjusting to Singapore's social and cultural norms, besides educating them on their employment rights, protections and avenues of help. There are also non-government organisations, such as the Centre for Domestic Employees, that provide support to FDWs in need.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of Professional Conversion Programme in Helping Participants to Switch Careers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"56 Assoc Prof Randolph Tan asked the Minister for Manpower whether the career switches that have been achieved by participants of the Professional Conversion Programme to date have met the aims of the programme.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Professional Conversion Programmes (PCPs) help mid-career professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) reskill and switch careers so that they can move into new occupations or sectors with good prospects for progression. Participants will typically be placed with an employer and earn a salary while training to perform their new jobs.
The PCPs have met the aim of helping jobseekers and employers overcome jobs-skills mismatches. Since their launch in 2007, more than 10,000 PMETs have been placed into jobs through PCPs. In recent years, the programme has picked up pace. In 2017, close to 3,800 PMETs were placed through PCPs, up from about 1,300 in 2016. The share of mature and long-term unemployed PMETs placed also rose in 2017, following the increase in training and salary support for these groups of jobseekers. Completion rates for PCPs are above 90%.
In addition to PCPs that facilitate skills conversion into different sectors, we now support individuals looking to switch into different occupations within the same sector. We also offer PCPs to reskill at-risk PMETs for new job roles within the same company and avert possible retrenchments. Last year, we launched Attach-and-Train PCPs to train workers ahead of demand in sectors with long-term growth potential. There are currently over 100 PCPs in about 30 sectors, which are approximately twice the number of PCPs a year ago.
We will continue to raise awareness of PCPs among jobseekers and employers to support reskilling and career conversion.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Conversion of Former School Compounds into Retirement Villages or Assisted Living Facilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"57 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will consider allowing selected former school compounds that are now vacant to be converted into retirement villages or assisted living facilities for the aged without the need to incur capital costs of building such facilities.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Ministry of National Development and the Ministry of Health have been working together on plans to develop retirement housing and assisted living projects to expand the range of housing options for our senior citizens.
We are studying the possibility of converting vacant school sites for such developments. Their location within established housing estates will enable residents to age in residential surroundings. Their relatively large site area can accommodate a significant number of housing units and common spaces, allowing residents to interact with one another and develop a sense of community. However, there are also costs involved to rejuvenate the ageing vacant school properties and reconfigure them for housing purposes.
We will continue to study different models of retirement housing and assisted living developments to better meet the needs of our senior citizens and will share more information on our plans when ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Prevent Concrete Structures from Falling Off HDB Blocks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"59 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for National Development (a) what audits have been performed nationwide since the last incident in 2016 of a fallen concrete sunshade; (b) whether there have been any recommendations or changes made to building design compliance; and (c) what more can be done to prevent future occurrences.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Under the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act, building owners are required to ensure that building exteriors are maintained in a state of good and serviceable repair. For Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates, Town Councils conduct regular inspections on building façades as they are responsible for the maintenance of common property. Where necessary, they will engage a Professional Engineer to follow up on any repairs that are required. In addition, HDB conducts annual audit inspections of selected blocks, with a focus on buildings with more facade elements.
As highlighted in the Committee of Supply debate earlier this year, the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) will be introducing a Periodic Facade Inspection regime to enable early detection of tell-tale signs of deteriorating facade elements. This will allow building owners to carry out the necessary maintenance and repairs. The regime will focus on buildings above 20 years old, with the exception of private landed houses, temporary buildings and low-rise buildings. We intend to introduce legislation by the end of this year.
Since 2017, BCA has made available a Facade Access Design Guide to help designers integrate suitable access solutions at the upstream planning and design stage to facilitate downstream inspection and maintenance of facades. To complement the upcoming facade inspection regime, BCA is working with the industry to develop inspection guidelines for the different types of facades commonly found in Singapore. In addition to training and certifying facade inspectors, BCA is investing in research and development to see how inspections can be carried out in a more effective and productive manner. BCA and HDB have also jointly called for proposals to develop a drone inspection system for building facades.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Speed Regulators at Zebra Crossings to Slow Down Users of Personal Mobility Devices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"68 Mr Azmoon Ahmad asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry can consider installing speed regulators at both ends of zebra crossings to ensure that rushing users of personal mobility devices have to decrease their speed when approaching such crossings.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Where possible, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) installs speed regulating strips on cycling paths when they approach a pedestrian crossing, such as zebra crossings and signalised pedestrian crossings, to remind users of personal mobility devices to slow down when approaching crossings. These are coupled with other signs, including \"Watch Out for Vehicles\", \"LOOK\" boxes with a bicycle logo, and \"Give Way to Pedestrians\" to guide the behaviour of users of personal mobility devices.
It is currently a code of conduct for active mobility device users to stop and look out for on-coming traffic when approaching any pedestrian crossing and to cross only at walking speed. The Active Mobility Advisory Panel is conducting a review of active mobility device user behaviour at road crossings and will release its recommendations by the end of the year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Errant Users of Personal Mobility Devices Caught Since Commencement of Active Mobility Act","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"69 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Minister for Transport from October 2017 to May 2018 (a) how many accidents involving electric scooters or electric-powered PMDs have there been; (b) how many involved serious injuries to pedestrians which required hospitalisation; and (c) whether there are plans to further regulate the use of electric scooters or electric-powered PMDs, especially the allowable speeds and usage, testing, licensing and age requirements of the riders.
71 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the number of errant PMD users caught and taken to task since the commencement of the Active Mobility Act; (b) what is the profile of these errant users; and (c) what other efforts will be undertaken by the Government to improve awareness of the Act to better safeguard public safety.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: In 2017, there was a total of 128 reported accidents on public paths involving personal mobility devices (PMDs). Unfortunately, nine of these resulted in major injuries.
The Active Mobility Act (AMA) empowers the Land Transport Authority (LTA) to enforce against active mobility offences. LTA’s Active Mobility Enforcement Officers have stepped up efforts to strictly enforce against active mobility offences, such as the riding of non-compliant devices, reckless riding and speeding. Since the AMA commenced on 1 May 2018, 297 errant PMD users between the ages of 14 and 80 have been caught for active mobility-related offences. Those who are found guilty of active mobility offences are liable for fines and/or imprisonment. Those caught riding non-compliant devices may also have their devices seized and forfeited.
LTA will introduce a mandatory registration regime for e-scooters from early next year. This will help deter reckless behaviour and facilitate members of the public and our enforcement officers in identifying and tracking down errant users.
The Active Mobility Advisory Panel (AMAP) is also reviewing the active mobility regulations, including the speed limit on footpaths, the behaviour of active mobility users at road crossings, the usage of helmets by active mobility device users, and the insurance and compensation framework. AMAP will release its recommendations by the end of this year.
LTA has also stepped up efforts to further improve awareness of the rules and code of conduct governing active mobility usage, including launching publicity campaigns in different languages, leveraging Active Mobility Patrol volunteers to engage the public on safe and gracious path-sharing behaviours, and launching the Safe Riding Programme.
I urge all cyclists and PMD users to show respect and consideration for their fellow path users. This will go a long way in ensuring that Singaporeans can continue to share our paths safely and harmoniously.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Legislation to Prohibit Use of Personal Mobility Devices for Carrying Young Children as Passengers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"73 Assoc Prof Randolph Tan asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will consider introducing legislation which explicitly prohibits the use of personal mobility devices for carrying young children as passengers.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Personal mobility devices (PMDs) have been a convenient mode of first-and-last-mile transport for many Singaporeans, and some of them are designed to carry passengers. Rather than banning the carrying of young children as passengers, it is more important for all PMD users to take responsibility for riding safely. PMD users should not carry more passengers than the PMD is designed to carry, and should ride slowly to ensure safety for themselves, their passengers and other path users.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Lower Speed Limits for Personal Mobility Devices on Footpaths","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"74 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Transport in view of the potential severe personal injuries that can be sustained in a collision between PMDs and pedestrians (a) whether the speed limit of PMDs on footpaths and cycling/shared paths should be lowered; and (b) whether the maximum device speed of electric and motorised PMDs should also be lowered.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Cyclists and personal mobility device (PMD) users are subject to a speed limit of 15 kilometres/hour (km/h) on footpaths, and 25 km/h on cycling and shared paths. For motorised PMDs, there is a device speed limit of 25 km/h.
The Active Mobility Advisory Panel (AMAP) is currently reviewing some active mobility regulations, including the speed limit on footpaths, and will release its recommendations later this year. The speed limit on shared and cycling paths is not under review as such paths are much wider and there have been far fewer accidents occurring on them. Thus, we will maintain the maximum device speed of PMDs at 25 km/h, which is the maximum speed they can travel on cycling and shared paths.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Withdrawal of Hospitalisation and Surgical Insurance Scheme by Statutory Boards","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Prime Minister with the withdrawal of the hospitalisation and surgical insurance scheme by some Statutory Boards (a) whether the Ministry is aware that officers previously on this scheme who have pre-existing medical conditions can only get insurance cover under MediShield Life at Class C and B2 levels and that these officers are unable to buy a rider or upgrade for their medical insurance policies; and (b) whether the Ministry can negotiate with insurance companies to offer a comprehensive coverage for all civil servants, especially those with pre-existing illnesses who had better coverage before the withdrawal.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister):\tPublic officers who joined the Service after 1994 are placed on the MediSave-cum-Subsidised Outpatient (MSO) scheme. This is a portable medical benefit scheme which provides 2% of an officer's monthly salary as additional MediSave contributions, in lieu of hospitalisation benefits, and an annual subsidy of $500 for outpatient treatments. Under the MSO scheme, an officer may receive an additional MediSave contribution of up to $2,730 annually1. The MSO scheme is regularly reviewed to ensure it remains market competitive. In the last review in 2015, the Civil Service increased additional MediSave contributions from 1% to 2%.
