1 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in light of recent reports on mass food poisoning cases (a) what targeted measures are being implemented to enhance food safety standards; and (b) whether the Ministry will review the adequacy of penalties for food hygiene violations, particularly for those that cater food to vulnerable groups like the elderly and children.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): Sir, the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) sets regulatory requirements, such as on the proper upkeep of premises and the safe handling of food, to maintain a high standard of food hygiene and food safety in Singapore. SFA also works closely with sectoral agencies, such as with the Early Childhood Development Agency for preschools and the Ministry of Health for nursing homes, on guidelines and regulations to protect vulnerable communities against food safety incidents.
SFA adopts a data-driven and risk-based approach to ensure food safety requirements. Food businesses of higher regulatory concern, such as those with track records of past infringements, are subjected to stepped-up surveillance.
During its inspections, SFA enforces against food safety lapses detected and administers a Points Demerit System under which licences may be suspended or cancelled. For severe cases, SFA will prosecute the errant food business. Food businesses implicated in an ongoing foodborne illness outbreak may also have their operations suspended to contain the spread of the outbreak.
SFA regularly reviews its food safety regime to ensure that offences and penalties are adequate and effective to deter violations. A current review is underway as part of the upcoming Food Safety and Security Bill.
Ultimately, food safety is a joint responsibility. Industry and consumers can also play a part by adopting safe food handling practices and being vigilant with food choices.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Safeguards to Prevent Entry into Singapore by Individuals Using Fraudulent Documents or Data","subTitle":"Urgency of new safeguard measures with increased automation clearance at immigration checkpoints","sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Home Affairs in light of the case of a foreign preacher who entered Singapore using a passport with a different name, what are the lessons learnt to increase border security, including the usage of biometric data or other technological tools.
3 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Home Affairs in light of the recent case of a foreign preacher delivering an illegal sermon in a dormitory in Tuas, what are the rules governing the use of foreign worker dormitories for events involving speakers or religious preachers.
4 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Home Affairs in view of the undetected entry of an extremist preacher on 9 August 2024 (a) how does the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) mitigate the risk of individuals using fraudulent documents to enter Singapore, especially with increased automation at immigration checkpoints; (b) beyond the use of biometrics, what other safeguards, such as equipping frontline personnel with lists of individuals of concern, are in place to identify dangerous individuals; and (c) what concrete steps will ICA take to enhance the detection of such individuals.
5 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how effective are the measures deployed by the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority to detect and prevent undesirable travellers from entering Singapore by using a valid passport but with a different name; and (b) how prevalent have such attempts been made in the past three years.
6 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Bangladeshi religious preacher who entered and delivered a sermon in Singapore on 9 August 2024 is on any watchlist in the possession of Home Team security agencies.
7 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Ministry can provide an update on the investigation into the case of a Bangladeshi preacher giving illegal sermons at a dormitory in Tuas; (b) whether any person has been detained in relation to the said incident; and (c) how many times has the Bangladeshi preacher entered Singapore in the last 10 years and how many times has he preached in Singapore.
8 Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Ministry will be taking steps to ensure that dormitory owners comply with all rules and regulations before permitting foreign speakers from conducting talks or programmes to migrant workers residing in their dormitories; (b) to date, how many cases of foreign visitors who have conducted an event without valid permits have been detected in foreign worker dormitories; and (c) what are some of the penalties in place to deal with the dormitory owners when such incidents occur.
\tThe Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): Sir, with your permission, can I take together the questions relating to the case of the foreign preacher, Amir Hamza? The questions are from Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Neil Parekh, Mr Melvin Yong, Mr Ang Wei Neng, Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim and Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you, Sir. My reply will also address a similar question raised by Mr Sharael Taha1 for a subsequent Sitting.
Amir Hamza was invited by a dormitory operator. He came into Singapore on Independence Day, 9 August 2024. He preached to a group to Bangladeshi migrant workers on the same day at a dormitory. And he did so without a permit – that was unlawful.
In his sermon, he made statements which were extremist and segregationist. He left Singapore next day, on 10 August 2024.
Members have raised a number of questions, whether Amir Hamza was on the watchlist of the security agencies and, more broadly, the way in which persons come through Singapore’s borders.
There are a number of steps taken at our borders, as many Members will be aware. Nationals of some countries are required to apply for visas even before they come in – Bangladesh is one such country. Applications from those on our watchlist or otherwise raise some questions, will usually be rejected.
All travellers are also required to submit an SG Arrival Card before arriving in Singapore. The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) uses that information, other information it receives and information from advance passenger lists from airlines, including flight manifests, and other sources of information, to conduct a pre-arrival risk assessment of the travellers.
When the travellers come into Singapore, they are screened against a watchlist of persons, even as they undergo immigration clearance. Those on the watchlist or are identified to be of higher risk by ICA’s backend data analytics will be checked further. ICA officers also look out for persons' reasons for visiting Singapore that may appear dubious or for other reasons that may require further checking, and these travellers might be required to undergo further checks.
In July 2020, we also introduced the Multi-Modal Biometric System. First-time visitors will have their facial, iris and fingerprint images captured at immigration clearance, and that allows us to better detect repeat visitors who may try and come in using multiple identities or impersonated identities. For foreign visitors, this is usually done on the first occasion they visit Singapore. Our automated gates are generally able to detect forged passports as well.
Since 2022, every month, about 30 visitors with legitimate passports but containing a different identity from ICA’s records were detected and refused entry. In all, for various reasons, about 2,500 visitors are refused entry at our checkpoints every month.
Amir Hamza was on our watchlist. The Internal Security Department (ISD) had put him on the watchlist and that is because he had made statements promoting religious intolerance and for a few other reasons. He applied for a visa to enter Singapore using a passport with a name that was different from what we had in our database and therefore, that other name was not our watchlist. And he used that passport on 9 August to come into Singapore. As this was his first visit to Singapore, we did not have his biometrics. If he tries to come back again, regardless of what other passports he uses, he will be picked up because we now have his biometrics.
Members have asked questions, broadly, about the security at our borders. There are about 600,000 travellers every day coming and going across all our checkpoints. Members will appreciate – we have to develop a framework for picking up some people of concern while allowing the vast majority to clear as quickly as possible. We need to strike a balance between security and facilitation at our borders. It is not possible nor practicable to subject every visitor, obviously, to stringent, detailed checks and interviews. No country has a comprehensive database of every criminal or person of security concern across the world. Certainly, Singapore does not have such a database.
So, in summary, in terms of persons coming in, the majority of persons who are perceived to have dubious reasons or purposes for coming into Singapore are picked up either through the visa scheme or even without visas, through other information that we have at various levels. And as I have said, about 2,500 are rejected every month – some of them with visas, some of them without visas. But it is always possible that a small number will get through despite the several levels of checks. Members must also understand that the levels of checks and our information-gathering varies depending on the type and extent of risks. Obviously, ISD together with its foreign counterparts will have a closer awareness of persons who may want to do us physical harm in Singapore. I will not go into operational considerations, but there are a number of ways in which those persons would be picked up more easily. No system is foolproof, but there are different levels of checks.
Members have also asked about the rules and regulations governing events at migrant worker dormitories and the actions the Government has taken to ensure that dormitory operators comply.
The Public Order Act requires event organisers to apply for a Police permit for cause-based events that are open to the public. The speech at the dormitory would be one such event. It applies to events involving religious teachings, regardless of whether the event takes place within a dormitory or elsewhere.
Specifically for foreign worker dormitories, the Foreign Employee Dormitories Act imposes licence conditions that require operators to keep updated records of all non-residents, including visitors or contractors, who enter the living areas of the dormitories.
Third, foreigners who wish to speak at public events that are religious, cause-based or political in nature are required to obtain a Miscellaneous Work Pass under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act. The Ministry of Manpower consults relevant agencies, including ISD, in its assessment when such applications are received.
In this case, investigations are ongoing. No arrests have yet been made. The offences that are being looked into include participation in an unlawful assembly under the Public Order Act and not obtaining a Miscellaneous Work Permit required under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act.
The dormitory operator was also the event organiser. He is being investigated for several offences including those under the Public Order Act, Employment of Foreign Manpower Act and Foreign Employee Dormitories Act.
Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant asked how often such illegal events occur within our migrant worker dormitories. I assume he meant events without authorisation. Based on our records and assessments, this sort of event does not usually take place. It is very rare because somebody will have to be actively in breach of all of these requirements. And of course, if we detect it, swift action will be taken.
We will continue to educate and remind our dormitory operators to ensure that they obtain the relevant approvals before conducting such activities in the dormitories. And of course, our best safeguard is a public that stays vigilant and reports these sorts of individuals and activities to the agencies.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.
\tMr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister and our Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and ISD officers for the swift actions taken. I have two supplementary questions.
Firstly, on exploring new technologies to help our ICA security officers at the borders, according to international studies, on the average, typically, border security officers have about 12 seconds to decide whether the traveller is allowed to cross the border. Can the Minister explain how MHA is committed to continue adopting artificial intelligence (AI) or new technologies like gait recognition technology, the way we walk, or reverse facial recognition tools to detect someone?
\t
Secondly, I understand that further investigations are ongoing for this particular case. But for context, do Bangladeshi nationals visiting Singapore require visas and letters of introduction (LOIs) from a local contact here and also go through a list of authorised visa agents there? Given this incident, would MHA investigate the local contact on the LOI issued, review the process of the list of authorised visa agents and perhaps require biometric data to be provided and review, generally speaking, the process for visa applications?
\tMr K Shanmugam: On the first question, we have to use technology, and we are using technology and people have gone through our borders. We see increasingly more and more technology being introduced; multimodal biometric is one example. Singaporeans can now pretty much walk through. For foreigners, once they enrol, they can also use the systems.
We want to make the airport and checkpoint experience smooth because, remember, the vast majority of persons who are coming into Singapore are coming in for business, tourist or social reasons, for valid purposes. And we cannot make their experience a difficult one. So, this is what I meant by balance between security and Singapore's economy, well-being and as a welcoming place for tourists and others who are coming into Singapore. A very small number come with bad intentions and our systems have so far been robust enough to pick most of them up.
Mr Zhulkarnain spoke about gait and movements, those are all items, part of data that have long been used. There are technologies, there are techniques, it is some sort of science, and we work with other agencies across the world to study these and train our officers on these.
To the second question, yes, there would normally be a visa. There would have to be a sponsor and there will have to be an agent. But in this case, there was a visa, there was a sponsor, but there is no agent because the person who sponsored is related to the dormitory operator and that person is being investigated as well.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, just a single question for the Minister. With regard to the visa application process, I seek the Minister's confirmation whether a photograph also was required to be submitted by the preacher in the course of his visa application and whether there are particular processes by which that individual, as he is pictorially represented or represented in the picture, is cross-checked with the watchlist. And if there is no such process, can the Minister confirm whether, beyond my supplementary question, improvements are being considered to capture individuals who are already existing on a watchlist and clearly present a different level of threat, as compared to the average person who walks through our immigration gates?
\tMr K Shanmugam: Visas require photographs. Photographs, I believe, were submitted, I have not checked on this case. The normal process would be that it would be cross-checked against the watchlist. It depends on the type of photograph that is submitted and the quality of the photograph. It may not always pick up against the database that we have and, without going into details, I think the Member also assumes that in our database, there will be photographs of all those who are listed in the watchlist.
As I said, no country in the world has such a comprehensive set of data on all potential persons who might have to be excluded. Sometimes, we will only have names without photographs. As for the ability to cross-check, my understanding is that our systems are very advanced and if there is a broad match in the photographs, they would have picked it up. But the question assumes that we had a photograph to cross-check against.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for his reply. My question pertains to immigration. While automation and biometrics are vital in modern immigration processes, there may be concerns about over-reliance on technology. Can the Minister elaborate on the rationale behind the current level of automation and how does it ensure that human judgement remains integral in identifying potential threats?
\tMr K Shanmugam: I have explained the need for technology. Let us do a thought experiment. Let us do away with technology. Every single person, the 600,000 persons who are crossing our borders, will then have to be checked individually. And I think Members can appreciate that we might as well take a big hit on our economic sector. This is just not workable. You have to use technology.
But I think the Member's real question is to what extent is technology supplemented by the assessment by our officers and that is a fair question. It is supplemented to a significant degree. We use AI, we use other techniques. They help us but, in the end, there is also an assessment by officers on selected and specific cases. There are also officers at the various checkpoints assessing people as they are walking through, going through and some are picked up for additional checks.
Some are picked up based on information or documents submitted, while some are picked up based on our assessment of the individuals. And there have been a number of cases where the visas do not throw up anything and the passports are fine, but our officers, through their training, are able to assess that some individuals require further checks and quite often, that throws up persons who are carrying contraband, bringing in drugs or otherwise coming in with intentions that we do not agree with.
Mr Speaker: The Minister's response covered Parliamentary Question Nos 2 to 8 in today's Order Paper.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether biometric details are required for visitors entering Singapore; (b) how was the foreign preacher able to deliver a sermon to foreign workers at their dormitory; (c) whether dormitory operators are required to obtain police permits for such events on their premises; and (d) what measures will be put in place to prevent similar incidents from happening in dormitories."],"footNoteQuestions":["2","3","4","5","6","7","8"],"questionNo":"2-8"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Basis of SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support Scheme and Considerations for Applications","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"9 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what are the bases and considerations in the design of the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support Scheme; (b) how will the assessment be done as to whether individuals applying to the scheme meet the conditions required; and (c) whether there will be avenues for appeals.
10 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Minister for Manpower whether recipients under the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support scheme will benefit from other forms of short-term financial assistance from the Ministry of Social and Family Development or that provided at the constituency level.
\tThe Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to address oral Question Nos 9 and 10 for today, 9 September. In addition, I will address three oral questions scheduled for the Sitting tomorrow, 10 September 2024.
Mr Speaker: Please proceed.
\tDr Tan See Leng: Members have filed these Parliamentary Questions (PQs) relating to the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support scheme. I will respond to these five questions together so that I can give and provide a more holistic reply.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked about the bases and the considerations in the design of the scheme. The Prime Minister and I have shared the Government’s considerations in designing the Jobseeker Support scheme. Let me reiterate the key points.
First, we wanted to create a better alternative to unemployment insurance. We have seen from other countries how unemployment insurance can make it more attractive for individuals to stay unemployed. We have also heard feedback from employers about rising business costs and we do not want employers to offset the costs of an insurance scheme by cutting wages or by stopping the practice of retrenchment benefit.
That is why we searched for a better alternative to minimise the negative outcomes that we have seen elsewhere. Our objective is to support involuntarily unemployed individuals to rebound into jobs that better match and fit their skills and experience, instead of rushing into ill-fitting jobs due to financial pressures.
But at the same time, from the Forward Singapore exercise, we have heard Singaporeans share that personal responsibility should remain a cornerstone in our social compact. Hence, the scheme should minimise the potential moral hazard by supporting jobseekers to regain employment and not continued unemployment. Jobseekers will need to play their part, to take responsibility for their actions and make an effort to bounce back into work. On the Government’s part, we will continue to strongly support jobseekers through employment facilitation and training programmes.
I will next answer questions on who will qualify for the Jobseeker Support scheme. To Ms Hazel Poa’s question, we have targeted the scheme at the lower- to-middle-income worker earning up to $5,000 per month before becoming involuntarily unemployed. This is slightly above the median monthly income of resident workers and it is the group that is more likely to face some financial pressures. With this income criterion, more than six in 10 residents who are involuntarily unemployed can benefit from the scheme.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked how the condition “residing in a property with an annual value of $25,000” was determined. Annual value is used as a proxy to determine households’ wealth for various Government support schemes that provide higher benefits to individuals or households with lower means. The threshold of $25,000 for the Jobseeker Support scheme is aligned with other schemes, such as the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Voucher scheme. This covers about 75% of residential properties, including all Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked how applicants’ eligibility will be assessed. All Jobseeker Support applications will be assessed via a system that comprises automated checks using available Government data and further verification checks done by a dedicated Workforce Singapore (WSG) team. For individuals who do not meet the eligibility criteria, appeals will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
Ms Hazel Poa also asked why Permanent Residents (PRs) are eligible for the scheme alongside Singapore Citizens (SCs). This is no different from other employment facilitation programmes. For example, SCs and PRs receive the same support under WSG programmes, such as career matching services and Career Conversion Programmes.
I want to stress that Singaporeans will always be at the heart of Government policies, even while we welcome those who can commit and contribute to Singapore. Our citizens receive the most support and benefit in several areas, including housing, healthcare, education and parenthood. But PRs have expressed their commitment to Singapore and contribute to our strengths as a society and economy. So, likewise, we should also support our PRs who fall onto hard times to get into good jobs so that they can support themselves and contribute to our economy.
I will now move on to questions about the payouts. The payout quantum of up to $6,000 over six months is provided to eligible applicants who have demonstrated active job search efforts. Ms Hazel Poa asked why the payments are stepped down with time. We have designed the payout schedule to provide a higher payout in the earlier months to provide greater upfront assurance to jobseekers. These payouts are gradually reduced from the second month onwards to incentivise jobseekers to start work earlier if they find and land on a good-fitting job. We do not want them to delay their return into the workforce as it will diminish their employability. In addition, as the scheme is designed to encourage individuals to find a job with good fit and be retained in the job, those who have received payouts will not be able to make another application within three years of their last payout.
I must emphasise that the total payout of up to $6,000 should not be viewed in isolation. It actually complements the Government’s broader ecosystem of support.
Mr Henry Kwek had asked about whether beneficiaries of the scheme can also benefit from other financial assistance schemes. The answer is yes. While the Jobseeker Support scheme is not designed as a form of social assistance for households with greater financial needs, beneficiaries are still entitled to receive support from the Government’s social assistance schemes where eligible, such as ComCare Short-to-Medium Term Assistance and the GST Voucher scheme.
Similarly to Mr Gan Thiam Poh's question, beneficiaries of the Jobseeker Support scheme can concurrently qualify for the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme that supports mid-career individuals to pursue substantive upskilling and reskilling, as long as they meet the eligibility criteria for all of these respective schemes. So, we encourage jobseekers to actively explore ways to upskill, to reskill themselves to bounce back into better jobs.
To conclude, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Jobseeker Support scheme marks a paradigm shift for the Government and it reflects our commitment that we will always help and provide resources for those who step up and want to do more for themselves. The Prime Minister had said that a major reset is needed as we chart Singapore's way forward.
This is a reset in the Government's policies and, just as importantly, a reset of Singaporeans' views and attitudes. We will regularly review the scheme to ensure that we provide necessary support to the involuntarily unemployed.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Mr Speaker, there are two supplementary questions for the Minister. Sir, for many years, the People's Action Party (PAP) Members of Parliament (MPs) and the Labour Movement have asked for support assistance for the jobseekers. I remember even during my first term as an MP in this House, this was also raised. So, I am glad that the Government has finally made the move. Can I ask the Minister, why now?
The second question is: under this scheme, the criteria have been tightly structured, such as with the salary cap of $5,000, the annual value of not more than $25,000, the financial relief is also for a maximum of six months. So, can I ask the Minister how the Ministry determines the sufficiency of this scheme to help jobseekers and whether it will achieve the outcomes that we have set out to achieve?
\t
Dr Tan See Leng: I thank Mr Liang Eng Hwa for his two supplementary questions. Why is the scheme being introduced now? We started looking at it a number of years ago and, as a result of our Forward Singapore conversations, we have also sought feedback from many of our fellow Singaporeans on the design of the scheme. We have also learnt from many other countries, in terms of their own unemployment benefits for their respective citizens. And we eventually sized up the Jobseeker Support scheme, which is really about also renewing and refreshing the social compact. If we look ahead, the pace of change and disruptions will only accelerate. We may see a higher incidence of job displacements due to factors beyond an individual's control and even as they build their career health.
So, because of the multiple dialogues we have had, we have heard calls from Singaporeans for greater assurance in dealing with involuntary job loss. So, the reset, as I have mentioned, is now. The scheme marks a paradigm shift for the Government. We have taken the time to study the scheme carefully to ensure that we avoid the pitfalls seen in unemployment insurance schemes overseas where it can lull individuals into a false sense of security by making it more attractive for them to stay unemployed. We took in the different feedback from our tripartite partners, businesses and the public in the eventual design of the scheme. And having said that, our assurance is that we will continue to review the parameters of the scheme. In our sizing of this scheme itself, we have targeted the scheme at the lower- to middle-income worker earning up to $5,000 per month. Our median monthly wage is about $4,500-plus.
So, we have sized it for the lower- to middle-income worker earning up to $5,000 per month before becoming involuntarily unemployed. So, this is sized at just above the median monthly income of resident workers, as this is the group that is more likely to face some financial pressure.
We also used the annual value of residential property as a proxy to determine households' wealth because this is, again, similar to other Government support schemes that provide higher benefits to individuals or households with lower means. This threshold of $25,000 for the Jobseeker Support scheme is aligned with other schemes, such as the GST Voucher scheme, and it covers about 75% of residential properties, including all HDB flats. And as I have said, for the six-month duration of payouts, we think it provides sufficient assurance for jobseekers to find good fitting jobs and at the same time, it encourages them to re-enter the workforce in a timely manner.
So, this is the first step. I want to reiterate that we will regularly review the scheme to ensure that we provide the necessary and needed support for the involuntarily unemployed residents.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Henry Kwek.
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Kebun Baru): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for his response. I appreciate the design of the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support scheme as our people need not pay an insurance premium to benefit from it. I also note that many Singaporeans have family members who are PRs and they will benefit.
I would like to ask a supplementary question. Notwithstanding the fact that we have to tightly control the criteria as we roll this landmark programme out, can the Government consider appeals for Singaporeans in private estates, with deserving circumstances, such as those living in households with a low per capita income – large households, I mean – those with limited housing equity and those who do not own the private housing that they live in?
\t
\t
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank Mr Henry Kwek for his supplementary questions. I want to reassure the Member that we will consider individuals who do not meet the eligibility criteria on a case-by-case basis. The first part on eligibility checks, as I have shared earlier on, based on whatever Government data we have, will be automatic. But for those who want to appeal, we will consider them on a case-by-case basis.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
\tMs Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Minister for answering my PQ. I have a couple of follow-up questions. The Minister has said that in this case, they have decided to extend the same benefits to PRs and SCs and quoted a few examples where it is also same benefits for both groups. But at the same time, we do have schemes that differentiate between these two groups. So, how does the Government decide which scheme will give the same benefits for SCs and PRs and which will be differentiated?
Secondly, it is about the requirement that the applicant must not have received this assistance in the past three years. In certain industries, where the pace of change and disruption is more frequent, the workers in those industries may experience retrenchment more frequently than those in other industries. So, would the Minister also consider this on a case-by-case basis?
\t
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank Ms Hazel Poa for her supplementary questions. For her first point on PRs receiving similar treatment and quantum of benefits as SCs, I hope that the Member appreciates the fact that this is a Jobseeker Support scheme. It is to incentivise the jobseeker to actively go for interviews, update their resumes and go for courses to upgrade themselves to get employed back into the workforce. So, in such circumstance, PRs can receive the same treatment and quantum of benefits because such schemes, if we support them, it will enable them to stay employable and continue to contribute to Singapore economically. And it also encourages the individuals to take responsibility for their own retirement adequacy and their own income security and, with them gainfully employed, ultimately, we hope that they will also not burden the rest of us as a society.
For the three-year window, this is to nudge and encourage our jobseekers to use this Jobseeker Support scheme to find better fitting jobs, and not rush into an ill-fitting job so as to get retrenched, displaced or unemployed within a short period of time. But having said that, exactly to Ms Poa's point, the pace of disruptions and change, indeed, they are both accelerating. For those who are involuntarily unemployed as a result of circumstances beyond their control, we are prepared to look at it on a case-by-case basis. I hope that addresses the Member's concerns.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for his response. In instances where recipients of the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support scheme may face immediate financial difficulties, why did the Ministry decide not to streamline short-term financial support with the scheme? Also, will the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) work with the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) and the SSOs to process the Jobseeker Support scheme together with other financial assistance schemes?
\t
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank Mr Yip Hon Weng for his supplementary question. As I have alluded to, the Jobseeker Support scheme is not a social assistance scheme. It is meant to nudge our residents towards a positive behaviour of ensuring that they continue not to be disenfranchised, but to actively seek out a job. And this sits on top of other social assistance schemes that are administered by MSF and a host of other agencies that the Government has.
On top of that, for residents who are mature workers aged 40 and above, who are already on the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme, this sits on top of it. Perhaps I can use this as an illustration. For a mature worker who is now undergoing the SkillsFuture Level-Up course, the training allowance cap is up to $3,000 per month. If he is drawing a salary of $5,000 and he is on this SkillsFuture Level-Up course, he draws an allowance of $2,500 a month.
If he gets involuntarily unemployed, the Jobseeker Support scheme will be eligible for him. So, over that six-month horizon, he could, on top of getting up to $6,000 from the Jobseeker Support scheme, he could add on another $2,500 times six months, which is about $15,000 of the SkillsFuture Level-Up training allowance. And that comes up to an amount of up to, potentially, $21,000 over the six-month period. I wanted to give that archetype to illustrate to Mr Yip the potential amounts that an actively engaged mature jobseeker who is also upgrading himself will be able to access via these grants from the Government.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.
\tMr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): Sir, I would like to thank the Prime Minister and the Minister, as well as the MOM officers for coming up with this scheme on hearing the National Trades Union Congress and Labour Movement's call to introduce some form of unemployment support for our workers. Just two supplementary questions. Firstly, if Members could look at the last couple of years of labour market reports, particularly the last five years, I think more and more of those affected by retrenchments and involuntary unemployment are professionals, managers and executives (PMEs). So, therefore, my point is, now that we have set the $5,000 and the annual value of $25,000, how can MOM ensure that these PMEs, if they are really financially strapped, are not left out and will be able to bounce back and go into the next job.
\t
The second supplementary question is with regard to the JobSeeker Support Scheme, whether MOM will have some form of monitoring and enforcement to make sure that employers who already currently provide retrenchment benefits in severance packages in their employment contracts or even in their collective agreements, do not exploit this scheme and, therefore, cut back or reduce those other payments?\t
Dr Tan See Leng: I thank Mr Patrick Tay for the supplementary question. We acknowledge many Members in the House for putting up the scheme. I was looking back at all the notes, I think it went back to as early as 2014, about a decade ago. So, thank you to many of our labour MPs and Members of this House, some of whom are not here. There was a Mr Azmoon Ahmad, from before, who also proposed the scheme. And I want to thank them for proposing this.
Indeed, when we sized up the scheme, we wanted to try to reach out to the lower- and middle-income group. We acknowledged the fact that the scheme does not cover everyone. But for starters, when we sized this to go up to just slightly above median, that means up to the $5,000 mark, it would reach and it would benefit about six in 10 workers who are involuntarily unemployed.
We will continue to refine the scheme. Our starting point is to try to support the lower- and middle-income workers, who may face more financial pressures. While we acknowledge that some PMETs at the higher level could also face pressures as well, given their runway, given the buffer that they have, for a start, I think that they have a slightly better buffer compared to this group of lower- and middle-income workers.
So, we want to make sure that the scheme gets off to a good footing. This will already cost us about $200 million a year to continue to run this. Like I said, we will continue to review it and to see how we can be even more sensitive to the needs of more workers.
With regard to the Member's second point about how we ensure that employers do not then roll back or dial back on the retrenchment benefit, we have to work very closely with the Labour Movement and with our tripartite partners to make sure that this is not against the spirit of wanting to help our workers to bounce back. The good momentum that we have achieved thus far, in ensuring that there is a fair treatment for all workers, will continue to be honoured and followed through. I hope that addresses the Member's question.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, I understand the SkillsFuture JobSeeker Support Scheme is expected to cost $200 million yearly. How will this be funded? For example, will any tax increases be needed for this? Did the Government consider making this an unemployment insurance scheme so that it is more fiscally sustainable over the long term? That is what the Workers' Party (WP) proposed in our version of the redundancy insurance scheme.
\tDr Tan See Leng: I want to reiterate that this is not an unemployment insurance scheme. So, it is very different from what the WP has suggested. We have undergone numerous dialogues. We have engaged businesses. We have engaged employers. We have also taken feedback from our workers.
The feedback that we have obtained is that there are cost pressures that are experienced by businesses and workers wanting to be able to have more take-home earnings. So, when we looked at the entire landscape and we also studied other countries' experiences, for a start, we felt that this is the most nuanced way forward – with the Government taking the burden of providing these jobseekers, who actively want to look for jobs, with the assistance to tide them over this particular period.
The way the scheme has been sized up, 60% of the involuntarily unemployed workers will benefit. Today, about close to 60% of workers get back into a job within six months of being involuntarily unemployed. With the scheme, we believe that an even higher proportion of workers will be able to benefit and get back into a good job faster.
How is this going to be funded? It will be funded through the Government operating budget. Depending on how the scheme continues to evolve, we will continue to review the parameters to make sure that it supports and it is sensitive to the needs of residents who are involuntarily unemployed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Social Visit Pass Holders from China who Have Been Arrested","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the number and percentage of social visit pass holders from China who have been arrested has increased since the 30-day visa exemption arrangement became effective on 9 February 2024; and (b) whether the ability of all foreigners to enter via automated lanes at Changi Airport without presenting themselves before an immigration officer since May 2024 has increased the risk of persons who are not bona fide travellers entering Singapore.
\tThe Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, Mr Leong Mun Wai's question may have been prompted by the recent burglaries which appear to be linked to foreign syndicates involving Chinese nationals. The Police had previously provided a comprehensive update on this issue. Three Chinese nationals have been arrested. Another 14 Chinese nationals are of interest to the Police, but they remain overseas.
To answer Mr Leong's question directly, there has been no increase in the number or percentage of short-term visitors from China arrested in Singapore since the mutual visa exemption arrangements were implemented in February this year. Even if we take into account the 14 Chinese nationals I referred to earlier, the percentage of Chinese visitors arrested in Singapore would be lower than the corresponding percentage last year.
A visa regime is not a foolproof way to keep unwanted characters away. It enables us to pre-screen individuals before they travel to Singapore. If they have antecedents of concern, their visa application will be rejected. The need to apply for a visa and to submit supporting documentation also acts as a deterrence. But no visa regime will completely weed out undesirable visitors and neither will it stop them from committing crimes here.
The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) adopts a risk-based, multi-layered approach to assess a foreign traveller when he is at our checkpoints. Over the years, the systems have been upgraded, the checks have become more robust and the overall level of security has been enhanced. It may surprise Mr Leong to know that the percentage of travellers who are refused entry into Singapore has, in fact, increased with ICA's new clearance concept and automated clearance. Why? Because checks are now further upstream and we leverage technology even more extensively.
Pre-arrival, ICA uses advanced passenger information, including flight manifests and information from the SG Arrival Card, to conduct data analytics and a risk assessment of travellers through its Integrated Targeting Centre.
Upon arrival, all travellers, including those at the automated lanes, are screened against a watchlist of persons of interest as well as those who have been flagged by ICA's Integrated Targeting Centre to be of higher risk. Such individuals are stopped for more stringent immigration and security checks.
ICA's automated lanes are supported by biometrics. Repeat travellers, including those who had committed crimes in Singapore, who try to enter via a different identity, will be flagged by our biometric database because we would have captured their biometrics on their previous visit.
Because we have automated more processes, more ICA officers can be deployed to conduct profiling of travellers at the automated immigration lanes, which complements the back-end risk assessment. Those spotted to be exhibiting suspicious behaviour will be sieved out for questioning.
Mr Leong's questions may have been prompted by fears of foreigners committing crimes in Singapore. The only way we can be sure that foreigners will not commit crimes here is to close our borders to them. But doing so would destroy Singapore's economy. Singapore and Singaporeans benefit from the tourism revenue and employment opportunities that foreigners, including those from China, bring. Just as an example, the tourism sector contributed $27.2 billion in tourism receipts in 2023 and employed more than 71,000 workers as of December 2023. The sector also contributed, on average, 3% of Singapore's gross domestic product (GDP) over the last 10 years, from 2014 to 2023, excluding 2020 to 2022 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
In addition to being an important economic contributor, tourism plays an essential role in reinforcing Singapore's status as a vibrant global city that is a magnet for capital, businesses and talent. It also enhances the quality and diversity of leisure options for local residents and helps to create a living environment that Singaporeans can be proud to call home. There is no way to realise these ambitions if we erect walls and keep visitors out.
Our neighbours, Malaysia and Thailand, have also rolled out initiatives to boost tourism. For instance, to attract Chinese visitors, they have implemented visa exemption, increased flight frequencies and promoted cultural and entertainment experiences that appeal to Chinese travellers.
The mutual visa exemption with China was a carefully assessed and weighed decision, that the security, criminal and immigration risks were manageable, that the economic and bilateral benefits would be significant and that, overall, it is in Singapore's interests to have this arrangement with China.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
\tMr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, I thank the Minister of State for her reply. I have one supplementary question. But first of all, I would like to stress that neither I nor the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) have ever advocated for a closed Singapore. We understand the benefits of an open society and open economy. But as the number of foreigners or foreign visitors increase over time, I think we will need additional measures to protect the security of our country and our society.
As such, I have one supplementary question. Given that some of the Chinese nationals have come to Singapore and committed crimes, like scams, money laundering and, now, even burglaries, is the Government considering tougher penalties on these cross-border criminal activities? I think we need to, in addition to all the measures that the Minister of State had explained just now, also increase the deterrent on people coming to Singapore and committing crimes.
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank Mr Leong for his supplementary question. First and foremost, I thank him for confirming the PSP's stance to keep Singapore open to foreigners and to visitors, because that is critical to Singapore's economy and to continue to have Singapore be a vibrant place for residents and visitors alike.
On transnational crime, there are various aspects to it. There is human trafficking, drug trafficking; there are online scams. Burglary is not exactly a transnational crime, but I think when Mr Leong referred to it, he meant it in terms of foreigners who may come to Singapore to commit such crimes. Over the years, we have been revising our Criminal Procedure Code and Penal Code to enhance our measures to take into account all these offences. Mr Leong would also be familiar with the whole slew of measures that we have undertaken recently and also moving forward when it comes to online scams.
So, I take Mr Leong's point that with increasing number of visitors and not only that, with the increasing use of technology to commit transnational crimes, that we must always monitor and review our laws to make sure that they take into account the evolving nature of crimes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Singapore's Health Measures following Declaration of Mpox as Public Health Emergency of International Concern","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health with monkeypox (mpox) declared by the World Health Organization as a public health emergency of international concern (a) whether the Ministry can provide an update on the characteristics of the virus and how it is evolving; (b) what are the border and social measures to deal with the situation; and (c) whether the Ministry has adequate mpox vaccines for our population.
13 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Health in light of the recent rise in monkeypox (mpox) cases in Africa (a) what protocols are in place for screening and monitoring travellers from regions with known mpox outbreaks, especially given the potential for cross-border transmission; and (b) what measures are being implemented to enhance public awareness of (i) mpox symptoms (ii) transmission modes and (iii) preventive practices in Singapore.
14 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry can provide an update on the local mpox situation; (b) whether mpox poses a severe health risk to vulnerable residents such as seniors and children; and (c) whether there is a need for a nationwide rollout of mpox vaccines for these vulnerable residents.
15 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the Ministry’s strategy for preventing and mitigating the spread of mpox in Singapore; and (b) what are the applicable precautions and lessons that have been learnt from our whole-of-society effort against the COVID-19 pandemic.
\tThe Minister for Health (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to address Question Nos 12 to 15 on today’s Order Paper, which are related to Monkeypox (mpox), please? My response will also cover the matters raised in the questions by Ms Joan Pereira1 and Mr Sharael Taha1 which are scheduled for a subsequent Sitting.
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Thank you. I have shared our assessment of mpox Clade I and our response plan in a press conference last week. Let me reiterate the points briefly and then invite Members to ask supplementary questions.
As of 5 September 2024, there have been no mpox Clade I cases in Singapore. As for the less severe mpox Clade II, 15 confirmed cases have been detected this year. Although there are no Clade I cases in Singapore as yet, we should expect it to arrive here at some point as it spreads beyond Africa.
Every pandemic is different – I have to keep emphasising that. We need to respond according to the characteristics of the virus. This is a key lesson from COVID-19.
The key characteristics of mpox Clade I based on what we know so far, are as follows.
First, mode of transmission. This is mainly through close physical contact with infected persons, such as sexual contact, mouth-to-mouth, skin-to-skin and skin-to-mouth contact. In Africa, it appears to be family members living in the same household as the primary cases, who are infected. We cannot rule out mpox spreading through the air, but based on current evidence, even if it does, it does not spread far and wide like COVID-19 – like one person gives a speech and many members of the audience can get infected. There is no evidence showing that mpox Clade I or Clade II spreads that way. But this is something we will continue to watch and which should become clearer in the coming months.
Second, transmissibility. As of now, the mpox Clade I virus has a known reproduction number, or \"R\", of about 1.3. This means that every 10 infected persons will spread the disease to an average of 13 persons. This is less infectious than other diseases such as COVID-19 with an R value of five, or chickenpox with an R value of 12.
Third, severity. Out of every 100 cases in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), there were about three to four fatalities. Three to four out of 100. This is a concerning number, similar to COVID-19 when it first broke out. If it comes here, the case fatality rate will most likely be lower because first, the recorded number in DRC probably has a larger denominator base of undetected cases; so the fatality rate should be lower. Second, there will be better access to quality medical care in Singapore. Evidence also shows that smallpox vaccination renders cross-protection against mpox. Since smallpox vaccination was required in Singapore up till early 1981, there will be some immunity among a large segment of Singaporeans aged 45 and above.
Fourth, specific groups that will be especially affected. One group includes the weak and vulnerable, such as the old, sick or the immunocompromised. Further, a large proportion of cases and deaths in DRC are in children below the age of 15. Some of this is due to socioeconomic reasons, such as malnutrition or that the children are already afflicted with certain diseases. We believe that the clinical outcomes will be different in countries outside Africa and we are paying close attention to the risks amongst children.
Based on the current evidence, we are not dealing with a respiratory virus like COVID-19 that required extensive safe management measures, much less a circuit breaker. With an R of 1.3 – and that is a decisive consideration – we think the best way to suppress the spread of the virus is to detect and isolate cases, and quarantine close contacts early to reduce the risk of spread to the community.
That brings me to the key aspects of our response plan.
First, border measures. We have retained digital declarations for travellers coming into Singapore using the SG Arrival Card. Several Members have asked me why do we keep that. Now you know why. Because such outbreaks will happen from time to time. We have, however, adjusted the questions, so that travellers are now required to declare mpox-related symptoms and travel history on the SG Arrival Card. We have put in place temperature and visual screening for travellers arriving from higher risk areas, at both air and sea checkpoints.
Second, testing, tracing and isolation. As mpox has a long incubation period of up to 21 days, cases may not be picked up at the borders. They may seek medical help later when they turn ill in Singapore. Therefore, we have notified our doctors to be on the alert to spot and immediately report any suspected mpox Clade I cases to the Ministry of Health (MOH).
All suspected mpox Clade I cases will be conveyed to designated hospitals for further assessment and testing. If tested positive, these patients will be isolated in healthcare facilities until they are no longer infectious. Based on what we currently know of the Clade I virus, our existing hospital capacity, including the intensive care units (ICUs), remains adequate to treat and isolate infected cases.
Contact tracing will be conducted for all confirmed cases. The National Environment Agency will oversee environmental cleaning and disinfection for places visited by the infected persons. Close contacts of Clade I cases will be quarantined in a designated government quarantine facility for up to 21 days from their last date of exposure.
Third, schools and preschools. We have been working closely with the Ministry of Education and Early Childhood Development Agency on contingency plans. Schools have existing protocols to manage outbreaks, such as for hand-foot-and-mouth disease, which are relevant in an mpox Clade I outbreak. These include ensuring good hygiene practices and screening students for symptoms. Cases will only be allowed to return to school once fully recovered and no longer infectious. Premises will be cleaned and contact tracing of students and staff will be conducted promptly. If necessary, outbreak management measures, including temporary closure of a class, a level or a school, may be implemented to contain disease spread.
Fourth, vaccination. Although smallpox has been eradicated, we kept some stock of smallpox vaccines, called JYNNEOS, to counter orthopoxviruses, such as the mpox virus. Based on our current understanding of the disease and its relatively low reproduction rate, population-wide mpox vaccination is not necessary and not recommended. It is more effective to focus our vaccination on healthcare workers who need to care for mpox patients, and on close contacts of infected persons as a form of post-exposure vaccination to suppress the transmission of the virus.
Based on this vaccination approach, our existing supply of vaccines are projected to be sufficient. To better strengthen our preparedness and resilience, MOH is also looking at procuring more doses when available.
Fifth, masking. At present, we do not recommend wearing a mask for people who are well, given that the primary mode of transmission is close physical contact. However, should there be evidence of significant respiratory transmission, such as outside of households, MOH will consider implementing masking on public transport, and in crowded indoor settings. Our current mask stockpiles and local manufacturing capabilities will assure us of adequate supply.
MOH's bottomline assessment is that mpox Clade I is likely a troublesome virus which will cause us some inconvenience, but all in all, is something we can manage. It is unlike COVID-19 that will lead to widespread safe management measures or even a circuit breaker, very unlikely. Exercising personal responsibility, especially when symptomatic, and practising good personal hygiene, remain effective at reducing the risk of transmission of mpox in the general population.