All Singaporeans are covered under MediShield Life. On top of that, public officers can use their additional MediSave contributions to purchase Integrated Shield Plans (IPs) to supplement their MediShield Life coverage. In addition, the Public Service Division (PSD) has also appointed a panel of insurance companies to offer portable IPs at\tdiscounted premiums to public officers and their dependants. These IPs are individual contracts between the officers and insurers and will continue to cover officers even after they change employers.
Over and above the MSO scheme benefits and PSD's facilitation for public officers and their dependants to take up portable IPs at discounted premiums, one particular Statutory Board (SB) had further arranged for its officers to be covered under a Group Hospitalisation and Surgical (H&S) plan. This is even though there is no obligation to do so. Under H&S plan, the insurance is not portable and will not cover officers after they leave the SB. The H&S plan of the SB expired in December 2017. The SB is working to arrange for an insurer to offer H&S coverage to its officers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : The maximum additional MediSave contributions that an officer will receive in a year is $2,730, that is, $140 per month x 17 months (12 months ordinary wages and five months additional wages) + $350 (from the $500 outpatient subsidy if unutilised)."],"footNoteQuestions":["1"],"questionNo":"1"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Grab-Uber Proposed Takeover","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Transport following the Grab-Uber proposed takeover (a) whether many people will be out of a job as a result of this deal; (b) if so, how many people will be so affected and what is being done to help these workers; and (c) what is the impact of this on the overall public transport service.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The Grab-Uber merger impacted several groups of workers and drivers, but to different degrees. First, about 300 former employees of Uber were given paid leave of up to three months while Grab identifies suitable positions for them. Those who are not placed within Grab will be compensated in accordance with the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Excess Manpower and Responsible Retrenchment.
Second, Uber used to have 300 to 400 contract workers. Grab has committed to take over and honour the terms and durations of their contracts.
Third, Uber had about 10,000 drivers driving exclusively for it at the point of merger. More than 9,000 of the affected Uber drivers have since joined Grab. For those who do not, Workforce Singapore and the National Trades Union Congress' (NTUC's) Employment and Employability Institute are helping them secure new employment. The Ministry of Manpower and the Land Transport Authority (LTA) are also working with the National Private Hire Vehicles Association (NHPVA) and National Taxi Association (NTA) to help them resolve any outstanding payments or contractual disputes with Uber.
The point-to-point transport sector is still evolving. The industry is not yet at its steady state. The Ministry of Transport and LTA are monitoring the development and will intervene as necessary, including instituting a fair regulatory framework, to ensure that it stays open and contestable, so that no one single market player can dominate the industry to the detriment of commuters and drivers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Educational Qualifications of 54,000 Private Hire Car Drivers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Transport whether he can provide a breakdown of the educational qualifications (primary, secondary, junior college, ITE, diploma, degree, masters and higher) of the 54,000 private hire car drivers in Singapore.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Of the 54,000 private hire car drivers as of 31 March 2018, about 40% have attained tertiary/post-secondary level qualifications, including degree, diploma and Institute of Technical Education qualifications. The highest qualification attained by another 40% of drivers is secondary school level qualifications. The remaining 20% have attained primary school level qualifications or other qualifications, such as the Singapore Workforce Skills Qualifications, as their highest qualification.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assistance for Candidates More Proficient in Own Vernacular Languages for Private Hire Car Driver's Vocational Licence Test","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for Transport whether language assistance can be arranged for candidates who are more proficient in their respective vernacular languages for the Private Hire Car Driver's Vocational Licence (PDVL) test while retaining a minimum proficiency requirement in the English language.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The provision of chauffeured services puts drivers in contact with a wide range of commuters every day. Hence, private hire car (PHC) and taxi drivers must be able to speak simple English to communicate effectively with all commuters, both Singaporeans and tourists. Drivers must also be able to read basic English, so that they can navigate roads and buildings, the names of which are primarily in English.
Nonetheless, we understand that there are Private Hire Car Driver’s Vocational Licence (PDVL) applicants who may have language difficulties. If they wish to look for other jobs or transit to other industries, they can approach the Employment and Employability Institute or Workforce Singapore for employment assistance. For those who would still like to drive PHCs, and who require assistance in preparing for their PDVL tests, they can sign up for remedial classes conducted by the training providers – the Singapore Taxi Academy and ComfortDelGro Taxi. Based on feedback, we understand that these have been useful in helping applicants pass their tests. The Land Transport Authority will also work with the training providers to ensure that language assistance is available to applicants who require them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of Enforcement on Designated Parking for Shared Bicycles","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Transport how effective has enforcement of designated parking for shared bicycles been and what further measures will be taken to prevent shared bicycles creating inconveniences to other path users.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: We know that indiscriminate bicycle parking is a major issue on the ground. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has stepped up enforcement efforts and has issued more than 3,300 removal notices to date.
To more effectively address the issue, LTA will implement a licensing regime for bicycle-sharing operators by end 2018. This will allow LTA to manage the size of each operator’s fleet, require operators to manage indiscriminate parking and encourage responsible user behaviour.
Under the licensing regime, operators will be required to implement quick response code geo-fencing and impose a penalty on users who do not park within the designated areas. Users who repeatedly park improperly will be banned temporarily from renting shared bicycles from all operators.
Apart from regulatory measures, LTA has worked with the operators on a public awareness campaign to educate users on responsible parking. More parking spaces will also be added to cater to a growing number of cyclists.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Raising Minimum Age Requirement for Private Hire Car Drivers to that for Taxi Drivers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Transport whether any new considerations have surfaced for the Ministry to consider raising the minimum age requirement for private hire car drivers to that required for taxi drivers to better ensure the safety of passengers.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Where safety is concerned, we are of the view that the number of years of driving experience is more important than age. In this regard, the Land Transport Authority requires a minimum of two years' driving experience for applicants for the Private Hire Car Driver’s Vocational Licence.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Detrainment of Passengers in Bukit Panjang LRT Breakdown","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Transport (a) how is the detrainment of passengers carried out when there is a Bukit Panjang LRT breakdown; (b) what are the measures taken to ensure passenger safety during detrainment; and (c) whether there is a need to strengthen the detrainment process.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Detrainment procedures are designed to ensure the safety of passengers and are similar across all our rail lines. During a breakdown, the first priority for any operator is to resolve the fault and resume service quickly, so that passengers can alight at the platform. If this cannot be done, passengers may need to be detrained to the tracks.
During any detrainment, the safety of passengers is the key consideration. Prior to detrainment, train services must be halted and traction power switched off in the affected zone. Passengers will be informed through in-train announcements that a detrainment is necessary, and that assistance is on its way. Customer Service Officers (CSOs) will be dispatched to the affected train to guide passengers to the nearest station safely. Before exiting the train, the CSOs will brief passengers on how to detrain safely, including how to exit the train cabin and where to walk on the emergency walkway in order to avoid trackside equipment. Any passengers with special needs, such as those on wheelchairs, will also be assisted by the CSOs, with the help of fellow passengers.
The current detrainment process is safe and has worked well so far. The Land Transport Authority monitors and reviews how our Public Transport Operators (PTOs) respond to each train disruption. The lessons learnt are used to continuously improve incident management plans, including the detrainment process. The PTOs also conduct regular exercises to ensure that staff are operationally ready to manage a detrainment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Security Deposit or Performance Bond by Shared Bicycle Operators to Ensure Protection of Deposits or Prepayments Made","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Transport whether LTA will require shared bicycle operators to place a security deposit or performance bond to ensure that deposits or any pre-payment made by bicycle hirers or consumers are protected.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) will study the need for bicycle-sharing operators (BSOs) to place a security deposit or performance bond if there are BSOs which require user deposits when the licensing regime is implemented from October this year. Currently, seven BSOs have applied for licences. None of them require user deposits. A number of them are existing BSOs who, even under the light touch approach adopted today, do not require user deposits.
To facilitate the growth of this nascent industry and ensure that bicycle sharing services remain affordable, LTA has refrained from over-regulating BSOs as this can increase their compliance costs, which could, in turn, be passed on to users. The licensing regime is primarily targeted at minimising disamenities to the public caused by the indiscriminate parking of shared bicycles. To be licensed, BSOs must put forward a responsible and sustainable bicycle management plan to operate in our local context.
Going forward, LTA will monitor and strengthen the licensing regime as necessary, as well as work with relevant organisations, such as the Personal Data Protection Commission, the Consumers Association of Singapore, National Parks Board and the Town Councils on public education and outreach, so as to strike the right balance between the viability of the industry and the interests of users and the general public.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Construction of Longer Tunnels for Residents to Nearest MRT Stations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Transport whether LTA will consider constructing longer tunnels to provide a better sheltered link for residents to their nearest MRT stations.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Underground tunnels cost substantially more than at-grade sheltered walkways and may involve a lot more disruptive diversion works in mature estates. At-grade sheltered walkways are also more inclusive, as they provide cover to all footpath users, not just Mass Rapid Transit commuters. Under the Walk2Ride programme, more than 200 kilometres of at-grade sheltered walkways will be built by the end of this year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulating Monopolistic Private Hire Car Market","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Transport on the merger between Grab and Uber (a) how does the Government intend to regulate a monopolistic market for private hire cars; (b) what will be the impact to consumers, drivers and Singapore's transportation landscape as a whole; and (c) whether the Government will expedite the regulatory framework to control the growth of private hire cars.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Over the last three years, private hire cars (PHCs) have emerged as an important point-to-point mode of transport for Singaporeans. To protect the interests of commuters and drivers, the Land Transport Authority is reviewing the regulatory framework for the point-to-point sector to ensure that the PHC industry remains open and contestable. This framework will be announced later this year.