However, we should not be complacent. The situation is evolving and there is still some uncertainty around the disease characteristics. We will learn more about the disease in the coming months and should be prepared to change our plans as we understand the disease more.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his very comprehensive reply. I have a short supplementary question. Does the Ministry have any plans to make the mpox vaccine available and free for vulnerable groups of the population, such as the elderly, who may not have taken the smallpox vaccine previously or immunocompromised patients?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: Most older Singaporeans would have taken the smallpox vaccine at birth. I have one. The coverage before 1981 has been very broad – well over 90%. So, if they have not taken for some reason, it could be because it is not suitable for them, in which case, then I think we have to look at the other alternatives. But I think, in general, the mpox vaccine JYNNEOS will be offered free to the two groups I mentioned – healthcare workers who are directly exposed to the virus in taking care of patients as well as post-exposure prophylaxis for close contacts of an infected person. We think this is better use of the stock of JYNNEOS that we have to suppress transmission, as opposed to offering it widely and free to the population, because given the characteristics of this virus with an R of 1.3, I think our method, our vaccination strategy will be more effective, given the stockpile of JYNNEOS that we have.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.
\tMs Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): I thank the Minister for sharing with us the response plans in relation to combating this situation. I wanted to follow up by asking whether the Ministry is planning to implement enhanced surveillance and precautionary measures in close-quarter living environments. I understand from the Minister that there are already some measures in place for places such as preschools, but I want to know what about places such as camps where our Servicemen reside, old folks' homes where vulnerable seniors are situated and foreign worker dormitories as well.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: I think closer surveillance will be a good idea in those settings that the Member mentioned and they will be implemented. That means a closer watch-out for symptoms and able to have in situ isolation facilities. So, in all those settings that the Member mentioned, those contingency plans have been developed since COVID-19.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
\tMs Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Thank you, Speaker, and thank you to the Minister for his comprehensive reply. I have got three supplementary questions. First, I wish to ask if information will be put out to the population here so that people can be encouraged to quickly seek medical attention immediately if they exhibit symptoms of mpox, so that it can be quickly picked up by our general practitioners (GPs) and medical professionals. On that related note, will the Minister consider a community monitoring and surveillance programme or strategy to detect any cases in the population if the situation becomes serious? Finally, have there been any cases that when undetected or were still under incubation upon entry into Singapore?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: Yes to all three. For the first question, I think in the coming weeks and months, especially when we have our first case, we do expect it to arrive at some point, we will have to put out more information for people to watch out. It is not difficult to miss because you will start to get lesions on your skin. And I think people will be quite concerned.
That relates to the second question, what is more important is to educate the general public that when you see such symptoms, please see a doctor. And then, the best community monitoring is still through our network of GPs and family doctors who have been briefed on what to look out for and what are the protocols.
And finally, the answer is yes. Because of a long incubation period, I think it is not practical to detect and be able to isolate people at the borders. Many will be incubating and will go through our checkpoints before they exhibit symptoms and are picked up.
Having said that, remember the main characteristic of this virus that we are dealing with is a R of 1.3. So, while someone is incubating, our memory is always focused on the last crisis and our memory is COVID – someone incubating; no symptoms can spread to 10, 20 people and we have many of those clusters. In this case, it does not look like a virus that exhibits those characteristics. In fact, it is an R of 1.3 which means even if you are incubating, even if you infect someone, it is through very close physical contact. And in Africa, those tends to be their family members, immediate family members that spend a lot of time with you, with physical skin-to-skin touch and physical contact, living together in the same household.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Health (a) what are the protocols in place in the event that cases of mpox infection are detected, particularly those caused by clade I type of the virus; (b) what is the Ministry’s strategy to minimise Singapore’s exposure to infected visitors or returning residents; and (c) whether the Ministry will set up a community monitoring and surveillance programme to detect mpox cases in the Singapore population.","1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Health (a) whether an update can be provided on the status of the precautionary measures against mpox; and (b) whether increased measures are needed in response to the rising number of cases around the world."],"footNoteQuestions":["12","13","14","15"],"questionNo":"12-15"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Escalating Hawker Stall Rentals on Food Affordability","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"16 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment regarding the recent record-breaking hawker stall rent exceeding $10,000 per month (a) whether this signifies a trend of escalating hawker stall rentals; and (b) what impact will such a trend have on food affordability and accessibility for Singaporeans.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): Sir, the National Environment Agency (NEA) lets out hawker stalls through monthly tender exercises, which are transparent and fair. Tenderers submit bids based on various business considerations, such as client profiles, the footfall of the location, expected patronage, and operating hours. NEA does not set any reserve rent or minimum bid price for these tenders. So, there is no pressure for people to bid higher if they feel that the characteristic of the place does not warrant such high price.
The recent tender for the cooked food stall at Marine Parade Central Hawker Centre attracted over 40 bids. The bids were quite competitive, with the top five bids above $8,000. Overall, this is a very popular centre as it is open for three meals throughout the day and has good footfall, especially given the recent opening of a new MRT station and additional developments that are near this centre.
While a few stalls at popular locations have attracted high bids, I must explain that such high tender prices are not the norm. The median successful tender price for cooked food stalls across hawker centres was about $1,800 in 2023. About one in five cooked food stalls were also awarded at tender prices at or below $500 in 2023.
Based on NEA's survey, on average, rental forms less than 10% of operating costs for stallholders, compared to raw materials and manpower which accounted for 56% and 20% of their operating costs respectively in 2022. Nonetheless, NEA has various measures in place to moderate hawker stall rents. Besides not setting a reserve rent for tenders and disallowing subletting, tendered rents are also adjusted after the first tenancy term of three years towards an assessed market rent determined through independent professional valuation. As a result of the various measures, the median monthly rent of a non-subsidised cooked food stall across our hawker centres is about $1,250 and it has remained at this level since 2015. NEA will continue to monitor hawker stall rentals closely.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Yip.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. While the focus has been on food affordability for consumers, how does the Ministry assess the impact of increasing hawker stall rentals on small business owners and aspiring new entrants into the hawker trade? And what are the kind of support that are given to these groups amidst these rental increases?
\t
Dr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I thank the Member for his question. As far as the stall rental pressures are concerned, NEA does provide hawkers with a conducive environment, including ensuring that rentals are kept reasonable and affordable at hawker centres. So, for example, NEA has put in place a series of measures to ensure that the rentals in our hawker centres are fair and not speculative. As I mentioned in my reply earlier, this includes disallowing subletting or assignment of hawker stores to prevent stallholders from engaging in rent-seeking behaviour. So, they basically just pass on the higher rent to the next guy who wants to sublet from them –and that is something that we disallow.
Also, NEA measures include adopting a transparent and fair monthly tender exercise, as I mentioned. Since March 2012, the reserve rent has therefore been removed in the tender of vacant stores to allow stall rentals to reflect fully the market conditions based on what people tendered.
While there are no minimum bid price restrictions, some may submit higher bids in order to secure the stalls at more popular locations. And let me just also mention that only about 4% of cooked food stores in hawker centres today are paying rent at above the assessed market rent. For the remaining over 6,000 stallholders, they are paying rent no higher than assessed market rent.
In fact, for some of our new hawker centres, under the Socially Conscious Enterprise Hawker Centre management model, NEA will take into consideration tender proposals holistically, including the total cost that hawkers will bear before we award the tender to the operator. And thereafter, the successful tenderer is required to maintain the same rates for charges collected from stallholders throughout the tenancy term. So, there is more cost certainty to many of the stall operators.
Since September 2019, operators of new hawker centres are also required to stagger their stall rentals for the first two years of the centre's operations at 80% and 90% respectively, before stallholders pay the full rental costs in the third year. So, this is to help stallholders manage their operating costs as they gradually establish a clientele in that hawker centre over the first two years of their operation.
For those who have, for example, bid a very high price, such as $10,000 or $8,000, in their first tenancy term, this price will hold. But following their first tenancy term, that price will be adjusted to the assessed market rent, which is about $1,800 to $1,500, thereabout. So, that will help to make the price more sustainable for this hawker in the longer term over the next tenancy terms. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment\", Official Report, 9 September 2024, Vol 95, Issue 140, Correction By Written Statement section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Coverage Adequacy of MediShield Life and Advisory Support to Minimise Buying of Unnecessary Coverage","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"17 Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Minister for Health (a) whether there will be a review on the coverage adequacy of MediShield Life to ensure that patients get appropriate treatment; and (b) whether more advisory support can be provided for policyholders, especially seniors, in the selection and scope of coverage for Integrated Shield Plan to minimise unnecessary coverage and to ensure that they have adequate health insurance coverage to pay for their medical bills when they need it.
\tThe Minister of State for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, MediShield Life is our national health insurance scheme which protects Singaporeans against major healthcare episodes. It is designed to cover the vast majority – nine in 10 – of subsidised bills.
The MediShield Life Council is currently undertaking a comprehensive review of the scheme. The key objective is to ensure that it continues to protect Singaporeans against large medical bills, amidst rising bill sizes and the evolving healthcare landscape. This means that coverage may broaden and claim limits may need to go up, to give Singaporeans greater peace of mind should they encounter a major health episode. More details will be available when the review is completed later this year.
Notwithstanding the review of MediShield Life, many Singaporeans will still choose to buy additional private health insurance. These are called Integrated Shield Plans (IPs). IPs provide greater coverage on top of MediShield Life, mainly to cover expenses for unsubsidised care in public hospitals or in private hospitals. Some will also choose to buy riders, which can further reduce cash outlay.
However, many people pay for protection that they do not use. To illustrate, about half of patients with IP and rider protection end up using subsidised public healthcare for hospitalisation or day surgery. These patients may not need IPs or riders, because MediShield Life is generally sufficient for such episodes and will be further enhanced after the major review this year. In addition, premiums for IPs and riders charged by private insurers are getting more and more expensive.
We will do more to help consumers understand their needs and choose the right health insurance to buy. Today, the Central Provident Fund (CPF) website and MoneySense, Singapore’s national financial education programme, already have educational articles on what to consider before buying an IP. The Ministry of Health (MOH) also began publishing a comparison of indicative lifetime premiums across IPs this year. This is in addition to existing resources on MOH’s website which compare the benefits, features and premiums of IPs. We can support individuals in making more informed health insurance decisions and will be working with CPF Board and the Life Insurance Association Singapore to achieve this.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Jessica Tan.
\tMs Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Speaker, I do have two supplementary questions for the Minister of State. I thank the Minister of State for covering the points and answering the questions I had.
As the Minister of State has mentioned, people will still buy IPs and it is not just for private healthcare. Many of my residents have shared with me that they buy IPs because of sometimes long wait times and capacity, and to give them that choice to be able to shorten the wait times. Because the care at our restructured hospitals and our public hospitals are actually very good, but the demand is also very high. So, the capacity issue does incentivise them to want to buy IPs in order to have that ability to shorten some of the wait time, not just to see a specialist but also for scans and tests.
So, what can be done on the other end to help people who do not actually want IPs but have MediShield Life, to be able to get more timely care in terms of tests, scans and all that, given the capacity at our public hospitals?
The second question is with regard to the advisory on IPs because as rightly pointed out, IPs are very complex. Apart from the information that is published, would there be any possibility for additional help in terms of an advisory panel that people can call up, besides the agents that they are buying from, to be able to say, \"Am I over-insuring myself?\"
\t
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam: I thank the Member for the supplementary questions raised and the hon Member makes very valid points. I acknowledge the concerns on the consumption of the public healthcare services, and the limitations and the capacity of the same.
As Members are already aware, there are a lot of efforts that we are making in trying to improve the capacity in the public healthcare institutions. Firstly, there are several ongoing projects to increase bed capacities in the various public hospitals. Secondly, we have been working on the manpower to make sure it is augmented and there is support in this front. And thirdly, we are also looking at right-siting so that we do not tax the acute healthcare sector.
All in all, there are multiple issues relating to the healthcare sector and there are a lot of issues people are concerned with and we are taking a multi-pronged approach, focusing various efforts on various fronts.
So, I think the key thing is also related to the second point, it is in creating awareness and understanding of the choices for people to make because what we are seeing right now is that they are over-insuring and I think that is where the cost issue arises.
So, it relates to the Member's second point in that we really do need to enhance consumer education. There are already platforms now and the exercise of CPF Board to provide information, comparison between different IPs. I think more can be done in the community also to create such awareness.
I will take note of the feedback and point that the Member has suggested in the advisory committee, but I think the resources currently available are quite extensive and will actually help guide people in making decisions. Perhaps community partners can also step up to assist and support in enhancing the awareness of some of these resources available to the community.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Thank you to the Minister of State for the answer. I have residents worried whether insurers sold them insurance premiums, while knowing the plans might rise and be in the long term not sustainable and that the policyholders may actually give up their premiums before making use of the benefits.
Can I ask Minister, previously I asked about making Integrated Shield Plan insurance portable, to give consumers choice and rebalance the relationship between consumers and insurers. Then Senior Minister of State, Dr Koh Poh Koon, had said MOH would study it. Can I ask when MOH might be able to give a further update on this study?
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam: I thank Member for the question. The issue of portability had previously been explained by Minister Ong in a different setting. Portability is a very complex matter and it may have unintended consequences. So, we are studying this very thoroughly. Because when each insurer is uncertain about the risk that they have to bear, premiums may actually go up and all in all this may not be helpful.
So, we are really looking into this. And to answer the Member's question, we are intending to share our findings by the end of the year.
\t
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question time. Personal Explanations, Ms He Ting Ru.
[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":"Personal Explanation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. During Question Time last month on 6 August 2024, I quoted a December 2023 Zero One report which stated that Income Insurance's reported capital adequacy ratio (CAR) of 193% was in excess of the 120% required under the Insurance Act and other applicable regulations. [Please refer to \"Regulatory Assessment of Allianz Insurance's Planned Acquisition of Income Insurance\", Official Report, 6 August 2024, Vol 95, Issue 138, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
I would like to clarify that while the report mentioned a value of 120%, I understand that the baseline CAR level currently required by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) is 100%, plus any additional amounts imposed upon MAS upon individual insurers. I further note that from 1 January 2024, Income is required to maintain higher capital requirements due to it being designated by MAS as a domestic systematically important insurer.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Personal Explanation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): I would like to correct an error in my speech at the Second Reading of the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill on 6 August 2024. [Please refer to \"Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill\", Official Report, 6 August 2024, Vol 95, Issue 138, Second Reading Bills section.]
The statistics that one in 10 households in Singapore experienced food insecurity did not come from the National Population Health Survey. It came from a report published by the Lien Centre for Social Innovation, SMU and supported by the Food Bank Singapore.
I apologise for the error, thank the Ministry of Health for alerting me to the error and thank the Speaker for this opportunity to rectify it.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Personal Explanations. Introduction of Government Bills. Second Minister for Finance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Income Tax (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Income Tax Act 1947\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Second Minister for Finance (Mr Chee Hong Tat); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Multinational Enterprise (Minimum Tax) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to implement the Global Anti-Base Erosion Model Rules (Pillar 2) relating to the top-up tax under the Income Inclusion Rule to make provision for a domestic minimum top-up tax within the meaning of those Model Rules and to make related amendments to certain other Acts\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Second Minister for Finance (Mr Chee Hong Tat); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No 2) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to make miscellaneous amendments to certain Acts\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State for Law (Mr Murali Pillai) on behalf of the Minister for Law; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Central Provident Fund Act 1953\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Elections (Integrity of Online Advertising) (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Parliamentary Elections Act 1954 and the Presidential Elections Act 1991 to prohibit the publication of online election advertising containing certain digitally generated or manipulated content about candidates, and for related purposes\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State for Digital Development and Information (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) on behalf of the Minister for Digital Development and Information; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Community Disputes Resolution (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Community Disputes Resolution Act 2015 and to make related and consequential amendments to the Community Mediation Centres Act 1997, the Housing and Development Act 1959, the Police Force Act 2004 and certain other Acts, to provide for a community disputes management framework amongst neighbours and to enhance the powers and processes of Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Culture, Community and Youth (Ms Low Yen Ling) on behalf of the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Energy Transition Measures and Other Amendments Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Second Minister for Trade and Industry (Dr Tan See Leng): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Mr Speaker, Singapore is a low-lying, small island-state. We are disproportionately impacted by climate change, which threatens our health, our livelihoods and our security. This is why Singapore has committed to achieving net-zero by 2050. Decarbonising our energy mix is central to this.
Energy is the existential resource challenge for our generation. Singapore imports almost all our energy needs and is alternative energy disadvantaged. We do not have the land for large solar farms, rivers for hydropower, nor sufficient wind speeds for wind turbines.
This is not just an energy transition for us, but it is a transformation. Undertaking this transformation while maintaining energy security and ensuring cost-competitiveness will not be an easy feat. But we must take on this responsibility for the sake of future generations of Singaporeans. That is why we are studying all possible decarbonisation pathways. Let me share more.
First, solar. We have sought to maximise solar deployment and we have now surpassed one gigawatt-peak of installed capacity. This makes Singapore one of the most solar-dense cities in the world.
Second, regional electricity imports. Last week, I announced that the Energy Market Authority (EMA) has granted Conditional Approvals to two new projects to import 1.4 gigawatts of low-carbon electricity from Indonesia to Singapore. Projects to import a total of two gigawatts of low-carbon electricity from Indonesia have also progressed to an advanced stage of development and were granted Conditional Licenses. In total, we have announced plans to import up to 5.6 gigawatts of low-carbon electricity from Cambodia, Indonesia and Vietnam. We are on track to meeting our ambition of six gigawatts of imported electricity, or around one-third of our energy supply by, 2035.
Third, low-carbon energy sources. Our focus is on building capabilities to understand and to handle new technologies should any emerge as viable decarbonisation pathways.
For example, next year, we will appoint a lead developer for our pathfinder project for ammonia power generation and bunkering. More recently, we also signed a civil nuclear cooperation agreement with the United States (US). While we have not made any decision on nuclear energy deployment, this will help us better understand the potential applicability of advanced nuclear energy technologies in Singapore's very unique context.
Beyond new energy sources, we can capture and store our carbon emissions. We are working with S Hub, an industry consortium comprising ExxonMobil and Shell, to study the viability of a cross-border carbon capture and storage (CCS) project. We have also signed a Letter of Intent with Indonesia to further discuss CCS cooperation.
Lastly, high-quality carbon credits can also support our decarbonisation journey. We are establishing bilateral frameworks for credits transfers. We have signed two legally binding Implementation Agreements with Papua New Guinea and Ghana, as well as signed more than 15 Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with partners to work towards future Implementation Agreements.
We will press on with these efforts to decarbonise. But let me add that until these new low-carbon energy sources are integrated into our system, we will continue to rely on natural gas to underpin our energy security and reliability.
Today, we are proposing amendments to the Energy Market Authority of Singapore Act 2001, or EMA Act, Electricity Act 2001 and Gas Act 2001. The Bill introduces six key proposals that will strengthen our ability to plan for and develop a decarbonised, secure and cost-competitive energy system despite the many geopolitical, commercial and technological uncertainties in our journey towards net-zero.
Let me elaborate. The first three proposals support our infrastructure planning and development for the energy transition. As we integrate different energy sources into our grid, our infrastructure will become more diverse. There will be new terminals, cables, pipelines and substations. Many of these projects will be first-of-a-kind in Singapore.
Clean energy investments may involve high upfront costs and significant commercial, technological and geopolitical risks. These factors could delay early-stage private investments. So, our first proposal establishes the Future Energy Fund (FEF) to provide catalytic funding to improve the commercial viability of strategic projects undertaken by private sector players, statutory bodies and other entities. For instance, should we need to utilise hydrogen, we may have to provide financial support to mitigate commercial risks associated with developing Singapore's first-ever hydrogen terminal. In this instance, the FEF may be used to support the terminal's development.
We have begun saving up now for these infrastructure investments to reduce the burden on future generations. This prudent approach has also been adopted in other areas such as via the Coastal and Flood Protection Fund which protects Singapore against rising sea levels.
Hence, clause 6 of the Bill amends the EMA Act to establish the FEF as a statutory fund under EMA. With an initial injection of S$5 billion in FY2024, this puts us in a stronger position to make critical investments to secure our multi-decade energy transition. The Government will make further top-ups to the FEF when our fiscal space allows.
The FEF will focus on supporting capital expenditures and will not be used to subsidise fuel costs and recurrent expenditures.
Beyond financial support, we will also need to optimise how new energy infrastructure is developed. Given Singapore's land constraints, there may be situations where electricity and gas licensees may need access to critical energy infrastructure owned or occupied by others. Examples of such infrastructure include waterfront jetties and transmission cables. Such facilities may be needed to support power generation units or for cross-border electricity imports.
Our second proposal thus empowers EMA to direct owners and occupiers of critical energy infrastructure to allow licensees to access critical energy infrastructure and to enter into agreements with licensees for the same purpose. Today, EMA possesses similar powers under section 20A of the Electricity Act but these are specific to electrical connections between transmission licensees and electricity licensees.
Licensees should, first, seek to privately negotiate access with the owners or occupiers of the required critical energy infrastructure. EMA will facilitate these discussions, where possible. However, there could be instances where both parties fail to reach a commercial agreement.
Hence, clauses 8 and 34 of the Bill amend the Electricity Act and Gas Act, to empower EMA to direct owners or occupiers of critical energy infrastructure to allow licensees access to their infrastructure. Both parties will be provided with 30 days to agree on the terms of access to the critical energy infrastructure, including reasonable compensation for the owners or occupiers.
Members of the House, issuing such a direction will be a last resort, when EMA deems that such access is necessary and is in the public interest or to ensure energy security and reliability.
Furthermore, an owner or occupier who disagrees with EMA's direction can appeal to the Minister of Trade and Industry for a review. In cases where both parties fail to agree on the terms of access to the critical energy infrastructure within 30 days, either party may also request for the Minister for Trade and Industry to establish an Appeal Panel, which will determine the reasonable terms of the agreement.
Our third proposal, introduces approval obligations if persons owning, managing or controlling key electricity and gas assets intend to repurpose such assets. Such repurposing, if not coordinated, could potentially compromise Singapore's energy supply. For instance, repurposing gas pipelines to export carbon for overseas sequestration could compromise our electricity supplies, if these pipelines are still needed to supply gas to Singapore.
Clauses 16 and 35 of the Bill amend the Electricity Act and Gas Act, to require persons owning, managing or controlling key electricity and gas assets to obtain approval from EMA before repurposing such infrastructure away from their original use. In evaluating these requests, EMA will consider such persons' commercial interests, while ensuring that Singapore's energy security and system reliability is not compromised. Any such person who disagrees with EMA's decision may appeal to the Minister for Trade and Industry for a review.
Aside from infrastructure planning and development, we will also need new market mechanisms to facilitate an orderly energy transition. Currently, the Electricity Act and Gas Act allow EMA to recover the costs of regulating electricity and gas licensees and operating Singapore's power system.
To prepare for the energy transition, EMA will need to undertake new initiatives for energy security, for market development and decarbonisation. For instance, the Standby Liquefied Natural Gas facility (SLF) bolstered our energy security during the energy crisis, by providing generation companies with the assurance of continued supplies of gas. This reduced volatility in the wholesale electricity market and it gave retailers the assurance to offer electricity contracts to more consumers. However, EMA is unable to legally recover the operating costs of such a critical facility despite the security, the benefits it has conferred to all electricity users.
Therefore, clause 6(2) of the Bill amends the EMA Act to allow EMA to recover costs associated with energy security, market development and decarbonisation-related initiatives, while ensuring the proper functioning of our energy system. EMA will only recover the costs for such initiatives and will not seek to make any profit.
Furthermore, EMA will seek to be targeted in implementing cost recovery for these initiatives, in line with the \"user pays\" principle. Members of the House, this principle is not new. Consumers currently pay for the energy-related services they use, such as the billing and meter-reading services provided by SP Services.
Households and businesses are understandably concerned about whether this proposal will increase electricity prices. I would like to assure consumers that EMA will only introduce new initiatives when necessary. EMA will, first, consult and will provide reasonable notice to affected consumers before introducing new rates. The Minister for Trade and Industry must approve any new rates that EMA may propose. We will also set up a Cost Recovery Advisory Committee that will comprise non-Government representatives, to provide the Minister with independent advice on EMA's proposals.
Lastly, let me elaborate on the two proposals to safeguard our energy security.
Members of the House, if you recall, the global energy crisis in 2021 highlighted the vulnerabilities of our current gas procurement framework. First, insufficient gas may be contracted under the current framework, particularly during a crisis when market conditions are uncertain. Second, generation companies tend to make similar contracting decisions in response to movements in the gas market. This leads to bunching of contracts, which magnifies Singapore's risk exposure, especially when markets are volatile.
We can learn from the approaches in other jurisdictions. Japan's Energy for a New Era (JERA) and the Korea Gas Corporation (KOGAS) are responsible for procuring a significant portion of Japan's and South Korea's gas supplies. These entities' diversified gas portfolios mitigated the risks associated with market volatilities and helped Japan and Korea avoid severe gas disruptions during the energy crisis.
This is why we announced, in 2023, that we would establish a central gas entity, or Gasco for short, to centralise the procurement and supply of gas to the power sector. This Gasco will create greater economies of scale, which will allow us to negotiate more favourable gas contracting terms, enter into longer-term gas contracts for more stable prices and supply and allow us to procure gas from more diverse sources.
Clause 18 of the Bill amends the Electricity Act to require prescribed power generation companies to procure gas solely from Gasco, unless otherwise allowed by EMA. Clause 25 of the Bill enables EMA to specify the minimum volume of gas that prescribed power generation companies must procure from Gasco. Clauses 26(a), (b) and (e), 27 to 29 and 37 of the Bill, amend relevant sections of the Gas Act to, among other things, provide for centralised gas procurement as a licensable activity and grant EMA regulatory authority over Gasco. In particular, clause 29 enables EMA to specify the volume of gas that Gasco must procure to ensure sufficient gas supplies for Singapore.
Notwithstanding our efforts on Gasco, we ultimately still depend on imports of natural gas to generate electricity. What if we encounter a severe and protracted disruption to our gas imports? For instance, there was a risk of gas supply disruptions during the energy crisis in 2021, before EMA took proactive steps to secure our fuel supply and stabilise our electricity market.
Today, we have a comprehensive suite of contingency measures, including system buffers, fuel reserves, voluntary power conservation, along with other pre-emptive responses, to ensure reliable and stable electricity supply. But we should still be prepared for the unexpected, when we might need to adopt power rationing to maintain power system stability in a crisis. Other jurisdictions, like the United Kingdom, have also incorporated power rationing as part of their energy resilience strategy.
Clause 17 of the Bill amends the Electricity Act to empower EMA to implement power rationing, with the approval of the Minister of Trade and Industry. Let me assure all Members here that this is a measure of last resort and it will not be activated lightly. What will happen when power rationing becomes necessary?
First, as much advance notice will be provided as possible, so that households and businesses can take actions to minimise disruptions to their activities. Second, we will give priority to services that are critical to Singapore's security, economic and social needs, such as medical and telecommunications services. We will also ensure that residents continue to have access to power for their daily needs even as we prioritise other critical facilities, such as hospitals. Third, power rationing will be lifted once these measures are no longer required for system stability.
Businesses are, understandably, concerned about the impact of power rationing. Clause 17 of the Bill amends the Electricity Act to provide businesses with protection from liability if compliance with EMA's direction on power rationing results in a breach of their contracted obligations to take or provide electricity or fuel.
I want to reiterate and reassure Members of the House: power rationing is only a last resort. It is one part of Singapore's preparation for an increasingly uncertain world and I hope we will never have to use it.
Lastly, the Bill also includes various miscellaneous amendments to the Electricity Act, the Gas Act and the EMA Act. These amendments involve aligning ownership controls imposed on designated licensees with those imposed on critical firms from other sectors. Other amendments update key provisions and definitions in the Acts to support EMA's functions. Mr Speaker, a few words in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] We need to transition to clean energy whilst maintaining energy security and ensuring cost competitiveness. We cannot predict all the curveballs that may arise as we navigate the uncertainties in our decarbonisation journey.
We introduced the Energy Transition Measures and Other Amendments Bill to ensure that our regulatory framework for energy markets and infrastructure future-red. The provisions in the Bill will ensure that our energy system remains adaptable and resilient amid uncertainties and the evolving landscape. The Government remains committed to helping households with utility costs and supporting businesses in improving energy efficiency.
(In English): To conclude, this Bill strengthens our regulatory framework for energy markets and infrastructure, so that our energy system remains resilient, adaptable and aligned with our decarbonisation plans, amidst an evolving and uncertain global energy landscape. Even with the energy transition, our mission remains unchanged. We will always seek to strike an optimal balance between energy security, sustainability and cost competitiveness. We welcome all Singaporeans and businesses to join us in this journey of advancing Singapore's energy story. Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Mr Speaker, having secured energy supply is existential to our economic development and, for that matter, our well-being and our survival. The task is made more arduous for a small island state with no natural resources and alternatives deprived. Even to tap solar power has its limits because of our land space and the frequent cloud cover.
Climate change, geopolitics, economic nationalism, among others, have added further challenges to this formidable task of achieving energy security and resilience. For Singapore, in a setting of a volatile world, our constant energy challenge is to, firstly, ensure reliable energy supply in the medium to longer term; secondly, meet Singapore's 2050 net zero ambition; and thirdly, achieving this at an affordable price.
This Bill looks to beef up the current regulatory regime and addresses the all-important issue of system resilience and our ability to respond to shocks and disruptions in the supply of energy and in the energy prices.
Some may have forgotten that we actually faced an energy crisis in 2021-2022, due to the rapid economic rebound as the world emerged from the pandemic. Of course, the crisis escalated dramatically in February 2022 when the Russian-Ukraine war broke out. Just to illustrate the volatility, the Asian spot gas price moved from a low of about US$2 per metric million British thermal unit (MMBtu) in June 2020, to a high of more than US$54 per MMBtu in around August 2022. It remains at an elevated level of around US$14 per MMBtu, which is still about seven times from the low in June 2020.
During that crisis in November 2021, the House passed a Bill to empower EMA to acquire, build, own and operate power infrastructure to safeguard our energy security and reliability. The Bill also additionally empowers EMA to impose energy and carbon efficiency on operators licensed under the Electricity Act. Obviously, those provisions in that Bill, then, were still insufficient. And hence, today's Bill on the Energy Transition Measures and Other Amendments.
Sir, one of the key provisions in the Energy Transition Bill is to institute the regulatory regime for centralised gas procurement, with the establishment of Gasco. I can see the rationale. If we leave it to individual generation companies (gencos) to purchase the gas purely based on their commercial consideration, we may not meet the overall gas needs of the country as well as the needed security, whether it is the security of supply or price stability.
To negotiate for more favourable contracting terms in the energy markets, where we are a price-taker, having considerable order size helps. To ensure energy resilience, we should also avoid a situation where the individual procurements by gencos primarily come from the same source and, hence, subject us to concentration risk.
Having a centralised aggregator that procure with the national interest in mind, can better achieve supply source diversification. With scale, it will also come with better risk warehousing capabilities, which would, in turn, help manage longer-term price and supply stability.
To better manage risk, the Gasco may need to enter into longer-tenure gas supply contracts and employ forward-hedging strategies to mitigate price volatility. We will have market situations where we lock in longer-term gas contracts, which will cost more than spot price or the short-tenure contracts. The point here is that, there will be cost implications for a more secure and resilient energy supply.
With the new framework and the new approach where we need to safeguard securities, the determination of the unit price of gas will become more complex and less transparent.
This Bill allows EMA to recover costs of energy security, infrastructure development and decarbonisation-related efforts. Here, I want to ask the Minister, how would EMA continue to ensure price transparency and how would the regulator determine the transfer price between the Gasco and the gencos?
When the Government caveats statements, such as on cost recovery, the concern, naturally, is that energy prices will be priced up and, hence, passed on to businesses and to the mass consumers. Can I also seek clarity or an indication from the Minister, how significant will the cost recovery be relative to its current baseline and what are the mitigating measures? Can the FEF, which helps to initially fund new infrastructure investments, be able to help mitigate and reduce cost recovery?
Sir, to strengthen EMA's ability to regulate supply of power, the Bill also allows EMA to direct owners of critical infrastructures to give access to licensees on a reasonable term basis. Owners of electricity and gas infrastructure assets will also be required to seek EMA's approval if they plan to repurpose their assets. This is to ensure that energy security and system reliability will not be compromised. I fully agree with that.
Sir, this Bill also equips EMA with the powers to direct licensees to ration power during an emergency. Power rationing is new in Singapore. I do not remember having one before. It will require wider engagement and education with the stakeholders and public on how this will be done and what are the likely prioritisation plans.
I believe businesses and the public can understand the need for power rationing in an exigency situation. They just need to know the format that it will be done so that they can be better prepared. Businesses also need to have some legal cover from potential liabilities as the power rationing may impact their ability to fulfil contractual obligations. So, I hope the Minister can also share more details on this.
Finally, on the $5 billion FEF to support investment to transit to net zero future. Energy infrastructure investments are massive capital expenditure items and come with considerable risks, especially when we invest in new sources of energy with nascent technologies. The investment horizons are usually much longer and the projects can cut across jurisdictions and, hence, also come with significant geopolitical risks.
On their own, private sectors will often not be able to undertake these investments and to underwrite its entire project risk. The FEF will come in useful and can help catalyse investments in innovative energy technologies and also put us in a better position to get the projects off the ground.
To achieve longer-term energy security and resilience requires massive investments in energy infrastructure and, therefore, do come at a cost. The initial $5 billion allocation of funding will give us the financial space to make some early decisive moves and be prepared for a more challenging, volatile and uncertain energy future landscape ahead.
Notwithstanding my support, can I ask the Minister to spell out the mandate, the terms and the investment criteria of this fund as well as its approval process and its governance. My final question to the Minister would be does the investment mandate of the FEF also cover investments in nuclear energy, should it become feasible? So, notwithstanding that, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, I will focus my speech today on the FEF. The fund is a key piece of our strategy in securing our energy future and meeting our 2050 Net Zero Objective and we support its creation. The fund is meant to catalyse the development of clean energy infrastructure in the region, through the development of infrastructure necessary for low-carbon projects that typically face high upfront capital expenditures and commercial or geopolitical risks.
My speech today would cover three areas: the mechanics of the fund, accountability and the energy environment.
Implementation refers to details about fund management, investment criteria and how the fund's mandate links to our broader energy and climate goals. Accountability refers to clarity on stakeholders who are responsible for the fund's performance and how to benchmark the effectiveness of the fund. Lastly, our energy environment refers to wider trends that affect the decarbonisation of our energy mix.
The fund will be established at the end of this year, with an initial injection of $5 billion. After taking into account due diligence time frames, the first investments through the fund should be made next year. This gives a 10-year time frame to achieve our 2035 goal for renewable energy to contribute 30% of our energy mix. Thirty percent is a significant ramp-up and will be predominantly driven by our target to add six gigawatts of low carbon imports, given that the current proportion stands at approximately 1.3%. Therefore, we would need an exponential increase in renewables between just 2030 and 2035 alone.
I have some clarifications relating to the implementation of the fund. As with most capital-intensive infrastructure projects, particularly for energy projects, commissioning times before such projects even begin yielding outcomes play a critical role. In a 2024 study on renewable energy project, globally-funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under the European Research Council, commissioning times across renewable technologies and regions have increased on average between 2015 and 2022.
The same paper called for more policy interventions to address this increase in times, ranging from insulating projects from fiscal shocks to standardising legal processes surrounding projects. Given also, that target projects supported by the fund can include nascent technologies, these being one of the factors that increases commissioning time, how does the Government plan to use the fund to address potentially lengthy commissioning times and how does it see the efficacy of using the fund to meet our 2035 targets?
Also on the mechanics of the fund, I note that the proposed new section 19A(1)(a) uses the wording \"any low-carbon energy project or energy supply security project\". Does this mean that the fund could, hypothetically, support a new built fossil fuel project in the name of energy security? Would any project qualify, as long as it meets the criteria of being necessitated by any low-carbon energy project as described in 19A(6)?
I note that power back-up is explicitly given as an example in 19A(6)(b), but could this also mean support for fossil fuel power stations providing baseload power? What are the scenarios where the fund would support fossil fuel power for non-back-up use? Would the Minister confirm that the fund will not be used to rely on fossil fuels as a crutch, especially if it means that we are stuck with using this crutch in the long term?
A query I have is, what happens if projects are terminated early? In the case of the 100-megawatt Lao DPR-Thailand-Malaysia-Singapore Power Integration Project (LTMS-PIP), it was reported that the deal is currently on pause over government-level disagreements. What happens if assets supported by the fund are stranded due to project failures or pauses?
Next, on accountability. As we work towards these national energy goals, accountability allows us to equip accountable stakeholders with commensurate mandates and authority to see through the successful implementation of these targets. We fall short of targets when lines of accountability are unclear or if our strategic approach is flawed.
We need to learn from our experiences in the arena of food insecurity, specifically, the difficulties faced in achieving our \"30 by 30\" goal, in working to achieve our goal for energy security in the coming decade and beyond.
We can also learn from the failures of investing in unproven technologies, as was the case in the US. The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act offered US$3.4 billion for the research and development of carbon capture and sequestration projects. A case study of 11 demonstration projects selected by the US Department of Energy, resulted in only two continuing to remain operational. A further five commercial projects saw only one reaching operational implementation, which eventually closed within four years.
In this example, the failure of capital deployed can be attributed to the lack of financial viability of a range of carbon capture technologies, a risk that cannot be overlooked when dealing with nascent technologies.
In view of this, I have some clarifications for the Minister. Funds typically appoint a designated fund manager or have a general partner responsible for evaluating projects, investment decisions and the overall management of fund operations. Which agency will be the fund manager for the FEF? On a broader level, which Ministry or agency holds ultimate accountability for our target energy mix and transition to 30% renewable sources by 2035?
On an explicit strategic approach and fund objectives, what does success for the fund look like? How will its efficacy be measured? Given that our country’s energy security and transition are fundamentally critical to our survival, how will this translate into the fund balancing between the need for financial returns versus the long-term strategic costs necessary for such a transition? Can the Minister clarify what are our key performance indicators (KPIs) for the fund?
Aside from supporting the 2035 target for six gigawatts target for low-carbon imports which will provide 30% of Singapore’s electricity supply, will the impact on the grid emission factor, which calculates the actual climate impact of the changes, be a KPI?
Moving on to more general points about our energy environment and maximising the climate impact of the fund. As we ramp up towards transitioning our energy mix, our energy demand has been growing consistently. Electricity consumption increased by 2.6% between 2021 and 2022, part of a long-term trend of consumption, having increased by nearly 25% over a 10-year period between 2012 and 2022. Our industrial sector currently contributes 55% of total energy demand. With industrial usage set for significant growth, especially from energy-intensive use cases, such as data centres, necessitated by the growth of artificial intelligence (AI) applications, it is likely that total energy demand will grow more.
While we may be able to achieve our target of 30% renewables, the wider challenge remains. We are already seeing power-hungry AI applications drive outsized demand for energy just to keep data centres running. Given our AI ambitions, we have been looking for “clean” sources in the region to meet demand, including solar farms in Australia and wind or hydropower sources from our ASEAN neighbours – Malaysia, Vietnam, Laos, for instance.
However, what happens when our ASEAN neighbours start requiring a significant amount of renewables to power their own transition and development? What, too, do we do if geopolitical conflict results in energy supply lines being cut, such as was the case with the Nord Stream natural gas pipelines?
Our regulations and policies are also important in boosting Singapore’s energy security which, in turn, will affect our geopolitical risk tolerance with electricity imports. For instance, EMA introduced rules requiring all new and repowered natural gas power plants to be at least 30% hydrogen-compatible from this year and the few power plants coming up in the next few years are hydrogen-compatible. But with an economic lifespan of around 25 years, is there a timeline for these power plants to run on green zero-emission hydrogen? If these fossil fuel plants are unable to meet net-zero power, will they be retired early to make way for low-carbon imports?
And in terms of domestic consumption, unlike electricity generated overseas, we have some control over our electricity consumption. Ultimately, the drive for successfully transitioning our energy sources and decarbonisation will require us to not just pay attention to supply, but also demand. We cannot neglect to continue to raise awareness of energy conservation and wider sustainability concerns, and both industry and households have to continue to work together, keeping our energy use in check. For this, we would like to repeat our calls made since 2016 for Singapore to work towards solar panels being mandatory on commercial and residential buildings except in special cases. This would not only cut emissions and electricity costs but will also provide some options in our energy security.
Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, the energy crunch in 2021-2022 still looms in many of our minds today. A confluence of factors, including the war in Ukraine, supply chain disruptions and gas production shortages, caused electricity prices to soar. And when electricity prices go up, business costs went up and our domestic food prices also went up.
This Bill focuses on one of our four supply “switches” – how we make our natural gas generators more efficient. As at end-2022, around 95% of Singapore’s electricity is generated using natural gas. I have some clarifications and comments on the Bill.
Seeing the Ministry of Trade and Industry's (MTI’s) stated objectives for the Bill, I cannot help but think of the usual saying about the “impossible trinity”: fast, cheap and good. You can usually only have two out of the three.
So, when we are seeking to decarbonise in line with our international commitments and our own green plans and to diversify so as to ensure our energy security, it would seem quite impossible to decrease prices and keep our costs competitive. Some increase in price seems to be inevitable. With the changes in this Bill, can the Minister share his thoughts whether Singaporeans and Singapore businesses should expect electricity prices to trend upwards in the near and medium term?