In the meantime, the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) has issued the Proposed Infringement Decision to Grab and Uber, which includes proposed remedies to restore market contestability in the point-to-point transport sector. CCCS is currently seeking public comments on whether any of the remedies proposed are sufficient to address the identified competition concerns.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"One-off Exemption for Motorcycles Manufactured between 1993 and 2003 under Classic Vehicles Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Ong Teng Koon asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will consider allowing motorcycles manufactured between 1993 and 2003 to be given a one-off exemption to register under the classic vehicles scheme.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The Classic Vehicle Scheme (CVS) allows individuals to own cars and motorcycles which are of heritage value to Singapore. To qualify, the vehicle must be at least 35 years old from its original registration date. Vehicles registered under CVS can only be used on the roads for up to 45 days a year.
\\Motorcycles registered between 1993 and 2003 are currently 15 to 25 years old, which is way below the minimum requirement of 35 years for CVS. Hence, we have no plans to grant any exemption for them to be registered under CVS.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rectification Works for Faulty Construction of Viaduct Structure Linking PIE and TPE at Upper Changi Road East","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport whether Or Kim Peow Contractors will be responsible for (i) the carrying out of all the rectification works required by LTA arising from any faulty construction of the viaduct structure linking PIE and TPE at Upper Changi Road East and (ii) all the additional cost arising from the rectification works required and surveys carried out on behalf of LTA.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has reached an agreement with Or Kim Peow Construction Pte Ltd (OKP) to terminate the contract to construct the viaduct from Tampines Expressway towards Pan Island Expressway (Tuas) and Upper Changi Road East, including the recovery of appropriate costs from OKP.
LTA will engage a new contractor to complete the construction of the viaduct, including the rectification of any structures which are deemed unsafe by the independent Professional Engineer appointed by LTA. The project timeline and completion date will be reviewed, after the award of the new contract.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Recruits to SAF Volunteer Corp","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for Defence (a) what is the total number of recruits to the SAF Volunteer Corp since its inception; (b) what is the ratio of male to female recruits; (c) what is the current dropout rate and what are these cases due to; and (d) whether there will be any review of the programme and training based on the observations and feedback thus far.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: Since the Singapore Armed Forces Volunteer Corps (SAFVC) was launched in October 2014, more than 700 SAFVC Volunteers (SVs) have been carefully selected, out of over 2,700 applications received. We are also heartened by the strong commitment and enthusiasm shown by our SVs, with a low dropout rate of 3%. The reasons cited for dropping out were mainly due to being unable to meet the medical and training requirements.
Our pool of SVs comprises a good balance of males and females, with over 40% being females. The high number of interested females is heartening, and many of them have excelled. SV1 Nur Fadilah Bte Judir is one example. SV1 Fadilah had joined SAFVC to better understand and appreciate what male Singaporeans go through to defend Singapore. Through her SAFVC training and subsequent deployment as an Auxiliary Security Trooper, she was able to develop the necessary skills and knowledge to contribute to national defence.
The Ministry of Defence (MINDEF)/Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) have continually looked at ways to enhance the SAFVC scheme to better achieve its objectives of allowing more Singaporeans and Permanent Residents to contribute to national defence, show support for National Service, and deepen their understanding and ownership of national defence. SVs are deployed alongside National Servicemen and regulars to support the SAF's operations and training, and the SAFVC's training is regularly reviewed to ensure that it is safe, progressive and effective. From this year, SVs, along with all MINDEF/SAF personnel, will also participate in the Counter-Terrorism (CT) Community Response Module (CRM) as part of their training. This new module will equip SVs with the knowledge and skills to aid others and support first responders in the event of a terrorist attack.
SAFVC has also expanded the range and scale of deployment opportunities for SVs to provide more avenues for their participation. For instance, more SVs are now deployed to support key national and SAF events, such as the National Day Parade, Army Open House and the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF)50@Heartlands exhibition. This year, MINDEF/SAF has launched 15 new roles for SVs, to allow more SVs to contribute to national defence in more areas of interest and expertise, such as Safety, Counselling, Music, Engineering and Supply Chain. Along with the introduction of the new roles, SVs will also be equipped with the required skills to carry out their duties effectively.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Incidents of Vehicles with Objects not Properly Secured and Falling off onto Roads","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Ang Hin Kee asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the number of incidents of vehicles with objects not properly secured and falling off onto the roads in the past three years; (b) how many of such occurrences resulted in an accident; (c) how does LTA track such incidents and accidents; and (d) what are the measures to reduce such cases from occurring.
Mr K Shanmugam: Between 2015 and 2017, the Traffic Police (TP) enforced against 248 instances of drivers who failed to properly secure the loads on their vehicles. Of these, heavy vehicles accounted for 80%.
In the same period, 13 accidents occurred due to vehicle loads falling onto the road, 11 of which involved heavy vehicles.
To deter motorists from driving with unsecured loads, TP conducts regular enforcement operations, particularly along roads used by heavy vehicles. Offenders are liable for composition fines of up to $180 and up to six demerit points.
TP also regularly engages heavy vehicle fleet-owners and drivers, through road-safety dialogues. TP uses these dialogues to share and encourage the adoption of best practices, including those related to securing loads on vehicles.
In addition, the Workplace Safety and Health Council has issued advisories, such as the Workplace Safety and Health Guidelines on Safe Loading of Vehicles. Among other things, these advisories provide guidance on proper loading techniques for different types of cargo.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Root Cause of Fire in Pulau Busing and Measures in Place to Handle Such Emergencies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the root cause of the fire at Pulau Busing; (b) whether it could have been prevented; and (c) whether there are suitable capabilities on the island itself for handling such emergencies or is there a need to mobilise emergency resources from the mainland.
Mr K Shanmugam: Investigations into the oil storage tank fire at Pulau Busing are ongoing. Preliminary findings indicate that the fire was caused by a lightning strike on the rooftop of the tank.
The Fire Code requires oil storage tanks to have a lightning protection system. The Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) is investigating why the system seemed to have failed in this case.
The first responders to the fire were the company’s Company Emergency Response Team, also known as CERT, stationed on Pulau Busing itself. Under the Fire Safety Act, companies storing more than five metric tonnes of petroleum and flammable materials are required to form a CERT. CERT members are trained in firefighting, rescue and first aid and are the first responders to fight the fire, before SCDF arrives. Companies are also required to provide a suite of firefighting systems and equipment. These include fixed and mobile firefighting monitors, foam-pouring protection systems and water pumps. These regulatory measures helped to contain the Pulau Busing fire.
CERT managed to prevent the spread of the fire before SCDF arrived. During the fire, other companies on neighbouring islands also provided resources to help fight the fire. This is part of the industry-led Emergency Mutual Aid scheme.
This was a large-scale fire and SCDF had to mount a complex operation to prevent the fire from spreading to adjacent oil tanks, and to extinguish it. SCDF deployed 128 SCDF personnel, and 48 firefighting and support vehicles. Special large monitors that discharge 23,000 litres of foam solution per minute were deployed to fight the fire. Specific fire appliances to cool the adjacent oil tanks were also deployed. The fire was extinguished only after six hours.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Educational Levels Attained by Prison Inmates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Home Affairs for each of the past three years, what is the breakdown of the educational level attained of persons entering the Drug Rehabilitation Centres, the Long-Term Imprisonment 1 and the Long-Term Imprisonment 2 regimes respectively.
Mr K Shanmugam: The tables below show the breakdown of Drug Rehabilitation Centre (DRC), Long-Term Imprisonment 1 (LT1) and Long-Term Imprisonment 2 (LT2) inmates by educational level attained, as declared by inmates upon admission.
17 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for Health whether there are plans to operate a polyclinic within one MRT station from the vicinity of Potong Pasir and, if there are, where will it be located.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Ministry of Health will be developing a new Polyclinic, Kallang Polyclinic, in the Kallang-Balestier area.
The new polyclinic will be located adjacent to Kwong Wai Shiu Hospital. It is within walking distance from Boon Keng Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) station, and one MRT stop from Potong Pasir MRT station.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Increasing Subsidy Rates under Community Health Assist Scheme for non-Pioneer Generation Seniors Aged above 60","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Minister for Health whether the Government will consider increasing the subsidy rates under the Community Health Assist Scheme for non-Pioneer Generation seniors above the age of 60 as their levels of retirement adequacy is considerably lower than younger Singaporeans.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) was launched in 2012. The Ministry reviews CHAS regularly to ensure that the scheme continues to meet the objective of providing Singaporeans with access to affordable and quality primary care in the community. For example, in 2014 and 2015, we increased the number of chronic conditions covered under CHAS.
We will continue to review the scheme regularly and will take into account feedback from the Member.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Payment of SG Bonus","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Finance (a) whether the date for the payment of SG Bonus has been determined; and (b) whether details on receiving the SG Bonus by eligible Singaporeans have been finalised and, if so, when will the announcement be made.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: SG Bonus will be disbursed to all adult Singaporeans at the end of the year. Individual letters and short message service (SMS) notifications will be sent in October 2018 to inform citizens about the amount of SG Bonus they will be receiving and the payment dates.
Citizens who have registered for PayNow and linked their National Registration Identity Card number to their bank account can also receive their payout earlier via PayNow, compared to those being paid through direct bank crediting or cheques.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"SMEs' Share of 4.5% Overall Labour Productivity Growth in 2017","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Mr Thomas Chua Kee Seng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how much of the overall labour productivity growth of 4.5% in 2017 was attributable to our SMEs; and (b) what is the productivity performance of SMEs in the respective sectors.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: In 2017, overall labour productivity, as measured by real value-added (VA) per actual hour worked (AHW), rose by 4.5%. Due to data collection constraints, data on real VA per AHW by firms’ small and medium enterprises (SME) and non-SME status are not available.