Mr Speaker, one of the key thrusts under this Bill is the creation of a single Central Gas Entity (CGE) to centralise gas procurement for the power sector. Power generation companies (gencos) would then have to buy natural gas from the CGE. This reminds me of the establishment of the predecessor of NTUC FairPrice amidst the oil crises of the 1970s. The consumer co-operative would buy essentials in bulk and pass the savings on to the consumers, combating profiteering at the same time. Is there already an idea of who this CGE is going to be and how it is going to be run and managed? Will it be part of an existing Government-linked company?
I suspect it cannot be a purely private commercial enterprise since it is going to be put in a monopolistic market position vis-à-vis the gencos. To achieve our aim of ensuring cost competitiveness, how will the Government be able to influence the CGE to pursue non-profit maximisation objectives?
In fact, this monopolistic structure has been raised as an issue during MTI and EMA’s public consultation earlier this year. Respondents flagged the potential loss of flexibility to procure gas from other market participants. This not only includes different upstream gas suppliers, but also horizontal gas companies which find that they have more gas than they need. Would this not deprive gencos of the ability to capitalise on opportunistic spot liquefied natural gas (LNG) contracts to bring down their overall cost of generating electricity, which they can pass on to electricity consumers? On a free market theory, would it not be more efficient if gencos were left to search for the most competitive gas supplier and arrangement?
I note from the Ministry’s consultation responses that legacy gas contracts will not be affected by the new regulatory regime. We know that our gencos generally rely on long-term gas contracts in order to keep electricity prices relatively stable. Do we have any idea what is the rundown period for these existing contracts, before they need to start to purchase from, or through, the CGE?
Next, is there also a contradiction when we seek to use the CGE to aggregate natural gas demands and achieve economies of scale in procurement and our other aim to enhance our energy security by procuring from multiple, diversified sources? How diversified are our gas supplies currently? How many different countries do our gencos import our gas from? What is the maximum percentage of our total gas imports that come from a single country?
Mr Speaker, this Bill will also create the FEF that was announced during Budget 2024. As announced by Prime Minister Lawrence Wong then, the FEF will have an initial injection of $5 billion and invest in critical infrastructure and enhance our security in clean energy.
Would the FEF subsume existing initiatives for the uptake of clean and efficient energy solutions? For example, would the $50 million Low-Carbon Energy Research Funding initiative, as announced by Minister Tan See Leng in this House in January 2021, now be parked under the FEF? Or the National Environment Agency’s Energy Efficiency Grant, which offers grants for manufacturing companies to adopt energy-efficient technologies, would that now be dealt under the FEF instead?
This Bill is also going to give EMA the power to recover the costs of providing new initiatives to strengthen energy security, develop a competitive market, and/or support the decarbonisation of the power sector. The official press release for the introduction of this Bill stated that the proposed amendments to the Electricity Act and the Gas Act will allow EMA to recover costs from entities and persons who benefit from these initiatives. It is quite unclear how these cost recovery powers are intended to be used. Can the Minister give examples of when and how these cost recovery powers might be used?
When it comes to energy assets and infrastructure, the first change is to require owners of key electricity and gas assets to obtain the EMA’s prior approval before repurposing such assets. May I ask how would such key assets be identified? Will it be a closed list? More fundamentally, has there be any particular incident in the past few years which has sparked this concern around repurposing?
The other material change is the EMA’s power to direct owners of critical energy infrastructure to enter an agreement with licensees for access to the critical energy infrastructure. This power may seem overreaching as it intrudes upon the infrastructure owner’s freedom to contract or not to contract with a particular party.
Before this, EMA was previously given power to direct gencos to generate electricity using gas from the SLF. May I ask if such a power was ever exercised by EMA? To date, how many times has EMA exercised the power to direct electricity market participants to take any action that would otherwise be in their own commercial decision-making domain?
If the licensee and the infrastructure owner cannot agree on the terms upon which the licensee would have access, either party may request the Minister for Trade and Industry to establish an Appeal Panel to determine the reasonable terms for the agreement. But 10 reasonable persons can come up with 10 different reasonable proposals. So, what are the factors that the Appeal Panel will consider and refer to in determining the “reasonable terms” of the forced agreement? Would subsidiary legislation be passed for this purpose?
In determining what terms would be “reasonable”, would the Appeal Panel be able to access the terms of other agreements entered into by the owner of the critical infrastructure giving access to other licensees? The problem is that most of these agreements and their terms would probably be commercially sensitive and subject to express confidentiality obligations.
Mr Speaker, I started by pointing out that this Bill focuses on one of our four supply “switches”. But it is difficult to think of our resilient and sustainable energy strategy without considering the other three supply “switches” as well.
Assuming we achieve our solar deployment target of at least two gigawatt-peak (GWp) by 2030, what percentage of our electricity needs will solar energy be able to supply? Is it realistic to set even more ambitious targets for our solar deployment?
Against our expectation of importing around 30% of our electricity from foreign countries by 2035, how many percent have we attained as of today? In addition, how many are already in the pipeline and in the midst of works? How much has already been spent on the planning and infrastructure, including for plans that have been abandoned due to subsequent developments?
Finally, in relation to low-carbon alternatives, is there any update on how the execution of our National Hydrogen Strategy is coming along? In order to hit our emissions targets by 2030 and 2050, how do we envisage the mix of electricity sources to change over time? On that note, Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the clarifications sought, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Mark Lee.
Mr Mark Lee (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, energy security is, without a doubt, a vital resource for Singapore, a country with limited natural energy resources. Our dependence on imports for almost all our energy makes us highly vulnerable to external shocks. In the face of these challenges, the measures proposed in this Bill are both timely and essential.
In recent years, we have witnessed unprecedented volatility in energy markets. In 2021, wholesale power prices averaged $115 per megawatt-hour from January to September. However, by October, these prices soared to $635 per megawatt-hour, a fivefold increase. Since then, such spikes have become more frequent, with surges as high as 3,000% in 2023, despite a sharp decline in LNG prices. This volatility underscores how vulnerable we are to global energy fluctuations, and it is essential that we take steps to mitigate these risks.
The spikes in electricity prices have had a significant impact on both households and businesses. In a tight labour market where wages are rising and supply chain pressures persist, the added uncertainty of fluctuating energy costs has become a major concern for businesses. According to Singapore Business Federation's Business Survey 2023/2024, rising business costs, particularly in the areas of wages, pass through from suppliers, and electricity costs, are among the top challenges that businesses face today. Therefore, this Bill offers much relief by addressing some of the systemic issues contributing to these rising costs.
Centralising gas procurement through the establishment of the CGE, as proposed, will enhance efficiency and provide stability in gas supply which, in turn, will help stabilise prices. Furthermore, the amendments that empower EMA to facilitate access to critical infrastructure, approve the repurposing of critical assets, and implement power rationing during emergencies are crucial to maintaining the reliability of our system.
This framework is welcomed by businesses as it ensures operational continuity and energy supply reliability, both of which are critical to our long-term success.
However, I would like to seek clarification regarding the establishment of the CGE. As it stands, we have licensed gas aggregators, including SembCorp, ExxonMobil, Shell, Pavilion and Keppel, which manage gas procurement and supply. These entities are already tasked with demand aggregation, diversifying energy sources and ensuring sufficient gas supply for our power needs.
Could the Minister clarify how the CGE will succeed in achieving these goals where the current aggregators may have faced challenges? What specific issues or gaps have been identified with the existing framework and how will the CGE address these challenges more effectively to ensure energy stability and security for Singapore?
Additionally, for Singapore to achieve its net-zero emissions target by 2050, we must prioritise decarbonisation. The creation of the FEF, with an initial investment of $5 billion, is a vital step in this direction. The FEF will support low-carbon energy technologies, which are necessary for our energy transition which the private sector may find it difficult to manage on its own.
It may consider supporting large-scale cross-border solar projects, such as the recently announced one gigawatt AC solar energy import from Indonesia, where grid charges and backup fees are already imposed by EMA to maintain grid stability. These projects require significant Battery Energy Storage Systems to store daytime energy for nighttime transmission, and collaboration with host countries is crucial for their success. If FEF supports these initiatives, its investments in subsea cables and cross-border infrastructure will be instrumental in realising their potential and accelerating Singapore's decarbonisation efforts.
While businesses understand the importance of enhancing energy security and supporting decarbonisation, I must emphasise that cost recovery measures outlined in the Bill should not exacerbate the cost pressures businesses are already facing. As we work towards energy resilience, it is crucial that the cost recovery mechanisms are implemented fairly, transparently and in a sustainable manner. Businesses are already navigating multiple financial pressures. Any additional cost burdens must be carefully considered to avoid undermining their competitiveness. In light of this, I would like to propose four key recommendations.
First, transparency is paramount in determining how costs are calculated and allocated to licensees and consumers. I am glad to hear from the Minister that EMA will form a cost recovery committee and recommend that this panel will have representation from businesses and industry players to assess how costs are allocated. This will ensure that the costs are distributed fairly, preventing any undue burden on businesses and consumers.
Second, I recommend a phased approach to cost recovery. Businesses need sufficient runway to adjust to any changes in cost structures, especially in today's economic climate. A gradual implementation of cost recovery measures will prevent sudden financial shocks. Additionally, to further support businesses and maintain their competitiveness, a cap on the maximum allowable cost recovery in any given year could be introduced to mitigate financial strain.
Third, while renewable energy is vital for decarbonisation, we must recognise the costs associated with its intermittency. The \"user pays\" principle has been a core part of Singapore's solar energy project planning for over a decade. Studies have shown that for every two GWp of solar energy, around 300-megawatt hour (MWhr) of Battery Energy Storage Systems is needed to mitigate these short-term disruptions.
Currently, Singapore has 1.5 GWp of solar capacity and a centralised 285-MWhr Battery Energy Storage System in Jurong Island. As we expand beyond two GWp, the intermittency costs will grow and renewable energy producers should share in the responsibility for maintaining grid stability. This principle ensures that we fairly distribute the costs across all stakeholders in the energy ecosystem.
Fourth, for a more holistic approach to energy security, I urge the Government to include renewable energy imports as part of our energy supply strategy. A centralised entity similar to the CGE could be established to manage the procurement of renewable energy. This would complement our broader energy diversification efforts and strengthen our overall energy security while also accelerating the transition to a cleaner energy future.
I have several further clarifications to seek from the Minister.
First, the facilitation of access to critical infrastructure involves directing owners of critical energy assets to allow licensees access, with reasonable compensation for the owner. I note that EMA has provided a list of critical energy infrastructure, but I would like to ask whether Battery Energy Storage Systems will be included. These systems are increasingly important for energy storage and ensuring efficiency in power usage.
Second, while facilitating access to critical infrastructure is important, we must ensure that it is done carefully. I would, therefore, like to seek clarifications on the conditions under which licensees may gain access to this infrastructure. Mandating that a business provide access to its competitors could risk eroding its value and competitiveness. It is essential that any such regulations balance the need for collaboration with the protection of business interests. Clear guidelines and criteria are essential to prevent disputes and ensure that compensation is fair. Moreover, in the event of a disagreement between parties, will there be a formal resolution process to ensure that the disputes are handled reasonably, efficiently and fairly?
Third, the Bill gives EMA the power to implement power rationing during emergencies, which is a necessary safeguard. However, it is critical that EMA provide clear definitions of what constitutes an emergency. Businesses need to understand to what extent their liabilities are limited due to power rationing and the protocols that will be in place to ensure that essential services remain operational and disruptions are minimised.
I also recommend that a robust communication mechanism be established so that affected businesses are promptly informed about the initiation, duration and cessation of power rationing measures.
As we move forward, it is crucial that Singapore not only meets its Green Plan 2030 targets but also positions itself as a global leader in sustainability. Embracing new energy technologies, such as solar, wind and hydrogen, will not only reduce our carbon footprint but also enhance our energy security and bolster our economy's resilience.
To expedite progress in these areas, we must ensure that our regulations are flexible enough to keep pace with the evolving energy landscape. For example, we are already more than halfway to achieving our solar power deployment target of 2,000 megawatt-peak by 2030, but we must minimise regulatory bottlenecks to facilitate businesses in rolling out their solar initiatives more swiftly. Aligning safety regulations with those of leading solar economies could be a key step in the right direction.
Furthermore, for businesses that have yet to start their green transition, the Government could consider introducing building-level incentives to encourage the adoption of sustainability infrastructure. This could involve clustering tenants in properties specifically designed to support green initiatives, which could lower barriers to adoption and spur greater investment in sustainable technologies.
Finally, I would also like to highlight the ongoing collaboration between MTI and the Singapore Business Federation through the Alliance for Action (AfA) on Business Competitiveness. This initiative is focused on helping businesses adapt to sustainability and decarbonisation efforts. AfA will soon release our recommendations aimed at enhancing business competitiveness while maintaining momentum towards decarbonisation. This work aligns closely with the objectives of this Bill, ensuring that businesses remain competitive and resilient as we advance towards our energy and sustainability goals.
In conclusion, the amendments in this Bill are critical to supporting decarbonisation, enhancing energy security and ensuring cost competitiveness in the power sector. However, execution is key. Businesses are looking forward to the establishment of the CGE and it is essential that it is implemented in a timely manner. Stabilising electricity costs will be crucial to maintaining Singapore's long-term competitiveness in a rapidly evolving global landscape.
Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding my questions and recommendations, I express my support for this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Jessica Tan.
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the proposed amendments in the Energy Transition Measures and Other Amendments Bill. The proposed amendments seek to enhance Singapore's regulatory regime for energy markets and related infrastructure.
Singapore imports most of our fuel, which makes us vulnerable to global supply and demand shifts and price fluctuations. While Singapore has worked hard to strengthen our energy resilience, the supply disruptions and volatility experienced during the 2021/2022 global energy crisis has highlighted the need for further safeguards to ensure Singapore's energy security.
With increasing digitalisation and economic growth, our energy needs will only further increase. The challenges brought about by climate change have driven our ambition to achieve net-zero by 2050. To do this, we need to transition, or as the Minister has said, to transform, to renewable energy.
While I am supportive of the proposed amendments in the Bill, I do wish to seek clarifications on three of the proposed amendments: first, the FEF; second, centralised gas procurement; and third, cost recovery.
Let me now touch on the FEF. The Bill proposes the establishment of the FEF under EMA with an initial amount of $5 billion to support Singapore's adoption of low-carbon energy sources. EMA and MTI have highlighted that such energy sources will likely involve nascent technologies, large-scale projects that require higher capital expenditures and exposure to significant commercial and geopolitical risks.
I support the setting up of the FEF as it is crucial that Singapore invests in, builds know-how and taps on new sources of low-carbon energy for the transition of our power sector and for our energy security.
While the set-up of the FEF is important, I would like to understand how the FEF will encourage and attract the right investments and what are the criteria on which projects will be selected for funding. While the Minister did say that there will be no limit on what we study and all the possible low-carbon energy projects and sources, and while the technology is also very nascent, I would ask if we have identified promising technologies that are aligned with our larger energy masterplan, given the fact that our runway is really quite short.
This transition will require investments, infrastructure upgrades and enhancements. This may lead to higher energy and electricity prices. This is a point I will discuss in my later clarification on cost recovery.
Let me touch on centralised gas procurement. About 95% of Singapore's electricity is generated by natural gas. The Bill proposes setting up the CGE, or referred to as \"Gasco\", to centralise gas procurement. The amendment will require power generation companies to procure gas solely from the Gasco and to empower EMA to regulate the Gasco.
As outlined by the Minister in his speech, with demand aggregation, the intent is to derive cost competitive benefits for our gas supply, diversify our energy sources and ensure sufficient supply of gas to meet our power needs.
The centralisation of gas procurement will reduce the flexibility of the power generation companies. Therefore, the success of the Gasco in achieving its mandate is critical for Singapore's energy security and price competitiveness. On that point, I would like to seek an understanding of how EMA will measure the Gasco's effectiveness in securing sufficient gas supply for our power needs and in providing competitive pricing to the power generation companies.
Let me touch on the point of cost recovery. The Bill proposes amendments to allow EMA to recover costs for introduction of initiatives and services that strengthen energy security, develop a competitive market or decarbonise the power sector. The cost recovery will be from entities and persons who benefit from the initiatives or services. This will increase cost for the entities and persons and, possibly, lead to higher energy and electricity prices.
Can the Minister share more information on what would trigger the decision for the need for such cost recovery, the framework for such cost recovery and the lead time that will be provided to both organisations and households that cost will be recovered from?
Mr Speaker, strengthening Singapore's energy security, ensuring our energy markets are cost-competitive and efficient and transitioning to decarbonise our power sector for energy sustainability, are existential priorities for a small country like Singapore. It requires strong commitment and action from all stakeholders and not just the Government. The efforts are not straightforward and will take time to achieve. The proposed amendments in the Bill are timely. But how we move forward and execute is equally important.
Mr Speaker: Mr Neil Parekh.
Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on the Energy Transition Measures and Other Amendments Bill.
As the world grapples with the challenges of climate change and the finite nature of fossil fuels, economies around the globe are increasingly transitioning towards more sustainable sources of energy. This shift is driven by a need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, enhance energy security and future-proof economies against the volatility of traditional energy markets.
For us in Singapore, energy transition is not just an environmental imperative but an economic necessity, too. As a small, resource-constrained country with limited availability of renewable energy resources within, Singapore is highly dependent on imported energy, notably natural gas. The volatility of the global energy markets, as evidenced by the global energy crisis of 2021-2022, poses significant risks to the country's energy security and economic stability.
By transitioning towards more sustainable energy sources, such as solar power, low-carbon hydrogen and regional renewable energy imports, Singapore can reduce its reliance on fossil fuels, enhance its energy resilience and contribute to global efforts to combat climate change. Furthermore, embracing this transition offers Singapore the opportunity to position itself as a leader in clean energy innovation in Southeast Asia, potentially driving economic growth through new industries and technologies.
The provisions in this Bill bring about numerous opportunities for Singapore businesses and the Singapore economy as a whole. Allow me to highlight some of them.
Firstly, this Bill will promote low-carbon energy through measures, such as tapping of low-carbon hydrogen as a source of fuel. This positions Singapore as a leader in green energy and contributes to global climate goals. In turn, this will attract investment in renewable energy projects and related technologies into our economy. Additionally, focusing on low-carbon energy projects opens opportunities for businesses to venture into renewable energy, energy storage and related technologies and allows for companies that innovate in these areas to tap into new markets and revenue streams.
Secondly, this Bill aims to enhance energy security. Regions, like the European Union and the Americas, faced severe impacts from oil, gas and electricity shortages during the global energy crisis of 2021-2022. Thanks to the quick actions taken by MTI and EMA, Singapore avoided electricity supply disruptions during that period by leveraging on existing system buffers. Building on this experience, the Bill seeks to further enhance energy reliability, which is essential for economic stability and growth.
The FEF supports infrastructure investments for Singapore's carbon-neutral transition, backing projects with high costs and risks. It secures low-carbon energy supplies, advancing decarbonisation goals and ensures Singapore remains an attractive investment destination.
Sir, I now turn to some clarifications for the Minister.
One, one area of concern are the associated regulatory changes and the cost of implementation of these regulatory changes, particularly for businesses that rely heavily on energy as an input. SMEs, especially, may face significant costs during the transition, including investing in new technology, complying with the regulations and dealing with potential disruptions. Also, industries dependent on traditional energy sources will encounter higher expenses and operational challenges as they shift to low-carbon alternatives.
These costs could include investments in new technology, compliance with new regulations and potential disruptions during the transition. Perhaps the Minister can address if there will be any Government assistance or incentives to help these businesses adapt? Could the Minister please provide us with a comprehensive update on the support measures available for SMEs?
Second, what are the specific types of projects or initiatives that the FEF can invest in and how will the allocation of funds be prioritised among different projects?
Three, under what specific circumstances would EMA initiate electricity rationing? In case of rationing, how will affected businesses and consumers be notified and what measures are in place to minimise disruptions?
Fourth, are there any plans to conduct electricity rationing drills to familiarise industries with what to do when it happens, just like the regular fire drills that our buildings conduct?
Lastly, I seek the Minister's views on the legislation's impact on existing contracts. How will the Bill affect existing contracts between energy suppliers and consumers, especially if new regulations or rationing measures are introduced?
Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, this Bill has my complete support.
Mr Speaker: Ms Carrie Tan.
Ms Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, I would like to express my support for these measures to ensure Singapore's energy security into the future. I believe the Bill's proposals are absolutely necessary and are heartened that we are doing this now to improve Singapore's energy regulatory framework to safeguard our energy security.
However, I have some clarifications and a few suggestions. How do we ensure the logic, which underpins our energy strategy, remains sound? There is always a risk that well-intended improvements to an existing framework will be built on existing and, sometimes, entrenched mindsets, which may be less relevant for a changed context. The energy sector and the context that it exists in, is evolving rapidly with a very fast-changing technology landscape. For a huge endeavour like energy transition that invariably takes time, we need to constantly check if our mindsets and accompanying approaches remain appropriate each step of the way.
I would, therefore, like to clarify: how does the Government ensure that our energy security policies remain relevant with the ever-shifting and emerging contexts and technologies and that, we are not, as the saying goes, \"training to fight the last war\"?
For example, as its name suggests, the establishment of the FEF could be absolutely necessary to experiment with new approaches. It supports the development and trialling of emerging technology to make energy production and transmission more efficient. We also need evidence from these experiments to improve our strategy.
My question is: how do we also provide safeguards to prevent decision-makers from merely, so-called, \"following the money\"? How do we avoid getting caught up in areas where capital injections and investments are flowing and assume that it works simply because it is \"high growth\"? When, ultimately, it may be scientifically unsound or inappropriate?
One only needs to look at our experience with high-tech farming to see the possibility of this pitfall. Not that many years ago, many private as well as state investors began putting their money in high-tech farming in a bid to solve food security issues amidst global warming. But recent developments have shown that, a high growth area in terms of capital and investments do not necessarily provide the desired results.
We should also bear this in mind, in considering our energy investments strategy. Solar energy, for example, has been held up as a renewable, low-carbon and, therefore, a better source of electricity. At face value, this is broadly true. However, if we consider its full cost of generation, transmission and storage, solar energy wins in some areas, but fails in many others. Solar energy still faces the same transmission inefficiencies as other sources. Large solar panels and high-capacity storage batteries required to generate and store at a commercially-viable scale, require huge quantities of rare resources that require us to further excavate and exploit the Earth. The overall infrastructure required is also energy-intensive and we cannot exclude these costs from our calculations.
The fact is, until a technological breakthrough dawns upon humanity to unlock viable alternative sources of affordable energy, it will remain expensive, unless global demand somehow does a cliff drop drastically. Looking at the emergence of AI and the number of data centres required and the amount of electricity and energy consumed by these data centres, I do not see this cliff drop happening anytime soon.
Given Singapore’s land constraints that make existing renewable energy sources unimplementable for us, we will continue to depend on deals with other countries for our electricity supply. This makes us vulnerable to conditions that affect their willingness to supply to us. We can infer that if they can get a better deal out of us, they will! So, electricity prices for Singapore will only go up and that is the harsh reality.
Hence, despite our Government’s best efforts to forge energy deals and partnerships with diverse countries and this is a really important effort, we will still be hard pressed to reach energy sufficiency without making drastic changes to our lifestyle and the way we organise our economic activity.
Achieving energy security, therefore, necessitates that we do not look only at “supply side” solutions, but also at “demand side” solutions. To ensure Singaporeans are resilient in a worst case scenario, we must shift from focusing on energy efficiency and expecting cheaper energy to simply getting used to using less and, potentially, having less.
Although this Bill focuses on ensuring energy security in supply, its proposal to empower EMA to implement power rationing during emergencies could be helpful for public education towards becoming a reduced-demand nation.
Minister Tan See Leng took pains earlier to stress that power rationing will be a last resort measure and I can imagine he is very concerned about the implications on business and economic activity. I understand the anxiety that people naturally would feel about such a prospect. However, the way to reduce this anxiety is not to avoid the issue altogether, but to build up our people's confidence that things will be okay and can be okay even if we find ourselves having to have one day, a nationwide power rationing exercise.
I like Mr Neil Parekh's suggestions of electricity rationing drills like fire drills and I suggest that the Government undertake intentional public education and begin small-scale electricity rationing exercises for short windows of time in limited geographical areas to make it a part of every Singaporean’s awareness that electricity shortage could be a very real possibility in the coming decades, given the current climate, technological and geopolitical realities.
Categories of “essential activities” and “non-essential activities” could be created to educate the public about the amount of electricity they consume. This can be a nationwide exercise and take in the comments, feedback and inputs from all citizens. The effort could even be gamified, the same way that the Health Promotion Board did with the National Steps Challenge, to help us develop a habit of moving more for better health and now we can do “Using Less for Better Resilience”.
Such campaigns will help citizens develop a perspective on what are energy essentials and what are non-essential in their lives, paving the way to, possibly, setting electricity budgets for different categories of activities in future. In the past, Singapore had to deal with water supply being an existential threat, so this is not new to us. We only managed to achieve water self-sufficiency in the mid-2010s, with more than four decades of efforts, after having had water crises in 1961 and 1963 that necessitated water rationing.
We need not wait for a crisis to happen to begin our efforts towards energy sufficiency and to develop a more accurate perspective of our collective reliance on electricity.
Attaining energy security in a highly urban and modernised state like Singapore is an urgent and monumental task, made even more challenging by the reliance on the numerous creature comforts like air-conditioning and constant wifi that many Singaporeans are used to and now take for granted. I will speak more about air-conditioning in the next debate on the Building Control (Amendment) Bill.
I do not envy the Ministries and all the personnel involved who are tasked to find solutions to our energy resilience. Nevertheless, I have faith that as a people, Singaporeans are adaptable and pragmatic. Even though I expect there will be many complaints and pushback from segments of society about just the idea of rationing electricity, I believe we have the creativity, gumption and cohesion at the end of the day, to do what is pragmatic and necessary.
And instead of offering just a doom-and-gloom picture, I would like to offer a nice vision to accompany what some people might viscerally reject as a first reaction towards electricity rationing.
Imagine the benefits of a nationwide \"Unplug Day\", where we take a collective digital detox from our gadgets. Stop wifi. Horrors! Create a window of time for families to get out to nature to play and to bond. Learn to get to destinations again without global positioning system which by the way helps us to train and develop the hippocampus part in our brains! Have an exploration and an adventure! Go to the beach and enjoy the sea breeze instead of the aircon! Or have heart-to-heart talks without digital distractions being available. Maybe husbands and wives can start looking into each other's eyes again over dinner. In the space created by non-access to digital and electronically enabled entertainment, maybe Singaporeans may make even more babies – I hope!
The path towards energy sufficiency does not and should not be on the shoulders of only the Ministries involved. I believe Singaporeans can be empowered to do our parts to preemptive education and sensitisation. With these suggestions, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Don Wee.
Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, due to the structure of our highly developed economy, Singapore has one of the highest energy consumption per capita in the world. Singaporeans' livelihoods and well-being depend very much on the provision of reliable and affordable energy. As we work to decarbonise and reach net zero emissions by 2050, our energy profile will go through significant change.
It is important to recognise that the energy transition is not just about reducing emissions but is also central to ensuring long-term sustainability. By shifting towards cleaner energy sources, we can safeguard our environmental resources for future generations while enhancing energy resilience. This transition aligns with our broader sustainability goals by reducing the harmful impacts of fossil fuels, improving air quality and fostering the development of green technologies that will sustain both economic growth and ecological balance. In this way, energy security and environmental sustainability are inextricably linked, making it critical for us to act decisively in accelerating this transition.
One of the objectives of the Bill is to introduce guardrails for our electricity market. This is by: establishing regulations for centralised gas procurement and allowing EMA to recover costs for initiatives to boost our energy security, develop a competitive market and support the power sector’s decarbonisation.
While the gas procurement through the CGE is limited to gas users from the power sector, such as generation companies, the concerns over the potential risks and vulnerabilities from centralisation remain valid.
On one hand, the aggregate demand will give us more bargaining power, achieve better pricing and greater efficiencies.
On the other hand, how will the Government ensure that the CGE does not become a bottleneck or a single point of failure in our energy supply chain? What contingency plans are in place should the CGE encounter difficulties in securing adequate gas supplies? Would the Ministry consider establishing an independent oversight body to monitor the CGE’s performance, thereby mitigating the risks of centralisation?
I would also like to suggest that Government ensure the diversification of gas supply sources by setting limits on the proportion of gas bought from various suppliers. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] EMA’s cost recovery framework can potentially lead to increased energy costs for consumers, which might disproportionately impact lower-income households or smaller businesses that are already operating on tight margins. What safeguards are in place to ensure that these cost recovery mechanisms do not unduly burden consumers, particularly those who are most vulnerable? How will transparency be maintained throughout this process? It is imperative that we protect those who are least able to absorb additional costs.
In addition, what is the expected impact of decarbonisation exercises on our energy costs, which must remain competitive enough to attract big multinational corporations to set up operations in Singapore?
I suggest that the Ministry consider introducing a sliding scale based on the size and financial capability of the entities involved. This approach would protect small and medium enterprises and lower-income consumers from disproportionate cost burdens, ensuring that the cost of decarbonisation is shared equitably.
(In English): To strengthen EMA’s regulation of the power sector, the Bill will empower EMA to: direct owners of critical energy infrastructure to allow access by licensees when necessary in the public interest; require owners of key energy assets to obtain approval before repurposing these infrastructure for other uses; and implement power rationing during emergencies.
I would like to ask, in the event of disputes between owners and licensees, especially concerning compensation and operational control, how will EMA mediate and resolve these disputes? Is there a standardised mechanism and framework being considered to ensure fair compensation and avoid prolonged disagreements? Prolonged disputes could result in service disruptions or increased costs that would ultimately trickle down to the end users, including our most vulnerable citizens.
Regarding the requirement for approval when repurposing existing energy infrastructure, I am concerned about the problem of bureaucratic delays. While oversight is necessary to ensure our energy security and reliability, we must also ensure that it does not hinder the agility of companies in responding to market changes.
As for the provision for power rationing during emergencies, I seek clarification from the Minister on the criteria to be used to define an emergency that justifies power rationing. What will be the thresholds and will the criteria be reviewed periodically? How will EMA ensure that rationing measures are proportionate and do not unduly disrupt our economic activities? We must ensure that any rationing is fair and does not disadvantage those already struggling to make ends meet. I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, the Bill will strengthen our regulatory regime for energy markets. As part of Singapore’s strategy to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, this Bill is a positive move that supports decarbonisation whilst ensuring energy security and keeping power costs competitive for Singapore. I would like to take this opportunity to also commend MTI and EMA for holding a public consultation on the proposed amendments.
I have four points for clarification to raise.
My first point is on the creation of the FEF and the initial injection of $5 billion. The FEF introduced during Budget 2024 is intended to support our transition towards low-carbon energy sources and provide important funding for a more sustainable energy infrastructure. Can the Minister share more details on how this sum of $5 billion was derived? Can the Minister also share the time frame for the utilisation of the initial $5 billion sum?
The cost of mitigation and adaptation is likely to rise steeply as the impact of climate change intensifies over the next century. The cost estimates vary. One estimate by the McKinsey Global Institute in 2022 suggested that $9.2 trillion in annual average spending on physical assets alone will be required to transform the global economy to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.
When does the Government expect to have to make the next injection? Does the Government anticipate making smaller and more frequent future injections or relatively infrequent but large injections?
EMA also announced in its media release that the Government will ensure prudent use of the funds and oversight over projects. Can the Minister provide more details on the safeguards that will be put in place to ensure transparency and public accountability on the use of the funds in the future by the EMA?
My second point is on the establishment of the CGE. During the public consultation, EMA clarified that the centralised gas procurement regime will only apply to gas users from the power sector such as generation companies. EMA said that non-power sector consumers such as industrial gas users will be excluded. Legacy gas contracts will also be excluded.
Can Minister share what percentage of gas procurement will be covered under the centralised procurement regime after excluding non-power sector consumers and legacy gas contracts?
The rationale of stabilising gas supply through centralised gas procurement is undermined if the excluded non-power sector consumers and legacy gas contracts form a substantial portion of gas demand. Can the Minister also share more details on the CGE’s pricing framework and how the contracts between the CGE and generation companies will be negotiated?
MTI and EMA stated during the public consultation that the amendments will empower EMA to introduce gas procurement terms on generation companies such as minimum gas contracting obligations to ensure they contract sufficient fuel. Will these gas procurement terms be consistent across the board or will the CGE be imposing differentiated terms based on independently negotiated contracts with the generation companies?
EMA has also stated that one of its aims is to keep gas prices low and competitive. Can the Minister share how prices will be kept competitive when there is only one central gas supplier to generation companies and generation companies no longer have gas price competitiveness from varied suppliers?
My third point is on EMA’s power to make directions allowing access by licensees to electricity and gas supplies. These powers are set out under the amended section 20A of the Electricity Act and section 38B of the Gas Act.
The powers on the installation, use and access to key infrastructure are broad. EMA may even direct the licensee and any person to enter into an agreement with each other on the maintenance or use of the infrastructure. If parties are unable to agree on the terms and are unable to enter into an agreement, a party can request that the Minister for Trade and Industry establish an Appeal Panel to determine reasonable terms. This allows the Government very exceptional powers to determine the terms of a private agreement between two parties.
During the public consultation, respondents asked about the safeguards to minimise the impact on investor confidence, reduce the burden on property owners and moderate costs for consumers. Respondents also asked about mechanisms other than EMA directives to facilitate shared access.
EMA stated that it will only use directives if it considers such access necessary and in the public interest to ensure energy security and reliability. Can the Minister share whether it will consult with parties on the potential costs and commercial risks to the parties before making such directives? Even where access is necessary and in the public interest, will EMA consider using other less restrictive measures before making directives as a last resort?
In the event that loss is suffered by any party due to a term that was agreed under EMA's directive, can Minister clarify whether it is a defence or mitigating factor for the party to claim that the term was entered into because of EMA's direction or determined by an appeal panel.
My final point is on the cost recovery mechanism for energy initiatives in section 19B of the EMA Act. There is some uncertainty as to how this mechanism will operate given the flexibility afforded to EMA in imposing the rate recoverable.
Section 19B(3) of the EMA Act permits EMA to make a \"reasonable estimation\" of the amount of costs that will be incurred when imposing such a rate when such amounts are yet to be determined. Section 19B(8) allows EMA to retain any excess costs recovered and apply such excess to other energy initiatives. Further, costs can also be recovered from any consumer of energy utilities under section 19B(4)(iv).
Can the Minister clarify how the cost recovery mechanism will be implemented? How will EMA derive its \"reasonable estimation\" of the costs that will be incurred? In the event that the estimation is inaccurate, what are the mechanisms to correct the mis-estimation?
Finally, in recovering costs from any consumers of energy utilities, does EMA have the power to consider broader factors such as the cost burden on consumers and proportionality of cost recovery? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare that I work in a global investment firm with interests and investments in energy-related businesses.
This Bill marks a pivotal moment for Singapore's energy future. Our reliance on imported natural gas – 95% of our energy mix – makes us vulnerable to global market shifts. This is not just an energy issue. It is a matter of national resilience. We must diversify our energy sources. The need is not just pressing. It is essential.
This Bill aims to reduce that reliance by shifting to cleaner energy. It is a step toward a future where Singapore controls its energy destiny. However, I have several clarifications on the Bill.
First, Mr Speaker, Sir, innovation is vital, but it must come with guardrails. The FEF is promising. But we must tread carefully with investments in untested technologies. Are we betting on the future with enough safeguards in place? What safeguards are in place to manage these risks? Could the Ministry also provide more details on how projects are selected for funding?
How will the FEF integrate with existing initiatives like the Emerging Technology Grant? Avoiding overlap is not just about efficiency. It is about ensuring every dollar drives real progress.
We also need to ensure that the research we fund is practical for Singapore. For example, the Directed Hydrogen Programme relies on hydrogen produced overseas. Does this align with our goal of energy independence? Should we not focus on solutions that we can scale right here at home?
On low-carbon hydrogen, it was reported that Singapore will have at least nine hydrogen-compatible power plants by 2030. Hydrogen is expected to meet 50% of our power needs by 2050. Are there updates on these plans? The clock is ticking. We need to see progress.
Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, transitioning to low-carbon energy should not come at the cost of social equity. We cannot let the burden of this transition fall on those least able to bear it. Has the Ministry fully assessed the impact on vulnerable groups? The Bill does not currently include measures to shield low-income households from energy cost increases. Many Singaporeans are already feeling the squeeze due to high cost of living. Will they bear even higher energy costs without seeing the benefits? Green hydrogen currently costs three to five times more than natural gas.
The long-term benefits of reducing reliance on imported fuels are clear. But we need to address the immediate impact on energy affordability. How will the Government ensure vulnerable groups are not left behind in this transition?
Microsoft is buying solar power from public buildings in Singapore. Why is this solar energy not used to subsidise energy costs for low-income households? When public buildings generate renewable energy, should the first priority not be the public?
Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, we must balance long-term sustainability with immediate needs. Supporting fast-response generators and energy storage systems is critical for grid stability. But relying too heavily on carbon-intensive systems like diesel generators could undermine our sustainability goals. Why are these generators part of our energy mix? How does this align with our low-carbon commitments? We need a clear roadmap to phase out these stopgap measures for more sustainable solutions.
Fourth, Mr Speaker, Sir, transparency and public accountability are the bedrock of public trust. The FEF, as proposed, gives the Minister significant control with some limited public oversight. This raises concerns about how the fund will be managed. Can the Minister share more details on the mechanisms to ensure transparency and public accountability in the fund's management? Singaporeans need to trust that our resources are being used wisely and effectively.
Fifth, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill's impact on energy market dynamics needs clarity. The provision allowing EMA to direct key facilities could affect market fairness. Oversight is necessary. However, we must be careful not to stifle innovation or discourage new entrants. What measures will prevent market distortions or monopolistic behaviour? How will the Ministry ensure EMA's expanded powers do not create an uneven playing field?
Several electricity suppliers have recently folded. How will this Bill support a truly open and competitive electricity market? We should encourage more low-carbon energy suppliers to enter the market, giving consumers more sustainable choices.
Some power plant generators are owned by foreign consortiums. How does EMA plan to work with these players to ensure fair and transparent centralised gas procurement? Will rates be standardised across all generators to ensure fairness?
Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, the energy sector is evolving rapidly. We must ensure our laws evolve with it. A static framework risks being outpaced by new innovations and market realities. What plans does the Ministry have for regular reviews or updates to this Bill? It is critical to ensure it stays relevant as technology advances.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Energy Transition Measures and Other Amendments Bill because it is essential to Singapore's energy future. It strengthens our energy security, supports low-carbon projects and ensures a stable, reliable energy supply. These are key pillars for our economic stability and resilience.
This Bill is Singapore's declaration that we are serious about tackling the global climate crisis. It positions us as a leader in the global energy transition. It attracts investment, creates new jobs and enhances our competitiveness in the green economy.
However, for this Bill to truly succeed, we must address the potential challenges it poses. We need clear safeguards for managing the risks associated with the FEF. We must ensure social equity is not sacrificed and that vulnerable households are protected from rising energy costs. We need to prioritise long-term sustainability and phase out carbon-intensive stopgap measures.
Transparency, accountability, and market fairness are not just desirable, they are essential. The Minister should clarify how potential market distortions will be addressed. Greater transparency is needed in managing the FEF.
Finally, we must ensure that this legislation remains adaptable and relevant in the face of rapid technological change. Mr Speaker, Sir, as we consider this Bill, it is worth reflecting on Singapore's journey with water – a story of resilience, innovation and foresight. Not long ago, we imported all our water, just as we do with our energy today. That dependence made us vulnerable. But through bold initiatives, strategic investments and a relentless focus on sustainability, we turned that vulnerability into strength. We diversified our water supply, developed NEWater, invested in desalination and championed water conservation. Today, Singapore is a global model for water sustainability. The parallels with our current energy landscape are striking. We are heavily reliant on imported natural gas, just as we once were with water.
This Bill represents our opportunity to rewrite the energy story as we did with water. If we get it right, if we balance innovation with caution, protect our most vulnerable and remain steadfast in our commitment to sustainability, we can transform our energy landscape. We can reduce our dependence, diversify our sources and lead the world in the transition to low-carbon energy.
Just as Singapore became a global leader in water management, we have the potential to become a beacon of energy resilience and sustainability. The world is watching. Our success could inspire other nations to follow suit.
Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is not just about securing our energy future. It is about setting a standard – one that shows the world how a small, resource-scarce nation can rise to the challenge, innovate and lead by example. I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Minister Tan See Leng.
Dr Tan See Leng: Mr Speaker, I thank Members for their strong support for the Energy Transition Measures and Other Amendments Bill.
Their speeches centred around three key issues: first, electricity costs and how we will invest in our energy future; second, safeguards to EMA's powers; and third, the implementation approach for power rationing.
Before addressing these questions, let me reiterate the purpose of this Bill. As Mr Yip Hong Weng, Mr Mark Lee and Ms Carrie Tan have noted, we need to continually review our legislation and our market structures to ensure they keep up with the changing landscape. This Bill is the result of our most recent round of reviews.