The Government also measures labour productivity in terms of real VA per worker. In 2017, real VA per worker in the overall economy increased by 3.8%. Based on the Ministry of Trade and Industry's estimates, SMEs recorded slightly lower real VA per worker growth of 3.2% in 2017. A breakdown of SMEs’ productivity performance by sectors is not available.
The Government has put in place several initiatives to support SMEs in raising their productivity. Across all sectors, SMEs can approach any of the 12 SME Centres for free business advisory services. The SME Centres collectively engage over 20,000 businesses each year through advisory sessions, capability workshops and outreach events. The number of SMEs that embarked on capability development projects with support from the SME Centres almost doubled from 600 in 2013 to 1,100 in 2017. SMEs can also approach experts at the two Productivity Centres for assistance in productivity solutions. The Singapore Innovation and Productivity Institute focuses on manufacturing, engineering, logistics and related industries, while the Singapore Productivity Centre focuses on the retail, food services and hotel sectors. SMEs can also leverage technology and digital solutions to raise productivity through schemes like the $110 million Productivity Solutions Grant for pre-scoped equipment and information technology solutions.
On top of these broad-based efforts, the Government works with industry and unions to foster improvements in Productivity, Jobs and Skills, Innovation, and Trade and Internationalisation within and across 23 key sectors, through the Industry Transformation Maps. JTC also works with industry to develop high-rise Innovative Facilities with shared services that help SMEs in the same value chain improve their land productivity and streamline production processes for higher labour productivity.
Our industry partners play an instrumental role in driving these productivity efforts. Trade Associations and Chambers (TACs) can spearhead industry-level initiatives, aggregate the needs of their members, and coordinate the deployment of solutions. To support our TACs across all sectors in these endeavours, Enterprise Singapore co-funds up to 70% of supportable costs through the $115 million Local Enterprise and Association Development programme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Infrastructure Support to Ensure Uninterrupted Business Transactions and Daily Digital Operations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Mr Ang Hin Kee asked the Minister for Trade and Industry as Singapore gears up to be \"Smart Nation\" ready (a) what is the infrastructure support available to ensure that business transactions and daily digital operations are not affected when there is a power or technical breakdown, such as the recent CBD power outage; and (b) whether there are plans to identify skillsets and put in place standard operating procedures to ensure workers are equipped with the skills and know-how to prevent similar incidents.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Government recognises the importance of reliable and secure infrastructure, both in terms of power and telecommunication systems, as Singapore gears up for increasing digital operations as a “Smart Nation”.
On the power system front, SP Power Grid, the national grid operator, has a comprehensive infrastructure planning and maintenance regime to increase system reliability and minimise disruptions. This includes building in redundancy for critical components, continuous monitoring of the transmission network, and conducting preventive maintenance. Workers are trained and reminded to adhere strictly to operating procedures. That said, there can still be the occasional instance of human error, such as during the blackout on 1 June 2018. We have adopted a calibrated risk-based approach in systems planning, with a framework in place to enable quick restoration of power when needed. This calibrated risk-based approach has served us well, with our power system being among the most reliable in the world. For instance, from financial year (FY) 2013 to FY2017, Singapore's average annual disruption per consumer ranged from 12 seconds to 45 seconds, compared to latest FY15 figures of four minutes for Tokyo and 23.4 minutes for Hong Kong.
For telecommunication infrastructure, the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) and the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) have also put in place measures to ensure resilience. These include Codes of Practices that set baseline requirements to ensure that our telecommunication networks are fit for purpose and on par with international best practices, as well as to encourage telecommunication operators to adopt more advanced resilience practices. IMDA also engages the telecommunication operators regularly to conduct exercises on recovering from service disruptions and discuss initiatives to enhance the resilience of our networks.
Telecommunication service disruptions sometimes occur due to cable cuts committed by errant contractors. MCI and IMDA have, therefore, put in place several measures to mitigate the risk of such disruptions. For example, the Telecommunications Act requires contractors to employ licensed Telecommunication Cable Detection Workers to detect the presence of underground cables prior to commencing earthworks. In addition, IMDA holds regular dialogue sessions with contractors to encourage the adoption of precautionary measures when carrying out earthworks, as well as the need for training for workers. Where disruption to telecommunication services occurs due to cable cuts, IMDA will not hesitate to enforce any breaches of the Telecommunications Act by prosecuting the relevant parties in Court. MTI and the Energy Market Authority also have similar measures in place for earthwork damage to electricity cables, and these are enforced through the Electricity Act, relevant Code of Practices and licensing conditions.
To minimise the impact on consumers in the event of disruptions, IMDA incentivises telecommunication licensees to restore services quickly by imposing penalties that will take into account the duration of the disruption, amongst other factors. IMDA also prescribes baseline requirements for key telecommunication licensees’ business continuity planning to facilitate recovery during service disruptions
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Published Data for Singapore's Gini Coefficient Measuring Income Inequality","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether published data for Singapore's Gini coefficient measuring income inequality includes both employer and employee CPF in the definition of income; and (b) if it does, what will be the latest Gini coefficient data if CPF income is excluded.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Gini coefficient published by the Department of Statistics (DOS) is computed based on household income from work. Both employer and employee Central Provident Fund (CPF) contributions are included in the definition of household income from work. This is because CPF contributions are a significant component of compensation from work, and can be used by households for housing, healthcare and investment purposes. Nonetheless, DOS also publishes a Gini coefficient that excludes employer CPF contributions from household income from work.
Both Gini coefficients are available on DOS' website. In 2017, the Gini coefficient, which includes employer CPF contributions, was 0.459, while the Gini coefficient which excludes employer CPF contributions was 0.468. The former is lower because there is a cap on employer CPF contributions for employees who have reached the wage ceiling of $6,000.
DOS does not publish a Gini coefficient that excludes both employer and employee CPF contributions from household income from work.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Requests for Airbnb-type Facilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will be reviewing requests for Airbnb-type facilities and, if so, how and what will be the criteria for the regulation and monitoring of the industry and its enforcement.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) is currently conducting a consultation exercise to seek the public’s views on a proposed regulatory framework for the use of private homes as short-term accommodation (STA).
Under this framework, URA proposes to establish a new use category for STA under the Planning Act. URA will assess the eligibility of a property for STA use by considering factors, such as its location and surrounding uses. For strata-titled developments, such as condominiums, STA use will only be allowed if there is support of at least 80% in share value.
The framework proposes several measures to mitigate the potential disamenities arising from STA. These include an annual 90-day cap on STA use, an occupancy cap of six persons per home, and submission of STA guests' details as part of the registration process. All STA units will also need to comply with fire safety regulations.
In addition, we are studying the possibility of regulating STA platforms through a licensing framework. This means that platform operators will be required to obtain a licence to advertise any STA activities in Singapore.
URA will work with relevant Government agencies to review the feedback obtained through the ongoing consultation exercise before finalising the regulatory framework for STA.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Waiver of Resale Levy for Senior Citizen Applicants Aged 55 and Above for 2-room Flexi Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB can consider not to impose a resale levy on applicants of 2-room flexi flats who are senior citizens aged 55 and above.
Mr Lawrence Wong:\tSingapore Citizen households enjoy a significant housing subsidy when they buy a new flat from the Housing and Development Board (HDB) or a resale flat from the open market with a Central Provident Fund housing grant. If they purchase another flat from HDB, they are no longer eligible for the full subsidy, which is meant for first-timers only. Hence, a resale levy is imposed if they are not a first-timer.
Nonetheless, we have put in place various measures to help seniors who purchase a 2-room flexi flat from HDB. Since 2015, we have waived the accrued interest for seniors liable for the percentage resale levy2. For those who purchase a short lease 2-room flexi flat, we provide further help by capping their resale levy and adjusting it for the shorter lease. This means that the maximum resale levy that would be paid on a 2-room flexi with a 45-year lease is $18,000, much lower than what the normal resale levy would be.
We will continue to review our policies to ensure that they maintain a fair allocation of public housing subsidies between first-time buyers and other buyers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["2 : Flat owners who sold their first subsidised flat before 2006 were subject to a compound interest of 5% per annum if they chose to defer the payment of the levy until they collect keys to their second subsidised flat."],"footNoteQuestions":["24"],"questionNo":"24"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Successful Applicants for HDB Rental Flat Awaiting Vacant Unit","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the current number of families that are successful in their application for a HDB rental flat but are awaiting a vacant unit; (b) whether there has been an improvement in the waiting period for vacant rental flats; and (c) what is the targeted number of rental flat tenants that will be placed under the Fresh Start Housing Scheme within the next three years.
Mr Lawrence Wong: There are currently about 450 families who were successful in their application and are waiting to be allocated a public rental flat.
At this juncture, families can be allocated a rental flat in about two months from the time of their application, if they are not particular about location. This has fallen significantly from a peak of 21 months in 2008. Some waiting time is inevitable as the Housing and Development Board (HDB) needs to assess each application. The allocation of rental flats is also subject to considerations, such as the household's locational preferences, the quotas under the Ethnic Integration Policy, and the setting aside of vacant flats to house existing tenants whose rental blocks are due for redevelopment.
The Fresh Start Housing Scheme was launched in December 2016 to help second-timer families with young children living in public rental housing to own a home again. As of May 2018, 70 households have been emplaced on the scheme. While we do not have a target, we will continue to work with all eligible families who are keen on home ownership, and we hope to see another 100 households emplaced in the next three years.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Installation of CCTVs in Multi-storey Car Parks and Lifts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB can install CCTVs in its multi-storey car parks and the lifts serving the car park to deter crime and those who smoke in the lifts.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Singapore Police Force (SPF) works closely with the Housing and Development Board (HDB) and Town Councils to ensure and enhance security in public housing estates. Currently, HDB Multi-Storey Car Parks (MSCPs) have Police cameras installed at strategic locations, such as lift lobbies, entrances and staircases. These cameras have proven to be effective in helping to deter crime. HDB will install closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras in existing MSCP lifts, where necessary.