To Ms He Ting Ru's question, MTI and EMA work on efforts to decarbonise our energy mix and transition our power sector to net-zero. EMA will also manage the FEF.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked how our energy mix will change by 2050. I updated Members earlier on this. Our energy mix in 2050 and beyond will depend on a combination of commercial, technological and geopolitical developments.
Mr Yip suggested focusing hydrogen research efforts on domestic production of hydrogen. Producing hydrogen domestically is unlikely to be feasible or commercially viable for now, given the need for significant amounts of domestic renewable energy resources, which we do not have. Our focus is therefore on technologies to transport and to use hydrogen or its carriers safely and cost-effectively.
As for Mr Yip's query on phasing out diesel, we may still need fuels like diesel during an emergency. Our natural gas power plants can switch to using diesel if natural gas supply is disrupted. I think all of you know the chemistry. Diesel can be stockpiled more easily, it is denser and is more cost effective than natural gas. In addition, our critical services such as hospitals and airport have diesel generators on standby in case there are disruptions to power supplies.
Members have asked how our decarbonisation plans will affect the cost of electricity. We have a liberalised energy market. Our approach is to harness market forces and foster competition to drive efficiency. For example, power generation companies or gencos are incentivised to invest in more efficient gas turbines. This will bring down costs and thus lower electricity prices through the competitive bidding process in our wholesale market.
Nonetheless, the cost of fuel accounts for the majority of our gencos' costs and is hence the fundamental driver of electricity prices today.
Mr Saktiandi also asked about the trajectory of electricity prices in the near and medium term. This depends on which direction fuel prices move as well as on technological developments. In the near term, natural gas will remain the primary source of energy for power generation. Hence, electricity tariffs will continue to be driven by gas prices, which generally track global oil prices. Geopolitical uncertainties arising from the ongoing Russia-Ukraine and Middle Eastern conflicts continue to pose risks to gas markets.
In the medium term, the share of low-carbon energy sources in our energy mix will grow. Our electricity prices will increasingly depend on the costs of these low-carbon energy sources, including those we import from regional countries. It is thus difficult to predict the trajectory of these costs.
For example, while solar photovoltaics panel costs have fallen by 82% between 2010 and 2022, the costs of high-voltage subsea cables, or HVDC cables, that are needed to transmit electricity over long distances have risen significantly, with factories now facing production constraints.
The Government has always been and will always be mindful of the impact of electricity prices on Singaporeans and on businesses. Many Members have encouraged the Government to continue supporting our lower- and middle-income households on utilities to ensure that no group is left behind in this energy transition. That is what we have been doing. For example, eligible households will receive 2.5 times the amount of regular U-Save, or up to $950, in this financial year. More than 950,000 Singaporean Housing and Development Board (HDB) households are expected to benefit from this. All HDB households are also eligible for $300 in vouchers through the Climate Friendly Households Programme to lower the upfront cost of purchasing energy-efficient appliances and in turn, allow households to achieve savings on utility bills in the long run.
In addition to support for utilities expenses, the Government provides cost of living support for all Singaporean households through the Assurance Package, which includes Community Development Council vouchers for all Singaporean households. The Government understands Singaporeans' cost of living concerns and will regularly review our support measures.
Ms Tan and Ms He emphasised the need to manage demand, even as we decarbonise our energy supplies. I fully agree. Advanced electricity meters will be rolled out to all HDB households by 2026. This helps our consumers track and make more informed decisions about their energy consumption.
We will also continue helping our businesses improve energy efficiency and in turn, lower their energy costs. And in doing so, we will continue to pay special attention to supporting SMEs, which is something that Mr Neil Parekh highlighted. But as Ms Tan and Ms He said, it is not just about energy efficiency, it is also about energy conservation, it is about using less. And I hope that we can make this a shared goal among all of us, Singaporeans.
Members including Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Don Wee, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Mark Lee and Mr Louis Ng have asked whether the new initiatives for energy security, market development and decarbonisation services will raise business costs, as well as affect the lower-income.
Let me assure Members of this House that we closely monitor such costs and we have safeguards to ensure cost recovery measures are justified.
First, the Minister for Trade and Industry must approve cost recovery rates. To Ms Jessica Tan's query on what will trigger this decision, new initiatives related to energy security, market development and decarbonisation will only be introduced if necessary for the power system. We will seek to be targeted in the implementation of these initiatives. For example, as some Members suggested, entities that benefit more from an initiative could pay a higher rate so that costs are allocated fairly.
Second, a Cost Recovery Advisory Committee of non-Government representatives will provide the Minister with independent advice on EMA's proposed rates. As Mr Mark Lee suggested, the committee could include Members who can advise on the impact of EMA's proposed rates on businesses.
Third, EMA will consult stakeholders and give reasonable notice before introducing cost recovery measures. Where possible, EMA will implement such measures gradually, to allow time for adjustment.
Mr Louis Ng asked about the operational flexibility EMA has in imposing cost recovery rates. The provisions allow EMA to recover costs based on \"reasonable estimates\" of costs payable, in addition to costs that have been paid. This is so that EMA can smoothen out the costs collected over time. EMA will seek to be as measured, sensitive and practical as it can, in its cost recovery measures, so as to minimise the likelihood and the magnitude of over- or under-collection.
Mr Speaker, let me move on from costs to investments. Many Members have highlighted the importance of the FEF. And I have explained earlier how the fund would be used.
Ms He Ting Ru asked about how we would measure the success of the fund. Ultimately, the fund's success is determined by whether we can achieve the energy transition in a cost effective manner while ensuring energy security. Ms He also noted that the fund can be used on energy security measures and asked whether that included fossil fuel plants.
Members of the House, even as we decarbonise, we have to ensure that Singapore's energy security is not compromised. Therefore, we should be prepared to consider all options to support a secure and sustainable energy transition. This is also how we mitigate various risks from renewable electricity imports.
Mr Louis Ng asked how the $5 billion amount was decided and how long it would last. The energy transition will be costly and is expected to cost far more than the $5 billion. This is precisely why we need to start setting aside monies for it, as and when we are able to.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked if the FEF can fund EMA's initiatives instead of recovering costs from consumers. In Singapore, electricity prices are not subsidised. This is to encourage efficient electricity use and prevent wastage. Subsidising electricity is not sustainable in the long run. Electricity prices should continue to reflect the cost of producing and supplying electricity. The FEF is not meant to fund such costs, but rather, it is meant to catalyse and seed support in strategic infrastructural investments for a low-carbon future.
Mr Liang also asked if the fund could support nuclear energy projects. It is too early to say, because no decision has been made to deploy nuclear energy in Singapore.
Ms Jessica Tan and Mr Neil Parekh asked if we have identified potential projects that are aligned with our larger energy masterplan. Potential projects include undersea cables to import low-carbon electricity as well as hydrogen terminals and pipelines, if we decide to adopt and scale up the use of hydrogen.
The FEF complements, but it does not replace, existing funding initiatives for energy efficiency and research and development. These are worthwhile areas that the Government is already supporting. The FEF's mandate, and I want to reiterate, is to catalyse the deployment of low-carbon energy infrastructure, including some which would otherwise have taken a very long time to commission. So, I hope that this addresses Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Ms He Ting Ru's questions.
I would also like to assure Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Louis Ng and Ms Carrie Tan that there will be strict oversight over the fund's use.
First, we will ring-fence the use of funds to infrastructure development needed to decarbonise the power sector.
Second, qualifying projects will undergo the same stringent evaluation and approval processes as any other Government infrastructure project, involving a careful evaluation of technological and commercial risks and the eventual costs of electricity generated through such low-carbon sources.
Third, the Government will employ competitive processes where possible, such as tenders and price discovery mechanisms, to ensure that energy transition projects are value-for-money.
Fourth, we will establish milestones to ensure that project timelines remain on track and that we have the flexibility to reduce abortive costs if circumstances change.
Fifth, top-ups to the fund, balances and annual outlays will be included in EMA's financial statements, which are presented to Parliament annually.
This Bill therefore reflects our careful and calibrated approach towards managing the costs of the energy transition, while supporting their investments needed to making it a reality. The Government will continue to plan and build infrastructure to meet energy needs and save up for these investments through the FEF to reduce the burden on future generations.
Mr Yip Hon Weng pointed out the risks and costs of new low-carbon technologies. The FEF will enable us to moderate the steep costs that arise from investing in nascent technologies that are strategic for Singapore's needs. These are costs that consumers would otherwise have to bear. We will maintain fiscal sustainability by avoiding blanket subsidies, while continuing to help households manage electricity costs in a targeted and responsible manner.
Let me now address Members' comments on shared access to critical energy infrastructure, on the repurposing of assets and centralised gas procurement. Mr Yip raised concerns about whether expanding EMA's powers could distort competition or create an uneven playing field.
Allow me to explain why these powers are necessary and what safeguards are in place. To manage the uncertainties of the energy transition, we must empower EMA to plan for a net-zero energy future. Each energy source has specific requirements and limitations. Our amendments to facilitate shared access to critical energy infrastructure and introduce approval obligations for repurposing key electricity and gas assets will enable EMA to optimise the use of infrastructure in land-scarce Singapore.
EMA's powers will be exercised sensitively and carefully. First, EMA will consult relevant stakeholders to understand their considerations before exercising its powers. Second, specific criteria that must be met before EMA can exercise those powers. Third, parties can appeal EMA's decisions to the Minister of Trade and Industry.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Mark Lee, Mr Louis Ng and Mr Don Wee asked how EMA's powers to facilitate shared access to critical energy infrastructure will be exercised.
Shared access allows licensees to access or connect to critical energy infrastructure owned by others to carry out their functions. For example, electricity importers may require access to electricity infrastructure owned by others to bring imported electricity into our domestic grid. And yes, as Mr Mark Lee has asked, Battery Energy Storage Systems are also included as critical energy infrastructure.
Infrastructure owners and licensees should first seek to reach mutual agreement on the terms of shared access, including fair compensation. EMA will facilitate these discussions. If access is deemed critical to system needs and no agreement is reached, EMA will issue a directive for the shared access and give both parties a 30-day period to agree. This is to prevent prolonged negotiations.
If agreement is still not reached, an Appeal Panel will independently determine the terms on a case-by-case basis, considering industry practices, prevailing market conditions, the nature of the infrastructure and case-specific circumstances. The Minister will appoint Members with relevant expertise to the Appeal Panel. As far as possible, the Minister will appoint Members who are accepted by both parties to the shared access agreement.
To Mr Louis Ng's query, the shared access agreements entered into by both parties are legally binding contracts. These should include provisions for compensation in case of losses that are mutually agreed to by both parties, or determined by an Appeal Panel.
Mr Don Wee asked if EMA's powers to approve the repurposing of electricity and gas assets might limit companies' agility in responding to market changes.
EMA will only reject requests if repurposing undermines energy security and reliability. EMA will strike a balance between the commercial needs for the potential repurposing, while ensuring that energy security and system reliability in land-scarce Singapore will not be compromised. Specific approvals timelines are not set in legislation, due to the different circumstances for each case. Companies should engage EMA early, on any potential repurposing, and EMA will assess the cases promptly.
To Mr Saktiandi’s questions, the approval obligation for repurposing of key electricity and gas assets applies to relevant facilities and installations which are specified in legislation. No particular incident sparked concern about repurposing key energy assets but we have to plan for such a possibility, especially due to Singapore’s land constraints.
Next, Members asked about the need to centralise gas procurement under a central gas entity, which we will call Gasco for now. During the 2021 and 2022 global energy crisis, governments struggled to secure fuel supplies and manage price spikes. Beyond crisis measures, EMA subsequently strengthened our market structure by centralising the process for new generation investments, enhancing regulatory protections for consumers and implementing a Temporary Price Cap to curb wholesale market volatility. The Gasco builds on these efforts.
Allow me to reiterate what we seek to accomplish by establishing the Gasco. First, the Gasco enhances our gas supply security. Our current market-based gas procurement system does not provide sufficient assurance of adequate gas supply to meet our needs at the national level, especially during volatile market conditions.
During the energy crisis, gencos were unwilling to contract more gas because of the highly volatile prices. We were, therefore, at risk of being short of gas. In October 2021, when a whole confluence of factors caused the prices of natural gas to spike, we quickly set up a SLF. Members of the House, that proved prescient, especially when the Russian-Ukraine war broke out in February 2022 and it threw the global gas market into turmoil.
To Mr Louis Ng’s question, around 75% of Singapore’s gas consumption is by the power sector and will be procured by the Gasco in the steady state. While gencos are well-contracted for the immediate future, EMA will impose a standardised minimum gas contracting level under this framework, to ensure they continue to contract sufficient fuel from the Gasco.
Second, the Gasco will support supply diversification. Our gencos, currently, import most of our gas from neighbouring countries, such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Australia. With the Gasco, we will seek to broaden our sources of supply.
To Mr Saktiandi’s question, instead of capping the amount from any single source, we seek to have a well-diversified gas portfolio. This diversity in terms of sources and contract length increases our protection against supply chain disruptions, and mitigates the risks of over-centralisation and a single point of failure, something which Mr Don Wee spoke about.
Third, the Gasco allows us to enter into long-term contracts that provide more stable prices and certainty of supply. Our current market-based approach does not sufficiently reward gencos that commit to long-term contracts. For example, let us say Genco A signs a 20-year contract for gas. If gas prices come down, other gencos can undercut Genco A by using cheaper gas. Genco A will be at risk of making large losses. So, you can appreciate why our gencos are reluctant to enter into such long-term contracts.
Moving forward, because our gencos can only buy gas from the Gasco and will be required to buy sufficient amounts of gas, this reduces the risks of any genco being undercut by other gencos as a result of long-term contracts.
Singapore’s power sector currently needs around six to seven million tonnes of natural gas annually, but with six main gencos each contracting, on the average, for only one million tonne, they do not have economies of scale. Centralisation and scale therefore give the Gasco room to negotiate for more favourable gas contracting terms, as well as to explore co-procurement with other major gas procurement entities, such as JERA of Japan and KOGAS of Korea.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked who the Gasco will be and how it will be run. Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Louis Ng and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked how gas prices for gencos will be determined.
We expect to set up the Gasco as a fully Government-owned company by the end of this financial year. The Gasco’s primary objective is to procure and supply gas to meet Singapore’s power generation needs, not to maximise profits. The Gasco will be staffed by professionals who will take a long-term, systems-view to guide the gas procurement. It will also align its gas portfolio to national needs, accounting for our electricity demand growth and decarbonisation plans.
The Gasco will price gas on a cost-plus basis, with gencos charged for the gas they purchase, plus a regulated fee to cover the Gasco’s operating costs. To Mr Liang Eng Hwa's question, this regulated fee will be approved and transparently published by EMA.
EMA will regulate the Gasco to ensure that the gas procurement framework improves the security and the resilience of Singapore’s natural gas supply to the power sector, while keeping prices competitive. This will be a delicate balance and it will require the Gasco to be structured, to be resourced, incentivised and assessed accordingly. I hope this addresses Ms Jessica Tan’s question.
We appreciate Mr Saktiandi’s suggestion to give gencos the flexibility to source for gas supplies. In fact, EMA is working with gencos to develop a mechanism that incentivises them to refer competitively-priced gas supplies to the Gasco for evaluation and potential incorporation into its portfolio.
Lastly, Members raised concerns on power rationing. Singaporeans and businesses are understandably concerned about the prospect of power rationing, even though most recognise the need for doing so during emergencies. This is understandable, since electricity is crucial for our daily routines and for the economy.
I want to reassure Members that power rationing will only be as a last resort. We have existing measures to mitigate the impact of gas supply disruptions. Our LNG terminal can support our natural gas demand even if piped natural gas is disrupted. We also maintain a SLF. We have sufficient generation capacity, including a 27% reserve margin which provides for planned and unplanned outages.
These measures, combined with voluntary power conservation, can meet all our demand in most potential disruption scenarios. However, we cannot afford to be complacent. Singapore must prepare for worst-case scenarios.
The disruptions to the Nord Stream gas pipelines connecting Russia and Europe in September 2022, highlight the vulnerability of energy infrastructure to geopolitical tensions and how quickly energy supplies can be disrupted. These amendments for power rationing are, therefore, necessary for the worst-case scenario as a matter of national security.
Mr Don Wee, Mr Mark Lee and Mr Neil Parekh asked what constitutes an emergency that justifies power rationing. An emergency is defined in the Bill as a situation where, an electricity shortage has occurred or where EMA assesses that a shortage is likely or if no measures are taken, the secure operation of our power transmission system will be threatened. For example, a severe fuel shortage could trigger such an emergency.
Mr Mark Lee and Mr Neil Parekh asked for timely communication with companies about the initiation, duration and cessation of these measures. EMA will strive to notify affected parties through various channels before implementing power rationing, so that they have time to safely reduce or power down operations. However, our priority during an emergency would be to implement power rationing expeditiously to ensure system stability. The duration may not be known upfront, as it will depend on the nature of the emergency. But EMA will lift power rationing once it is no longer required.
Mr Don Wee also asked how EMA will ensure that rationing measures are proportionate and do not unduly disrupt economic activities. MTI and EMA intend to establish a prioritisation framework, outlining clear guidelines for EMA’s intended order of load reductions. We have started preliminary consultations with some stakeholders on this and further consultations will follow. The intent of the prioritisation framework is to minimise the impact of power rationing on society.
As I mentioned earlier, we will give priority to services that are critical to Singapore’s security, economic and social needs, such as medical and telecommunications services. We will also give priority for residents to have access to power for daily needs.
We appreciate Ms Carrie Tan and Mr Neil Parekh's suggestion to run power rationing simulations. Earlier this year, organisations across Singapore simulated power, water or food supply disruptions as part of Total Defence Day activities. We will continue to find new ways to engage the public on our energy story as well as support business continuity planning.
Let me now conclude. Like every nation on this energy transition journey, Singapore is grappling with the “energy trilemma” – how to realise an energy future that is secure, that is cost-competitive and sustainable. For our beloved country Singapore, the stakes are even higher. But, then again, the stakes for our little red dot have always been higher.
Energy is an existential challenge that defines this generation. This Bill, Members of the House, takes us closer to securing our clean energy future by ensuring that our energy system is resilient, adaptable and ready for the transition and transformation ahead. This is not something that the Government can do alone. So, let us all work together. Let us all work together with businesses, to innovate commercially viable low-carbon solutions; and with our consumers to support our energy story, use energy prudently and even as all of us in Government seek to keep costs in check.
We all know, we have heard so many Members of the House speak earlier on, about our Water Story. We all know our Water Story well and how Singapore turned scarcity into strength. Now, I call upon all of us: write the net zero chapter of our Singapore Energy Story. This is not just my story. It is your story, it is our children’s and grandchildren’s stories. Let us innovate, let us adapt and work towards our clean energy future together.
Once again, I thank Members for your strong support of the Bill. Sir, I beg to move. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Are there any clarifications for Minister from any Member? Dr Tan, it looks like you did a very good wrapping-up speech. I do not see a single hand.
[(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 Tan See Leng]. (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 will suspend the Sitting and I will take the Chair at 4.25 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.03 pm until 4.25 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.25 pm.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Time Limit for Senior Minister of State's Speech","subTitle":"Suspension of Standing Orders","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Leader of the House.
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Deputy Speaker, may I seek your consent, and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of the Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon's speech?
Mr Deputy Speaker: I give my consent. Does the Leader of the House have the general assent of hon Members present to so move?
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
[(proc text) With the consent of Mr Deputy Speaker and the general assent of Members present, question put and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) in respect of Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon's speech\". – [Ms Indranee Rajah.] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Platform Workers Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister for Manpower.
The Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Manpower, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
Sir, before I begin my speech, I just want to acknowledge the presence of our brothers and sisters from the National Taxi Association, National Private Hire Vehicles Association and the National Delivery Champions Association as well as representatives from the platform operators here with us in the Gallery today. [Applause.]
Sir, their presence signals the support they need for this Bill to be passed to ensure a sustainable development of the platform economy.
The platform economy has provided opportunities to earn a living for many platform workers who bring convenience to us through their services. During the COVID-19 pandemic, while most of us were safely working from home and observing safe management measures safely in our homes, many platform workers braved the elements and health risks to deliver goods and services and food items to us.
Following the pandemic, there is broad social support that we need to do more for this group of workers who have been left behind. As of 2023, there are around 70,000 platform workers, comprising about 3% of our workforce. However, platform work can be precarious. Let me cite three aspects of this.
First, platform workers generally have modest incomes that can fluctuate from month to month. In 2023, their median earnings were around $1,500 to $2,500 a month.
Second, they are also exposed to risks, such as traffic accidents, due to the amount of time they spend on the roads. Those without sufficient insurance coverage bear the financial risks of getting injured and being unable to work. Many of us in our Meet-the-People Sessions would have come across our residents who work as platform workers who sustained injuries at work and ended up with financial hardships and inability to service their housing loans. In fact, a 2022 poll by the Institute of Policy Studies found that up to a third of food delivery workers have been in at least one accident that required medical care.
Third, platform workers also have less control over their work, compared to typical self-employed persons. For instance, they may not have a say over how much to charge for their services, what tasks to take on, whether they can grow their own base of clients and so on. This is because platform operators control these decisions as part of their business models.
When we say, \"Every Worker Matters\", we are recognising the inherent value and dignity of these workers, regardless of the work that they do. We are saying as a society that we are taking a stand – that these platform workers also deserve our care, to ensure fairness and equity.
Why should a platform worker who takes the same risks on the road as any other employee working in the delivery or transport sector be denied a fair compensation when they are injured or, worse still, lose their lives at work? Are their lives worth less than other workers in the same sector?
Their work generates revenues for the platform operators. Just as the platform operators pay Central Provident Fund (CPF) and buy workplace insurance for their staff working in their office, should these workers who brave the elements to ensure the revenue stream for the platform operators not get the same level of support and protection?
I am glad that platform operators, workers and the broader society agree that we ought to do more for these workers. This is how we strengthen our social compact and not leave these workers behind as the platform economy continues to evolve and grow.
Therefore, to strengthen protections for those involved in platform work, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) set up the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers (PWAC) in 2021 to review how ride-hail and delivery workers can be better supported in the areas of (a) housing and retirement adequacy; (b) financial protection in the case of work injury; and (c) representation. These are some of the employment rights that employees have today.
The PWAC consulted extensively, including with platform workers, companies, trade associations and academics, and examined international practices. In November 2022, following a year-long process of engagements and deliberations by the PWAC, the Government accepted the PWAC's recommendations. This Platform Workers Bill today will give effect to these recommendations.
This is a good example of how tripartite partners in Singapore have worked closely together to enhance labour standards in a sustainable manner. Through close collaboration and discussions in the PWAC, tripartite partners have extensively and actively engaged key stakeholders, such as platform operators and platform workers, and effectively represented their perspectives in ironing out the policy and implementation details.
There are four key components to the Platform Workers Bill.
First, the scope of entities, including companies and workers covered under the Bill. Second, measures to support the housing and retirement adequacy of platform workers through the CPF system. These involve amendments to the Central Provident Fund Act, or CPF Act. Third, measures to ensure financial protection of platform workers if they get injured at work and to strengthen stakeholders' responsibilities to prevent injuries. These involve amendments to the Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA) and the Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Act. Fourth, the legal framework for representation of platform workers. This involves amendments to the Industrial Relations Act.
These matters also require consequential and related amendments to a wide range of other Acts as well as the Constitution through the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, which will be tabled at a later Sitting.
Let me start with the scope.
On the scope of entities covered, in clause 4 of the Bill, a platform operator is defined as an entity that has an agreement with one or more service users to provide platform services and exercises management control over one or more platform workers.
We are covering ride-hail and delivery platform services as around 93% of platform work is concentrated in these services today and because such work is precarious, as I explained earlier. These platform services are set out in the First Schedule of the Bill. We can consider the need to amend the Schedule to cover other platform services in future reviews.
In clause 6 of the Bill, there are two prongs to management control. If both are satisfied, the entity will be deemed a platform operator.
First, platform operators use data from service users, such as consumers, as well as their workers in a highly, if not fully, automated manner to make decisions. For instance, this could be through the use of algorithms that determine the fee that ride-hail drivers will receive for a trip based on data on the demand for rides and supply of drivers at a given time. The use of data in an automated manner to make decisions is a critical point here as it enables a platform operator to scale its operations significantly and quickly as well as impose and rapidly change terms of work for platform workers, with little or no room for negotiation.
This is not a new concept. The European Union's (EU's) directive on improving working conditions in platform work uses the same concept to define a digital labour platform.
Second, platform operators impose requirements, prohibitions or restrictions on their workers. These include imposing rules on how a task should be performed or restricting workers' ability to negotiate their fees with clients for providing the service.
The effect of all these is that platform workers cede some autonomy to platform operators in terms of how they provide services, which makes them resemble employees to an extent. However, unlike employees, platform workers are not given employment rights. This is why we are moving to legislate some rights for platform workers to better support them at work.
Looking internationally, countries have taken different approaches to determine the statutory rights of platform workers.
Countries like Spain, Belgium and Portugal have presumed certain groups of platform workers to be employees, entitling them to employment rights, including fixed hourly wage, sick pay and vacation leave. But this means that they also lose the flexibility they had, such as deciding when and how much to work.
Some countries like Greece have presumed that platform workers are not in an employment relationship, but have given them some rights pertaining to welfare, health and safety, similar to employees.
Others such as the United Kingdom (UK) have left it to the courts to determine whether platform workers are \"employees\" or \"workers\" on a case-by-case basis. This led to different classifications for the same worker who may use different platforms to work. The downside of this approach is a lack of clarity for both the workers and companies.
We have decided that it is better for the Government to provide clarity upfront for companies and workers through legislation and to do so in a way that preserves the flexibility that both workers and companies wish to retain for platform work.
We want to better support platform workers by providing them with workplace safety and retirement adequacy. But if platform workers are given the full suite of employment rights, such as sick pay and vacation leave, the nature of the relationship between the platform operators and platform workers will likely change to resemble an employment relationship, with much less flexibility, which neither party wants.
We have thus struck a finely balanced middle ground. Clause 5 of the Bill defines platform workers as individuals who have contracts with and are subject to the management control of a platform operator in their provision of services, but who are not employees of the platform operator, in effect, creating a middle category of workers in between employees and self-employed persons.
Singapore is among the first in the world to take this approach of providing statutory protections for platform workers as a distinct group. This approach preserves the flexibility of platform work that both sides want and achieves our aim of better protecting platform workers.
If the Bill is passed, companies that meet the definition of platform operator must comply with their statutory obligations and provide protections to their platform workers once the Bill comes into effect. The same applies to: (a) new companies; (b) existing companies that change their business models later on; and (c) companies in subcontracting arrangements if the company satisfies the definition of a platform operator vis-à-vis a worker.
Just like how companies today are responsible for assessing whether they are an employer and need to comply with employment laws, companies are also responsible for assessing whether they are a platform operator as they would be the most familiar with their own business models and their relationship with their workers. That said, to support companies, MOM will provide resources such as a checklist for companies to self-assess if they are platform operators. Tripartite partners will also engage the ground to educate companies and relevant workers.
If there is feedback that a platform operator has self-assessed wrongly and did not provide work injury compensation or make CPF contributions to a platform worker, MOM will investigate. If we find out that the company is a platform operator, we will require the platform operator to pay any outstanding CPF contributions or work injury compensation owed to the worker, as we currently do with employers. Additionally, the platform operator may face penalties for not making CPF contributions or not providing work injury compensation in a timely manner for platform workers and for failing to notify MOM that they are a platform operator.
Next, let me talk about supporting housing and retirement adequacy. The Fourth Schedule of the Bill makes amendments to the CPF Act to support the housing and retirement adequacy of platform workers.
Today, platform workers are treated as self-employed persons and are only required to make MediSave contributions of up to 10.5% of their net earnings. To meet their housing and retirement needs, platform workers should also contribute to their CPF Ordinary and Special Accounts. The proposed amendments enable platform workers to achieve the same level of housing and retirement adequacy as employees who earn the same amount.
We will do this gradually. Starting in 2025, platform operators will contribute 3.5% of platform workers' net earnings and platform workers will contribute up to an additional 2.5%. This will increase by the respective percentage quantum yearly until 2029. By then, it will bring platform operators' and workers' CPF contribution rates to the same level as employees and employers' contribution rates – by 2029.
For platform workers in the ages of 55 to 65, the timing of the increase will be synchronised to the senior worker CPF contribution rate increases for employees in the same age group. The increased CPF contributions will be mandatory for the cohort of platform workers born from 1995 onwards.
In all our engagements, younger cohorts have indicated the greatest need and desire for CPF contributions as it can help with their housing needs. Many are starting their families and getting their first Build-To-Order (BTO) flats.
Older cohorts can choose to opt in anytime from November onwards, with no deadline. Opt-ins are not reversible. I encourage older platform workers to consider opting in to boost their housing and retirement savings and to benefit from our CPF system.
Overall, platform workers will experience an increase in their total earnings after factoring in CPF contributions from platform operators. Nonetheless, I appreciate that some platform workers will be concerned about reduced take-home pay. The Government will provide support.
First, we will enhance the Platform Workers CPF Transition Support (PCTS) to provide greater support to lower-income platform workers who see an increase in their CPF contributions.
We had previously announced in 2023 that the PCTS would offset 75% of platform workers' increase in CPF contributions in the first year and 50% in the second year. We will enhance this to offset 100% of the increase in 2025. This means that the Government will pay fully for these platform workers' increased CPF contributions and they will have no decrease in their take-home pay in 2025.
We will also enhance the offset in 2026 from 50% to 75%. The offset will taper down gradually thereafter and cease in 2029.
We will also increase the PCTS qualifying income cap from $2,500 to $3,000, in line with the increase in the Workfare Income Supplement qualifying income cap from January 2025. This will allow more platform workers to benefit from PCTS.
Second, we will enhance Workfare for lower-income platform workers. Today, platform workers are treated as self-employed persons for Workfare payments. This means that those who are eligible for Workfare receive Workfare payments annually, at the end of the year, after making their annual CPF contributions. As self-employed persons today, they receive two-thirds of the Workfare payments that employees receive, as they make lower CPF contributions than employees, and 10% of Workfare is paid in cash and 90% goes to their CPF account.
But from 2025 onwards, after this Bill is passed, platform workers will receive Workfare payments monthly, instead of annually, because they will now make CPF contributions on a monthly basis. This will help with their cashflow.
In addition, from 2029 onwards, platform workers who contribute CPF at the same rate now, by then, like an employee, will receive employee-level Workfare, instead of just two-thirds the amount like self-employed persons. This means that they will benefit from higher Workfare payments of up to $4,900 a year, with a higher proportion paid in cash – 40% instead of the 10%, like a self-employed person.
As an illustration, for example, a 35-year-old platform worker earning $3,000 in net monthly income after deduction of allowable expenses, who opts in to increase CPF contributions from 2025, will receive around $2,250 of PCTS over the four-year period between 2025 and 2028, which will offset part of his increase in CPF contributions. He will also receive $18,720 in CPF contributions from the platform operator over a five-year period from 2025 to 2029. Including Workfare payments, the platform worker will receive a total of $23,830 in additional cash and CPF savings for his work from 2025 to 2029.
So, this will be a substantial boost to the retirement adequacy and the ability to afford housing for these workers. All this will be helpful towards their housing mortgage payments and retirement savings.
We have consulted platform operators and platform workers extensively in the design of the computation and collection of CPF contributions from them. We want to ensure that the CPF contribution process is seamless, cost-effective and protects the interest of platform workers. We have aligned generally with the employer-employee model while catering for flexibilities to account for the unique circumstances of platform work. These implementation parameters will apply to all platform workers, including those who have not opted in and only make MediSave contributions.
Let me now talk about how the computation goes about. Amendments to the CPF Act will specify how the computation of CPF contributions for platform operators and workers will be aligned to the employer-employee model in terms of how it is tiered based on age and income, and applied to monthly earnings from each platform. However, unlike employees, platform workers incur work expenses which are not reimbursed, such as fuel cost. Hence, the computation of CPF for platform workers will be based on earnings, less a Fixed Expense Deduction Amount, or FEDA.
Both platform workers and platform operators have provided feedback that they want a simpler and seamless way to compute CPF contribution. To this end, we will use a prescribed FEDA that reflects expenses for the majority of platform workers. The use of FEDA provides significant convenience for both platform workers and the operators, because the platform workers will not have to keep receipts to track and compute actual expenses for their platform work. The platform operators will not have to incur additional operating costs to re-compute the CPF contribution based on actual expenses.
The prescribed FEDA also takes reference from the Fixed Expense Deduction Ratio developed by the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore for the computation of net earnings for tax purposes. This is based on actual expense ratios, including industry feedback and surveys on workers' expenses, and reflects expenses for the vast majority of platform workers. The use of FEDA will apply for the computation of work injury compensation as well.
Next, let me talk about the collection of CPF. Like in the employer-employee model, the onus is on platform operators to pay both the platform operator and platform worker share of CPF contribution to the CPF Board monthly. During the month, the platform operator may make deductions and refunds to the platform worker based on the applicable CPF contribution rate. It is an offence for platform operators to make a deduction from a platform worker's earnings and not pay it to the CPF Board. This protects the interest of platform workers. Platform operators will be required to reflect the deduction of the platform workers' share of CPF contribution clearly within their earnings slip for transparency and accountability and platform workers can check these contributions in their CPF account.
The Fifth Schedule of the Bill carries amendments to the Income Tax Act to align the tax reliefs and deductions for CPF contributions to the employer-employee model.
Finally, the good news for our platform workers is that the Government will also reimburse platform workers for the platform operator's share of CPF contributions under the Government-Paid Leave Schemes, such as Government-Paid Maternity and Paternity Leave, when platform workers take time away from work to care for their newborns. This is at clause 105 of the Bill, which amends the Child Development Co-Savings Act.
Today, before the Bill is passed, eligible platform workers get reimbursement from the Government for their lost income when they take parental leave. The Government does not reimburse them for any platform operator share of CPF contribution because this is not applicable to them today. They are not getting CPF contributions from the operator to begin with.
But moving forward, for platform workers who are mandated or have opted-in to boost their CPF savings, the Government will also reimburse the platform operators' share of CPF contribution, on top of their lost income, when platform workers seek reimbursement for parental leave. This is part of Government's strong commitment to support parenthood.
Let me now move on to financial protection for work injury. Platform workers' financial protection for work injury is currently inadequate compared to employees in similar sectors, such as logistics. Delivery employees and goods delivery partners both ply the roads to get deliveries to us and are exposed to the same risks.
Some platform operators voluntarily compensate platform workers for work injuries, such as through personal accident insurance. But the coverage is uneven and at lower levels than what employees are entitled to under WICA. It is important that platform workers, like employees, can recuperate and recover from their injuries without worrying about putting food on the table and get back to work in good health.
The Ninth Schedule of the Bill will amend WICA in relation to platform workers and platform operators. Under the amended Act, platform operators will be required to provide work injury compensation to platform workers at the same level of coverage, as employees, comprising reimbursement for medical expenses, income loss compensation for medical leave and hospitalisation leave and a lump sum compensation for permanent incapacity or death.
The same compensation caps and minimum sums for compensation for permanent incapacity or death for employees will now apply to platform workers after the Bill is passed. To assure platform workers of work injury compensation payouts and to ensure platform operators can discharge their liabilities, platform operators will be required to purchase work injury compensation insurance for their platform workers from MOM-designated insurers.
With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute an infographic on the key features of work injury compensation for platform workers?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Please proceed. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]
Dr Koh Poh Koon: Members may also access these materials through the MP@SGPARL app. Let me now take Members through the key features of Work Injury Compensation for Platform Workers.
I will focus on three areas: exclusions, what stage of the work is covered under the WICA and which platform is liable in the case of injuries.
First on the exclusions. Given the flexibility of platform work, liability for work injury compensation should be scoped to risks that stakeholders can practically address. As platform workers have the autonomy to choose the vehicle used to perform platform work, under the amended WICA, platform workers will not be eligible for work injury compensation if the injury was caused by their use of an illegally modified vehicle, or if the platform worker was not licensed to operate the vehicle in the first place.
What stage of work will be covered? Some platform workers take platform work as their main job and do this throughout the day, while others do so on a part-time or ad hoc basis. As platform workers do not have fixed working hours or conventional workplaces, the circumstances under which platform workers will be eligible for work injury compensation will be more scoped, compared to employees.
The work injury compensation regime needs to account for the unique features of platform work. In a typical day, a platform worker would log onto the platform app to wait for jobs, before accepting a suitable job. Then, the platform worker would set off to pick up the ride-hail passenger or the item to be delivered and complete the ride or delivery. Hence, we can divide platform services broadly into three stages: waiting for jobs, picking up goods or passengers, delivering and completion of tasks – three stages.
With reference to paragraph 31 of the Ninth Schedule of the Bill, amendments to the WICA specify the work stages of platform services.
Platform workers will be eligible for work injury compensation when they are performing pick-up and delivery of passengers or goods. These are the key activities that take place after a platform job has been accepted. Outside pick-up and delivery, platform workers can wait for jobs or pursue their own activities. It would not be fair to extend platform operators' liability to activities which are not work-related.
Which platform is liable in case of injury? With reference to paragraph 17 of the Ninth Schedule of the Bill, for platform workers injured while performing a job for one platform operator, that platform operator will be liable. That is quite easy to understand.
For platform workers injured while performing tasks for different platform operators at the same time, liability will be confined to one platform operator where possible to simplify claims processing. This will be determined by a prioritisation of the work stages.
First, if the platform worker was performing \"pick-up\" and \"delivery” tasks for different platform operators at the same time, only the platform operator behind the \"delivery\" task will be liable. This is because the platform worker can still choose to reject jobs during the \"pick-up\" stage but he or she is committed to fulfilling the job at the \"delivery\" work stage when the passenger or goods are already with them.
If multiple platform operators are liable, liability will be apportioned based on the platform worker's earnings from each liable platform operator. If the platform worker was performing \"delivery\" for two platform operators A and B, compensation liability will be apportioned among both platform operators based on the platform worker's earnings with each platform operator over the past 90 days on lookback. For example, if the platform worker earned $1,000 from platform operator A and $2,000 from platform operator B, A will bear one-third of the compensation liability and B will bear two-thirds of the compensation liability.
A platform worker could be performing work in two different platform sectors, meaning, both ride-hail and delivery. Two different sectors: one is fetching passengers, the other one is delivering goods. If a platform worker gets injured while performing a task in a particular platform service, compensation will be based on the platform worker's past earnings from all platform operators that they had worked for in that platform service. The platform worker's compensation will reference his earnings over a lookback period of 90 days before the date of the accident.
Platform workers injured while completing ride-hail and delivery jobs at the same time, that means, both platform services simultaneously, will be compensated based on the earnings from their higher-earning service sector. Scoping platform operators' compensation liability to one platform service facilitates sustainable insurance premiums.
While platform workers will be protected in case of work injuries, platform operators and workers should work together to reduce the possibility of work injuries in the first place and take remedial actions where necessary.
Today, all companies and workers are responsible for safety and health outcomes under the WSH Act. Recognising the unique features of platform work, such as the use of different modes of transport for platform workers, we will introduce separate duties for platform operators and for platform workers through amendments to the WSH Act under the 10th Schedule. This will clarify platform operators' responsibility for the safety and health of platform workers when at work and platform workers' responsibility to cooperate with platform operators on safety measures.
Next, let me talk about enhanced representation. Today, a group of employees who want to represent their fellow employees must register themselves as a trade union and seek mandate to represent their members in negotiations with the employer and to resolve disputes.
For platform work, the National Private Hire Vehicles Association, the National Taxi Association and the National Delivery Champions Association have been actively working to understand the challenges that platform workers in the ride-hail and delivery sectors face, and champion their interests. However, as platform workers are not employees, there is currently no legal framework for the representation of platform workers.
While there has been constructive dialogue between the associations and platform operators, tripartite partners agree that the process can be strengthened through a legal framework that sets out the rights and obligations of both platform work associations and platform operators in dealing with each other. Many of the challenges encountered by the platform workers are actually operational in nature and would be better resolved collectively through representative bodies that could work with various stakeholders including mall operators, food and beverage (F&B) chains and so on to find a good solution.
As the framework for employers and employees has worked well in preserving industrial harmony, the Bill largely adopts this framework for platform operators and platform workers. In other words, platform work associations will be analogous to trade unions.
I would like to highlight three important aspects of this framework for platform work associations.
First, we will appoint a Registrar and Assistant Registrars of platform work associations under clause 20 to assess the applications of platform work associations for registration and ensure the responsible administration of platform work associations. Similar to how trade unions may represent employees or employers, platform work associations can represent platform workers or platform operators. Once registered, the platform work associations of platform workers must obtain mandate from their members working with a platform operator to represent them in negotiations with that platform operator.
Second, once a mandate is obtained, a platform work association can work with platform operators to discuss and agree on areas for negotiation. Thus far, companies and associations have raised various areas that they may be interested in negotiating, such as safeguarding the health and safety of workers, how earnings are computed and more. Given that platform work is quite diverse and dynamic, tripartite partners agreed to leave it to each platform work association and platform operator to decide on what to negotiate on, rather than to pre-determine a list of issues that they can or cannot negotiate.
Third, it is important to preserve industrial harmony in Singapore. Therefore, amendments to the Industrial Relations Act under the Sixth Schedule of the Bill will extend existing channels for dispute resolution to platform work associations and platform operators. For instance, disputes can be brought to MOM for conciliation, and if that fails, the dispute can be heard by the Industrial Arbitration Courts.