As for smoking in lifts, the National Environment Agency (NEA) takes a serious view towards smoking violations, and NEA officers are deployed to investigate and enforce against smoking violations. Ultimately, residents must also do their part and be considerate by not smoking in the lifts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extending Lease Buyback Scheme to 5-room HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB will consider extending the lease buyback scheme to 5-room HDB flats, given the current difficulty some residents face in selling their flats in mature estates.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Lease Buyback Scheme was first introduced in 2009 as a monetisation scheme for low-income elderly living in 3-room or smaller flats, as these households have limited monetisation options compared to households in larger flat types. With the extension to 4-room flats in 2015, many more households are now eligible.
Elderly households in 5-room flats currently have several monetisation options. They can either rent out a room or the entire flat and move in with their family members. They can also right-size to a smaller flat. If they right-size to a 2- or 3-room flat, they may also apply for the Silver Housing Bonus.
The Ministry of National Development and the Housing and Development Board are committed to providing elderly flat owners with various monetisation options to suit their retirement needs. We will continue to monitor the situation and consider the need to extend existing monetisation schemes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Outcome of AVA's Proposals to Prevent Mass Roosting of Mynahs on Trees in front of Bukit Timah Plaza","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for National Development what is the outcome of AVA's proposals to prevent the mass roosting of mynahs on trees in front of Bukit Timah Plaza and to reduce the incessant noise created by the birds during the wee hours of the morning and in the evening.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) has worked with the National Parks Board (NParks) to address the noise nuisance caused by mynahs roosting in trees around Bukit Timah Plaza. NParks has increased the frequency of tree pruning since 2017, and this has improved the situation. AVA also conducted a trial using a bird deterrent chemical on the trees in the area in the second half of 2017. However, the chemical was not effective in deterring mynahs from roosting. AVA is assessing other measures that can be deployed in this area.
The public can also play a part by maintaining the overall cleanliness of the environment and not feeding wild birds. Enforcement actions will be taken against those who do not comply.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Sold and Unsold Two-room HDB Flexi Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Minister for National Development as of June 2018, what are the number and percentage of 2-room flexi flats that are (i) unsold, including those under construction, (ii) sold under a 99-year leasehold and (iii) sold under 15- to 45-year leaseholds.
Mr Lawrence Wong: As at May 2018, 15,200 2-room flexi flats have been offered for sale since the Housing and Development Board introduced such flats in August 2015. This comprises 1,900 (13%) unsold flats, 7,000 (46%) sold under 99-year leases3, and 6,300 (41%) sold under 15- to 45-year leases.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["3 : Includes a small number of flats sold on 50- to 65-year leases under the Fresh Start Housing Scheme."],"footNoteQuestions":["29"],"questionNo":"29"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Subsidy for Replacement of Non-fire Rated Doors under Optional Improvement Works Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Mr Ong Teng Koon asked the Minister for National Development whether there is a subsidy for the replacement of non-fire rated doors under the Optional Improvement Works Scheme of the Home Improvement Programme and, if so, whether HDB will consider providing the same quantum of subsidy for the replacement of a fire-rated door.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Since 1996, the Fire Code requires the main doors of some Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats, for example, those which face fire escape routes, to be fire-rated. All flats built by HDB since then have been provided with fire-rated main doors, where required. HDB also carried out a one-off door replacement exercise for flats built prior to 1996 which needed fire-rated main doors to comply with the Fire Code, at no cost to residents.
As the units with fire-rated doors have already enjoyed a free replacement of doors by HDB, HDB will not provide any further subsidy for the replacement of their fire-rated doors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of Deployment of Recycling Bins to HDB Blocks under Enhanced National Recycling Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Mr Ang Hin Kee asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) whether the deployment of recycling bins to HDB blocks under the enhanced National Recycling Programme has been effective since it was implemented in 2011; (b) whether the Ministry enforces checks to ensure that the bins are returned to their designated spots after the waste have been collected; and (c) whether technology, such as geo-fencing, can be deployed to ensure that these bins are not inevitably moved or relocated.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The National Recycling Programme (NRP) was launched in 2001 to complement the efforts of the informal recycling sector. Since then, the National Environment Agency (NEA) has enhanced the NRP to make it more convenient for residents to recycle. For example, from 2011, one blue recycling bin is provided for every Housing and Development Board (HDB) block, an increase from one for every five blocks.
These efforts have contributed to an increase in the recyclables collected under NRP, from 25,300 tonnes in 2011 to 44,400 tonnes in 2017. A survey conducted in 2015/2016 also showed that among residents who recycle, nine in 10 use the NRP blue bins. While we have made progress on this front, we can do more to make recycling a part of daily living for all Singaporeans. Our recycling rates have not caught up with our increased consumption and purchasing habits, with Singapore’s domestic recycling rate hovering at around 20% since 2012. We encourage Singaporeans to recycle more and make sustainable living choices so as to lower our carbon footprint.
The Government will continue to facilitate recycling. For example, all new HDB developments will provide dual chutes for refuse and recyclables, to make it more convenient for residents to recycle. From 1 April 2018, new non-landed private residential developments taller than four storeys are similarly required to be equipped with dual chutes. We will also require existing condominiums to provide one recycling bin per block from 1 August 2018. Everyone must also play their part to segregate their waste and utilise the recycling facilities provided. More importantly, let us all be gracious and not waste the efforts of our fellow Singaporeans by contaminating recycling bins with food or liquid waste.
Public Waste Collectors (PWCs) are required to return recycling bins to their designated locations after collection. The National Environment Agency (NEA) conducts spot checks to ensure that recycling bins are at their designated locations. From the second half of 2018, starting with the public waste collection contract for the Pasir Ris-Bedok sector, NEA will introduce a new requirement for PWCs to mark the locations of the recycling bins on the floor. Members of the public who find recycling bins outside the demarcated area should inform NEA, which will then conduct investigations and penalise the respective PWC if they are found liable for the breach.
NEA is also conducting a trial using side-loader trucks which have mechanised arms that will empty recycling bins to load recyclables in the truck. As part of this trial, the existing blue recycling bins will be replaced with new bins which are larger and more difficult to move. This will reduce the likelihood of unauthorised movement of the bins.
We will continue to monitor the effectiveness of these measures, before deciding if further measures, such as geo-fencing, are necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on 2016 Pilot Study of Releasing Bacteria-carrying Mosquitoes into Environment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether he can provide an update on the 2016 pilot study of releasing bacteria-carrying mosquitoes into the environment.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The National Environment Agency (NEA) is evaluating the use of male Wolbachia-carrying Aedes aegypti mosquitoes (Wolbachia-Aedes) to further suppress the Aedes aegypti mosquitoes in the community. Phase 1 field study was conducted at three selected sites at Braddell Heights, Tampines West and Nee Soon East from October 2016 to December 2017. The study had met its objectives and demonstrated that the released male Wolbachia-Aedes mosquitoes had successfully competed with urban male mosquitoes and mated with some female mosquitoes. The releases led to 50% suppression of the urban Aedes aegypti mosquito population at the study sites.
The field study surfaced two challenges posed by Singapore’s high-density and high-rise landscape. First, NEA discovered that mosquitoes moved from surrounding areas into the study sites, thus reducing the impact of Wolbachia-Aedes in the sites. Second, NEA found higher Aedes aegypti mosquito densities at high floors of some blocks, as insufficient numbers of male Wolbachia-Aedes mosquitoes had reached those floors.
To address the high-density and high-rise challenges, NEA is carrying out Phase 2 field study from April 2018 to January 2019. Phase 2 field study will improve the release methodologies to distribute the male Wolbachia-Aedes mosquitoes to where they are needed. NEA will release Wolbachia-Aedes mosquitos at the same Phase 1 study sites at Tampines West and Nee Soon East and their extended areas. Phase 2 field study is an important and necessary step for NEA to refine the release methodologies and address the unique challenges faced due to our urban landscape, in preparation for the subsequent suppression trial.
NEA will continue to engage residents and stakeholders. The cooperation and support from residents and local stakeholders were crucial in ensuring the success of Phase 1 study. Residents and local stakeholders are encouraged to continue supporting NEA in Phase 2 field study. Residents are also encouraged to continue carrying out mosquito control procedures and the five-step Mozzie Wipeout.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Increasing Penalties for Pollution of Water Resources with Toxic Industrial Waste","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Mr Yee Chia Hsing asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether the Ministry will consider increasing the penalties for pollution of our water resources with toxic industrial waste, especially for recalcitrant offenders.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: My Ministry takes any pollution of our water resources very seriously as it directly affects the environment as well as the quality of our water sources. Two-thirds of Singapore are water catchment areas and raw water collected there is meant to be treated into potable water. Meanwhile, the used water collected in our public sewerage system is largely treated and reclaimed for NEWater.
To safeguard our water resources and the environment, both the Public Utilities Board (PUB) and the National Environment Agency (NEA) require Written Approvals or Written Permissions to be obtained prior to the discharge of trade effluent into public sewerage systems, or into watercourses and onto land, respectively. As part of the Written Approvals or Written Permissions, companies must comply with the relevant provisions under the Sewerage and Drainage Act (SDA) or Environment Protection and Management Act (EPMA) and their respective regulations when they discharge their trade effluent. These include the requirement to install pre-treatment facilities, to provide sampling test points as well as to comply strictly with the discharge limits for specified substances.