While platform work associations can organise industrial action just like trade unions, any decision to organise industrial action must be a considered and justified decision. As such, under clause 36(1) of the Bill, a platform work association must not organise or commence industrial action if it has not obtained the consent, by secret ballot, of the majority of members affected by the industrial action. Doing so would be an offence. This is similar to the framework which governs trade unions today.
We recognise that there may be concerns around costs arising from these measures. The Government will put in place measures to manage the impact on stakeholders.
For work injury compensation, the existing open and competitive insurance market for work injury compensation insurance will facilitate sustainable insurance premiums for platform operators based on the claims history and safety records.
Today, there are 26 insurers offering competitive insurance products for the employee regime. We have worked with seven of them to develop operational policies as part of the Platform Workers Work Injury Compensation Implementation Network including providing data for more accurate risk assessment, reducing uncertainty for insurers and platform operators.
For CPF, we will pace the increase in CPF contribution over five years and give older platform workers the choice to opt in to higher CPF contributions. We will also introduce the enhanced PCTS for lower-income platform workers.
To mitigate concerns around costs being passed down to platform workers, there will be provisions under the amended CPF Act and WICA that prohibit platform operators from recovering the cost of the platform operators’ share of CPF contributions and work injury compensation from platform workers, similar to existing provisions that apply to employers.
Consumers also have a critical role to play. The introduction of CPF and workplace injury compensation protections will unavoidably lead to some increase in business costs, but I think as a society, if we all believe that we should provide some core protections for our platform workers, we should be prepared to pay just a little bit more to help platform workers secure their future. In fact, our surveys show that many consumers are indeed prepared to do so and I am heartened by this reflection of our strong social compact. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me now say a few words in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The platform economy has created opportunities for platform workers to earn a living and made life more convenient for many Singaporeans. However, platform work is precarious, so the Government will strengthen protections for platform workers in three areas: first, housing and retirement adequacy; second, work injury compensation and; third, allowing platform work associations to represent platform workers and safeguard their interests.
Firstly, platform workers will be entitled to the same housing and retirement adequacy as employees with the same income. We will gradually increase the CPF contribution rates for platform operators and workers over five years, in order to reduce the impact on platform operators and workers.
Platform workers born in 1995 and later will be required to contribute to their CPF Ordinary and Special Accounts. Younger platform workers have expressed interest in making additional CPF contributions to meet their housing needs. Older platform workers may already have their own housing and retirement plans, so they can choose to opt-in. Platform workers' total income, including CPF, will increase.
I understand that some platform workers may still be concerned that their take-home pay will be reduced. To address this, we will provide support to help low-income platform workers. The Government has enhanced the Platform Workers' CPF Transition Support (PCTS), to fully cover the additional CPF contributions required from the platform workers in 2025. This means that the platform workers' take-home pay will not be affected next year.
The subsidy in 2026 will also be increased from 50% to 75% and will be gradually reduced in subsequent years. At the same time, the monthly income ceiling for PCTS has been raised from $2,500 to $3,000, thus benefitting more platform workers.
Secondly, platform operators must provide platform workers with work injury compensation equivalent to employees’. Compensation includes medical expenses, income loss compensation for sick leave and hospitalisation and a one-time compensation for permanent incapacity or death.
Lastly, we will also establish a legal framework to allow platform work associations to represent platform workers, similar to how unions represent employees. Platform work associations will be able to communicate and negotiate with stakeholders, such as platform operators and mall operators, to better address the issues and challenges faced by platform workers.
(In English): If the Bill is passed, we plan for the Bill to take effect from 1 January 2025 as the intention is to allow platform workers to benefit from the protections as soon as possible, while bringing more convenience to platform operators and platform workers by having the increased CPF contribution rates and tax relief computed from the start of the calendar year.
Singapore is one of the first countries to provide statutory protections for platform workers as a distinct group from employees. Many other jurisdictions are similarly grappling with the challenge of how to better protect their platform workers. In this regard, the International Labour Organization (ILO) has reached out to Singapore to better understand our considerations and experiences in making these policy changes. This signals how important this issue is and shows that we are at the vanguard of developing innovative and sustainable ways to better protect these workers.
As Singaporeans, we can all be proud that we are doing this to uplift the social security protections for our platform workers who face precarity due to the nature of platform work. The measures in the Bill will improve their housing and retirement adequacy, provide them with financial protection for work injuries, and enable platform work associations to act as a bridge between platform operators and platform workers so that industrial relations remain stable and conducive to the platform economy.
This would not have been possible without our tripartite partners and the close tripartite collaboration we have in Singapore. I would like to thank the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and Singapore National Employers' Federation (SNEF) for journeying together with us to strengthen our social compact in this new area. Everyone must play their part, including platform operators, platform workers and consumers at large. The Government will also put in place transition measures to support stakeholders in implementing these changes. Sir, I beg to move. [Applause.]
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Platform Workers Bill comes to the House on the back of the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers, recommendations which were approved by the Government in 2022. The Committee's recommendations sought to strengthen protections for platform workers in three areas: adequate financial protection in case of work injury through the Work Injury Compensation Framework provided by WICA, improved housing and retirement adequacy through CPF contributions, and finally, enhanced representation for platform workers. I will first speak on the platform workers space in general, and then on the higher prices for consumers that will most inevitably arise from the legislative changes effected by this Bill.
The second part of my speech will focus on specific queries on the introduction of CPF. Finally, I will end with a few questions on WICA for platform workers and the expectations platform workers ought to have of associations that would bargain for them.
Before I speak on the substantive Bill, it is important to give an overview of the platform workers space and the incomes of our platform workers. In 2023, there were 70,500 platform workers who formed 2.9% of the labour force. The platform industry and how it is regulated, is also diverse. For example, ride-hailing is far more regulated than food delivery, which is comparatively unregulated.
Another significant question concerning platform workers is whether they earn most of their income from platform work, or if such work merely supplements what they earn from their full-time jobs. In a survey done as part of a 2022 Institute of Policy Studies inquiry on platform workers, 46% of respondents earned their income solely from food delivery, while another 27% earned income solely from platform work, including food delivery.
MOM reported that the median gross monthly income of full-time platform-related occupations was $2,000 in 2023, unchanged from 2022. For a better understanding of each sub-category of platform workers, this figure needs to be parsed further so we can understand the median gross monthly income of each category of platform worker as listed by MOM, namely delivery workers, taxi drivers and private hire drivers.
I hope the Ministry can provide this information so we can have an acute understanding of the income situation affecting specific type of platform work. With the cost of living biting Singaporeans at all levels, especially those of lower income, the earnings of most platform workers are precarious.
This view is reinforced by a 2023 DBS study, which showed that platform workers are spending more than they earn and have to tap into their savings as they try to cope with the cost of living. In 2022, the expense-to-income ratio was 107%. This rose in 2023, to 112%. Arising from this, the savings of platform workers fell to 1.7 months' worth of expenses in May 2023, compared to 1.9 months a year before.
This figure of 1.7 months is well below that of DBS Bank's median retail customer, who has savings of 3.5 months' worth of expenses. It is also well below the 12 months' of savings recommended by DBS Bank's Head of Financial Planning Literacy for those with an unstable income stream. Quite simply, many of our platform workers are potentially one major unexpected medical bill or even car repair away from exhausting their savings and sinking into real financial hardship.
The changes proposed by this Bill are aimed at helping platform workers by addressing their income and health-related insecurities. For these reasons, the Workers' Party (WP) supports this Bill, as it seeks to advance regulatory changes that will ultimately better-serve the interests of platform workers.
This House understands, of course, that the changes provided by this Bill must be paid for by someone. For now, there is little clarity on how much of the higher costs will be absorbed by the platform companies. But the Bill will doubtless usher in a period of overall higher prices for customers of platform services.
At a platform workers' dialogue session in 2023, Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon remarked, \"All the surveys we have done, showed that Singaporeans are prepared to pay up to 10% more to support platform workers.\"
However, a survey conducted in the first half of 2022, with a sample size of 2,000 respondents by the then-Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) on how much consumers were willing to pay to facilitate better protections for platform workers, revealed more nuanced findings.
The MCI survey noted that four in five consumers were prepared to pay more for food delivery or ride-hailing services if the monies went to better support platform workers. Four in 10 respondents said that they were willing to pay up to 3% more, while three in 10 said that they were willing to pay 4% to 5% more. One consumer said that she was willing to pay a little extra, provided that the increase in costs were transparent and clearly went towards worker protection.
A different survey in September 2022 of 570 respondents found that nine in 10 were prepared to pay more if the monies went towards initiatives to better support platform workers.
Minister – through you, Mr Deputy Speaker – in view of the survey threshold and tolerance of Singaporeans for price rises for platform services arising from this Bill, how much does the Ministry anticipate prices to increase by and how will this be equitably spread between consumers, platforms and platform workers? Specifically, after the implementation of the full CPF amount and WICA, are prices for users of platform services expected to rise by 5% or more, or will it breach the 10% mentioned by the Senior Minister of State?
Mr Deputy Speaker, this is not a mere technical question, but one I expect has been carefully considered by the tripartite partners, in view of the long period of deliberation, after the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers made its recommendations. Should the price increase be too high for consumers, one cannot rule out the prospect of a demand shock that causes consumers to recoil and reduce overall demand for platform services. If that were to happen, platform workers could find themselves with less work and even lower incomes.
In addition, does the Senior Minister of State expect platform companies to reveal how much of their anticipated price increases are accrued to the CPF and WICA amendments envisaged by this Bill? Or are the algorithms of the platform companies expected to accommodate the increase in prices, with the public unclear about the extent of the price rise that is devoted towards better security for our platform workers? The latter scenario may of course incentivise the prospect of profiteering in the name of regulatory compliance.
The next part of my speech covers questions on the preparations, assumptions and scenarios related to these new protections for workers, which are being brought to this House almost two years after the original recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers.
I will first speak on the compulsory CPF contributions for platform workers aged below 30, with an opt-in regime for platform workers above the age of 30.
In April 2022, I asked the Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon about the number of platform workers who contribute to their CPF accounts on their own accord. While the Senior Minister of State did not have the data on hand, it was assessed that only about 45% of platform workers made some contribution to their MediSave accounts.
It is not surprising that most platform workers do not contribute to their CPF accounts. Workers are very concerned about take-home pay. Anything that could reduce that amount is viewed with apprehension as it affects daily life.
At a platform workers' dialogue session on 3 February 2023 involving about 120 workers, several workers raised their fears on whether the recommendations suggested by the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers would result in higher costs for platforms, which would then be passed on to workers, to the detriment of their take-home pay.
One worker said, \"I hope that it will not be the cost all (passed) over to us, (but) it will be spread across consumers, platforms and ourselves. At the end of the day, if you just say only and, when you implement, the cost come back to us, we are the ones paying the 17%.\" He was referring to the 17% rate for employers' CPF contributions.
Another worker alleged that the payment rate of the platforms had been decreasing since the announcement of the measures of the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers were made and asked, \"How can the Government ensure that the platforms eventually don't give us the burden?\"
What is clear is that, platform workers are concerned about lower take-home income should platform companies extract the employers' contribution of CPF by adjusting the algorithm, thereby forcing take-home wages downwards. The workers' concerns are in line with the public demand that the anticipated increase in the cost of platform services goes towards helping platform workers.
I have a few queries for the Senior Minister of State on the CPF-related portion of this Bill.
First, with an opt-in age of 30, most platform workers could choose not to participate. Could the Senior Minister of State share the rationale and thinking of why it agreed to the opt-in age of 30, in view of the larger policy objective of addressing housing needs and retirement adequacy of platform workers?
Secondly, for workers who do not opt-in to CPF, will they receive the platform companies' share of the CPF contribution in cash?
Thirdly, based on 2023 MOM data, the median age of resident regular primary platform workers was in the mid-50s. Only 8.4% of such workers were aged 30 and below – 8.4%. Could the Senior Minister of State please tell us why the Ministry did not pursue an opt-out system, instead of an opt-in regime for those above 30 in age?
Opt-out systems, from a behavioural perspective, are far more effective in securing participation to address housing and retirement needs while yet giving choice to platform workers. Platform workers aged 30 to 39 form 10.8% of the total and those aged 40 to 49% form 18.8% of the total. In view of the life cycle of the CPF system and lower contributions received in one's later years, the early working years are important age brackets, during which, our platform workers can grow their CPF accounts to reap the benefits of compound interest in good time.
Considering that full-time employees are not even given the choice of either opting in or opting out, an opt-out system for platform workers does not seem inappropriate or unfair and would be far more effective in getting platform workers to seriously consider taking up CPF.
Fourthly, some platform workers are worried about whether they would be worse off if they opt into CPF as provided by this Bill. They are concerned that it would create a perverse incentive on the part of platform companies to assign more jobs to workers who are not making CPF contributions so as to lower the companies' wage expenditure. The Government needs to address this very real fear of our platform workers.
Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon has previously stated that platform companies must not discriminate when assigning work and MOM would investigate any unfair practices. Without more, my view is that this would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove discrimination as the evidence would lie in the word or, precisely, the algorithms of the platform companies.
It was reported that the Tripartite Workgroup on Representation for Platform Workers (TWG) had drawn up some negotiating principles with the platform companies, for example, (a) that parties would be mutually committed to the operators' business success and workers' welfare; and (b) platform operators need not divulge their proprietary information or negotiate on commercially-sensitive matters.
Can the Senior Minister of State tell us how the Ministry will investigate platform companies? How would the Ministry undertake investigations without access to the platform companies' top-secret algorithms, or does the Bill open the algorithms to scrutiny if discriminatory practices are alleged?
Fifthly, under the Bill, the CPF contribution rates for workers and platforms would be increased by a few percentage points each year, until it reaches 20% from platform workers and 17% from platforms later in this decade. To address the fears of workers about falling incomes arising from the imposition of CPF, the Government announced the PCTS at the Committee of Supply debate in March last year. The Government would contribute 75% of the workers' contribution in the first year and this would reduce to 25% in 2027.
A few weeks ago, the Government announced that it would totally offset the first contribution for the year 2025 by 100%, thus subsidising the workers' entire CPF contribution next year. Although, it must be noted that this would be the kick-off year where the workers' contribution is the lowest, at 2.5%. Can I ask the Senior Minister of State, in the interest of fiscal transparency, what is the difference between the new fiscal allocation for the PCTS compared to the original PCTS announcement?
I move on to my queries on work injury compensation. I have two broad queries in this regard.
First, it would be important for this House to understand the deliberations of the work injury compensation implementation network for platform companies and workers, on the number of insurers, which I believe was briefly mentioned by the Senior Minister of State in his opening speech, and the cost of premiums to platform companies since there is a legitimate concern that added cost for platform companies with regard to WICA, are likely to be passed on to the consumer.
Have there been difficulties in pricing WICA for platform workers to date and do platform companies have a competitive range of quotes to consider? How many insurers are prepared to offer WICA, particularly since the product is new and the class of platform workers to be covered is far smaller than WICA for employees? With the implementation date for WICA for platform workers a mere three months away, are platform companies aware of how much WICA will cost them, so as to be ready to roll out coverage for platform workers by 1 January 2025?
Separately, Mr Speaker, from the platform workers' perspective, for better work injury compensation, there must be a clear claims and compensation process for platform workers which is also easily understood. It was made known in July 2023 that the compensation from income lost due to work injuries would be based on the worker's average actual earnings in the 90 days before the injury.
Sir, the reality on the ground is that many platform workers receive platform work across many apps or what is sometimes referred to as multi-homing. We see this all the time with platform workers toggling between several devices hosting different platform apps.
Could the Senior Minister of State please tell us whether a WICA claim would cover the 90-day average across all the platform companies a platform worker is registered with and works for no matter the number of jobs accepted over this period? This is important because should a claim only be tied to the platform company, through which a platform worker accepted an assignment when injured, the WICA coverage for the worker may turn out to be very low.
Another point where clarification is needed, is the time frame during which a platform worker is considered at work. For work injury compensation purposes, a platform worker is considered at-work during the pick-up and drop-off of passengers or items, including when they are headed to their vehicles or bikes. At least this is what I understood from the brochure that was circulated by the Senior Minister of State just now.
This means that the eligibility window for work injury claims opens when the platform worker accepts a job through their app and ends when they head to their vehicles or bicycles after finishing delivery. Would there be scope to look at how WICA would apply to the completion of a food delivery job?
Usually undertaken by platform workers on motorcycles or bicycles, the risk profile of such platform workers differs considerably from platform workers who provide ride-hailing services. Intuitively, the injuries sustained from even apparently minor accidents like brushes or side swipes involving two-wheelers can be severe, debilitating and, every so often, fatal.
Can WICA for platform workers accommodate and extend greater protection for our most vulnerable workers? For example, can there be coverage if a food delivery rider completes a job, is in transit on the way home after a food delivery and, God forbids, gets involved in some serious accident?
I believe there is some scope for reviewing the applicability of WICA for food delivery riders and ride-hail platform workers differently, to better protect more vulnerable workers. This is worth consideration precisely because of the unconventional deployment of WICA in the ordinary sense, which is commonly extended to those traditionally classified as employees only. I hope the Ministry can look into this.
Separately, in a Business Times article dated 13 July 2023, it was reported that a ride-hailing driver had a specific query on whether the WICA coverage would extend to platform workers who get into an accident while waiting for the app to assign new jobs. There was no clarity on this point in the article, so it would be helpful if the Senior Minister of State can address this point in the House, too.
Before moving on from this section, the incorporation of WICA for platform workers by way of this Bill does not mean that platform companies have been leaving workers in the lurch. Foodpanda has extended skills upgrading schemes for its workers. A few companies, such as Gojek, offer subsidised premiums if workers take up private insurance. Grab has been providing drivers and delivery partners prolonged medical leave insurance.
However, the varied nature of the platform space and, by extension, the varied and different coverage for work injuries suffered by our workers, means that WICA is necessary to ensure better and consistent basic protection for our most vulnerable workers. To that extent, I agree completely with the Senior Minister of State's explanation on WICA for platform workers.
Finally, an important prong of the changes envisaged by the Bill is representation. As iterated earlier, the tripartite discussions that preceded the Bill acknowledged that the business secrets of platform companies, such as the operational details of their matching algorithms, would be respected.
I believe many people in and out of this House would have heard platform workers speak of riders or drivers allegedly receiving notice of a job in the vicinity, while another driver or rider may not receive the same notice. Naturally, this raises concerns of discriminatory allocation.
Unfortunately, these very algorithms that determine allocation are driven by the business strategies of the platform companies and one can understand that they may be trade secrets. While the House must respect the liberty of private enterprise to the extent possible, equally, it is important for platform companies to both proactively explain as well as publicise to their workers how important decisions, such as job allocation, performance assessment of workers and rates, are decided. A balance has to be struck between respecting business secrecy on one hand and the legitimate concerns of workers on the other.
Ultimately, any new status quo must better level the playing field between platform workers and platform companies to ensure that workers' rights are protected. I would also like to ask the Senior Minister of State, if representation as effected by the Bill could co-exist with the prospect of platform workers sharing their data with an association.
In the UK, a non-profit entity called WorkerInfoExchange helps platform workers access and gain insight from data collected from them at work, with a view to tilting the balance away from big platforms by collecting and pooling the data of platform workers to help them demand fairer conditions. Can the Senior Minister of State confirm if this Bill envisages a platform work association representing platform workers operating in a similar way, given there is an understanding that platform companies will not be expected to reveal the inner workings of their algorithms?
If representation delivers a more level playing field for workers and information, asymmetries between workers and companies are reduced in a real way, more platform workers are likely to be assisted directly, where representation carries weight and bargaining power. This may be an important incentive to get platform workers to seek better representation. Such incentives are needed, given that a survey carried out by Grab, Deliveroo and Foodpanda revealed that 55% of food delivery workers said they are unwilling to pay any fees for representation, suggesting a lack of understanding at what representation can offer or a lack of belief of how representation can benefit them in concrete terms.
To conclude, Sir, the success of this Bill for the Singaporean public will turn on how reasonable the anticipated price rises of platform services will be after the Bill becomes law and whether the increase is equitably distributed between consumers, platforms and workers – bearing in mind that nothing stops any company or service provider from capitalising on significant regulatory changes to profiteer or socialise costs more than it should.
While the Bill represents an improvement in social security and fairer working conditions for our platform workers, its effectiveness hinges on resolving ambiguities and the acceptance of important social responsibilities by not just platform companies and consumers, but platform workers accepting some responsibility for their own security too.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, today we are debating a Bill that marks a significant milestone in our ongoing efforts to uplift and care for the workers of Singapore. Protecting our platform workers is a cause the Labour Movement has championed for many years. This Bill addresses the unique challenges faced by workers in Singapore's growing gig economy, now widely known as platform workers.
These workers have quietly become indispensable to our daily lives – delivering our food, driving us to our destinations and bringing parcels to our doorsteps. At its core, this Bill seeks to strike a delicate balance. On one hand, it provides our platform workers with the basic protections they deserve. This is a significant win for the more than 75,000 platform workers, who rely on this work for their livelihoods.
For too long, these workers have operated in the grey area, unable to benefit from the protections of the Employment Act and relying on the goodwill of platform companies for insurance coverage. This Bill proposes to provide them with a safety net through mandatory CPF contributions, insurance coverage and the right to formal representation.
On the other hand, this Bill is sensitive to the flexibility that characterises platform work. The objective is not just to protect current workers but to ensure that the gig economy remains a sustainable part of our economy in the long term.
Mr Deputy Speaker, if it is passed, this legislation will be a landmark legislation globally. The cornerstone of this legislative change is Singapore's tripartism. Tripartism is our unique collaboration among the Government, employers and unions. It has long been the bedrock of Singapore's labour relations. It is this spirit of cooperation and dialogue that has enabled us to achieve what many other countries have struggled with: a harmonious and effective approach to regulating and improving the gig economy.
In many countries, efforts to regulate the gig or platform economy have faced significant resistance. In California, for example, platform companies have invested millions in legal battles to overturn legislation protecting platform workers. The situation has similarly been challenging in Europe, where attempts to classify gig workers as employees have been met with stiff opposition from platform companies. However, in Singapore, we have taken a different approach.
By leveraging on our strong tradition of tripartism, we have brought together the Government, unions and platform companies to craft a framework that balances the needs of all parties. This collaborative approach has allowed us to move forward with this bold legislative and policy change, ensuring we protect our workers while maintaining the flexibility and sustainability of the gig economy.
A key feature of the Bill is ensuring that platform workers have access to CPF contributions. This is crucial for helping them build a secure financial future, especially for younger workers who aspire to own their homes and save for retirement. By mandating CPF contributions from both platform companies and workers, we are not just protecting these individuals. We are investing in their future.
While it may be challenging for workers to adapt to a lower take-home pay initially, the PCTS will help alleviate this burden. This phased approach gives workers time to adjust to the new scheme. Workers will also get employers' contributions to the CPF, lending further support for longer-term retirement and housing support. If we care for the workers, we must plan for the longer run.
Currently, mandatory work and injury compensation for platform workers is non-existent. Some platform companies offer insurance but it is not mandated. This leaves workers vulnerable when accidents occur, facing both medical bills and loss of income. Cases of riders suffering injuries resulting in inability to work are not uncommon. Without mandatory workplace injury coverage, they will have to rely on their savings or the goodwill of friends and family to cover their medical expenses and support their households. Such is the precarious situation many delivery riders face. The struggles underscore the urgent need for a standardised, mandated workplace injury compensation scheme that protects all platform workers.
A 2022 survey by the Institute of Policy Studies, further underscores the urgency of this issue, finding that more than a third of delivery riders in Singapore had been in some forms of accident requiring medical attention. Yet without legislative protection, they are left with the financial brunt of such incidents. This Bill will introduce mandatory work injury compensation for platform workers, providing them with the same level of protection as traditional employees under WICA.
Whether it is a delivery rider injured at a job or a private hire driver involved in an accident, platform workers will now have the peace of mind that comes with knowing they are now covered. The Bill also allows for platform workers to be formally represented by associations, giving these associations legal standing to advocate on behalf of workers.
This is welcome news for the labour union-affiliated associations, like the National Private Hire Vehicles Association, the National Delivery Champions Association and the National Taxi Association. With the formal legal backing, these associations can now, more effectively, engage with platform companies to represent and protect their members, ensuring a more balanced playing field for platform workers. And members will also be supported by NTUC's full ecosystem of support and privileges.
Without such representation, platform workers often find themselves voiceless and powerless. In the UK, Uber drivers had to fight a lengthy legal battle to be recognised as workers, rather than independent contractors. The absence of formal representation delayed their access to basic protection for years.
This Bill seeks to prevent such struggles by empowering associations to protect platform workers' rights from the outset. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, while this Bill represents a significant step forward, it is important to acknowledge the challenges and trade-offs that come with it. These protections will likely come at a cost, at least in the short term.
Platform companies will need to adjust their business models to comply with these new obligations and some of these costs may, indeed, be passed on to consumers. The Government has come in via the PCTS to help with the transition. This means that short-term price volatility is likely to be mitigated, giving time for the system to adjust. However, we must remember the broader social compact that we are trying to build in Singapore requires contributions from all parties. All of us, platform workers, companies and consumers, must share the responsibility of ensuring that the gig economy remains fair and sustainable for all stakeholders. By working together, we can ensure that these changes benefit not just platform workers, but all of Singapore.
There are a few points I would like to raise for the Ministry's considerations.
The gig economy often involves workers engaging with multiple platforms simultaneously. For instance, a delivery rider might work for different food delivery platforms or even ride-hailing services, as discussed earlier. This can create unique challenges when it comes to applying to WICA.
We have talked about having a look-back period, but invariably, this may lead to disputes among insurance or even companies delaying compensation for workers. To address this, how does the Ministry ensure guidelines are sufficiently clear and robust and there will be a robust arbitration system in place so that the payouts are not unduly delayed?
The Bill primarily focuses on workers engaged in transportation and delivery services. But the gig economy clearly extends beyond these sectors. Platforms offering cleaning services, digital work and nursing services are also significant parts of the gig economy. Could the Ministry clarify its rationale for focusing on transportation and delivery services now? And will there be a periodic review mechanism to update the definition of \"platform workers\" as the gig economy evolves?
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill is a positive step forward for Singapore. Providing platform workers with the protection they deserve is essential as we build an inclusive society. It also demonstrates that the People's Action Party (PAP) Government is prepared to make bold changes to its policies to improve the lives of Singaporeans. The gig economy offers workers a flexible way to achieve financial independence or sustenance, and we must ensure they are protected from the imbalances of power that exist in this sector.
But our work does not end here. We must continue to listen to the voices of our platform workers and make necessary adjustments to ensure that this Bill achieves its intended outcome. Every worker matters and the Labour Movement stands ready to assist the Government in engaging our platform workers to ensure that this Bill achieves its intent. I look forward to a stronger social compact, ensuring that our society works towards leaving no worker behind. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mr Deputy Speaker, own account workers have historically been a key feature of our labour markets, with various occupations ranging from real estate and insurance agents, F&B stall owners at our hawker centres to taxi drivers. In recent years, the rise of digital platforms alongside the proliferation of smartphones and the mobile Internet led to the emergence of a different class of own account workers: those who may not entirely be in control of their own business, such as private hire car drivers and food delivery riders, working for the ubiquitous multi-billion dollar platform companies we see today.
Many of our Sengkang residents work for these platforms in the gig economy, too, and I have spoken to quite a number of them during my Meet-the-People Sessions, house visits and our shopping malls where many of them are waiting for their next delivery pick-up. While the gig economy is often hailed for its flexibility and autonomy, the reality is that with ever-increasing app sophistication and as these platforms grow in scale, the gig economy has evolved in ways that increasingly disadvantage its workers, and such work is often arduous, risky and poorly remunerated. Behind the appeal of flexibility and the promise of independence lies a reality fraught with inadequate protections and financial insecurity.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
As these issues become increasingly apparent, there is an urgent need for legislation to safeguard the welfare and rights of our platform workers. This Bill, in essence, implements the recommendations brought forth by the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers to help improve the working conditions and livelihoods of our platform workers, and I believe nobody will disagree with the urgency of addressing some of the pain points faced by our platform workers.
There remains much work to be done, however, and my speech will focus on three areas which I believe we can and should do better to ensure the fundamental sustainability of our platform workers' livelihood in the long term.
First, under the new section 8A, platform operators must now pay CPF contributions to its platform workers, with platform workers' themselves, too, contributing the equivalent of \"employee contributions\" through a deduction from their remuneration.
Chief among platform workers' concerns is, of course, the reduction in take-home salaries, which can be a sizeable impact, considering the already low average salaries earned by our workers trying their best to feed their families.
Granted, in an announcement on 22 August 2024, MOM announced that the PCTS will be enhanced, such that there will be a 100% offset of the platform workers' share of increase in CPF Ordinary Account and Special Account contributions in 2025, before tapering down gradually from 2026 and easing in 2029.
However, are we being too lenient on the platform companies themselves in not getting them to better support their own platform workers, whom they rely on day in and day out to keep their platforms working? Platform companies' CPF contributions start at 3.5% for workers across all age groups from 1 January 2025, before progressively increasing each year up to a steady state from 1 January 2029 onwards. Today, resident regular primary platform workers aged 60 and over represent the highest percentage of workers by age group at 34.7%, with those aged 50 to 59 representing the next highest percentage at 30.2%.
Using the example of a worker aged between 65 and 70 who is somehow still working and not retired, the difference between the initial 3.5% company contribution rate and the steady state contribution rate of 9% is minimal. Assuming he earns the median income of $2,000 as a worker, the difference is a mere $110 a month. Even if we assume the worker is aged 35 or below, meaning a company contribution rate of 17%, the difference is, again, just $270 a month. Surely, that is not too much to ask of our platform companies.
I fully agree with what Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon said in response to Parliamentary Questions in April 2022, where he noted that while mandatory CPF contributions will increase platform companies' business costs, I quote: \"It is no worse off than any other company employing workers in a similar sector, such as in logistics and transport. Besides, platform companies already contribute CPF for their management executives and administrative staff today.\"
While we want to phase in the workers' contributions over time, given take-home pay concerns, can we not accelerate platform companies' contributions or even mandating that they start contributing their full share of contributions immediately from January 2025?
Second, I wish to reiterate a point I made during the 2022 Committee of Supply debate, where I hope that we can pay a fair wage for our platform workers and ensure that they earn at least our minimum wage equivalent, the local qualifying salary (LQS). While this was at $9.00 per hour back when I made the speech, this has now been raised to $10.50 per hour, based on the latest LQS as announced in Budget 2024.
The 2017/2018 Household Expenditure Survey lists the median household expenditure as $4,906. A DBS survey also suggested that food delivery riders spend $1.12 for every dollar they earn.
While such jobs are advertised as being \"flexible\" and \"ad hoc\", many platform workers work long hours to ensure that they have sufficient income, with an Institute of Policy Studies survey reporting that approximately 40% of food delivery riders work over 44 hours a week.
Today, platform workers have to grapple with ever-changing incentive schemes, weather conditions and other factors beyond their control. Allowing them to earn a fair wage that is in line with minimum wage standards goes a long way in providing some degree of support in alleviating the income instability that our platform workers face.
While the nature of the work differs from platform to platform, as long as the principle is abided to, I believe the implementation difficulties are not insurmountable. In China, for example, one of the largest if not the largest market for platform workers, its Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security released additional guidelines earlier this year, stipulating how operators of delivery, ride-hailing, transport and household services platforms should ensure that their workers' salaries match local minimum wages and provide them with time off. This is a further extension of regulations published back in 2021 that already requires operators to meet minimum wage standards and provide social security access to their workers.
Third, perhaps underlying many of the issues faced by our platform workers is a trust deficit between the powerful multi-billion international technology platforms and the thousands of individual platform workers who feel beholden to the platforms they count on to put food on the table for themselves and not just the customers whom they deliver to.
Our platform workers' livelihoods are thus at the mercy of the technology and algorithms behind these platforms, which can sometimes feel like a faceless and merciless machine. One of the residents I met earlier, who cycles to make food deliveries, was even wondering if his lower scores led to him being deployed to \"lousy jobs\" which involve a long ride to pick up the food and subsequently to deliver them. With the move to introduce CPF contributions for platform workers, there could be concerns, unfounded or otherwise, that algorithms might be programmed to assign more jobs to workers who do not opt in and could better contribute to the platforms' bottom line instead.
Perhaps, in addition to formal union representation, the Government can consider the formation of an \"Algorithm Committee\" to give platform workers confidence that there is fairness and transparency in how the platforms operate. Such a committee was introduced in Spain, for example, as part of their first Collective Agreement for Platform Workers, and, in China, the authorities have also introduced guidelines since 2021 highlighting that the \"strictest algorithm\" should not be used as an assessment requirement and delivery time requirements should be appropriately relaxed.
To conclude, Mr Speaker, rather than confining our support for platform workers within the existing framework, I hope the additional points I raised can be given due consideration for future legislative amendments to better enhance the sustainability of our platform workers' livelihoods. Notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.
Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, it has been over a decade of the Labour Movement listening to and representing Singapore's freelancers and the self-employed. NTUC and our affiliate associations – the National Taxi Association, National Private Hire Vehicles Association and National Delivery Champions Association have worked for years on advocating and planning for this debate today. I would like to give a shoutout to my brothers and sisters in the Gallery, these are the good people, association leaders, unionists, platform owners and operators, who have worked very hard to make this debate happen today.
This landmark Bill, if passed into law, recognises that self-employed gig platform workers are in employee-like work arrangements with platform operators and will allow platform workers, such as our taxi and private hire vehicle drivers and delivery riders, to be formally represented by union-like associations under Singapore's labour laws, and to be accorded, rightfully, fair and even workplace injury insurance, as well as retirement and housing adequacy, alongside all Singaporean employees.
The Labour Movement is no stranger to the ground concerns of our freelance workers and thanks to Singapore's unique style of tripartism, has been representing our workers' rights to the Government and platform taxi companies. Successful negotiations through the tripartite partnership have helped our drivers and riders through challenging times and have created improved worker outcomes in terms of work prospects and working conditions.
In 2010, the National Taxi Association advocated for taxi companies to match MediSave Contributions for our drivers under the \"Drive and Save\" scheme, and the National Private Hire Vehicles Association replicated this successfully for our private hire vehicle drivers in 2017 with Grab. We also innovated voluntary mediation for disputes with operators and we want to thank our progressive operators for their support. Throughout COVID-19, we protected livelihoods by working with taxi companies to reduce rentals and hold taxi pump prices when fuel prices spiked. Partnering closely with our food court operators, platform companies and the Government, NTUC negotiated on proper rest areas for drivers and riders providing essential services during the COVID-19 restrictions. Earlier this year, NTUC mooted for and co-led a multi-agency workgroup comprising the Government and private sector condominium Management Corporation Strata Titles and mall operators to look into work and safety conditions for our delivery riders.
These working models and Tripartite relationships have been carefully cultivated by our associations to improve the welfare of our workers in the absence of legislation. If Members need proof of this working model, it is visible here at the Gallery with our platform operators seated next to our platform workers.
However, Mr Speaker, there are miles to go before we sleep, and as more Singaporeans choose to be part of the gig economy and as more global players enter this fast-evolving platform industry in Singapore, it is important that our workers' interests and livelihoods stay protected. We listened. And we know that platform workers are stressed about the long-term sustainability of their livelihoods, especially with non-transparent incentives and order mechanisms, app glitches and fluctuating demand/supply. They are worried about unsafe working conditions and the financial burden placed on their families should accidents or even deaths occur. They are aggrieved over the lone voices they have when it comes to their challenges being heard by platform partners and other stakeholders in the course of their daily work.
Unlike the truly self-employed, today’s platform workers are in employee-like work arrangements as they are subjected to their platform operators' management controls and have to adhere to the platforms' rules of engagement. Many a times, our platform workers are left in vulnerable situations especially when their platform partners change their incentive structures and order booking rhythms.
Brother Calvin, not his real name, was once a delivery rider using a power-assisted bicycle (PAB). By targeting peak-hour shifts, he was able to earn a comfortable steady $2,500 a month, and this allowed him the ability to support himself and to take on some long-term financial commitments. But things changed. Despite booking those same peak-hour shifts, fewer orders started coming in. Once, he went for days without even being able to book for the same shifts he once used to be able to get. Seeing that bicycle deliveries had shift slots opened when there are none opened for PABs for the same shifts, he resorted to changing his delivery method from PAB to bicycle. The week-by-week change threw off his cadence in life, and I believe that livelihoods should not be as precarious and fleeting as an unconsulted, unconsented change in a partner platform’s priorities.
Calvin is fortunate that he was nimble enough to leave the industry, but there are scores of others in this industry, who have fully vested their livelihoods and trust in platform apps, finding themselves in a double bind. They are unclear why the rules of engagement on their partner platform have changed, while trying to make ends meet for their families in a job that had promised partnership and a viable means to a livelihood.
Indeed, representation also covers circumstances which may appear trivial to the rest of us, but bear great impact to our drivers and riders. I call it the “cupcake effect”. In my interactions with our delivery riders, many have brought up to me about the hump at most of our public carpark gantries. While most of us cannot recall that hump, and I appreciate how the HDB has put these humps in to slow down cars before the gantry, the hump is a bane to many delivery riders as it causes the cream decoration on cupcakes to be overturned, and drinks to be spilled. Our riders have told us that they often do not know where to bring these grievances to, hence tripartism and formal representation would be critical twin pillars in allowing our platform workers’ voices to be heard.
Mr Speaker, we all have read about tragic stories involving delivery riders losing limbs and lives in unfortunate accidents, and some of us, may have even personally met with their family members in the wake of these unfortunate circumstances. The fact of the matter is that workplace injuries are common in the delivery space and, more often than not, our platform workers leave behind grieving family members, finding themselves even in more precarious financial situations. While we argue that many platform companies do provide basic insurance cover for their drivers and riders, as pointed out, these insurance are often inadequate and are uneven in coverage, many a times, tied towards performance metrics and tiered privilege systems. I ask, should something as basic as insurance be gamified?
Take the tragic example from June 2022, when a 54-year-old food delivery rider lost his life in an accident at the Punggol Waterway Point mall. I attended his wake and what struck me most was the vulnerability of his family. He was the main breadwinner in the family, leaving behind an elderly mother. The National Delivery Champions Association set up a counselling booth with the assistance of the mall to support the riders who witnessed the accident. It was a reminder of how real the dangers is at work for our platform workers. But what happens to the families left behind? Is there enough support for them? Unfortunately, the answer is often no.
Hence, Mr Speaker, I put it to you that work injury insurance not a game, 工伤赔偿不可能当成游戏, and I support the mandating of a WICA-like coverage for our platform workers, akin to that enjoyed by the rest of the Singaporean employees. Work injury insurance should not be tied to whether a worker meets performance targets or has a specific mode of transport. Insurance must cover all workers, at all times, regardless of their activity level or their ranking within a system.
In the same vein, the same must be said of our platform workers’ CPF and housing adequacy. Private hire vehicle brothers Joseph and Gabriel tell me that they find it difficult to maintain a steady stream of income due to the non-transparency of work order rhythms and the fluid nature of a platform's incentive system. They are both family men coping with the rise of business costs out of their control – rentals and petrol mainly – and the volatility of their platform earnings. The pressures are compounded by the demands of their families and long-term commitments.
Our platform workers’ stresses are not unique and is commonly shared by all Singaporeans. The difference is that for most working Singaporeans, they have the certainly in planning and growing a nest egg through CPF contributions. Growing older means higher healthcare costs, growing a family means taking on housing loans.
Gabriel shares that the rental cost of a Toyota Noah that used to cost $80 a day pre-COVID-19 now costs $110. This is a 37.5% increase, but definitely fares have not increased proportionately. Today, he has to drive another one to three extra hours just to maintain his pre-COVID-19 income, but with a good sense of financial literacy and prudency, Gabriel is able to maintain his lifestyle to manage his family’s daily expenses.
However, others might not be as savvy as Gabriel and some are now falling into arrears. Indeed, anecdotally, just as I was receiving feedback from our member drivers on unsustainable low trip and order rates, I have also seen a corresponding higher number of platform workers in arrears for their HDB loans at my Meet-the-People Sessions in the past six months.
These worries and aspirations are not only those belonging to our traditional breadwinners. Our sisters have also often voiced out their needs for long-term financial adequacy for their families and themselves. These are not their real names – sister Farrah, a mum of six; sister Maria a single mum with an adult son; sister Courtney, a single mom with a child with disabilities, have all called for better housing and retirement adequacy. Sister Farrah would like to purchase a flat of her own, sister Maria would like to contribute to her son’s future marital home and sister Courtney would like to provide better therapy services for her special needs child.
Mr Speaker, it is clear that should we recognise our platform workers as employee-like, it is fair that our platform workers are covered by CPF. Our platform operators, as with all the rest of Singapore-based employers, will need to provide their share of CPF as part of their cost of business. This will be critical in ensuring that our platform workers are paid fairly for a sustainable livelihood and be finally on par with the rest of the workforce for the work that they have done. My taxi and private hire vehicle association leaders have a wise saying: \"羊毛出在羊身上\". The sheep's wool must come from its body.
How would the Ministry ensure that our platform operators pay for their fair share of their platform workers’ CPF, keeping in mind that platform operators need to be sustainable also? Mr Speaker, in Mandarin please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] For over a decade, the Labour Movement has been listening to and representing the voices of freelancers and self-employed individuals in Singapore. NTUC and its affiliated National Taxi Association, National Private Hire Vehicle Association and National Delivery Champions Association have been dedicated to promoting and planning this Bill for many years. Through our Tripartite efforts, we are finally able to stand in Parliament today to debate this landmark Bill.
If this Bill is passed, it will be a world first, formally recognising that platform workers can enjoy benefits similar to those of employees. This way, platform workers can enjoy corresponding formal rights through platform associations. More importantly, it will ensure workers receive comprehensive work injury insurance and enhanced retirement and housing security. Once platform workers can enjoy treatment similar to employees, they will be able to benefit from these basic benefits and rights.
We must take more measures to support this growing group in Singapore. NTUC has deep concern for platform workers, and we will continue to safeguard their interests as we have always done, because we cherish every platform worker.
(In English): Mr Speaker, more must be done to support this growing group of Singaporean workers. As I rise in support of the Bill, which the NTUC and the Labour Movement have worked hard to push, I reiterate, as I have on several occasions, the concerns I have with the roll-out.
Given that we agree that platform workers are treated as employee-like, how do we ensure that platforms contribute fairly to CPF and insurance without passing the costs onto workers and end consumers through reduced pay or higher fees? Would MOM be requiring platform companies to provide clear breakdown of fares to both workers and end consumers stating clearly their share of CPF contributions?
Waiting in between bookings and jobs is a regular part of a platform worker’s daily job routine. As long as a platform worker has his or her app on, and has exhibited that they are ready to take on a booking, arguably, this waiting time should also be covered under the work injury insurance.
Given that anecdotally, from our drivers and riders' feedback that real earnings have gone down and drivers need to drive longer hours, can we also extend the PCTS scheme for all drivers even those who earn more than $2,500 today? The coverage can be capped up to $2,500 of their earnings.
Mr Speaker, the time has come for our platform workers to forge their own collective agreement so that their voices are heard, their working conditions improve and their grievances addressed in a timely and fair manner. As employee-like workers, platform workers' retirement and housing adequacy worries must be addressed, by having platform operators pay for their fair share of CPF. As workers working in precarious work conditions, platform workers must be covered adequately by accident and loss of income insurance.
NTUC cares deeply for our platform workers and we will continue, as we have done over the years, to champion their interests, because every platform worker matters. My clarifications not withstanding, I strongly support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Speaker, the Platform Workers Bill is a comprehensive, even exhaustive, document, numbering some 234 pages, and addressing a wide range of legislative changes meant to enfold platform work better into the jobs landscape of our economy. It makes good-faith efforts to improve the rights and protections for gig workers, and for that reason, it has the support of the WP.
Others have already spoken about various other aspects of the Bill, including enabling such workers to secure representation via workers associations or union equivalents, along with accommodations for workplace health and safety. I will, in my remarks, focus on how the Bill caters specifically to retirement adequacy of such platform workers, which is a principal concern of Part 8 of the Bill.
For context, let me begin with a sketch of the economics of the platform economy. Digitally-oriented business models have been with us for a long time now, of course, having risen to prominence in the run-up to the dot-com boom of the late 1990s. But it was only after the bursting of that bubble that we saw the subsequent emergence of both sharing economy firms such as Airbnb, Uber and WeWork, along with the penetration of incumbent technology giants like Amazon, Facebook and Google into such digital ecosystems and that has ushered in the current generation of platform economies.
The digital economy is now massive and will only continue to grow. Estimates suggest that by 2028, it will grow from the current $12 trillion to $17 trillion worldwide, accounting for almost a fifth of all global output. In Singapore, the Infocomm Media Development Authority expects a comparable share of the digital economy in our gross domestic product (GDP), with digital businesses outpacing the rate of growth of the overall economy.
Yet the platform economy raises intimate issues of concern for workers in particular. A recent study established that the largest platform companies have been able to churn out twice the growth, profits and market capitalisation than the largest old-school firms operating in the same business, all while doing so with half the number of workers.
What is worse, while some founders and employees at the top end – think of the thousands of well-remunerated tech professionals, not to mention tech billionaires like Jeff Bezos, Jack Ma and Mark Zuckerberg – have benefited enormously from the platform economy, tens of thousands of others are barely eking by, on precarious driving, delivery and paid-per-gig jobs.
The present Bill limits itself to a class of workers providing on-demand delivery and ride-hailing services operating on digital platforms. This, in my view, is an appropriate prioritisation, given their relative share of all platform workers.
After all, such workers reside in an awkward intersection of regular wage-earning employees, whose jobs afford sufficient structure for traditional labour protections and the fully self-employed who understand the risky trade-offs of running one's own shop but get to enjoy the potentially large returns from business success or the freedom of being one's own boss. Unlike the self-employed, however, most platform workers cannot decide on how much they charge and many do not do gig work out of choice. They may be responding to, for instance, an unexpected job displacement or an inability to secure more traditional employment.
The new classification of platform workers that will result from Part 1 of the Bill helps ensure that workers in this intermediate no-man's land will be extended proper labour protections. It is already somewhat belated, with jurisdictions such as the UK having recognised so-called \"limb (b)\" workers in 2021 and the state of California having extended full employee classification to platform workers in 2019, although that has recently been overturned.
But better late than never, although I would hope that the Bill should also consider eventually extending the coverage of the First Schedule to another category of platform workers: those who contribute towards and are paid for their part in a crowdsourced task – otherwise known as crowdworkers. This would include freelancers on Amazon Mechanical Turk or Fiverr, but also cleaners and handymen or performers that heavily rely on platforms to match themselves to work opportunities. Such individuals exhibit many of the same features of employment precarity that on-demand delivery and ride-hailing workers do.
Of course, the experiences of platform workers within this group may well differ, depending on their motivations for seeking work and even the specific platforms on which they operate. While some are reasonably well-off and choose platform work as a helpful supplement to their primary income, most are on the lower end of the income scale and may suffer from significant income volatility, resulting in higher levels of job anxiety. Many have to go into debt to even get started on gig work. This has led some observers to criticise the claims that platform work fosters some special spirit of entrepreneurship as \"utopian thinking\".
The reality, instead, is that many employees engaged in platform work full-time live very vulnerable economic lives. The majority are bereft of health insurance or retirement plans or social protections, more generally. The flexibility of gig work – often presented as a boon – is often a bane in reality as workers often cease work once they have reached a daily target, which in turn erodes their long-term earnings capability.
A significant number are young – since the higher starting salaries may prove irresistibly attractive, relative to the alternative – but with limited career upside, lifetime incomes often end up lower than with conventional careers. Absent stronger incentives, a majority would either completely opt out of contributions towards CPF or make only minimal contributions to keep their take-home salaries high. As a result, many platform workers fail to squirrel away enough money to support themselves later in life.
Yet there is some evidence that platform workers may actually favour mechanisms that can help them commit, somehow, to increasing their savings, although this is of course tempered by a concern that the possibility of their take-home pay would decrease as a result. This is why it is vitally important to ensure that platform workers have access to a pension plan. In Singapore, this typically means enrolling in the cornerstone of our system of retirement provision, the CPF.
To be clear, the WP has in the past offered measured critiques of the system. Notwithstanding these reservations, we believe that CPF goes some way towards providing for retirees during their sunset years and hence, has a role to play for platform workers as well.
Consequently, the WP is in favour of the stipulations in the Bill that will encourage such workers to enrol with the system. The proposed enhanced PCTS embedded into the Fifth Schedule certainly offers a welcome alternative to encourage participation in the higher-contribution Group A, at least up till 2028. The Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh has further suggested that the default be set as an opt-out rather than an opt-in regime.
This has much to be commended. Behavioural scientists have documented how a bias towards the status quo, coupled with inertia, tends to lead individuals to stay with pre-selected defaults. This has also been demonstrated, specifically, when it comes to saving behaviour.
Hence, if we believe that it is truly beneficial to nudge our platform workers towards greater savings for retirement, applying an opt-out default would be no less constraining on their freedom of choice while encouraging welfare-enhancing behaviour.
That said, as my hon friend Louis Chua has already and my friend Gerald Giam will, point out, the scheme could nevertheless give rise to unintended consequences as well. Platform companies may tweak their algorithms to deprioritise job allocations for those who are contributing more to CPF or they may choose to blatantly reduce the salaries of those who sign onto the scheme. Here, I raise the possibility of another possible unintended consequence, related to how those under 30 years of age are automatically enrolled in Group A.
While I can guess at the Government's motivation behind insisting that the young be automatically placed in Group A – it ensures that those who will benefit most by starting their retirement saving early do so and, as Senior Minister of State Koh earlier said, older workers may already have some savings plan in place\t– this may nevertheless inadvertently lead to discrimination against their hiring since they are now also more costly. This may further exacerbate youth unemployment, which – like elsewhere in the world – is already more than twice as high as the adult unemployment rate.
This concern has already been flagged by some of our younger platform workers. The counter-argument that suggests that the number of workers not on the scheme is likely to be small – and hence, discrimination is not possible since most workers would be covered – does not hold up to the data. Only a fraction of around 7% of platform workers are indeed below 30 years of age. And the belief that such a discriminatory strategy would not hold up in the longer run also does not address how a sizeable group of youths could nevertheless face discrimination in the meantime.
Nor should we be content with the claim that younger workers – being fitter, more resolute or more efficient – are naturally more attractive hires. After all, we are well aware of the weaker bargaining power of employees with less experience in the workplace, which may well predispose them to accepting otherwise lower wages than they deserve.
One strategy to preclude this, without throwing the baby of retirement adequacy out with the bathwater of potential discrimination, is to ensure that the impending Anti-Discrimination Bill, which, last I heard, is due to be debated in Parliament this year, includes provisions that would make such unsavory practices illegal, notwithstanding the challenges of proving discrimination in practice that the Leader of the Opposition has pointed to.
Separately, one is left to wonder what the Government's Plan B is, should the enhanced PCTS fail to deliver the sort of sign-up rates that we all hope for. After all, while the lock-in into Group A for older workers who exercise the CPF scheme option is assured by clause 4(3) of the Fourth Schedule, such inevitability may well end up discouraging workers from signing up in the first place. These workers will nevertheless face retirement adequacy issues and hence, it strikes me as valuable to monitor the rate of sign-up as well as develop a strategy for encouraging participation in the event that the enhanced PCTS alone remains insufficient as an incentive.
Mr Speaker, I will close with a practical suggestion. For platform workers that do enrol as Group A workers, it would be useful for the Government to work with platform providers themselves to ensure the accurate reporting of earnings in much the same manner that employers are currently obliged to accurately declare salary information for wage-earning employees. This would facilitate retirement planning and submissions to CPF, but it may call for some automated transfer of aggregated monthly earnings data since platform workers' earnings are transactions-based. These data should, of course, also be open to audit, ideally by a truly independent third party.
Sir, platform workers are an important constituency of Sengkang, the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) I represent. While I support the enhanced protections being made available to them, I, like my WP colleagues, caution against an excessively sanguine attitude to platform providers, to the detriment of our hardworking gig workers. We must make gig work work for their retirement.
Mr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, the introduction of this Bill is timely and I welcome the augmented support for platform workers to ensure that they have sufficient financial compensation in the event of work injuries, receive CPF contributions on par with employees and are protected with representation by worker associations.
First, about the injuries incurred in the course of work. I appeal to the Ministry to extend this protection beyond physical injuries. Just like employees in the services industries, including the healthcare and security sectors, our platform workers require protection against verbal threats and psychological abuses.
This Bill does not address this prevalent issue but it is not uncommon to hear stories about platform workers being verbally abused for being delayed due to weather or traffic conditions. Private hire vehicle drivers get berated for various reasons by passengers. This can affect them emotionally or worse, financially, as they may be given bad reviews even though they are not at fault or for situations beyond their control. We may need to look into provisions for platform workers to be protected from threats, abuse and unfair reviews given by unreasonable customers.
I am most assured that platform workers will receive matching CPF contributions based on the amounts they earn, whether they work for a single or multiple platforms. This will help them move towards better housing and retirement adequacy. However, I am still very much concerned about their income progression and the stresses they face due to the volatility and unpredictable nature of their earnings, which are dependent on seasonal demand.
There is a limit to how many orders or trips one can do a day, due to supply and demand factors, road conditions and physical human limits. As these riders grow older or reach other milestones in life, how can we ensure their income goes up in tandem with inflation and/or be able to meet the expenditure needs for major life events? Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] There is a limit on how many orders or trips one can do a day. This is due to supply and demand factors, road conditions and physical limits. As these riders grow older or reach other milestones in their life, how can we ensure their income goes up in tandem with inflation and/or able to meet the expenditure needs for major life events?
(In English): Presently, food delivery and ride hailing companies have tiered systems for benefits. Payment incentives are provided for a number of rides at each tier. Those in the higher tier also have priority in booking shifts and getting orders. These incentives are not fixed and companies can always drop these incentives at their own discretion. There is no protection in terms of their stability of income. What more can we do to ensure that their incomes do not fall even if they are working just as hard? How do we ensure that their incomes rise over the years to keep up with inflation? At the same time, how can we balance this with keeping with the cost of such services affordable to the majority of our consumers?
Finally, we want to help platform workers transition to careers in other fields if they so desire. It is important that they can have career mobility and employability. How do we ensure the career mobility of our platform workers? For platform workers who may at some point decide to move on from being a platform worker and find a more stable employment, the Government may wish to consider providing more support for platform workers to attend trainings, with some form of allowance or income support. Such support should be a permanent feature and not ad hoc.
Last month, the Government announced the new SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support Scheme, which will provide up to $6,000 over six months to those who have made involuntarily unemployed. May I seek clarification from the Senior Minister of State if platform workers can qualify for this scheme?
In conclusion, the Bill is a step in the right direction to provide more protection for this group of workers and I wish to state my strong support for the Bill.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exempted Business","subTitle":"Business Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Leader.
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2.\"
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Platform Workers Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Mr Speaker, I remember during the COVID-19 pandemic period, where on many occasions we had to sit through weeks of quarantine, it was the delivery platform workers that brought food and necessities to our doorsteps.
Today, platform workers provide much appreciated last-mile service, making a difference in terms conveniences in our daily lives; their services widen our dinning and consumption options, and they plug the service gap for those who are less mobile such as our seniors or those that are unwell. Rain or shine, platform workers carry out their work; often under time pressure to fulfil their job orders. There is a lot of daily toil and hard work on their part.
Platform workers are not faceless Singaporeans. They, like the rest of us, also have their ups and downs in life, emotions, angst and anxieties. Like us, they also have families and loved ones and they too want safety, security and better life for themselves and for their families.
At Bukit Panjang where I served, we have a Delivery Riders Support group where we get together regularly such as during festivities, to catch up and to offer each other support and assistances. In my frequent engagements with the platform riders, they will often share with me about what they are going through, the daily challenges that they face as well as their concern on the longer-term stability and security of their work as well as their longer-term livelihoods.
Sir, platform workers merely just want to earn a decent living to support themselves through their hard work, sweat and even at their personal safety. But they also hope that the society would not see them as a forgotten group and also appreciate their fair share of contributions in the service that they provide to the community.
Sir, it is only right that we treat our platform workers as a part of our workforce, providing them the necessary protections such as compensation for work injuries and importantly, housing and retirement adequacy that is so key to one’s life cycle.
They should also have the organised means and representation to collectively negotiate and bargain with the platform operators so as to safeguard the interest of the fellow platform workers.
Sir, I fully support the measures and appreciate the calibrated approach to implement the various changes; including the Government funding support to introduce the PCTS to offset part of the increases in the CPF contribution rates.
Sir, the platform sector is still a relatively new sector. Many of the platform operators are still running operating losses and counting on money from investors to keep the operations going. So, in my view, the sector is still in search of the optimal financial equilibrium and yet to be on a more self-sustaining footing.
With that in mind, can I ask the Senior Minister of State how would the changes envisaged in this Bill impact the overall ecosystem of the platform service? Do we expect the terms of trade between among the stakeholders which are the platform operators, platform workers, consumers and, in the case of food delivery, the F&B operators, do we expect any change in the terms of trade among the stakeholders as a result of this Bill?
As this sector does create employment and income, and also provide useful flexible work arrangements, besides the Platform Workers Bill, how can the Government help to strengthen the resilience and robustness of this sector?
Finally, would the Government also look to support reskilling of the platform workers, whether to continue in their work in the platform service sector or to seek new work opportunities in other sectors. Notwithstanding my questions, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) welcomes the introduction of the Platform Workers Bill as an important first step in improving the welfare of platform workers.
They are now more than 70,000 platform workers in Singapore as of 2023. This is a significant portion of our workforce and many of them are lower income and have been displaced from the job market in recent years. While platform workers generally enjoy more flexibility than employees, they are also subject to significant management control by platform companies when their supply of services are matched to demand by algorithms.
It is timely that our legislation is now being updated to create a new class of workers distinct from employees and self-employed persons to protect the rights of platform workers.
This Bill recognises the need to ensure equitable pay for our platform workers. We support the change made by the Bill to align the CPF contribution rates for platform workers and platform companies to those of regular employees and employers for platform workers born on or after 1 January 1995.
This is a step in the right direction which will ensure that younger platform workers have adequate protections for housing and retirement. The opt-in regime for older platform workers also meets the desire of many older platform workers to opt out of CPF contributions on their earnings in order to maximise their take-home pay.
However, in order to ascertain that this change will really benefit the platform workers, we would like to ask the Government if it has gotten commitments from the platform companies that they will not reduce incentives or earnings rates for platform workers to offset their increased cost from paying employer CPF contribution.
During the Committee of Supply for MOM in 2023, my colleague Ms Hazel Poa had raised the issue of whether platform workers who opt in to CPF contributions will be discriminated against because they are more costly and asked whether measures were put in place to prevent discrimination against those who opt in.
At the time, Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon clarified that platform workers would not be covered under the upcoming workplace fairness legislation and that it is not in the interest of the company to discriminate against workers who opt in for CPF because over time, the bulk of the workers available for platform work will need mandatory CPF. However, PSP is concerned that in the short term, there are insufficient protections to prevent Group A workers who opt in for CPF from being discriminated against. We are disappointed that the Bill does not contain provisions to prevent platform companies from discriminating against Group A workers.
PSP proposes that MOM should regularly receive reports from the platform companies on the percentage of jobs that are completed by Group A workers as well as the percentage of Group A workers on their platform. MOM should regularly monitor these data points to ensure that there is no evidence of platforms discriminating against platform workers who may be more costly because they opt in to CPF contributions.
We would like to go further to ask MOM to consider proposing the ultimate safeguard of a minimum base fare per delivery or right share. We propose that platform workers can form platform work associations that functions similarly to trade unions. A minimum base fare could be negotiated between the platform work associations and platform companies as part of the negotiations on the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
The PSP's view is that platform company and platform work associations should work towards an appropriate minimum base fare calculated with reference to our proposed living wage of $2,250 per month before CPF contributions for 44 hours of work per week.
While platform workers are viewed by some as independent contractors, the workers, overall compensation is to a large extent determine by the platform companies. As a result, appropriate policy has to be set to ensure that platform workers are compensated fairly for their services.
The 2022 IPS survey Precarity in Platform Work, a study of private hire vehicle drivers and food delivery riders, found that more than 90% full-time private hire vehicle drivers across all age cohorts were worried that they will no longer able to earn enough money because the financial incentives given by platform companies are increasingly being cut or reduced. Employer CPF should not be another reason for platform companies to reduce incentives for platform workers. Hence, once the CPF contribution regime is implemented in 2025, the Government should closely monitor the situation to ensure that platform companies are not reducing incentives or earnings rates for platform workers to offset the higher labour cost that they need to shoulder by paying CPF contributions for platform workers.
When deliberating this Bill after the First Reading, we were of the view that while equitable pay is important, it is also important to ensure the safety of our platform workers is not compromised by the pressure of work. As such, we are glad that one of the key changes made in the Bill is that platform companies must now pay compensation to platform workers for work injuries at the same scope and level as employees are entitled. The PSP supports these provisions. This is a much better improvement over the voluntary work injury compensation coverage currently provided out of goodwill by platform companies.
We also note that the work safety of platform workers will be further strengthened by the draft code of practice for platform services, which the WSH Council has put up for public consultation last week. Under part 4.5.1 of the code, platform companies should limit the load to be delivered to the capacity of the delivery bag and/or the maximum load weight of the vehicle or active mobility device. The PSP supports this as it will better protect platform workers from being exposed to unsafe situations due to excessive loads.
However, part 4.5.2 of the draft code of practice does not address the fact that platform workers may feel pressured into accepting jobs during unsafe weather conditions, because of the penalties imposed by platform companies on cancellations. The PSP thus proposes that part 4.5.2 of the draft code of practice should be amended to include that platform companies should remove the penalties for workers who reject or cancel orders during bad weather conditions. Such cancellations or rejection of orders should not be included when rating the platform workers' performance. This is not an extraordinary step because there is at least one major platform company, Deliveroo, that does not penalise riders in this way.
We hope that MOM will consider these suggested measures to ensure that this Bill and the code of practice will be more effective in ensuring a safer working environment for platform workers. Sir, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) welcomes the introduction of the Platform Workers Bill as an important first step in improving the welfare of platform workers.
There are now more than 70,000 platform workers in Singapore, as of 2023. This is a significant portion of our workforce, and many of them are lower-income and have been displaced from the job market in recent years.
While platform workers generally enjoy more flexibility than employees, they are also subject to significant management control by platform companies when their supply of services are matched to demand by algorithms. Hence, PSP believes that it is timely that our legislation is now being updated to create a new class of workers distinct from employees and self-employed persons to protect the rights of platform workers.
On equitable pay for our platform workers, PSP supports the change made by the Bill to align the CPF contribution rates for platform workers and platform companies to those of regular employees and employers, for platform workers born on or after 1 January 1995. PSP believes that this is a step in the right direction, which will ensure that younger platform workers have adequate protections for housing and retirement. The opt-in regime for older platform workers also meets the desire of many older platform workers to opt out of CPF contributions.
However, in order to ascertain that this change will really benefit the platform workers, we would like to ask the Government if it has gotten the commitment from the platform companies that they will not reduce incentives or earnings rates for platform workers to offset their increased costs from paying Employer CPF contributions?
PSP proposes that MOM regularly obtains data points from platform companies to monitor the percentage of jobs completed by platform workers who opt-in to CPF contributions and ensure there is no evidence of platforms discriminating against these workers.
In addition, PSP would like to propose a minimum base fare which could be negotiated between the platform work associations and the platform companies to ensure that platform workers’ income will not be affected by the increase in the operating costs of platform companies. For example, the PSP’s view is that platform companies and platform work associations should work towards an appropriate minimum base fare, calculated with reference to our proposed living wage of $2,250 per month, before CPF contributions, for 44 hours of work per week.
On the safety of platform workers, PSP supports the provisions that platform companies must now pay compensation to platform workers for work injuries at the same scope and level as employees are entitled to. This is a much better improvement over the voluntary work injury compensation coverage currently provided out of goodwill by platform companies and will reduce the financial risks and income loss, should a platform worker suffer a work-related injury and unable to work.
PSP also supports the draft Code of Practice for Platform Services, especially Part 4.5.1, which limits the load to be delivered, because it will better protect platform workers from being exposed to unsafe situations due to excessive loads.
However, PSP suggests that Part 4.5.2 of the draft Code of Practice be amended. Platform workers may feel pressured into accepting jobs during unsafe weather conditions because of the penalties imposed by platform companies on cancellations. PSP thus proposes that platform companies remove the penalties for workers who reject or cancel orders during bad weather conditions. Such cancellations or rejection of orders should not be included when rating the platform worker’s performance. It is taking a leaf from major platform companies, such as Deliveroo, that do not penalise riders in this way.
PSP calls on the Government to urge platform workers to form platform work associations and work with platform companies to improve working conditions of platform workers, especially in bad weather conditions, to ensure a safe and fair working environment for all platform workers.
(In English): Notwithstanding the clarifications and suggestions made in my speech, the PSP supports the Bill. For country for people.
Mr Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): Mr Speaker, ever since platform operators entered the Singapore market about a decade ago, starting with Uber and Grab in 2013, our workforce ecosystem has experienced a paradigm shift. These platform operators and platform workers have become an integral part of our society today and in the foreseeable future, with services offered ranging from transport, delivery services and even parcel and logistics management.
It is, therefore, important that we protect the interests of the platform workers to avoid what some researchers have called “precaritising workers”, leading to the exploitation of labour, unfair treatment of workers, and expanding and enduring inequalities.
However, governments around the world have found it difficult to confer protection on platform workers, given that they could be classified as independent contractors. Yet, the platform operators also set the performance markers, the remuneration, the specific jobs and even the routes platform workers are to take by their policies and algorithms. Platform workers may be penalised if they were to decline work assigned to them by the platform. This is not unlike an employee in some regards.
Conversely, platform workers bear all the risks of performing the services for the platforms: the risks of accidents, loss of income and even injury on the job to meet the platform’s requirements for service. They also bear the cost of the fuel, the rental fees, the insurance premiums and damages to third parties when there are accidents. It seems like a lose-lose situation for platform workers because they are considered independent contractors where they are beneficial to the platform operators, but subject to restrictions imposed by the platform operators as though they were employees.
I am, therefore, heartened to see that MOM has worked with various stakeholders and the tripartite partners to come up with this Bill to ensure that the platform workers’ rights are being protected. NTUC and the Labour Movement, including myself and my fellow labour Members of Parliament, and Parliamentary colleagues, such as Dr Tan Wu Meng, have been lobbying for changes to protect the rights and interests of freelancers, including platform workers. In my personal view, this is a landmark and watershed piece of legislation. It is a landmark and watershed for three reasons.
First, it is the first time in history that we have a specific legislation protecting freelancers and, in this case, vulnerable platform workers. This is definitely not an easy endeavour, but we have chosen to take the less trodden path, to do it because it is the right thing to do.
Second, we are creating a new hybrid category of \"workers\" through this piece of legislation: not exactly employees in an employment relationship nor fully an independent contractor as they will enjoy certain \"employment\" rights.
Third, we are also allowing them to be represented by platform work associations similar to unions. These are all issues which many unions and jurisdictions are trying to grapple with and many have yet to achieve such a similar breakthrough in terms of scale and impact.
As raised in this House in 2017, one form of protection is allowing them to have collective representation to ensure their voices are heard. While NTUC has created several associations for platform workers to be collectively heard, these associations lack the right to formally represent their members in any disputes with platform operators.
This Bill will allow platform workers to band together collectively to represent their viewpoints, watch for any unfairness and to negotiate with platform operators. To provide effective representation, platform work associations under the Bill, need to carry out elections, secret ballots and delegates' conferences on a regular basis, much like how trade unions today are required to do so under the Trade Unions Act.
However, unlike trade unions, platform work associations will face an uphill task when trying to organise their members and getting them together. This is due to the nature of the platform workers and the platform work industry being hyper-fluid in nature, where workers can join or leave the platform without necessarily terminating the agreement with the platform operator. Conversely, platform workers can join new platforms or new platform workers can start doing platform work without too much of a hassle and restrictions in place. Further, platform workers, by their nature, also work all over Singapore without any fixed workplace.
This hyper-fluidity and de-localised work location create problems not seen in traditional trade unions. One issue relates to the conduct of secret ballots and the need for fiscal in-person votes. It is relatively straightforward for trade unions to conduct in-person secret ballots given that most workplaces are fixed. This is not the case for platform work.
I would, therefore, ask the Senior Minister of State to consider allowing platform work associations to use digital voting for secret ballots. This will enable platform work associations to reach out effectively to their members and facilitate their participation, rather than just a restricted number who manage to come on-site to vote. The use of digital voting must be safeguarded with methods to ensure transparency and security of the results and that votes remain secret. If successful, this could well be a model for digital voting in trade unions as well.
Mr Speaker, I observed that in this Bill, many details were prescribed in subsidiary legislation. As the idiom goes, the devil is in the details. I, therefore, ask MOM to work with our tripartite partners and various stakeholders when finalising the subsidiary legislation, to make the Platform Workers Act effective and useful for all stakeholders and partners.
This Bill, as currently tabled, only looks to cover platform workers who fall under the ride-hail and delivery worker categories. As the platform worker space is constantly evolving, we may see an increase in the types of platform work. Cleaners, coaches, professional caregivers and even utility workers, such as plumbers, electricians and general builders, may one day utilise platforms to find and schedule work.
To what extent will the Ministry be looking to expand the scope of the future Act to cover these platform operators to ensure that these workers are also protected? I would like to also take this opportunity to clarify five points with the Senior Minister of State on the proposed Bill.
One, section 2 of the Bill provides the definition of earnings and excludes special expenses from being classified as earnings. As earnings directly affects the quantum of CPF contributions that platform workers would get, both from their own contributions as well as the platform operators' contributions, would the Senior Minister of State clarify what are some examples of these special expenses which would be excluded in their nature?
Two, how would MOM determine there was an industrial action by platform workers, given that platform workers are free to choose whether or not to work for any reason as well as when to work and which platform operator to work for, all on their own volition?
Three, under the proposed Bill, workplace safety and health requirements will be imposed on both platform operators and platform workers. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State, how platform workers would be prosecuted for breach of their workplace safety and health duties and what are the circumstances to consider if there was a breach of such duties that warrant prosecution?
Four, under the Bill, section 13(4) denotes that there are different classes of platform operators and platform workers. Can the Senior Minister of State clarify what classes of platform workers there may be?
And fifth, lastly, does agreement in section 5(1)(a) of the Platform Workers Bill refer specifically to the defined platform work agreement or does it include a broader range of agreements since the term platform work agreement is not used in section 5(1)(a)?
In conclusion, we stand on the cusp of ushering in a new age for our workers, one which will see Singapore as a pioneer in ensuring that all workers have a place within this nation, not only those who are employees. We must continue to ensure that platform workers, along with all workers, are afforded the dignity and security they so rightfully deserve. Together, we can and shall forge a path that ensures prosperity and equity for all and, in doing so, we shall not only uplift our platform workers but also fortify the very foundations of this nation, its people and our future.
NTUC cares deeply for our platform workers. We will continue to champion their interests because every platform worker matters. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, my speech today will focus on strengthening workers' rights in Singapore, particularly with regard to trade unions, platform work associations and the representation framework for ride-hailing and delivery service workers introduced in the Platform Workers Bill.
Sir, unions in Singapore play an important role in advocating for the interests of workers. I would like to acknowledge the many unionists who work hard advocating for fair treatment, better working conditions and improved wages for their members. Over 99% of trade union members in Singapore are represented through the NTUC and its affiliates; and 58 out of 61, or 95% of employee trade unions in Singapore are affiliated with NTUC, underscoring the near total monopoly that the NTUC has over the Labour Movement in Singapore.
The NTUC has declared that they have a symbiotic relationship with the PAP. This relationship is frequently highlighted during union meetings and rallies. The NTUC May Day Rally in 2024, for example, included a chant led by NTUC President, which concluded with, \"Majulah NTUC, Majulah PAP, Majulah Singapura\".
The NTUC Secretary-General and many PAP leaders, including the Prime Minister and Senior Minister, joined in this chant on the big stage, pumping their fists in the air. Many PAP Members of Parliament (MPs) and PAP branch chairpersons serve as advisers to NTUC-affiliated unions. The NTUC announced in 2017 that, where possible, all PAP MPs, which include Cabinet Ministers, would be appointed as advisers in the unions, professional associations and guilds under NTUC.
As at 2017, there were 71 PAP MPs who were advisers to unions. It should be noted that many union advisers are there not only in an advisory capacity, but are involved in the governance of the union. Many unions affiliated to the NTUC have a council of advisers, which for several industry unions also has the power to suspend the Executive Committee.
PAP leaders frequently argue that this symbiotic relationship has helped Singapore navigate crises and build a nation. However, this close alignment also presents significant challenges to the independence of unions. The primary mission of unions is to advocate for workers' rights, ensure fair treatment and negotiate for better working conditions. Yet when union leaders are also PAP members, a potential conflict of interest arises.
Can they fully advocate for workers' interests when those interests may conflict with their Government policies or the PAP's political agenda? They may feel pressured to support the policy, even if they sincerely believe that it compromises the needs of the workers they represent. This could lead to a muted union advocacy, where political alignment takes precedence over workers' rights.
Over time, the deep entrenchment of PAP influence within unions could lead to the perception that unions are not independent bodies representing workers, but extensions of the PAP's political machinery. If workers believe their interests are being subordinated to the political interests of the PAP, or the political objectives of the PAP, unions may lose their ability to effectively mobilise and advocate for workers.
Furthermore, an overly-close relationship between the PAP and unions risks creating groupthink, where union leaders are less inclined to challenge prevailing policies or explore alternative solutions. This may limit unions' ability to openly express workers' grievances or discuss innovative policies that could benefit workers, employers and the economy.
Such a situation would lead to a loss of dynamism in labour policy-making, reducing the possibility of new and better approaches from emerging. The risk of this alignment may be particularly pronounced in the event of a significant political shift in Singapore. If the PAP were to lose power, unions aligned with the PAP might struggle to work with the new Government.
Additionally, these politically aligned unions may lose the support of workers who voted for the new administration, potentially weakening their effectiveness. It is crucial that key institutions in Singapore, including the trade union movement, are not beholden to one political party. Conversely, it will be equally undesirable for 95% of unions to become instruments of opposition against a newly-elected government, as this could undermine its ability to govern effectively and act in the best interests of workers and citizens alike.
The International Labour Organization (ILO), which supports tripartite cooperation between governments, employers and workers, insists that unions must maintain independence to effectively represent their members' interests. ILO's Convention No 87, on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise, which the Singapore Government has not ratified, stresses that workers and employers organisations must be independent from public authorities and free from government control or interference. While collaboration with the government can be beneficial, unions must have the freedom to challenge policies that do not serve workers' best interests, without fear of political repercussions.
Turning to the Platform Workers Bill, Mr Speaker, I support this legislation, which seeks to enhance the representation of private hire drivers and delivery riders. These workers form a growing segment of our economy and their voices must be heard. However, the Bill imports many of the regulatory restrictions currently faced by unions. The platform work associations, much like NTUC-affiliated unions, already operate under significant NTUC control.
The National Taxi Association, the National Private Hire Vehicles Association and the National Delivery Champions Association, all have current or former PAP MPs as advisers. Their constitutions grant NTUC the power to appoint members of the Council of Advisers, who play a key role in overseeing the actions of the Executive Committees. The Council of Advisers has the authority to suspend the Executive Committees elected by members. This mirrors the power the NTUC exerts over many of the affiliated unions, limiting their independence.
Furthermore, the Registrar of platform work associations —
Mr Speaker: Yes, Mr Christopher de Souza.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): If I may, Mr Speaker, a Point of Order.
I listened very carefully to Mr Gerald Giam's speech for the first 10 minutes. I humbly and respectfully submit to the Chair that the first 10 minutes had nothing to do with the Platform Workers Bill that is being debated today. It was predominantly an attack against the NTUC. And that is why the hon Member, halfway through his speech says, \"I now turn my focus to the Bill\", when actually, the focus should have been, from the onset, about the Bill.
So, I want to raise this as a Point of Order. This is not part of the Bill and Mr Giam's speech about attacking the NTUC, in my humble view, in my capacity as a Member of this House, is completely off tangent. With respect.
Mr Speaker: Mr Giam, I was actually about to ask you the relevance of it and then you made reference to the current Bill. And I am waiting to hear you talk about the current Bill. The Member, Mr Christopher de Souza, has raised a relevant point, so I would expect that the rest of your speech should cover what this Bill is about.
If it is on another matter, you can certainly raise it, but not on occasion of this debate.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, it is in relation to the provisions in the Bill, which you will understand why when I explain further.
Mr Christopher de Souza: If I may, will the Member concede that the first half of his speech had little to do with the Bill and was a rather opportunistic manoeuvre to attack NTUC? I sat down, I listened very carefully, I studied the Bill – and this was all about an attack on NTUC, which is unfair. It is opportunistic and it goes beyond the agenda of what we are debating today – which is a specific legislation to advance the protection and the future of platform workers.
So, would Mr Giam agree with me that the first half of his speech is actually fairly irrelevant? Through you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker: Mr Giam, would you like to respond to Mr de Souza?
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Certainly, Mr Speaker. As I said earlier, Sir, the first part of my speech is relevant to what I am going to be talking about in the Bill. I think it is important to set the background for why I am going to argue some of the points that I will be talking about in a while.
Mr Speaker: Mr de Souza.
Mr Christopher de Souza: If I may. So, thus far, am I correct to say, if my understanding is correct, that thus far, there has not been a specific reference to any provision of the Bill in Mr Giam's speech and it was predominantly an attack on NTUC and the symbiotic relationship between the PAP and NTUC?
Surely, Mr Giam can agree with me on that based on what he has said as recorded in Hansard.
I raise this as a Point of Order because we cannot, Mr Speaker, be using Parliament and legislation to craft political speeches that go well beyond the ambit and the scope of the legislation that we are debating. So, I raise this as a matter of principle, not as a matter of politics.
Mr Speaker: It is a valid point by Mr de Souza, Mr Giam. In fact, you are already at the halfway point of your 20-minute speech. Leader.
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I, too, have a clarification for Mr Giam, which is this: is it Mr Giam's position that unions have to be independent of and not associated with political parties?
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: In fact, yes. Sorry, Mr Speaker, with your permission?
Mr Speaker: Yes, Mr Giam, go ahead.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To answer the Leader, yes, exactly, that is what I will be coming to. So, I would really appeal to both the Leader and Mr de Souza to listen to the rest of my speech because the first part of my speech is a preamble to what I am going to be talking about and it is relevant to what I will be talking about in a while.
Mr Speaker: Leader.
Ms Indranee Rajah: If I may just make this clarification since Mr Giam is going to proceed with the rest of his speech on the basis that unions and political parties have to be independent and separate. In fact, anyone who knows anything about democracies will know that in many of the democracies in the world, unions and political parties actually have a close relationship.
The UK Labour Party, which is currently now in power, is very closely associated with their trades union congress. In fact, their trades union congress actually has contributed to the political party, as I understand it. In the US, the unions are also closely associated with some political parties. That is also the case in Canada.
If one were to do the simple exercise of just googling unions and politics or unions and political parties, you will actually see that there is a very clear explanation as to why unions and politics are very closely involved.
So, if Mr Giam is going to proceed with his speech on the basis that they must be independent and neutral, he must also understand that that is not the case in democracies around the world.
Mr Speaker: Mr Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, the Leader raises this point about unions and their affiliation with political parties. I have studied about what the situation is in the UK, to some degree. Indeed, many unions in the UK support the Labour Party, but it is not the same as them being symbiotic with the Labour Party. They reserve the right to state their own positions and there are times when they have their own different positions from the party, including in their public statements. So, it is not the same degree of symbiotic relationship as what NTUC has with the PAP.
I wanted to come to this point later, but since the Leader has brought this up, I would like to state for the record that the WP supports the tripartite dialogue between employers, unions and the government of the day, but not with any particular political party, not an explicit alignment with any political party.
I believe that unions must be independent and non-partisan. They must represent their workers without fear or favour in front of their employers, the government and the ruling party. I believe that unions which are independent from political parties will be in a better position to negotiate for their workers regardless of the political situation.
Sir, if I may continue with my speech, please?
Mr Speaker: Relating to this Bill.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Of course.
Furthermore, the registrar of platform work association has the authority to refuse registration of a new platform work association if there is already an existing one for that platform service or even to cancel the registration of an existing platform work association under similar conditions.
Given that NTUC-affiliated platform work associations are likely to be registered first, this could limit the formation of alternative platform work associations, thereby restricting workers' choices. Platform workers should instead have the freedom to choose to join or form the association that best represents their interests.
The Bill proposes that recognition of a platform work association would require a majority vote from platform workers eligible to participate in the recognition process. However, I am concerned that in some cases, the percentage of workers voting could be low and a platform work association might gain recognition even with limited support from the overall workforce. This could result in representation that does not fully reflect the will of the majority of platform workers in the sector.
Clause 40 of the Bill allows the platform work association's executive committee to bind all members to a collective agreement without the need for ratification by the members. This could result in workers being bound by agreements negotiated by representatives chosen by only a small fraction of their peers. We must ask whether this truly serves the interests of the workers or simply expedites the process at the cost of their collective voice.
The WP has long opposed moves to make unions less independent. In 2004, Mr Low Thia Khiang opposed amendments to the Trade Unions Act that allowed union leaders to conclude collective agreements with employers without seeking union members' ratification. That amendment was eventually passed by Parliament and the same provision is now mirrored in the Platform Workers Bill, raising similar concerns about the erosion of workers' rights to have a direct say in agreements that affect them.
The Bill also requires platform companies to contribute employers' CPF payments to their workers. This is a positive step towards improving platform workers' long-term financial security. I support the PCTS scheme, which will cushion the effects of CPF deductions from workers' earnings. However, there is a risk that platform companies might reduce their overall payments to compensate for the increased CPF contributions. This could result in workers being worse off salary-wise. This is a concern highlighted by the Leader of the Opposition earlier as well.
It is important that the Government monitors this closely and ensures that safeguards are in place to prevent such unintended consequences so that the platform workers truly benefit from the CPF contributions without suffering a reduction in take-home pay.