Under SDA and EPMA, where trade effluent is discharged into the public sewers without a Written Approval or into drains or land without a Written Permission, the offender could be fined up to $20,000 with a further fine not exceeding $1,000 per day if the offence continues after conviction. Similar penalties apply if the discharge is not in accordance with the conditions of the Written Approval or Permission. Under SDA, if the trade effluent discharged into the public sewers contains dangerous or hazardous substances, a fine of up to $50,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both can be imposed on first-time offenders. For repeat offenders, the maximum fine will be doubled to $100,000. The maximum penalties are further increased to $200,000 or to a jail term not exceeding two years should the illegal discharge cause injury or death to any person or disrupt the water reclamation processes. Similarly, under EPMA, any person who discharges any toxic or hazardous substance into inland water so as to be likely to cause pollution of the environment would be liable to a fine of up to $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term up to 12 months or to both. EPMA also provides for heavier penalties for repeat offenders.
Both PUB and NEA also have the powers to require an offender to immediately cease any process or work that produces toxic, dangerous or hazardous substance or trade effluent that contains such substances. The offender may also be ordered by the Court to restore the public sewerage system to its original condition, or ordered by NEA to remove and clean up the toxic substance from the drain or land.
We take a serious view of keeping the watercourses and sewers free from pollution and will not hesitate to take enforcement action. We will continue to monitor the effectiveness of our regulatory regimes in safeguarding our water resources and review the penalties, if necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Air Quality in Vicinity after Fires at Pulau Busing and Kranji in March 2018","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"34 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources following the fires at Pulau Busing and Kranji in March 2018 (a) whether these fires have affected the air quality in the vicinity; and (b) what is the procedure for activation of the NEA team to monitor air or water quality following a major fire involving hazardous products.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The National Environment Agency (NEA) monitors air quality in Singapore through a network of real-time monitoring stations. Besides monitoring key air pollutants, such as sulphur dioxide and fine particulate matter (PM2.5), these stations also monitor Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). VOCs are often associated with the handling and combustion of fuel oil.
In the event of major fires, in addition to the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) being activated, NEA officers will be deployed to monitor air and water quality in the vicinity of the affected premises during and after the incident.
In the case of the Pulau Busing fire on 20 March 2018, the fire occurred at an oil storage tank operated by M/s PB Tankers Ltd. NEA officers monitored the ambient air quality and meteorological conditions while SCDF and the Company's Emergency Response Team were fighting the fire. The prevailing winds then were blowing from the northeast and the air quality was in the \"Good to Moderate\" range, with no spikes in the PM2.5, sulphur dioxide, VOCs and other air pollutant levels. The firefighting water was contained within the bund of the affected oil storage tank and the coastal water quality around Pulau Busing was not affected.
As for the fire incident that occurred at No11 Kranji Crescent on 22 March 2018, NEA officers monitored air and water quality near the affected premises during and after the incident and did not detect any spikes in the air or water pollutant levels.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Comparable Food Prices at Hawker Stalls and Coffee Shops in New HDB Estates vs-a-vis Those in Mature Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"35 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources what can the Ministry do to ensure that the food prices at hawker centres and coffee shops in new estates, such as Sengkang, Tampines and Sembawang are comparable to those in mature estates as shown in the Makan Index.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Makan Index, developed by the Institute of Policy Studies, is based on the average prices of five food types observed at selected hawker centres, food courts and coffee shops. The Government does not regulate the prices of food sold in coffee shops, food courts or hawker centres.
Nevertheless, my Ministry ensures that affordable food options are available at all our hawker centres, including those in new estates. To moderate stall rentals and prevent rent-seeking behaviour, my Ministry has disallowed the subletting of stalls. We have also removed the reserve rent in our monthly stall tender exercises. This means that even if the bidding price for these vacant stalls is below market price, the National Environment Agency (NEA) will allocate the vacant stall to the highest bidder as long as there are competitive bids. About 40% of cooked food stalls have been awarded at bids that are below 85% of the assessed market rent.
To assist stall holders with rising manpower costs, we are deploying productivity measures, such as centralised dishwashing, automated tray return, e-payment options, and kitchen automation in our hawker centres. These initiatives will reduce the workload of the hawkers and allow them to focus on food preparation and cooking, especially during peak hours. In addition, NEA has approved more than a hundred applications worth about $214,000 since the Hawkers' Productivity Grant was launched in October 2017 to assist hawkers adopt stall-level productivity measures. Those who have benefited from the grant have given feedback that the equipment helps to reduce food preparation time significantly.
The availability of numerous stalls allows consumers to compare food prices and take into account affordability in their purchase decisions at hawker centres. This also helps to moderate the increase in food prices.
We are committed to upholding the role of hawker centres as community dining rooms in both mature and new estates so that Singaporeans from all walks of life can enjoy food at affordable prices. We announced in 2015 that 20 new hawker centres with approximately 800 stalls will be built by 2027. Some of these new hawker centres will be located in new towns, such as Sengkang, Tampines and Sembawang. The managing agents appointed to run these new centres will be required to provide affordable food options. An example is Hawker Centre @ Our Tampines Hub, where hawkers selling local food offer at least one meal option priced at $2.80 or less.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Status in 2028 of Motorcycles Registered before 2003 under LTA's Classic Vehicle Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"36 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether all motorcycles registered before 2003 and of at least 35 years old by 2028 will be allowed to continue under LTA's Classic Vehicle Scheme.
Masagos Zulkifli B M M: \tAll motorcycles registered before 1 July 2003 will no longer be allowed for use on Singapore's roads after 30 June 2028. Motorcycles on the Classic, Vintage (Restricted) and Revised Vintage Vehicle Schemes are exempted due to their limited usage on the road.
Motorcycles registered in Singapore before 1 July 2003 and which are at least 35 years old on or before 30 June 2028 are eligible for conversion to the Classic Vehicle Scheme if they meet the relevant requirements like those pertaining to vehicle inspection and motor insurance coverage, as specified by the Land Transport Authority.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Help Students Better Understand Socio-economic Opportunities in Southeast Asia","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"37 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Education how is the Ministry helping students to better understand the socio-economic opportunities in Southeast Asia with a view towards helping them thrive in an economically important region in the longer term.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Given the opportunities in Southeast Asia, it is useful for students to develop a good understanding of the region. Students will also benefit from establishing networks within the region early.
To raise awareness and understanding of the region, students are introduced to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in primary school. Through the Social Studies curriculum, students will learn about the cultural and economic ties member countries share with one another. In secondary school, students can offer subjects, such as Economics, Geography, History, and Social Studies, which include a deeper understanding of the region. Through Economics, Geography and History at the pre-university level, students learn about the economic and trade policies of Southeast Asian countries, trends in regional economic developments, as well as economic integration through ASEAN.
Students extend their understanding of Southeast Asia through ASEAN-themed forums and seminars. They observe ongoing economic developments and expand their understanding of the region when they undertake overseas trips to Southeast Asian countries. In addition, our student athletes also forge friendships with their fellow athletes from the different Southeast Asian countries through the ASEAN Schools Games.
Our Institutions of Higher Learning organise immersion programmes, student exchanges with institutions in the region, and overseas internships. Students also perform community projects in rural areas in the region. For many years, our institutions also take in a small proportion of students from ASEAN countries. While in Singapore, they forge bonds with Singaporean students and enrich the higher education experience.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Assess and Ensure Children Continue to Uphold Relevant Oriental Core and Family Values","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"38 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Education how will the Ministry assess regularly and ensure that our children continue to uphold relevant oriental core values and family values, such as filial piety, care for the elderly and savings habits, that have made Singapore what it is today.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: As part of our national curriculum, schools emphasise the values of respect, resilience, responsibility, integrity, care and harmony in classroom lessons, through co-curricular activities and experiential activities like the Values in Action (VIA) programme. Topics, such as filial piety, caring for others and the importance of saving, are covered in subjects, such as Character and Citizenship Education (CCE).
Schools also work with parents and the community in reinforcing values education. Schools encourage parents to build on what is taught in schools at home. Schools also work with community partners for students to live out the core values through age-appropriate experiential learning. By engaging with the elderly through VIA, for example, students better understand their needs and the role they can play to make a difference.
Schools review their programmes regularly on the effectiveness of the curriculum in inculcating values. The Ministry also conducts regular reviews and improves on the syllabuses and pedagogical approaches in teaching values through the various subject areas. Home and community efforts, coupled with what is taught in schools, will maximise our students' ability to internalise the values taught and demonstrate them in their daily lives.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of PSLE Cohorts Entering University from 60th to below 30th Percentiles Based on PSLE Results","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"39 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Education in the past 10 years, how many students from each PSLE cohort successfully entered university, broken down according to their PSLE results that are (i) in the 60th to 75th percentile, (ii) in the 50th to 60th percentile, (iii) in the 30th to 50th percentile and (iv) below the 30th percentile.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Our education system provides students with multiple pathways and opportunities to pursue an education best suited to their needs, interests and strengths. Students may attend university and pursue an academic education, or develop skills and technical expertise through other pathways. The Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) results need not and should not be the only determinant of the future success of any pupil.
Notwithstanding, the data requested by the Member is as follows.
The proportion of students who gained admission to local publicly-funded degree courses increased steadily from 23% for the 1997 PSLE cohort to 31% for the 2006 PSLE cohort, in tandem with expansion of university places.
From 1997 to 2006, the proportion of PSLE cohort with results in the 51st to 75th percentile, and admitted to publicly-funded degree courses, increased from 24% to 38%.
The corresponding figure for those whose PSLE results are in the bottom half increased from 4% to 10%.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Promoting Integration between Students Attending International and MOE-run Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"40 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Education what is being done to promote integration between students attending international schools and students attending schools run by the Ministry.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: \tOur schools strive to develop cross-cultural competencies among students. Through Character and Citizenship Education lessons, and exchange programmes with international schools in Singapore and overseas, schools provide opportunities for students to value diversity and work with others of different cultures and nationalities. Further opportunities for deeper student interaction between the mainstream and international schools include sports competitions, Model United Nations conferences, debating championships and common interest youth groups.