Before I conclude, Mr Speaker, I would like to once again acknowledge the efforts of unionists who have dedicated themselves to advancing the rights and welfare of workers in Singapore. My proposals to ensure the independence of workers and platform work associations are not aimed at diminishing their work, but rather to enhance their ability to advocate freely for the workers they represent.
By ensuring that unions and platform work associations are not beholden to any political party or the Government, unionists will have the autonomy to fully pursue the interests of their members, challenge government policies that do not align with workers' needs and introduce innovative solutions to improve wages and working conditions.
Ultimately, an independent union movement will not only strengthen the Labour Movement but also create a dynamic and resilient workforce for Singapore's future. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Giam, I request that you refer to Standing Order 50. This is with reference to the relevance of the topics that you talked about. This also applies to every Member. Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, just to put on record, I think the remarks you made at the end, with respect, are critical because I distinctly recall in this House not too long ago, I believe it was a Budget speech, and the hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza did not speak about the Budget, but went on to advise the Government or PAP to make a decision on the 4G leadership.
So, I think the salutary message you provided at the end is important because it cannot be just accusations made at the opposition, but I think some PAP Members ought to reflect on themselves.
Mr Speaker: Mr de Souza.
Mr Christopher de Souza: I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for mentioning my name. We are debating a specific Bill today with several provisions and several clauses. I think it is completely our aim to get this Bill passed in order to protect platform workers. So, we have a Bill, we have an agenda today.
When it comes to a Budget debate, Members have free rein to discuss what they want, in addition to the Budget, the objectives, the values, the future they want to see for Singapore. And at that time, I was concerned because we had a position that there would be a 4G leadership transition. Deputy Prime Minister Heng, in his selflessness, decided to step aside and I was concerned for the country that we needed leadership.
So, I stood here and gave one of the most difficult speeches of my political career – which is that I had hoped that the 4G leadership would come together and choose a man or woman to take us forward. How is that not in concert with the Budget?
Budget is finance. It is also about different Ministries, education, finance, defence and all of that. But without key leadership, Budgets are nothing.
So, what I humbly said, when I made that speech, I think in 2021 or 2022, I cannot remember, about needing to choose a solid, formidable 4G leader was completely consistent with what we were debating for in terms of passing the Budget.
An attack on NTUC, for I think 70% of the speech of Mr Giam, on a Bill that is meant to advance the welfare, the prospects, the future, the protection, the medical care, the CPF of platform workers is no comparison. [Applause.]
That is political opportunism – and I state this as a matter of principle, not as a matter of politics. I put principle first, before politics, Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Speaker: Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, I think the record will speak for itself and I think Mr Giam has explained why his subject matter, which Mr Christopher de Souza has taken objection to, is connected to the Bill. Thank you.
Mr Speaker: Mr de Souza.
Mr Christopher de Souza: Most certainly, Mr Speaker, Sir, the record will speak for itself. I enjoin Mr Pritam Singh, the respectable Leader of the Opposition and Mr Giam to pick up my speech of 2021 or 2022, I cannot remember, it was during COVID-19, where I had made my position very clear that we need to choose the 4G leader.
So, the record will speak for itself and, please, Members, you can make your own decision whether what I said is in concert with the Budget that we were meant to pass and what Mr Giam has said today, the hon Member, is in concert with an attack on NTUC or support on the Bill. The record will speak for itself.
Mr Speaker: Mr Heng Chee How.
The Senior Minister of State for Defence (Mr Heng Chee How): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Because Mr Gerald Giam in his speech spoke about the role of union leaders and then he spoke about the NTUC and the symbiotic relationship with the PAP. So, I must respond to that.
Mr Giam thanked our union leaders for taking good care of our workers. We thank him for that. At least he acknowledges that.
But I think in saying that, then you must also give due respect to our union leaders. They are not stooges. [Applause.] Their hearts are in the right place. They do all this for their fellow workers. That is what they are doing this for.
And you acknowledge that. And all our unions are doing that. And every union that is affiliated to the NTUC chooses to do that. And the NTUC has a symbiotic relationship with the PAP so that we can convey the views and the needs of the workers to our political partner, so that when they become the ruling party, when they win the trust of Singaporeans and have the mandate to be the ruling party, that the interests of workers in this country will always be taken care of, be given great priority.
You look at the track record of the PAP. For all these years that it has been in government, what has it delivered for this country? What has it delivered for the workers? Has it sold out the workers? Has it embarrassed our union leaders?
So, you are talking about some theoretical construct. Look at the results. Look at the context in which we are debating today. This very Bill that your party is supporting, where does this come from? This comes from a symbiotic relationship where both sides are trying to undermine and throw the workers under the bus? No. You supported it because it is good for the workers.
Is this the only thing that is good for the workers? No. We have decades of track record. Why do you think the workers will support their unions who affiliate themselves to the NTUC? It is because we work for the workers. So, when we say every worker matters, NTUC means it. And that goes to also when we go into a symbiotic relationship – we do so for the sake of the workers.
So, I just wanted Mr Giam to know, you are entitled to your views, certainly, but what I wanted to say is can we at least deal with the facts? And we are not forming this yesterday. The Leader of the House has earlier also stated that a close relationship, you can call it what you like, a partnership, an alliance, between political parties and trade unions, is not uncommon. And they do not do this out of stupidity. They do this because it serves the interests of the constituents that they represent, concurrently. That is what they do.
And the recommendations that Mr Giam makes, be very careful, Mr Speaker, because on the one hand he says that this is good to work for the workers and so on. On the other hand, you look at some of the recommendations he makes, is it more likely or less likely for those tripartite partners in the context in which Mr Giam has promoted, likely or less likely to come to some sensible agreement that can then be implemented for the good of the workers? And if it is not, then it just goes round and round, and we can tear our hair out, beat our chest and we say we love the workers; but their lot is not going to get better. So, I say be very, very careful.
I once saw a poster, I think it is available on YouTube. It shows some water, it shows a snake, head reared above the water with a fish in the mouth. And the slogan says, caring snake saves fish from drowning. So, we must be very, very careful. What exactly are we recommending? If we care for that fish in there, let us do something practical.
This is my heartfelt response: be fair to our union leaders, be fair to our unions, be fair to the NTUC. NTUC is not expecting the WP to support us, but at least be fair. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, I thank Senior Minister of State Heng for his heartfelt exposition. And I did acknowledge the hard work of unionists at both the start and the end of my speech. And I am not questioning the commitment or the work of unionists, but I am addressing the systemic constraints that they face.
I believe that many unionists are trying their level best to be able to advocate for workers that they represent, but they face many restrictions in doing so because of the controls that the Government, through the NTUC and other legislations, place on the unions. So, I believe that my proposals for union independence are meant to empower unionists and platform work association leaders to act freely in the best interests of their workers.
And I would just like to address a point that Mr Christopher de Souza kept bringing up, that the first part of my speech was irrelevant. I hope that after listening to the rest of my speech, he would acknowledge that the first part of my speech was an important preamble to what I was going to explain in the later part of my speech. I believe it was a policy point that I was putting forward on behalf of the WP.
And I just wonder why is it that every time the WP brings up a valid policy point, or very often when the WP brings up a valid policy point, we are accused of politicking and making political speeches. Whereas when the PAP talks about something different, it becomes a relevant policy point. I think that there is a need to be fair as well to us.
Mr Speaker: Mr de Souza.
Mr Christopher de Souza: I think I have been in this House long enough for people to know that I put principles above politics. First point.
Second point, I listened very carefully to what Mr Giam was saying for I think 60% or 70% of his speech – and it was essentially an attack on the NTUC and by extension, an attack on the NTUC's symbiotic relationship with the PAP. And I do not think one can disagree with that because at about the 60th or 70th percent mark of the speech, the hon Member says, now I turn my focus to the Bill. What was the hon Member's focus prior to that?
So, no, I am not standing here as a point of order to make a political point. I am not that type of person. I am governed by principles and my point is that the hon Member went beyond the line on this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Mr Speaker, as you know I am a first-term Member of Parliament, so perhaps for my edification, yourself or perhaps the Leader of the House would be willing to share whether the Budget is a time for Members to be able to raise any matters of concern for the broad nation?
Ms Indranee Rajah: I will just say this – which is that that is an ample demonstration of how when you are on a particular topic, then you make a side-step and say this is about something else; and then we have another side-step and say this is about something else. So, I think the short point to Assoc Prof Jamus Lim is that this is about the Platform Workers Bill. Let us keep this to the Platform Workers Bill.
Mr Speaker: To Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, regarding Budget Statements, if I refer all to Standing Order 89, some sub-sections there which tells you what you can talk about; and then for Committee of Supply debate, this will be covered under Standing Order 93. Mr Alex Yam.
Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Speaker, I spent quite a large part of my career in the trade unions and I think there is no more passionate group of people in fighting for the rights of workers than union leaders.
I would just like to share a point of information. The hon Member Mr Gerald Giam said that he studied the trade unions relationship in the UK. I am not sure if he realises that the trade unions in the UK actually pay an annual fee to the Labour Party. In return, they elect 13 out of 39 members of the National Executive Committee and 50% of delegates to the Labour Party Conference. So, why is it that they can have a formal relationship and we cannot in Singapore?
The New Democratic Party in Canada was founded in 1967 by who? By the Canadian Labour Congress. So, they have a long working relationship. It is encapsulated in the New Democratic Party's constitution as well.
So, political relationship and affiliations between trade unions and political parties are a natural partnership because for trade unions to want to achieve something, they do so through political means. Some of course choose to be independent, that is great. But across the democratic world, there are many, many examples of good, strong working relationships between political parties and trade unions. And there are also many trade unions that choose through their history to form political parties to advocate for the rights of their workers.
So, I am not sure what part of the relationship or history that he has seen in the UK that proves this otherwise.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Koh.
Dr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Speaker, I just want to reiterate again that nothing in this proposed Bill, in the legislation proposed in this Bill, has any clauses that are related to how a union ought or not ought to be affiliated to any political party.
And since Mr Giam did go to great extent to talk about affiliation between unions and parties, let me just quickly read from the archives of the National Library. It says, after the PAP split its left wing to set up the Barisan Socialist, the Singapore Trades Union Congress also split into two rival factions: the NTUC and the Singapore Association of Trade Unions or SATU. SATU was aligned with the Barisan Socialist and the Barisan Socialist in 1988 folded into the WP.
So, I think maybe the WP should think about changing its name because if you feel so averse about being associated with workers, you might want to think about something else.
Mr Speaker: Mr Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for that information. Can I assume that taking the statements of the Leader of the House, Senior Minister of State Koh and Mr Alex Yam together, that if the PAP were to ever lose power, the NTUC would therefore become an instrument of opposition against the new government?
Mr Speaker: Leader.
Ms Indranee Rajah: The short answer – I cannot speak on behalf of the NTUC, but how I would see it is this. It would be entirely up to the workers and the trades union congress to decide whether to have any political party that they support and if so, which one.
What I can say is that the PAP would do its very utmost not to have to give them a reason to think that we would never support them, or that as a government, we would not do our very best for the workers and the trades union congress. So, I would not venture into all these hypothetical questions – and you can see that Mr Giam is venturing more and more into the political realm.
I would just bring the debate back to this. This is about platform workers. This is about our gig workers. This is about people who do not have much protection and who need protection, and we are trying to get this Bill passed so that they can have that protection.
The WP obviously wishes to – I mean, let us all be quite frank. We all know that next year, there has to be a general election. Well, by next year, there has to be a general election. It may be this year, it may be next year, but we all know that by next year there has to be one. And we also know that whenever a general election appears or is round the corner, the political rhetoric ramps up.
The political parties can slug it out amongst themselves, but do not put the platform workers in the middle of this. Do not make them the pawns or the beating bags for this.
We have a Bill to pass. Let us focus on this Bill, because with this Bill, we can do better for our workers, our gig workers, and protect them.
Mr Speaker: Mr Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, most importantly, we have supported this Bill. So, we are not putting the platform workers in any disadvantaged position by opposing this Bill. We are supporting this Bill.
On the point that the Leader raises that it would be up to the NTUC or the workers of that day which party they want to support – how can that be? Because the NTUC has embedded its party members in different areas of the unions! How would they be able to change that if the PAP is so deeply embedded inside the unions?
In any case, I think the whole thrust of what the Leader, Senior Minister of State Koh and Mr Yam had said earlier on is that the NTUC is aligned to the PAP and there is nothing usual in the world. So, we expect that the NTUC would continue to be aligned with the PAP, even after the PAP loses power. It is not an issue of just theoretical grandstanding but this is an issue of institutional continuity – are we going to have a situation where any new government that comes to power is completely jammed up?
Mr Speaker: Leader.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, I really hope not to have to belabour this point, but it is a simple point. Trade unions elect their own leaders. If they have leaders today who are members of the PAP or vice versa, it does not mean that that will always be the case.
But the point that Mr Giam is missing is that the trade unions have a mind of their own. They have leadership. They know what to do. And they will act in a way that they think is best for their unions and for their workers.
So, at the appropriate time, they will have their elections. They will choose their leaders. You do not know whether they may or may not be affiliated with the PAP, whatever it is. But at the end of the day, it is the unions who choose their leaders and it is the unions who choose whether or not they are affiliated with or work with or have a symbiotic relationship with a political party. That is entirely up to the trade unions, and we should let them continue to do and decide for themselves as they think best.
But at the end of the day, it comes back to this. We have a Bill to pass and let us pass this Bill so that we can confer rights and protections on our platform workers.
Mr Speaker: Let us come back to the debate on the Platform Workers Bill. Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, a few weeks ago, two elderly male Yio Chu Kang residents came to see me at my Meet-the-People Session. Both were food delivery riders. They asked for my help to appeal a fine imposed by LTA for riding their personal mobility devices on the pedestrian area at Ang Mo Kio Hub. I asked them why they chose to ride on the pedestrian path, knowing that it was against the law. They said they were in a hurry to complete their deliveries. More importantly, they feared for their safety on the main road. With the bus interchange nearby and large vehicles frequently turning into Ang Mo Kio Hub, they felt unsafe riding alongside traffic.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe many Members here have encountered similar cases at their Meet-the-People Sessions. This situation highlights the complex realities platform workers face daily. They are often caught between the need to earn a living and the need to comply with regulations.
My two elderly residents, like many other platform workers, do not earn much. They are deeply concerned about the unpredictable nature of their earnings, often affected by fluctuating platform algorithms. I also appealed to the Social Service Office for financial assistance on their behalf. However, a more sustainable solution lies in creating a predictable and reliable income stream for these workers. This should be coupled with workplace safety and healthcare insurance to give them greater peace of mind.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the Platform Workers Bill is indeed a step in the right direction. The provisions on mandatory CPF contributions, insurance coverage and dispute resolution mechanisms are commendable. Nevertheless, I have a few clarifications regarding the Bill.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to address the welfare of platform workers, starting with their long-term career development. Many platform workers see their current work as a temporary solution rather than a sustainable career path. The physical demands of delivery work and its potential impact on long-term health is a reality we must acknowledge. This is especially pertinent for platform workers in their senior years.
We need to create opportunities for them to upgrade their skills and transition to new careers. This empowers platform workers to explore alternative job opportunities within or outside the gig economy.
While the Bill addresses immediate concerns, what is the long-term vision for the sector? Can the Senior Minister of State elaborate on why certain long-term measures, such as continuous skills upgrading programmes, were not included in this Bill? What are the potential consequences for our future workforce if we do not address these critical aspects now?
Secondly, Mr Speaker, Sir, our platform workers need better mental health support. Platform work often involves long hours, isolation and pressure to meet demanding targets. This can significantly impact mental well-being, especially when earnings are volatile. We must champion greater mental health support for platform workers. This includes access to affordable counselling services and peer support networks.
Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, we must protect workers against threats and abuses. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for riders to encounter verbal abuse, especially when delays occur.
My two elderly residents shared their experiences of such incidents. They can be emotionally distressing and financially detrimental, as negative reviews can directly impact their income. We should consider incorporating provisions within the Bill or formulating guidelines to protect platform workers from such abuses, ensuring their safety and well-being while on the job.
Fourth, Mr Speaker, Sir, our platform workers must have access to inclusive dialogue. Ensuring that platform workers have a stronger voice in policy-making, especially in areas that directly impact them, is critical. We need to create more platforms where platform workers can openly share their experiences, concerns and give suggestions. This will allow them to actively contribute to discussions on policies that affect their livelihoods.
This Bill is a positive step with the introduction of the platform work associations, giving workers a stronger voice. However, these associations should also have the legal powers to take action against abusive customers.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I now turn to the broader policy implications and potential implementation issues of the Bill. As we navigate the complexities of regulating the platform economy, we should learn from the experiences of other leading global cities.
Can the Senior Minister of State share how this Bill compares with similar regulations in other jurisdictions? What lessons were drawn from international examples? Also, what guided the Ministry's decision to adopt or not adopt certain approaches seen in other countries? How do these choices reflect Singapore's unique labour market dynamics and specific challenges?
Can the Ministry also share insights into potential unintended consequences, such as increased operational costs for platform companies leading to a reduction in earning opportunities for workers? What measures are in place to mitigate these risks? How were these considerations balanced during the drafting of the Bill? Will this Bill significantly impact transport and food costs for residents? While we should be prepared to contribute to a stronger social compact and support our platform workers, it is important for the Government to provide clear insights into the potential cost implications.
This will also help consumers to calibrate their expectations. This will also enable relevant organisations and Ministries to proactively prepare and implement support measures for those with genuine needs.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, many of us use the services of platform workers – whether it is booking a Grab ride, ordering Foodpanda, or receiving online shopping deliveries. We enjoy these conveniences from the comfort of our homes with just a few clicks on our phones. Their work provides us with ease in our hectic lives.
The gig economy has transformed our work landscape, offering flexibility while presenting challenges our traditional labour laws were not designed to address.
As we continue to navigate these uncharted waters, we must strike a balance between preserving the flexibility that attracts individuals to this sector and at the same time providing essential protections that safeguard their well-being and livelihoods.
This Bill represents a promising first step towards achieving this balance. I urge the Ministry to consider the proposals I have raised today.
We must prioritise mental health support, ensure robust protection against threats and abuses, and foster inclusive dialogue to empower workers to participate actively in shaping policies that affect them.
Furthermore, we need to address long-term career development, particularly for older and senior workers, by providing avenues for skills upgrading and facilitating transitions to more sustainable career paths.
I also urge the Senior Minister of State to provide clarity on how this Bill compares with international regulations, elaborate on potential unintended consequences and mitigation strategies, and commit to continuous engagement with stakeholders throughout the implementation process.
Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is a significant catalyst for positive change. But it is just one piece of the puzzle. For it to truly succeed, we need a national shift towards recognising and respecting the dignity and value of work for our platform workers. We must actively promote a culture of respect for all workers. There should be targeted initiatives to educate the public about the crucial role platform workers play in our economy and foster greater respect. Businesses must treat platform workers as valued partners, providing them with appropriate facilities and access to amenities to improve their working conditions.
Lastly, we must find opportunities to publicly recognise and celebrate the efforts of platform workers and other service workers through awards and appreciation events.
Mr Speaker, Sir, every hardworking individual should be treated with dignity, regardless of their circumstances – whether they are making ends meet, between jobs, or working on the side. This echoes the sentiments expressed by President Tharman during his campaign, where he emphasised the importance of respect for all members of the Singapore society.
It also aligns with our Prime Minister's call for a \"reset\" in our social compact, urging us to strengthen our sense of collective responsibility and build a more inclusive and cohesive nation.
I began my speech with the story of my two elderly personal mobility device riders. Their plight highlights the need for not only legislative protection but also a fundamental shift in societal attitudes. With this Bill, they will feel greater security knowing they have insurance coverage – a safety net we hope they never have to use. They will feel more at ease navigating the roads, knowing they will not be unfairly penalised or subjected to abuse from impatient customers.
Ultimately, we must foster a society where platform workers' contributions are recognised, their voices are heard, and their well-being is prioritised. This, Mr Speaker, Sir, is the true measure of a just, kind and compassionate society – one that values the dignity and contributions of every individual. I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Jean See.
Ms See Jinli Jean (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Members of the House and platform industry colleagues in the Gallery, I support the Platform Workers Bill.
The Bill recognises a unique group of self-employed workers that earn a precarious living doing gig jobs. They are the freelance delivery workers, private hire vehicle drivers and taxi drivers whose earnings and welfare depend on ride-hail and delivery platform operators that price and auto-assign jobs using algorithms.
Over the last decade, ride-hail and delivery platform businesses have stabilised and grown. Many have transcended growth goals and are prioritising larger profit margins.
The Bill is thus well-timed. As it is built on recommendations from the Tripartite Advisory Committee and Workgroup, the Bill effects purposeful and substantive change to worker protection and shapes for the better our social compact in the context of the platform economy and workforce.
If well-implemented, the Bill can guide platform operators to strike the right balance between business profit-making and their duties towards platform workers. By outlining the responsibilities of platform operators towards the work safety and long-term financial security of their platform worker base, the Bill also addresses the precariousness of platform work and boosts platform workers' ability to build sustainable livelihoods.
The Bill also recognises the right of platform workers to form and be represented by platform work associations. The Bill is a landmark in labour laws because it accords registered platform work associations with union-like powers to negotiate with platform operators on work areas such as fair treatment, sustainable earnings and work safety.
Nevertheless, because how much a platform worker earns depends on how many and what type of jobs the platform assigns, platform workers have shared with NTUC and its affiliated associations – National Delivery Champions Association, National Private Hire Vehicles Association, and National Taxi Association – their hopes for the Bill to establish norms. What norms?
Like other working people, platform workers care about: being treated with fairness and openness; being appropriately remunerated for their efforts and being accorded the autonomy to manage their work, specifically how tasks are performed, the scope and pace of work, and the scheduling and location of work.
However, in a space where the known unknown is uncertainty, before this Bill, many platform workers had looked to the future with despair. Indeed, over the last decade, NTUC and its affiliated associations have been engaging the Government, platform operators and other stakeholders on the concerns and issues facing platform workers. The Bill is thus a commendable response by the Government to allay some uncertainties of “pay-per-job” work – where jobs, wages and the work environment are in constant flux and where the worker must cede much control of how, when, and where to work to a black box of algorithms and bots.
To provide platform workers with peace of mind, I would like to seek clarity in three areas of the Bill. Before I proceed, I declare my interest as a Labour Movement representative and Executive Secretary of National Delivery Champions Association.
First, I appreciate that the Bill seeks to moderate platform operators’ profit-seeking behaviour and turn the spotlight on workers’ health and safety.
An Institute of Policy Studies 2022 poll found that one in three food delivery workers have been in at least one accident that required medical attention, and accident risks increased for those who worked longer hours and earned more.
The proposed amendments to the WSH Act sets out platform operators’ role and responsibilities. Having similar duties as employers under the WSH Act means that platform operators must flag out platform work risks and take steps to mitigate them.
The Bill also assigns to platform operators, financial responsibility for injury, incapacity or death of a platform worker associated with performing a platform job. By putting a price tag on work risks, concurrent amendments to WICA could motivate platform operators to value worker safety as they value profitability.
Platform operators wield wide-ranging control over platform workers’ pay, based on principles and algorithmic decisions that are a black box to platform workers. For instance, platform operators might neglect to consider or downplay the risk of injury when assigning an order to a platform delivery worker. Imagine delivering 80 packets of chicken rice or 36 litres of bottled water in a single delivery order and what is worse, realising there are four flights of stairs or a 10-minute walk to reach the customer. Platform delivery workers, regardless of age or fitness, can relate to these horrors.
We also hear of platform workers feeling compelled to work excessive hours such as 14- to 16-hour days on end without breaks, to unlock incentive targets. Such unrealistic targets drive platform workers to take unnecessary risks to their health and safety that also impact customers and the public.
To protect platform workers, the law must institute clear guardrails for platform operators to abide by. These guardrails must require operators to adopt a worker-centric viewpoint when reviewing their algorithms, work practices, and workflows. To this end, operators must take a serious look at how their policies and targets might end up risking workers’ health and safety and must take reasonable steps to mitigate these risks.
The amended WSH Act also stipulates a code of practice for platform operators; the code is now open for public feedback. This code should reflect the industry guardrails that I mentioned earlier and set a clear tone to demarcate and clamp down on unacceptable practices by platform operators. I urge tripartite partners to take bold steps to call out what is clearly unacceptable: no more policies that require workers to work extended hours non-stop; no more back-breaking loads or unsafe weight limits that exceed workers’ device capacity.
The law must also protect platform workers from being penalised if they take reasonable steps to safeguard their safety and health. Workers must be allowed to slow down or pause travel on roads in unsafe conditions; they must be empowered to decline jobs that are too heavy or large for them or their devices to carry. Platform operators must be held accountable if their policies penalise workers for abiding by safety practices.
The laws must ultimately address the risks to life and limb that platform workers face daily. As practices evolve, there must also be avenues for workers to report unsafe practices or penalties imposed by operators that discourage safe practices. Workers must have access to a whistle-blowing hotline; and tripartite partners must continue to work closely to review and update the code of practice to address emerging risks.
Thus, I would like to know if the Ministry has plans to ensure the implementation of guardrails to address the risks posed to workers’ safety and health by platform policies and practices.
Second, the Bill directs platform operators to translate part of their economic gain into social value. This matters because platform economy has grown in scale, size and workforce participation.
I appreciate the amendments to the CPF Act as these changes would boost platform workers’ social security and ability to finance housing and retirement needs. To recap, from 1 January next year, platform operators must contribute to the provident funds of platform workers who are born on or after 1995 as well as those who opt-in to the CPF scheme.
I also appreciate the raised income threshold as well as the higher percent Government support for the PCTS scheme that would benefit more platform workers to larger extent. A platform worker who opts in to the CPF scheme and is a CPF Transition Support Scheme and Workfare Income Supplement recipient would gain from higher overall income and cash pay-out.
Nonetheless, platform workers are concerned about platform operators restricting allocation of jobs, suppressing fares, or raising charges to minimise the operators’ CPF outlay for platform workers onboard the CPF scheme.
Platform workers attribute their low trust of platforms to the fact that many platform operators seem to be only making half-hearted attempts at issuing rate sheets and statements for jobs and earnings that promise clarity and transparency but are neither clear nor transparent. Protocols for job allocation are oftentimes vague. The low-trust is further compounded by glitches that disrupt operators’ apps – sometimes, for extended periods. Whenever such situations happen, platform workers are forced to double-up as platform operators’ helpdesk in facing angry customers and merchants while trying but often failing to get help from operators. More crucial, platform workers worry about digital disruptions undermining their livelihoods.
Platform workers thus ask that the Ministry establish safeguards that build on the Bill. These safeguards should hold platform operators responsible for ensuring that platform workers understand how they are being paid so that platform workers can make informed decisions on their work arrangements. Why should platform workers be left guessing and speculating how much they can earn each time they take a job? This breeds a sense of insecurity and deep anxiety over their livelihoods and the welfare of their dependents. Platform operators must also be held accountable for the integrity of app transactions and the knock-on impact of app disruptions to platform workers’ livelihoods.
A constructive approach could have three priorities.
One, is to require platform operators to participate in Singapore’s AI governance testing framework, AI Verify. Today, no platform operators are listed as AI Verify foundation members.
Mr Speaker, via AI Verify, organisations would apply standardised tests to validate their AI systems’ performance against internationally aligned AI ethics principles of transparency, explainability, repeatability, safety, security, robustness, fairness, data governance, accountability, human agency and oversight, inclusive growth, and societal and environmental well-being. This matters because the quality of platform workers’ lives and livelihoods much depend on the fair and smooth functioning of platform algorithms. Thus, securing platform operators’ commitment to periodically validate their AI systems against a national framework gives platform workers greater assurance that these black box AI systems are fair, unbiased and safe.
Two, is to require platform operators to provide some income protection for active platform workers who lose the opportunity to earn during extended platform app outages. We would feel distressed if our work devices crash. While we can take comfort that we are paid on the clock while awaiting IT help, platform workers are paid by the job and the impact of app disruption can go beyond inconvenience and into financial hardship. Some active platform workers were especially hard-hit during platform app outages; their earnings were locked in the app and they struggled to cover their families’ daily expenses.
The Land Transport Authority’s (LTA's) move to introduce standards for managing operational disruptions for all taxi and ride-hail operators is a positive step because it assigns responsibility and accountability to platform operators. How might the Ministry build on the Bill as well as LTA’s standards to ensure that when technology fails, platform operators continue to uphold the social compact and are consistent in providing some income protection to active platform workers?
Three, is an \"ask\" for platform operators to extend to platform workers, a copy of the terms of services between the platform worker and the platform operator. Platform workers should also be informed on how platforms price fees and earnings. Knowing what each platform pays on average allows platform workers to better plan their work arrangements and finances.
The introduction of the CPF scheme into the platform work-stream marks the maturing of the platform economy. Platform operators must be less like startups and more like established firms. The Bill’s oversight should thus extend to affirming fairness and transparency in how platform operators engage, deploy and compensate platform workers – right at the outset when parties enter a contract.
Recapping – the Bill can empower platform workers to opt-in to the CPF scheme by elevating trust in the system. How so? One, by requiring platform operators to periodically validate their AI systems to ensure fairness. Two, by providing platform workers with some income protection in event of extended platform app outage. And three, by requiring platform operators to extend to platform workers, the terms of services and its updates as well as information that would help workers to better grasp how much they can expect to earn based on their work effort.
Platform operators are aware that investors hold fast to unicorn aspirations and expect platforms to deliver faster growth, better return on capital and higher profit margins regardless of the Bill’s implications. In turn, platform workers are aware of the competing pressures upon platform operators that could erode the worker share of the economic pie.
Platform workers have shared with our associations their worries of platform operators diffusing the cost of Bill compliance among platform workers under the cloak of less-than-transparent earnings statement and/ or brute force implementation.
Therefore, last month, the NTUC announced its intention to register platform work associations that represent taxi drivers, private hire vehicle drivers and platform delivery workers should this Bill be passed. This Bill accords the right of voice to platform workers. The Bill also vests in platform work associations the right to Act on behalf of platform workers who are platform work association members. This is a milestone.
In this regard, platform work associations would undertake to advance the livelihoods of associations’ members. Platform work associations would also undertake to establish the first principles to anchor bipartite and tripartite discussions with platform operators and other stakeholders.
It is thus in the interests of both platform operators and platform workers to proactively seek out and collaborate with or join a platform work association that is balanced and progressive in mindset and approach. Having the right relationships in place from the get-go is crucial to building up platform workers’ trust in the platform work system. This is because issues that arise during platform rides and/or deliveries can be surfaced, addressed and acted on by platform operators, in collaboration with the platform work association.
I value the Ministry’s efforts to consult the other tripartite stakeholders in the crafting of the Bill. Does the Ministry plan to re-introduce tripartite set-ups that can facilitate discussions between the sectoral platform work association and platform operators on livelihood issues impacting the sector and its workers? These issues could range from inconveniences arising from infrastructure challenges such as delivery-unfriendly properties to protecting platform workers against work-related harms such as the handling of passengers who insist on vaping in the vehicle or who refuse to belt up.
In conclusion, technology without guardrails can dehumanise work and the worker. NTUC cares deeply for our platform workers. We champion their interests because every platform worker matters. This Bill is testament.
The Bill recognises that platform work has gone from experimental dabbling to an everyday affair; platform work is also both a career and a community for individuals of different life stages and ages.
Indeed, the Bill is significant because it heralds work and social protections that have impact on the lives and livelihoods of this precarious group of workers. As important, the Bill sets the stage for industrial relations to take root in a new economy and where sustainable development and win-win-win outcomes for workers, operators, and society, can spring forth under the auspices of tripartism and collaboration; so that all can play their part in building a fair social compact and resilient workforce.
Mr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill, which seeks to give effect to the recommendations made by the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers.
Platform workers, from our ride hailing drivers to our food delivery and package delivery riders, play an essential role in point-to-point transport, and in ensuring that food and goods reach our doorsteps promptly and in good condition. Well, we do want our cupcakes to come with the cream and the toppings intact. However, their job often places them in dangerous situations that can compromise their safety and well-being.
My speech today will touch on the importance of ensuring that our platform workers are well and properly covered by insurance, and the need to ensure that they have good workplace safety and health outcomes.
Sir, platform workers today lack an adequate insurance coverage. According to the 2022 report by the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers, the typical coverage for death or total permanent disability of platform workers provided by platform operators lies largely in the $10,000 to $30,000 range. This pales in comparison to the limit of $289,000 for employees under the WICA.
I, therefore, fully support the Bill's proposal to provide all platform workers with the same work injury compensation coverage as employees. In the event of an unfortunate accident, a food delivery rider working for a platform should not have to face poorer insurance outcomes than a comparable food delivery employee employed inhouse by a restaurant. It is the right thing to do and I am glad that we are removing this unfair and artificial distinction.
Beyond coverage by WICA while at work, we should recognise that many of our platform workers spend substantial periods of time on the road waiting for or travelling to destinations to seek their next job. To them, this is time spent at work. Yet, the definition of workplace under section 2 of WICA does not include such waiting or travelling periods. If platform workers get injured during such time, they will not be covered by WICA.
Sir, the International Labour Organization's position is that there should be recognition of some of the time that a worker spends on call. I urge the Ministry to consider including such waiting time under WICA in order to fully cover the range of work activities by a platform worker.
In addition to adequate insurance coverage, we must also move upstream to mitigate the risk of platform workers getting into an accident in the first place. Platform workers enjoy the ability to work in a flexible environment that best caters to their life's circumstances. But this comes with some downsides. To earn a decent wage, they spend long hours, often on the roads and, sometimes, in treacherous weather conditions.
One key concern for platform workers is road safety. The report by the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers found that from January 2021 to October 2022, there were eight work-related traffic fatalities among platform workers. Earlier, the Senior Minister of State also cited a 2022 study by the Institute of Policy Studies, which found that one in three food delivery workers has been in at least one accident that required medical attention. That same survey also found that around 44% of drivers reported worsening health levels since they started driving.
Sir, our platform workers want to be responsible road users. They want to earn a decent living and return home safely to their loved ones. To enhance protection for our platform workers, we need to implement measures that prioritise their safety and well-being. One such measure is to ensure that all delivery workers have access to proper training on road safety and the safe handling of packages to prevent injuries. Platform operators must also provide adequate safety equipment, such as reflective vests and helmets, to protect delivery workers while on the job.
More importantly, platform operators must not penalise platform workers for reporting work incidents, such as road traffic accidents. Platform workers should be allowed to prioritise their own safety without having to fear that they would be subject to unfair disincentives or penalties.
Sir, I have been lobbying for more to be done to safeguard the safety and health of our platform workers since 2021. This includes the need to review incentive structures which may lead platform workers to rush to meet targets and risk getting into an accident. I, therefore, fully support the provisions in this Bill which make clear that platform operators have a duty to provide measures to safeguard the safety of platform workers who work for them.
I call on all platform operators to take concrete steps to mitigate the risks to the safety and health of their platform workers. While I can understand that platform operators may not be in control of the physical environment that platform workers operate in, but operators can and should set policies that influence and drive platform workers' behaviours. Operators must be required to ensure that the design of their reward and incentive policies do not inadvertently induce their platform workers towards unsafe behaviours, such as driving long hours or rushing to complete jobs.
Sir, it is good that the WSH Council is working with tripartite partners to establish an Approved Code of Practice for Platform Services. The code will address safety concerns in platform work and provide clarity on the reasonably practicable measures that operators can take to fulfil their WSH duties.
However, the current draft code still allows flexibility for platform operators to set incentive targets that may be unreasonable and potentially unsafe. I, therefore, ask for the code to codify what would be deemed as a safe incentive and reward structure so that operators do not set unrealistic incentive targets.
I also call on the tripartite workgroup to study the best practices in other countries, such as Australia, where a series of reforms passed earlier this year will allow employee-like workers in the gig economy to enjoy similar workplace protection as regular employees. According to news reports, Australia started on this journey after a spate of road fatalities involving gig workers. The local government there is seeking to put in place minimum safety standards for gig workers. I am confident that there will be parallels from which we in Singapore can learn.
Sir, beyond what the Government and platform operators can do, we can all play a part in helping to keep our platform workers safe as merchants and as consumers. As consumers, we can be patient with our delivery workers when there are genuine reasons for delays. They are trying their best and many of them are braving weather conditions and obstacles to reach us in good time.
As ride-hailing customers, we should be upfront and declare when we have young children travelling with us. NTUC has received feedback from private hire vehicle drivers that some customers do not declare when they have accompanying children below the age of seven. Only taxis can ferry such passengers without a child seat. So, by failing to declare, it leads to a wasted trip for our platform workers. The customer also feels frustrated and it is an unpleasant experience for everyone involved.
As merchants and senders, we can pack our food and goods properly and honestly declare to the platform the correct weight and size of the item that we intend to send.
Sir, the work to improve the WSH outcomes for our platform workers will not end once this Bill passes Parliament. In fact, it signals the next mile in the Labour Movement's effort to improve the lives of our brothers and sisters in the gig economy. The Labour Movement has and will continue to champion the interests of our platform workers because every platform worker matters. And we mean it. Sir, I support the Bill. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.
Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, today, we discuss a landmark Bill, the Platform Workers Bill, which creates a new legal framework and amends laws, such as WICA, WSH Act, CPF Act and Industrial Relations Act.
This Bill represents extensive discussions and aims to provide platform workers with financial protection covering work injuries, housing and retirement adequacy. At the same time, it ensures platform operators can continue to thrive, preserving jobs for workers and services for consumers.
The Bill is a result of Singapore's unique tripartite model, involving cooperation among the Ministry, unions representing workers and businesses. Hence, I want to extend my gratitude to everyone who has worked tirelessly on this Bill – our brothers and sisters from our NTUC unions representing the workers, many of them here today, spending hours with us, the workers, the team at the Ministries, the businesses and our team from the PAP who have been holding many discussions with our platform workers, including in Pasir Ris-Punggol, where we, too, held discussions with our platform workers. This Bill reflects what we can achieve by working together and our values of protecting our workers.
Mr Speaker, the gig economy has expanded rapidly over the past few years, with the number of platform workers in Singapore growing from 70,500 in 2020 to 88,400 in 2022, driven by technology and the COVID-19 pandemic. However, this growth also highlights the disparity in power between platform workers and platform operators. While this imbalance may not be malicious, we need to rebalance the dynamics to ensure fairness for all parties.
Mr Speaker, I want to share the story of Mr T from Pasir Ris East, a father of four who was involved in a hit-and-run accident while on a delivery job just a month ago. His limited insurance coverage left him without compensation for his injuries or damage to his bike. Now on hospitalisation leave, he has lost his income and faces medical and repair bills.
This situation reflects the reality for many of our platform workers, who lack proper recourse for injury compensation despite their vital role in keeping the gig economy running. This Bill seeks to address such vulnerabilities.
Beyond injury compensation, platform workers often struggle with retirement and housing adequacy. One resident in Pasir Ris, a father of three in his 30s, lives in a rental flat because he lacks sufficient CPF savings to afford a home.
A 2023 DBS study found that platform workers' expense-to-income ratio has risen to 112%, meaning they are spending more than they earn. Without a fair wage structure, many workers face financial insecurity, especially regarding housing and retirement. This Bill aims to provide long-term security for platform workers.
Mr Speaker, while I support the Bill, I have several clarifications.
Firstly, on the definition of platform operators, how will companies assess if they are platform operators? Will MOM provide guidance on this?
Secondly, on CPF contributions, how will CPF contributions be computed for our platform workers? Will it be based on gross earnings or net earnings? With platform workers using different modes of transport, how will expenses be factored in?
Thirdly, on PCTS, will it support be based on gross or net income? Will it be disbursed annually, daily or monthly?
Fourthly, on work injury compensation, how will this apply if the platform worker's vehicle is found to be faulty or modified?
Lastly, and most importantly, wage and career progression for our platform workers.
Mr Speaker, let me elaborate further on the definition of platform operators. I support the Bill's focus on ride-hailing and delivery services as these workers are more akin to employees than self-employed individuals. However, more clarity is needed on how companies will determine whether they fall under the definition of platform operators. Additionally, we must be proactive in identifying industries where similar power imbalances may emerge and take steps to protect the workers in those sectors.
Secondly, let me touch on CPF and the retirement support mechanisms. I recently spoke to Mr Toh Kian Seng, a 62-year-old platform worker, who welcomed mandatory CPF contributions, recognising the long-term benefits for retirement despite the short-term reduction in take-home pay. However, younger workers may not share this perspective he said, as they may at times prioritise short-term earnings over long-term savings. Therefore, we must ensure a smooth transition to mandatory CPF contributions, with adequate support mechanisms in place.
How will CPF contributions be calculated? Will it be based on gross or net earnings? How will differing expenses for operating various vehicles, such as bicycles, motorbikes and cars, be factored into the calculations?
PCTS is a crucial mechanism to support platform workers during the transition for CPF contributions. With the income cap for PCTS raised to $3,000, will the support be based on gross or net income? The platform workers need cash to support their families’ monthly expenses. I urge the Ministry to provide this support on a monthly basis to help workers manage their monthly expenses. I also seek clarification on whether Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) eligibility and payouts will be based on gross or net income for our platform workers.
Will part-time platform workers be eligible for CPF contributions, PCTS and WIS, too? One worker in Pasir Ris raised a valid concern about his employer discovering additional CPF contributions and he was worried his employer will suspend him for moonlighting, even though he simply wanted to supplement his income. These workers need assurance and some guidelines on this matter.