\tOur schools will continue to actively create opportunities for students to interact across schools so as to develop the cultural literacy of our students and promote an inclusive society.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Meet Increased Demand for Primary School Places in Bukit Batok SMC","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"41 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Education in light of the recently completed and upcoming completion of BTO developments in and near Bukit Batok SMC, what is the expected increase in demand for primary school places in primary schools located within and near Bukit Batok SMC and what are the Ministry's plans to meet this increased demand.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry of Education (MOE) regularly reviews the demand and supply trends for school places at the national and regional levels. Our school planning takes into account the current and projected population and planned housing development programmes to ensure that there are sufficient school places to meet the needs of families with school-going children in each residential area.
MOE is aware of the new housing developments that were recently completed in Bukit Batok and those that will be completing in the next few years. The demand from these new housing developments have been taken into account in the planning of school places.
There are currently nine primary schools within two kilometres of the new housing developments in Bukit Batok Single Member Constituency. There is sufficient capacity in these schools to meet the projected demand from residents.
MOE will continue to monitor the demand and supply situation of the primary schools in this area closely.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Percentage of Students Promoted from Normal Technical to Normal Academic and Express Streams","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"42 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Education in each of the past five years for each cohort of students, what is the percentage of students who are promoted from (i) Normal Technical to Normal Academic and (ii) Normal Academic to Express respectively.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: For students who have completed secondary school over the last five years, close to 10% of the Normal (Technical) students transferred to the Normal (Academic) course; and about 5% of the Normal (Academic) students transferred to the Express course.
Beyond lateral transfers to another course, many more students selectively offer specific subjects at a higher level, in line with their strengths. This is known as Subject-based Banding, which is part of our efforts to offer multiple pathways and opportunities to students to pursue an education best suited to their needs, interests and strengths.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Students Seeking Assistance from Career Guidance Offices in Polytechnics and ITEs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"43 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the number of students who have sought assistance from career guidance offices situated in all the polytechnics and ITEs in the last two years; (b) what is the percentage of these students out of the total student population within the same period; and (c) whether there has been an assessment or review of the effectiveness of the enhanced career guidance programmes in these institutions.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: All students at our polytechnics and Institutes of Technical Education (ITE) undergo 40 to 60 hours of enhanced career guidance (ECG) curriculum, guided by their lecturers and ECG Counsellors. Students are also exposed to career options through learning journeys to companies, workshops with industry representatives and alumni, career fairs and internships. In addition, all students have access to the MySkillsFuture portal, a key resource for education and industry information, with tools to support career development.
In 2016, the Ministry of Education set up ECG centres in every polytechnic and ITE college to serve as touchpoints for all students. All students are introduced to the ECG services and resources offered at these centres, which include ECG workshops and talks, and career and industry-related materials and references. Students who require more targeted ECG support can approach their lecturers for advice, or the ECG Counsellors at the ECG centres for individual or group counselling sessions. In the last two years, about one in 25 students have scheduled one-on-one or group guidance sessions with the ECG Counsellors.
There is awareness of the usefulness of ECG, and the utilisation of the resources will increase with time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Fresh Graduates of Institutes of Higher Learning Hired by Public Service","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"44 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Education (a) what proportion of fresh graduates of autonomous universities, private educational institutes offering degrees, polytechnics, and ITE are hired by the public service as their first job; and (b) how does this proportion compare with other developed countries, such as the US, UK, Japan, Korea, Australia, Germany, France and Israel.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Based on the latest Graduate Employment Survey, 26% of employed autonomous university respondents reported that they were working in the Government, Statutory Boards or Organs of State six months after their final examinations. The proportions for Private Education Institution full-time degree, polytechnic and Institute of Technical Education respondents were 7%, 13% and 13% respectively.
The Ministry of Education does not have comparable statistics from other developed countries.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Estimated Annual Revenue from Imposition of Parking Fees for Teachers in Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"45 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Education what is the estimated annual revenue that will be derived from the imposition of parking fees for teachers in schools.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The estimated revenue from car park charges collected by our 360 primary schools, secondary schools and junior colleges is estimated to be $8 million to $10 million a year. The revenue will be retained by the schools.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Resident Employment Rate for Persons Aged 25-64 with Education Qualifications below Secondary School Level","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"46 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the resident employment rate for those aged 25 to 64 with education qualifications below secondary school level; and (b) what are the initiatives to help those in this category who are currently unemployed to find a job.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The employment rate for residents4 aged 25 to 64 with below secondary qualifications was 67% in 20175, higher than most Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. Of the remaining 33% who were not in employment, 30 percentage points were outside the labour force, that is, not looking for a job mainly due to family responsibilities and health-related reasons; and the remaining were unemployed, that is, looking for a job. In 2017, the annual average unemployment rate of 2.6% for residents with below secondary qualifications was lower than the overall resident annual average unemployment rate of 3.1%.
There is a wide range of support under the Government’s Adapt and Grow initiative to assist unemployed jobseekers, including those with below secondary qualifications.
To address \"missed matches\", Workforce Singapore’s (WSG's) Careers Connect and the National Trades Union Congress' Employment and Employability Institute centres provide a suite of career matching services that caters to the different needs of each jobseeker.
To address mismatches in skills or expectations, there are programmes, such as Place and Train and Career Trial, to help jobseekers secure a job.
Through the Adapt and Grow initiative, the Government placed about 2,500 jobseekers with below secondary qualifications into new jobs and careers in 2017.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["4 : Residents refer to Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents.","5 : Data from Comprehensive Labour Force Survey, Manpower Research and Statistics Department, Ministry of Manpower."],"footNoteQuestions":["46"],"questionNo":"46"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proportion of Jobseekers Placed in Jobs by Workforce Singapore and e21","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"47 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Manpower (a) in each of the last three years, what proportion of jobseekers are placed into jobs that are directly introduced by Workforce Singapore (WSG) and e2i; and (b) whether there are plans to improve the overall placement rates by WSG and e2i.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The proportion of jobseekers registered with WSG’s Careers Connect and NTUC's e2i centres who are placed into jobs has improved over the last three years (see Table 1).
WSG and NTUC's e2i continually seek to improve the effectiveness of their services to jobseekers. In July 2017, WSG career centres were upgraded to Careers Connect with an expanded suite of customised career matching services. Jobseekers who require more in-depth support can undergo tailored career management and counselling programmes and receive dedicated one-to-one career coaching suited to their needs.
WSG has also launched the MyCareersFuture portal to help jobseekers and employers perform smarter and faster job searches. It prioritises search results according to the relevance of a jobseeker's skills and shows jobs that are supported by the Adapt & Grow programmes.
In addition to career matching services, jobseekers can also tap on programmes such as the Professional Conversion Programmes (PCPs) and Career Support Programme (CSP) to help them overcome mismatches in skills and wage expectations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Additional Interest Rates for Low-income Groups' CPF Savings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"48 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Manpower whether additional interest rates can be given to the low-income groups' CPF savings that will support their retirement needs.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Central Provident Fund (CPF) system has a progressive interest rate structure that provides a higher effective interest rate to CPF members with lower balances.
Balances in the Ordinary Account earn 2.5% per annum, while those in the Special Account, Retirement Account and MediSave Account earn 4% per annum. On top of this, an extra interest of 1% is paid on the first $60,000 of combined CPF balances. CPF members aged 55 and above also receive an Additional Extra Interest of 1% on the first $30,000 of their combined CPF balances. Therefore, CPF members with lower balances are earning a higher effective interest rate per annum on their CPF savings.
The Government also provides CPF top-ups to help low-wage Singaporeans build up their retirement savings via the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) Scheme. For example, eligible low-wage employees aged 45 to 54 receive up to $2,200 of WIS payouts a year, comprising 60% in CPF top-ups and 40% in cash. Older workers receive even higher WIS payouts. In total, more than $650 million in WIS payouts were paid to over 400,000 low-wage workers in 2017, of which more than $400 million were credited into their CPF accounts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Workfare Income Supplement Employee-recipients by Age Group","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"49 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Manpower for each year from 2015 to 2017 (a) what is the number of Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) employee-recipients based on the four age groups under WIS; (b) what is the total corresponding expenditure incurred in each year to disburse WIS to the employee group; and (c) what are the considerations taken into account in determining the WIS payout.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Table 1 below shows the number of employees receiving Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) in each of the four WIS age groups, and the total amount of WIS allotted annually for work done in 2015 to 2017.
Table 1: Number of employees receiving WIS and total amount of WIS allotted for work done in 2015 to 20176
WIS is targeted at workers in the bottom 20% by income percentile, with graduated support provided to those up to the 30th income percentile. The amount of WIS an employee receives depends on his age and income. In general, older employees receive higher payouts than younger employees.
The WIS scheme was introduced in 2007 and has consistently benefited more than 20% of the Singaporean employee workforce. The number of WIS recipients fluctuates each year and tends to decline in periods of rising incomes. Between 2015 and 2017, nominal wage at the 20th percentile of full-time employed citizens has grown by an average of 4.7% per annum. This explains the smaller number of WIS recipients in 2017 compared to 2015. Such changes in incomes are taken into account at every three-yearly review of WIS to ensure that more than 20% of Singaporean employees remain eligible for WIS. The results of the next review will be announced next year, for implementation in 2020.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["6 : Data for WY 2015 as at February 2017; Data for WY 2016 and 2017 as at February 2018","7 : Age as at respective years","8 : Includes Persons with Disabilities WIS recipients aged below 35."],"footNoteQuestions":["49"],"questionNo":"49"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons for Rejection of Non-domestic Work Permit Applications","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"50 Mr Kok Heng Leun asked the Minister for Manpower over the last 12 months (a) what are the top five reasons for rejecting non-domestic Work Permit applications other than the reason of the employer not meeting the dependency ratio; and (b) what channels are open to the worker and employer to find out the reason for the rejection.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Applications for Work Permits are screened to minimise incidence where undesirable persons are inadvertently allowed to work in Singapore. Apart from this factor and the employer not meeting the dependency ratio, the top reasons for rejecting non-domestic Work Permit applications were:
(a) The employer or applicant had adverse record(s);
(b) The employer did not have sufficient Man-Year Entitlement9;
(c) The employer did not have enough higher skilled Work Permit holders to hire new basic skilled workers10;
(d) The worker had exceeded the maximum employment period; or
(e) The worker was not from an approved source country.
Employers or their employment agents can view the rejection reasons for their Work Permit applications through the Ministry of Manpower’s (MOM's) Work Permit Online (WPOL) service on the MOM website. Applicants can also check with their employment agents or prospective employers. Where there are security concerns, the reasons for rejection may not always be specified. Instead, the employer is advised to look for another candidate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["9 : The Man-Year Entitlement (MYE) reflects the total number of Work Permit holders a main contractor in the construction or process sector is entitled to employ based on the value of projects or contracts awarded by developers or owners. Main contractors can allocate their MYE to subcontractors involved in the same project.","10 : Since 1 January 2017, all companies in the construction sector must have a minimum 10% of higher skilled (or R1) Work Permit holders before they are allowed to hire new basic skilled (or R2) workers."],"footNoteQuestions":["50"],"questionNo":"50"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Living Conditions and Rights of Foreign Domestic Workers after Arrival and before Employment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"51 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry regulates the living conditions and protection of rights of foreign domestic workers after they have arrived in Singapore and before employment; and (b) how regularly does the Ministry inspect the boarding houses and interview the workers.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Employment Agencies (EAs) that bring in Foreign Domestic Workers (FDWs) are required, under their licence, to upkeep and maintain the FDWs prior to their deployment to their employers' households. This includes the provision of food, medical treatment and proper accommodation at the agencies' cost.
EAs have to comply with the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) and Housing and Development Board (HDB) occupancy load criteria. EAs must also ensure that the FDWs have privacy and hygienic living conditions. The places of accommodation used by EAs must be registered with the Ministry of Manpower.
MOM regularly inspects the places of accommodation and may interview the occupants as part of the process. Over 100 premises are inspected every year. The majority of the EAs have been found to be compliant. Violations were detected for 33 EAs out of 131 EAs whose premises were inspected in the past 12 months, but most were also relatively minor. These EAs are likely to receive a warning or composition fine, as well as demerit points. EAs with severe violations will be prosecuted and may be fined up to $5,000 and/or jailed up to six months. They may also have their licences revoked.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Employers Notifying MOM of Downward Revision to Salary Terms for Work Permit Holders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"52 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower in each of the past three years (a) how many employers have informed the Ministry in writing of modifications to the salary terms for a Work Permit holder to less favourable terms than declared and stated in their in-principle approval letter; (b) how many employers have been fined for not having done so; (c) how many notices of salary reduction have been issued to workers; and (d) on what grounds does the Ministry determine whether a salary reduction can be allowed.
Mrs Josephine Teo: When applying for Work Permits, employers are required to declare key salary terms, including the basic and fixed monthly salary, offered to prospective Work Permit Holders (WPHs). Since 2011, these terms have been reflected in the In-Principle Approval (IPA) letter, which is available in the WPHs' native languages, and must be sent by the employer to the worker in his home country prior to the worker’s departure to Singapore. This ensures that the worker is fully aware and accepts the terms of conditions before leaving his home country.
In some cases, employers may discover that the WPH's performance falls below what is expected and thus cannot justify paying the agreed salary. Instead of terminating the WPH's contract, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) allows employers to revise the salary downwards, provided they have obtained the worker’s written agreement and have notified MOM of the revision. In the past three years, MOM was notified of salary reductions affecting less than 2% of non-domestic WPHs per year.
We have taken action against employers who reduced salaries without informing MOM or obtaining the WPH's written consent. In the first half of 2018, a total of $105,000 in Administrative Financial Penalties were imposed on 17 errant employers.
Notwithstanding these safeguards, we have been monitoring salary disputes involving IPA salary reduction. The proportion of WPH salary claims which involve IPA salary reductions was stable at about 7% over the last three years but increased to about 11% in the second half of last year.
Since February 2018, when mediating salary disputes, the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) has insisted that employers provide documented evidence that the worker has consented to any salary reduction. TADM no longer allows for arguments from employers that the worker had provided tacit or verbal consent. In addition, MOM is considering the possibility of disallowing downward salary revisions altogether. While this will provide workers with more certainty of their wage for the entire duration of their stay in Singapore, it could also lead to possible early termination of employment even when the worker is willing to accept a lower wage. We will thus consult with relevant stakeholders to determine the best step forward.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Custody of Children in Divorce Cases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"53 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in the last three years, what has been the number of divorce cases where custody of the children has been accorded to (i) mothers only, (ii) fathers only and (iii) both parents respectively.
Mr Desmond Lee: The breakdown of custody orders for divorces from 2014 to 2016 is as shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Orders Made for Custody for Divorces Granted/Registered in 2014-2016
54 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether there has been an increase in the number of children aged 14 and below involved in self-harm cases; (b) how these cases came to be reported; and (c) what assistance was rendered to the children and their families.
Mr Desmond Lee: Self-harm typically occurs in private. The child's injury may come to the attention of others when there are observable scars or medical attention is required.
In school, students are taught healthy ways of coping with stress and personal difficulties and are encouraged to seek help from trusted adults. They are also taught to look out for and support one another and to alert their teacher or school counsellor if their friends encounter difficulties. Students who self-harm would be referred to school counsellors for help. For complex cases, school counsellors would refer them for further assessment and intervention by medical doctors, clinical psychologists or other relevant specialists. The number of students aged 14 and below who have been referred for school counselling over the past three years has been small with no significant increase.
Self-harm cases may also present at hospitals for treatment of physical injuries. Over the past three years, the number of hospital admissions for self-inflicted injuries among children aged 14 and below was 42 in 2015, 37 in 2016 and 30 in 2017. These children would be treated for their physical injuries and provided with counselling and psychological support to empower them with other forms of coping techniques.
Mental well-being is important in enabling our children to manage stress well. As the causes of self-harm are often complex and multifaceted, we take a holistic approach to support children with self-harming behaviour, as well as their families. Families and children with psycho-social issues are referred directly to professionals or community touchpoints, such as Family Service Centres (FSCs), so that they can receive appropriate help to deal with the issues and achieve greater resilience. The Ministry of Social and Family Development's (MSF's) Social Service Offices help FSCs to coordinate with various Government agencies to ensure appropriate support for clients and work through the potential stressors on the family.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Counselling for Children or Young Persons in Statutory Rape and Sexual Misconduct Cases Carried out by Persons Known to Victims","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"55 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether current services and programmes are sufficient to deal with cases of statutory rape and sexual misconduct involving children or young persons that are carried out by persons known to the victims; and (b) whether mandatory counselling services will be extended to families where children or young persons are victims of sexual misconduct involving family members, kin and persons known to the victims.
Mr Desmond Lee: Keeping children safe from sexual abuse requires a whole-of-society effort. There are established interagency protocols, services and programmes to support victims and their families, and to bring perpetrators to justice.
When children experience or are suspected of having experienced sexual abuse, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) and the Singapore Police Force (SPF) will step in. Children who are not safe at home may be placed temporarily with relatives, a foster family or a children's home. These children and their families are also supported with a range of community services and may be referred to MSF psychologists to help them recover from the trauma of abuse. Each child is affected differently by the abuse, and the intervention will be tailored according to the different risks and needs of the child and the family. MSF is constantly looking at ways to improve the assessment and evidence-based intervention for our clients, in line with international practices.
Concurrently, suspected perpetrators will be investigated by SPF. The child plays an important role in the investigation. To reduce the trauma faced by child victims from having to travel to different locations and recounting the incident to different professionals, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and MSF will be piloting a one-stop, multidisciplinary approach at KK Women’s and Children's Hospital.
Perpetrators of child abuse may be charged under the Penal Code, or the Children and Young Persons Act. At the same time, their longer-term rehabilitation is needed to prevent the abuse from recurring. The Court can order the perpetrator, who may be a parent or guardian, to undergo counselling, assessments, treatments or other programmes.
Upstream prevention of child abuse and self-protection are equally important. Children are taught about personal safety in schools. They are taught to recognise sexual abuse and harassment, acquire skills to protect themselves both in real life and online, and understand the laws that protect them in Singapore. They also learn to seek help from trusted adults, such as their parents, teachers and school counsellors, when there is risk of their personal safety being compromised.
Beyond the existing multi-agency network of help, members of the public can also play their part. Noticing child abuse and bringing it to attention is the first step that enables the range of support services to kick in. Anyone who is aware of a child being or at risk of being abused, can help by alerting a community-based Child Protection Specialist Centre, MSF's Child Protective Service, the ComCare Hotline 1800- 222-0000 or their nearest Family Service Centre. Where a life is in danger, the public should immediately call the Police.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":49,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20180709/vernacular-Patrick Tay SCT Bill 9 July 2018-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Patrick Tay SCT Bill 9 July 2018-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":50,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Joan Pereira","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20180709/vernacular-Joan Pereira SCT Bill 9 July 2018-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Joan Pereira SCT Bill 9 July 2018-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":51,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20180709/vernacular-Lee Bee Wah SCT Bill 9 July 2018-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Lee Bee Wah SCT Bill 9 July 2018-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":52,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Desmond Choo","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20180709/vernacular-Desmond Choo SCT Bill 9 July 2018-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Desmond Choo SCT Bill 9 July 2018-Chinese.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}