Fourthly, on the issue of work injury compensation, given that the platform operator is not responsible for the choice of transportation of the platform workers, what happens if a platform worker's vehicle is found to be faulty or illegally modified? While motor vehicles undergo annual inspections, the situation is less clear for personal mobility devices and bicycles. Minor modifications, such as installing brackets or baskets to carry loads, which would increase the weight of personal mobility devices above 20 kilogrammes, should not disqualify workers from compensation.
On duty of care, both platform operators and workers share responsibility for safety. Should platform operators be required to monitor workers' behaviour, such as unsafe driving, or insist on proper insurance coverage? In Mr T’s case, I was surprised that Mr T only had limited third-party insurance covering only third-party fire and theft. His limited third-party insurance was deemed acceptable by the platform operator, for someone that spends hours on the road. This raises questions about the adequacy of such insurance and the operator's duty to ensure its associates are sufficiently covered under insurance.
While this Bill addresses important protections for our platform workers, it does not tackle wage stagnation or career progression for our platform workers. With over 70,000 platform workers in Singapore, how can we ensure their wages keep pace with inflation and rising costs?
Comparatively, the Police Force has only 15,000 full-time officers, and the number of teachers of 30,000 is less than half that of platform workers. So, this is a sizeable chunk of our workforce.
Other freelancers often see wage growth with experience, but platform workers are \"price takers\" with little control over their earnings. For many platform workers, their current wage could represent their wage ceiling. Unless they work longer hours or platform operators raise the prices, wages will stagnate and even decrease as workers age or seek better work-life balance. With inflation, real wages will quickly decline over time.
Additionally, when PCTS ends in 2029, platform workers will bear the full cost of CPF contributions, further reducing their take-home pay. In a tight labour market like ours in Singapore, we need to consider how to create opportunities for our platform workers to transition into other industries or roles if they wish to do so. Can we also provide more training support for platform workers to explore opportunities in other growth industries if they wish to do so? Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Allow me to share the story of a family from my ward, Pasir Ris East. Recently, I met Mr T, a father of four school-going children. A month ago, when Mr T was doing deliveries, he was hit by a vehicle in a hit-and-run incident. He suffered serious injuries and was hospitalised for two weeks. Unfortunately, his insurance was limited to only third-party fire and theft, which meant that he could not receive any compensation for his injuries or any damage to his vehicle.
Today, Mr T is still on hospitalisation leave and is unable to work, lost his source of income, has several follow-up medical appointments and the worst thing is that he must bear his own medical bills and vehicle repair costs.
Another story that I wish to share is about another one of my Pasir Ris residents, a husband in his 30s who has three school-going children. Although both husband and wife have been platform workers for five years, they still live in a rental flat because they do not have sufficient CPF or cash savings to make the downpayment for their own house, let alone think about retirement.
According to a DBS study in 2023, the expense-to-income ratio for platform workers has risen to 112%, meaning they spend more than what they earn. Without a fair wage structure, our platform workers will continue to face financial difficulties for their housing and retirement.
Therefore, this Bill is the best way to provide our platform workers with some form of financial protection, covering work injury, housing and retirement adequacy. At the same time, it ensures that platform operators can continue to thrive, preserve jobs for workers and provide services for consumers.
Although I support this Bill, I would like to seek some clarifications.
First is on the definition of platform operators. How will companies determine whether they are platform operators? Will MOM provide any guidance on this?
Second is on CPF contributions. How will CPF contributions be calculated for platform workers? Will it be based on gross income or net income? With platform workers using different modes of transport such as cycling or driving a car, how will the different mode of expenses be considered?
Third is on the Platform Worker CPF Transition Support (PCTS). Will the PCTS be based on gross or net income? Will it be given annually or monthly?
Fourth is on Work Injury Compensation. How will this be provided if the platform worker's vehicle is found to be modified?
Finally, and most importantly, is salary and career progression for our platform workers. While this Bill deals with important safeguards, it does not address the issues of wage stagnation or career progression for platform workers. For most platform workers, their salaries will not increase unless they work longer in a day or if the platform operators raise their prices. In fact, their salaries will most likely decline as they grow older or need more time to look after their families. This is before the inflation rate is considered. In addition, when the assistance from PCTS ends in 2029, platform workers have to bear the full cost of CPF contributions, thus reducing their take-home pay.
Mr Speaker, there are many job opportunities in Singapore especially in the growth industries which has opportunities for career advancement. How can we give our platform workers the opportunity to switch to other industries, if they want to try out new careers?
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, this Bill is an important step towards protecting workers, ensuring their financial security and rebalancing the needs of all stakeholders. However, several areas require clarifications to ensure a smooth implementation. Notwithstanding the clarifications above, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Koh.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment of Debate","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Dr Koh Poh Koon): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the debate be now adjourned\".
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the debate be now adjourned\". − [Dr Koh Poh Koon]. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Resumption of debate, what day?
Dr Koh Poh Koon: Tomorrow, Sir.
Mr Speaker: So be it. Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment Motion","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Razwana Begum.
Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I stand today to talk with you about schools, education and learning.
Mr Speaker, as noted by Prime Minister Lawrence Wong just last month in his National Day Rally speech, and I quote: “All parents want the best for their children and in Singapore all parents place great emphasis on education. It is truly the most important gift that we give to our young.” The Prime Minister went on to outline a vision for a refreshed education sector, one that recognises and rewards individual differences and preferences.
Mr Speaker, I commend the Government's vision and commitment to educational excellence and I hope that my comments today contribute to these discussions.
Mr Speaker, before I outline my vision for the future, I would like to take a moment to tell you about Chesterton’s Fence. As some of you may recall, GK Chesterton was an English author and philosopher. Mr Chesterton was born in 1874 and died in 1936, and among his many contributions to public policy was the notion of the Chesterton Fence.
To explain, I will quote Mr Chesterton himself: \"Chesterton's Fence is the principle that reforms should not be made until the reasoning behind the existing state of affairs is understood.”
Mr Speaker, let us imagine that there is a fence or gate erected across a road. As Chesterton writes: “The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, ‘I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.’ To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: ‘If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.’”
This principle reminds us to understand the purpose and value of existing ways of doing things before making changes. It is unwise to rush towards change for change sake, as there are frequently very good reasons for doing things a certain way, even if those reasons have long been forgotten. In making change, it is important to preserve what is beneficial and innovate only where necessary.
Mr Speaker, Singapore has a strong history of acting consistently with Chesterton’s Fence and it is with this principle in mind that I stand today to reimagine our education sector.
Before I progress, I should declare that I am currently employed at Singapore University of Social Sciences and have worked as an educator in one way or another for over 20 years.
Mr Speaker, Singapore’s schools are already among the best in the world. On many international and domestic metrics, our children leave school with an exceptional education, and well equipped to handle the challenges and excitement of modern life. So, to all the teachers, counsellors and ancillary staff out there who may be listening, thank you for everything you do. Your commitment to the teaching, education and well-being of our children is noticed and welcomed across Singapore. Mr Speaker, in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] To all teachers, your commitment to the teaching, education and well-being of our children is noticed and welcomed across Singapore.
(In English): And, in Tamil.
(In Tamil): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] To all teachers, thank you very much for your dedication.
(In English): Mr Speaker, I would also like to reassure everyone that my vision is not about doing more, it is about doing different. And in doing different, we must ensure that those working in schools and across the sector are provided with the training, supervision, support and time needed to do their job.
Mr Speaker, I will now outline my vision for the future of education in Singapore; what I see over and beyond some of the current fences. In doing so, I will first discuss some of the qualitative characteristics of an effective education system, followed by a summary of several quantitative indicators that could potentially be used to measure successful implementation of those characteristics.
Mr Speaker, my vision does not dismantle the first-rate work done to date by the Ministry of Education (MOE) but supplements it. We can always do things better and differently and Singapore has never shied away from such a challenge. I should also note that many of the issues I am about to highlight have previously been identified by Members of this Parliament and other commentators, including Prime Minister Wong in his National Day Rally speech. So, I am, as they say, standing on the shoulder of giants.
Mr Speaker, in my reimagined world, schools will be child-centred, inclusive, trauma-informed and individualised. Schools will give equal attention to the physical, emotional, social and intellectual health, and well-being of children. Children will no longer be assessed or judged by a mark or a grade, but by their personal progress towards individualised goals.
We will actively encourage and support children to pursue studies and careers of personal passion, interest and emotional reward; and not those imposed externally by families, friends or society. Critical thinking, problem-solving, collaboration and adaptability will be seen as core skills for children, alongside reading, writing, spelling and other more traditional subjects. Arts and humanities will be of equal personal and academic value as other technical subjects and schools will be sufficiently resourced to enable children to successfully pursue and graduate in those subjects.
Education and learning will be seen as a shared and equal responsibility between schools, parents and children. Children will feel safe, welcome and happy at school; and schools will have safeguarding policies and procedures that are co-designed between schools, parents and children.
Mr Speaker, school and learning, will be a source of delight and wonder. Not stress, distress or anxiety. Now that I have described what a school of the future might look like, how will we know when we get there?
Mr Speaker, we will have moved away from our current reliance on formal examination. We will recognise that examinations suit some children, but not all children; and that a low mark or, indeed, any mark in an examination is not always a valid or reliable indicator of a child's immediate or long-term capacity.
We will, instead, employ a suite of continuous assessment methodologies that recognise that children learn and demonstrate proficiency and delight in their learning, in many different ways. We will no longer stream children primarily on academic performance, but will, instead, recognise the unique and individual strengths of each child and will focus on assisting children to transition seamlessly into a school and class of choice.
We will not talk about gifted children but instead, consider that all children are gifted in different ways. Homework will be an exception rather than the rule, with the bulk of the school curriculum being successfully taught within school hours. Out-of-school tutoring will no longer be the norm, with children having individualised, in-school learning plans that provide them with what they need and want academically, socially and emotionally.
Children will return home from school to play with their siblings, friends and family; not to focus predominantly on study or training. Weekends will be an opportunity for families to spend time together playing at home or in the park, going for walks, watching movies, visiting galleries or just talking with each other; not rushing from appointment to appointment.
School holidays will be exactly as the term suggests: a holiday. Children will put away their schoolbooks and do what children are supposed to be doing: learning through play. Children will attend their school of choice, and all schools will provide children access to the same level and quality of services and facilities.
Teachers will have work hours, a workload and work environment that actively promotes and protects job satisfaction, positive mental health and personal well-being. Children with disabilities or with complex and challenging behaviours, will be safely and respectfully included into mainstream schools, to be educated alongside their peers. Social status and privilege will play no part in a child's access to school nor the child's success at school.
We will recognise that the level of stress, distress and anxiety currently experienced by many children, often because of performance or assessment obligations and expectations, is unhealthy, unnecessary and counterproductive. And Mr Speaker, we will, as a nation and a community, do everything we can to ensure that all children are valued for who they are as people and not because of their background, family, ability, school, grade or career.
Mr Speaker, in the final section of my speech, I will discuss next steps. I have identified the destination, so I will now explore the journey.
Mr Speaker, Singapore has a history of implementing change when change is needed and I hope that my speech today will assist to shift the conceptualisation of schools, education and learning and to encourage an appetite for change.
Mr Speaker, the education sector comprises multiple stakeholders, each of which play a role in creating and sustaining the current status quo and each of which have a role in change. These stakeholders include the Government, the community, the business sector, the media, schools, teachers, parents and, of course, children themselves.
Each stakeholder has their own fence: their own perspectives, preferences and agendas; and system-wide reform is more effective with the participation and endorsement of all. We need to ask everyone about their fences before we remove them or build new ones.
Mr Speaker, the current status quo in our education sector is sustained by multiple co-dependent relationships. For example, parents push their children hard and focus on academic outcomes because the commonly held notion among Singaporeans that grades, rankings and certificates are all important. Singaporeans take this stance because that is the way it has always been done. It has served us well in the past.
Schools, therefore, maintain a system where education and assessment is competitive, comparative and task orientated. The whole cycle feeds on itself and none of the stakeholders want to be the first to change.
Mr Speaker, first and foremost, our journey of change must be fuelled by engagement and dialogue. All of the stakeholders mentioned above need to be on the same page. We need to build a common understanding and a common purpose, and this can only be achieved by meaningful and ongoing consultation. If we expect, for example, parents and schools to focus more on a child's happiness and well-being than their grades, we need to create a broader ecosystem where grades and outcomes are not such an all-important factor.
We need to create and build new common fence.
Mr Speaker, this is where the Government comes in. We are well-placed to take a leadership role in facilitating meaningful engagement and dialogue with all relevant stakeholders.
Mr Speaker, sitting alongside community engagement is expert advice. Community-wide conversations and input is critical. However, we also need to be informed by contemporary best-practice. One way to facilitate this would be to establish a multi-disciplinary advisory group, whose task is to research and collate innovative practice within the education sector both domestically and internationally. Such a group would need to comprise representatives from the Government, the business and community sectors, academics, schools, parents, health professionals, social workers and psychologists and, of course, students.
Mr Speaker, another piece of the puzzle is community education. Singaporeans are smart people and if we want them to think or do things differently, we need to clearly explain why. We need to make available to all stakeholders the evidence that a reformed education sector will not cause the sky to fall. In fact, it will lead to better outcomes for everyone, including, most importantly, our children.
If we expect stakeholders to shift their perspectives, to lower their fences, we need to provide evidence that there is a different, more contemporary and effective way of doing things.
Mr Speaker, this is, again, where the Government comes in. Along with meaningful stakeholder engagement, we are also well-placed to develop and implement community-wide education campaigns.
Southeast Asians and Singaporeans see the world in a unique way. This is a good thing. Many of us have deeply held and long-standing sociocultural attitudes, values and beliefs, including attitudes, values and beliefs about childhood, education, parenting and work. Our way of life has served us well and Singapore is an internationally renowned success because of how we see and do things.
In reimaging education, it is essential that we do not dismantle necessary or precious fences. We do not want Singapore to be like the West nor to disregard our heritage. As we move forward, we need to bring each of Singapore's cultural communities with us and actively engage with them to safely and respectfully examine current perspectives and practices and explore new ones.
Mr Speaker, one of the strongest indicators of educational success is parental engagement. Children of parents who are actively involved in their child's learning and school community have better educational outcomes. By working closely with the school and broader community and seeking support when needed, parents can assist and equip their children with the skills needed to contribute positively to society and to be part of a forward-thinking environment.
Mr Speaker, parents also play an important role in shaping the choices their children make, including their choices about education. In undertaking this role, it is important that parents encourage and support their children to explore multiple opportunities and interests and to balance traditional academic success with personal satisfaction and emotional well-being. Balancing these competing demands can be difficult but is achievable when schools, parents and children work together in partnership and when the Government does its part to ensure that parents and families are sufficiently resourced and supported to focus on their children.
Mr Speaker, once we have engaged with all stakeholders and we created a shared understanding of a new way, we need to document our vision and how we intend to get there. An across-Government roadmap for change is one way to achieve this. Let us publicise and promote our agenda for change and put in place key indicators to monitor and assess our progress.
Mr Speaker, I will now conclude with some comments about restorative justice.
Restorative justice has been of professional and academic interest to me for many years. The four principles that underpin restorative justice – respect, responsibility, reintegration and restoration – are highly relevant to the education sector and to effective teaching and learning.
For example, schools need to be places, where children are respected and where they valued and supported in all aspects of their education and learning. Schools also need to be places, where children are encouraged and allowed to take responsibility for their actions, including their behaviour, goals and learning.
We need to provide individualised, multi-tiered systems of support to ensure that all children can be reintegrated back into the school community if and when they start to disengage or fall behind. We need to create cohesive environments that are based on the concept of restoration and repair, not coercion and punishment when harm is done.
Mr Speaker, at the heart of the four principles is the notion of relationships. Schools have to be places where teachers have the time, space, resources, qualifications and desire to build and maintain respectful, effective and individualised relationships with every child. All children in all schools need to be and to feel known by their school and teachers.
Mr Speaker, it is only when children feel seen, known, safe and welcomed at school, that they will be in a position to learn what they want and need to learn. And that, Mr Speaker, is what education is all about.
Mr Speaker: Minister Chan Chun Sing.
The Minister for Education (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Speaker, Sir, we thank Assoc Prof Razwana Begum for her work as an educator, her support for our education system and our educators, and for sharing her aspirations.
As we evolve our education system for a better tomorrow, we must remember that good outcomes depend critically on good educators who can implement our ideas consistently and with conviction. Let me share our key beliefs that have shaped and will continue to guide our approach to education in the coming years.
First, our success is not defined by academic results attained in the first 15 years in school. More importantly, it is defined by our contributions in the next 50 years beyond our schools, where we continue to possess the joy of learning and the DNA to strive for excellence in diverse domains.
This starts with building a love of learning in the early years as our children explore the world and develop their bilingual, mathematics and critical thinking foundations.
In their schooling years, we will provide students with porous and diverse pathways and give them opportunities to grow their potential. This means that no single test should determine a student's future and not every topic taught needs to be tested.
For example, we are allowing students to count their fourth content-based A-level subject for admission to our Autonomous Universities only if it improves their University Admission Score from 2026 and to count one G2 subject for admission to Polytechnic Year 1 from 2028. With changes like these, we hope to shift towards a mindset of learning and growth instead of an exam-oriented mindset.
Beyond the schooling years, we will invest in our people throughout life, with SkillsFuture as a key pillar of our social compact.
We recently enhanced investments in our SkillsFuture programmes – from the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme to the JobSeeker Support scheme and training allowances for mid-career upgraders. All these allow our people to seize opportunities to stay relevant and secure good jobs that offer dignity, respect and financial sufficiency.
Second, we recognise that our people have strengths in diverse areas. These talents can manifest across time rather than at any single pre-determined point in life.
So, we must resist the temptation to \"teach to the average\" of a child or a class. We must cater to different learning needs of our children, across different life stages and provide porous systems for our children to develop at their own pace. We have improved our system over the years to allow students to customise their education at a finer level.
For example, Full Subject-based Banding now allows students to customise their learning in individual subjects instead of keeping to one pace across all subjects.
We have enhanced our curriculum support for Special Education schools to improve their ability to cater to students with a range of special education needs. There are Special Needs Officers at all primary schools to better support students with mild to moderate needs who can access mainstream education.
The recently announced changes to the Gifted Education Programme and Higher Mother Tongue Language eligibility criteria in Secondary 1 will provide more opportunities to stretch our students in specific areas of strength. These moves also offer more opportunities for students to interact with peers of different profiles.
Our school landscape and admissions system recognise students' diverse strengths and abilities rather than purely academic performance. For those with particular talents and aptitudes, we have Specialised Independent Schools – School of the Arts, NUS High School, Singapore Sports School and Singapore School of Science and Technology.
Aptitude-based admissions and Direct School Admission provide opportunities for students to pursue studies based on potential and interest and broaden their access to diverse education pathways.
We share similar aspirations as the Member to provide each child with a customised learning journey based on his or her individual strengths and abilities. This is why we keep innovating and leveraging technology, including artificial intelligence, data science and the science of learning, to break the conventional education system trilemma of achieving quality at scale, speed and affordability.
Through these efforts, we are striving towards mass customisation to free ourselves from the mindset that quality education is determined by class size alone. In fact, studies have shown that the quality of teachers is most important in determining the outcomes of education.
Third, trust and professional respect for educators must be the foundation of our system. This will determine our society's ability to attract the best and most committed teachers, which then determines our education outcomes.
Without good teachers, even the best education policies will have limited impact. Our teachers undergo years of rigorous training to do their work as professionals. They pour their hearts out to bring out the best in our children, often going above and beyond the call of duty.
This is why MOE is stepping up efforts for our teachers' personal growth and professional development by (a) investing in educational technology to support our teachers' pedagogical practices, alleviate their workload and enable them to deliver customised teaching; (b) supporting our teachers' well-being through curated resources, workshops and counselling services; and (c) even redesigning staff rooms and workspaces to better meet their professional needs, as recently announced by the Prime Minister at the National Day Rally.
But respect for teachers must come not just from MOE. I seek everyone's support to respect and trust our teachers to do their jobs and to work with our teachers to support our children's learning and upbringing.
Fourth, we agree with the Member that strong partnerships are essential for our students to learn for life. This is why we established the MOE Partnerships Engagement Office last year, to rally partners – industry, parents, community, experts – to collaborate with schools to create authentic learning opportunities for students and for us to leverage on the whole-of-society capabilities to provide the best for our children.
The Member may be pleased to know that we will strengthen these partnerships, especially with the industry: to inspire younger students and shape their interests early and to help our adult learners keep up to date with industry changes by co-designing, co-developing and co-delivering modules with our institutes of higher learning.
But our most important partners are our parents. We all want the best for our children, but the best may not mean the most popular school. Instead, we should ask which school will bring out the best version of our children so that they will learn to surpass themselves in life instead of trying to surpass others in an exam and to have confidence in their abilities instead of comparing with others to determine their self-worth.
All of us – parents, educators and public – must evolve our mindsets to complement the structural and policy changes that we are making.
Mr Speaker, we can never fully know what the future holds. We cannot and should not try to remove all uncertainties and difficulties that our children face. Each and every setback is also a learning opportunity for our children to build resilience.
Even as we enhance our education system, we must be careful to not over-structure, over-provide or over-protect. Instead, we must retain space for our children to try, fail, take responsibility and bounce back from setbacks. Only then can they learn to embrace untidiness and thrive amidst uncertainties – the only things that we can be certain that the future will hold.
Finally, I would like to thank Assoc Prof Razwana and all Members of the House, our partners, parents and teachers for their close partnership to support our children's development. MOE is committed to work with all partners to improve our education system so that Singapore and Singaporeans can thrive in the years and generations to come.
Mr Speaker: It has been a long day.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 2(3)(a), I wish to inform hon Members that the Sitting tomorrow will commence at 11.00 am.
Adjourned accordingly at 9.07 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Housing Grant Increase on HDB Resale Flat Prices, and Trend for Resale Flat Prices By Flat Type","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"35 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for National Development whether the increase in total housing grants to $230,000 for eligible first-timer families who buy a resale HDB flat will lead to higher resale prices of HDB flats as sellers may demand more in light of the increased support.
36 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development for first-time home buyers who obtained a HDB housing loan since 30 September 2022, what is the number and percentage of loans that have a loan-to-value ratio of (i) 80%, (ii) between 75% and 80% and (iii) less than 75%, broken down by the flat type being financed.
37 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the decomposition of the HDB Resale Price Index by flat type in the year-to-date and the last five years; (b) what is the average increase in HDB resale flat prices by flat type in the year-to-date and in each year of the last five years; and (c) what are the reasons for the differences in price increases across the flat types.
Mr Desmond Lee: My response will also cover matters raised in the question by Mr Yip Hon Weng scheduled for a subsequent Sitting.
On 20 August 2024, the Ministry of National Development (MND) implemented two measures: (a) the Loan-To-Value (LTV) limit for Housing and Development Board (HDB) housing loans was lowered from 80% to 75%; and (b) the Enhanced CPF Housing Grant (EHG) was increased to help lower- to middle-income first-timers purchase their homes. Let me first provide an update on the state of the residential property market that led to these measures before elaborating on the impact of each measure on home buyers.
State of the residential property market. MND has been closely monitoring both the private residential property (PRP) and HDB resale markets. Following a ramp-up in the supply of Build-To-Order flats and private housing in the Government Land Sales programme, as well as three earlier rounds of cooling measures in December 2021, September 2022 and April 2023, both the PRP and HDB resale markets showed signs of moderation in 2023. In the first half of 2024, the PRP market continued to remain stable. However, the resale price index (RPI) for the HDB resale market rose by more than 4%. We are unable to provide a breakdown of RPI by flat type, due to the small transaction volume and fluctuations over time for some flat types. Broadly speaking, prices have increased across all flat types, in sync with the wider market. As a proxy, the Member can refer to the HDB InfoWEB for the quarterly data on the median resale price by town and flat type.
Impact of the lower LTV limit. Mr Louis Chua asked about the LTV profile of those taking up HDB loans and the flat types they purchased. Most flat buyers who take HDB loans are already prudent in their flat purchases, with almost nine in 10 already having LTV ratios of below 75%. They will, therefore, not be affected by the LTV limit reduction. For those with higher LTV ratios of between 75% and 80%, we have observed that these buyers disproportionately bought larger flat types and paid higher prices. In 2023, amongst resale flat buyers who took HDB loans (a) about nine in 10 with LTV ratios above 75% bought 4-room and larger flats, compared to about seven in 10 for those with LTV ratios of 75% and below; and (b) depending on the flat type, the median resale buyer with an LTV ratio above 75% paid about $20,000 to $60,000 more than the median resale buyer with LTV ratio of 75% and below who bought the same flat type.
The lowering of LTV limit will, therefore, encourage more prudent borrowing and dampen demand at the higher end of the market, which should, in turn, have a knock-on effect of stabilising the rest of the resale market. History tells us that the property market moves in cycles, and those who buy at higher prices with larger loans are also hardest hit when the market cools. We will monitor the market after these latest moves and will take action if necessary.
Impact of the increased EHG. EHG is means-tested, progressive and targeted. The latest round of enhancements is tiered such that lower-income first-timer households will receive more support. This reduces the risk of fueling the wider resale market. Furthermore, sellers may not be able to size up the grant amount that flat buyers receive, as HDB does not share the personal information of flat buyers with flat sellers, including the grant amounts that buyers are entitled to.
Impact on low-income families. Mr Yip Hon Weng raised concerns about the impact of the lower LTV limit on low-income households, such as those transitioning from rental housing to home ownership. Lower-income first-timer families need not be worried, as the increase in EHG will more than offset the reduction in loan quantum from the lowering of LTV limit for these families. In other words, when the two measures are stacked together, their total housing budget has actually increased, hence making home ownership more attainable than before. There may be a small number of low-income families, including second-timers, who are affected by the lower LTV limit but are not eligible for EHG. I encourage them to approach HDB proactively to discuss their housing options. HDB has dedicated support schemes for low-income second-timer families, such as the Step-Up CPF Housing Grant or Fresh Start Housing Scheme.
These latest changes reflect the Government’s commitment to provide a diverse range of affordable housing options for Singaporeans. We will continue to watch both the PRP and HDB resale markets closely and will not hesitate to act decisively to ensure prices remain in line with economic fundamentals.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Ensure Protection of Biometric Data Collected by Private Entities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what measures are in place to ensure that the collection of biometric data of residents using Worldcoin Orbs is protected against the data being misused or resold; and (b) whether the collection of biometric data by private entities is or will be regulated.
39 Mr Mark Lee asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) how is the Government addressing the risks of scams and fraudulent activities that can result from the misuse of biometric data by private entities; (b) what regulatory frameworks are in place or being considered to oversee and monitor the activities of such entities to ensure compliance with data protection laws and standards; and (c) what steps are being taken to educate the public about the potential risks of sharing their biometric data with these entities.
40 Mr Mark Lee asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information how is the Government collaborating with international counterparts to ensure a cohesive and robust approach to managing and mitigating the risks associated with biometric data collection technologies by private entities.
Mrs Josephine Teo: My response will also cover the matter raised in the question for oral answer by Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim which is scheduled for a subsequent Sitting. I invite the Member to seek clarifications, if need be. If the question has been addressed, it may not be necessary for him to proceed with the question for future Sittings.
The Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) governs the collection, use, disclosure and care of personal data by organisations in Singapore, including Worldcoin. Biometric data – which relate to the physiological, biological or behavioral characteristics of an individual – can form part of the personal data of an individual. The Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) has also issued a Guide on Responsible Use of Biometric Data in Security Applications to advise on risks unique to biometric recognition technology and measures to govern and protect biometric data.
As biometric data are generally unique, they cannot be changed once compromised, unlike passwords or other tokens. Stolen biometric data can, therefore, be misused by malicious actors to spoof an individual’s identity in order to access information or systems or conduct scams or other fraudulent activity. Such misuse is harder to defuse because biometric data cannot be changed.
Organisations that handle such data must ensure they put in place the necessary data protection and security arrangements to address these risks when designing and operating their systems and processes. They must also obtain consent from consumers before collecting their data by giving all necessary information in a manner that is understandable to the consumer.
PDPC has been engaging Worldcoin on their obligations under PDPA and will continue to monitor their collection, use and disclosure of personal data, including biometric data. PDPC may take enforcement action against organisations in Singapore that are found to have breached their obligations under PDPA. PDPC also monitors developments in other jurisdictions and is ready to work with international counterparts as necessary.
To support the adoption of good data protection practices, PDPC conducts educational and outreach activities through events, such as the annual Personal Data Protection Week and Privacy Awareness Week. PDPC has also worked with the Ministry of Manpower to disseminate notices to migrant workers to raise awareness about the importance of keeping their personal data safe.
Ultimately, everyone must exercise judgement and ensure they fully understand how their personal data will be used by whom before giving consent for it to be collected.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Preventing Radicalisation of Young Singaporeans, and Identifying and Supporting Those at Risk","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"41 Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Ministry intends to develop a National Strategy to Countering Violent Extremism to further strengthen the SGSecure framework.
42 Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Home Affairs what whole-of-Government strategies are in place to assist and prevent radicalisation of young people in Singapore.
43 Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Home Affairs what programmes or resources are in place to help community organisations in Singapore, (i) recognise early signs of radicalisation in young people and (ii) support young people who are at risk of radicalisation or are exhibiting signs of radicalisation.
44 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what measures are implemented in schools to prevent self-radicalisation amongst youths; (b) whether such measures have been effective; (c) whether the Online Safety Act has been effective in protecting youths in Singapore from harmful content that can cause self-radicalisation; and (d) if not, what further measures will the Ministry implement to guard against self-radicalisation, especially amongst youths.
Mr K Shanmugam: My reply will address the questions raised by Mr Desmond Choo and Assoc Prof Razwana Begum in today’s Order Paper, as well as similar questions raised by Assoc Prof Razwana Begum1,2,3 for the subsequent Sitting.
In Singapore, the terrorism threat comes primarily from self-radicalised individuals who have been influenced by extremist materials online. The number of radicalised youths has increased in recent years and they are increasingly younger.
The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) adopts a whole-of-society approach to tackle this threat. We have strengthened our legislative levers to block access to online extremist messaging and ideologies. For example, the Online Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, which amended the Broadcasting Act, and Online Criminal Harms Act allow the Government to disable access to egregious or criminal content online, including those that advocate terrorism and incite violence. However, it is not possible to block all extremist content, and new sites and accounts can easily be created.
As such, public education remains essential to our strategy to counter extremism. The Internal Security Department (ISD) works with Government agencies and community groups to sensitise the public to the dangers of extremist ideas. The Ministry of Education (MOE) is a key partner of ISD’s outreach to schools and Institutes of Higher Learning. Last year, ISD organised more than 60 outreach events for over 2,000 participants, including students, educators and school counsellors. ISD works with MOE to train school counsellors and student welfare officers on behavioural indicators and appropriate interventions, including early reporting, for students who may be at risk of radicalisation. ISD and MOE have jointly produced an online guide for parents and guardians on protecting their children from radicalisation.
MOE also ensures that students learn about the importance of social cohesion and racial and religious harmony. Through subjects like Social Studies and History, students learn about the negative impact of extremist ideas, prejudice and stereotypes, and how these can be countered. In Character and Citizenship Education, students learn to develop empathy and respect for one another. They learn to recognise harmful content and be more discerning of information they get from different sources, including online. Learning journeys to places of worship and heritage sites, and the celebration of cultural festivals, also help the students develop an appreciation of and a stronger sensitivity to racial and religious issues.
Schools have established a peer support structure, where students are taught to speak up for their peers when their peers experience racism and hate speech. Through Co-Curricular Activities and other school experiences, students interact with one another, regardless of background. These social bonds can help counter the impact of exclusivist or extremist ideologies.
Beyond the efforts in schools, ISD works with community partners, such as the Religious Rehabilitation Group (RRG) and Inter-Agency Aftercare Group (ACG), to strengthen the community’s resilience to extremist ideas. For example, RRG hosts visits to its Resource and Counselling Centre and Majulah Gallery, and conducts youth forums on countering violent extremism.
Underpinning our public outreach efforts is the SGSecure movement. One of the personas featured in the SGSecure campaign launched last year is the \"True Friend\", someone who can spot early signs of radicalisation and shows care for a friend who is potentially radicalised, by getting help for him from the authorities. The SGSecure website has a resource kit on signs of radicalisation and the reporting channels available. This resource kit is disseminated to religious and community organisations, self-help groups and counselling hotline operators.
Another way to reach out to youths is through digital content. In July, we launched the SGSecure Instagram account. These efforts aim to raise awareness of the role individuals can play in countering terrorism. RRG has also expanded its digital outreach efforts through its TikTok account which was launched in June 2023.
It is also important to provide avenues for our people to discuss such issues. The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) encourages dialogues and other initiatives to discuss sensitive issues relating to race and religion in a responsible and respectful manner. For example, the Racial and Religious Harmony Circles bring together people from different races and faiths to promote cross-cultural interactions and shared experiences. There are also youth-centric initiatives, such as OnePeople.SG’s annual HarmonyWorks! Conference, where youths can come together to discuss issues concerning racial and religious relations. The National Youth Council has also developed civic conversation toolkits to facilitate meaningful and respectful discussions amongst youths on complex yet important issues, including race and religion.
Finally, ISD partners RRG and ACG to rehabilitate radicalised youths. For example, RRG’s “Youth Counselling Manual” provides a structured and customised religious counselling approach for them. To aid their reintegration into society, ISD minimises disruption to their education and arranges for them to participate in relevant community programmes. A mentoring programme has been introduced to provide a role model to guide the youths in personal growth and development.
These rehabilitation efforts have seen some success. Of the 13 self-radicalised youth cases since 2015, four out of seven who were detained have since been released. Of the six who were issued with Restriction Orders (ROs), ISD has allowed the ROs of three of them to lapse.
I thank Members of this House for your strong support, too. MHA will continue to work closely with Government agencies and the community to counter the threat of terrorism and violent extremism. Our strongest defence is our collective vigilance, preparedness, resilience and unity.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Home Affairs what programmes or resources are in place to help parents (i) recognise early signs of radicalisation of their children and (ii) provide guidance and support to a child who is at risk of radicalisation or is exhibiting signs of radicalisation.","2 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Home Affairs what training are available to help teachers and school counsellors (i) recognise early signs of radicalisation amongst students and (ii) support students who are at risk of radicalisation or are exhibiting signs of radicalisation.","3 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Home Affairs what are the avenues for young people to gather peacefully to discuss and learn about issues of collective interest or concern to reduce the risk of them seeking information or support on social media or the Internet."],"footNoteQuestions":["41","42","43","44"],"questionNo":"41-44"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Penalties for Acts of Negligence Causing Pet Deaths at Grooming Facilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"46 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the outcome of investigations into the death of an allegedly unattended corgi at a grooming salon on 24 July 2024; and (b) whether lessons can be drawn from safety practices in other sectors.
47 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry will consider imposing heavier penalties for acts of negligence causing pet deaths at grooming facilities; and (b) whether there is a licensing regime governing individuals or corporate bodies offering pet grooming services.
48 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether there are measures in place to prevent individuals who have been found to be negligent in the handling of pets in the course of providing grooming services from reoffending; and (b) whether there are plans to implement licensing requirements for pet groomers in a manner similar to pet breeders and boarders.
Mr Desmond Lee: The National Parks Board was notified of the death of a dog at a pet grooming salon on 24 July 2024. As investigations are ongoing, it is inappropriate to comment on the case at this juncture.
There is currently no licensing regime for pet groomers. Notwithstanding this, all individuals working in animal-related businesses, including pet groomers, are expected to uphold higher standards of animal welfare, given that they are entrusted with the care of their clients’ animals. Under the Animals and Birds Act, any person who is found guilty of animal cruelty or failure of duty of care while operating or employed by an animal-related business, will face up to two years' imprisonment or a fine of $40,000, or both, for a first offence. Penalties will be more severe for reoffenders. For second or subsequent offences, such individuals will face up to three years of imprisonment or a fine of $100,000, or both. The Court may also issue a disqualification order to an individual or business that is convicted of an animal welfare offence.
In addition, the Code of Animal Welfare (for the Pet Industry) sets out minimum animal housing, management and care standards for pet businesses, including pet grooming facilities. Failure to meet minimum standards stipulated in the Code may be used as evidence for enforcement action.
We are currently reviewing the Animals and Birds Act to enhance legislative powers to safeguard animal health and welfare. Under this review, we are studying the penalties for animal cruelty and failure to fulfil duty of care and will share more details when ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Increase in Electricity and Gas Tariffs for July to September 2024 Despite Drop in Global Oil Prices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"50 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry why electricity and gas tariffs have increased for the period from 1 July 2024 to 30 September 2024 despite the drop in oil and gas prices globally.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Changes in electricity and gas tariffs broadly reflect movements in fuel prices, which form a significant component of the overall tariff. The tariffs are set using the average of daily fuel prices in the preceding quarter. For example, the tariffs for July to September are set using average fuel prices between April and June.
The fuel cost component of tariffs increased by about 1% from the first to the second quarter of this year. Accordingly, there was an increase in tariffs from the second to the third quarter of 0.3% for electricity tariffs and 1.3% for gas tariffs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Permanent Secretaries' Membership on Boards of Companies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what specific criteria and checks are used to determine and monitor a Permanent Secretary's eligibility to sit on a company board; (b) who is responsible for making, reviewing and reassessing these appointments; (c) how frequent are the appointments re-evaluated for potential conflicts of interest; (d) in the past five years, how many times have these checks identified and prevented a potential conflict; and (e) whether the results of these checks are made public and, if not, why not.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): Having public officers on private sector boards, and likewise private sector individuals on public sector boards, encourages greater diversity in perspectives and helps strengthen the understanding between the public and private sectors.
As I have explained in the written reply to Ms Sylvia Lim on the same topic on 6 August 2024, Permanent Secretaries, like all civil servants, are required to seek the necessary approvals prior to accepting requests to serve as board directors of private sector companies. [Please refer to \"Management of Conflicts of Interest for Permanent Secretaries on Private Sector Boards\", Official Report, 6 August 2024, Vol 95, Issue 138, Written Answers to Questions section.]
\tThe Public Service Division works with Ministries to conduct conflict of interest checks to ensure that there is no conflict of interest and that the Permanent Secretaries’ ability to carry out their primary duties are not compromised.
These checks take place prior to an appointment to a company board, during re-appointments, or when there are changes to an officer’s primary role. Appointments can proceed if there is no conflict of interest.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Charities Participating in Overseas Humanitarian Assistance Tax Deduction Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"52 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) how many charities have been invited to participate in the Overseas Humanitarian Assistance Tax Deduction Scheme (OHAS) which will be piloted from 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2028; and (b) what are the criteria for determining which charities qualify to participate in the OHAS pilot.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: At Budget 2024, the Government announced the launch of the Overseas Humanitarian Assistance Tax Deduction Scheme (OHAS). OHAS will be piloted for four years, from 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2028, to encourage more support for those in need overseas.
Under the OHAS pilot, individual and corporate donors can receive 100% tax deductions for qualifying overseas cash donations. These donations must be made through a designated charity and directed towards a fund-raising appeal for emergency humanitarian assistance that has a valid Fund-Raising for Foreign Charitable Purposes permit issued by the Commissioner of Charities.
Currently, a total of eight charities have been invited to apply to be a designated charity under OHAS. These are charities with enhanced governance and controls against illicit fund flows and whose charitable objectives allow them to support overseas emergency humanitarian causes. At the same time, these charities still substantially benefit the community in Singapore. The list of designated charities will be made available from 1 January 2025.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Amounts Successfully Recovered following Enforcement Operations against Scams","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) in the past two years, how many victims of scams have been able to recover all or part of their losses from successful law enforcement operations or compensation from banks and other entities; and (b) how much has been recovered.
Mr K Shanmugam: Between 2022 and June 2024, the \tSingapore Police Force recovered about $300 million in scam losses through its investigation and enforcement efforts.
We do not track the number of victims who have been able to recover their losses, whether from law enforcement operations or compensation from banks and other entities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Management Corporation Strata Titles Committees' By-laws on Visits by Elected Members of Parliament to Developments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"58 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry encourages or mandates Management Corporation Strata Titles (MCSTs) to include in their by-laws prohibitions on elected Members of Parliament (MPs) from visiting the residents staying within their properties; (b) if no such guidance exists, whether the Ministry is aware of any MCSTs implementing such prohibitions; (c) whether the Ministry intends to take any steps to ensure that such prohibitions are not unfairly applied to any MPs; and (d) if so, what are they.
Mr Desmond Lee: Management Corporations Strata Title (MCSTs) are the managing bodies of strata-titled private properties, such as condominiums.
Under the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act, MCSTs are empowered to manage their condominiums and enact by-laws. It is for the MCSTs to decide on access to their property, like other private property owners.
The Ministry of National Development does not impose any requirements on MCSTs regarding access by Members of Parliament.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulations for Sale of WorldCoin Accounts to Third Party Agents for Monetary Incentives","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"59 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether there are regulations in place relating to the sale of WorldCoin accounts to third party agents for monetary incentives; (b) what are the implications of such accounts being sold to a third party; and (c) whether there is a risk of these accounts being used for money laundering or fraudulent transactions.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): My response will cover the question raised by Miss Rachel Ong in today’s Order Paper, as well as Mr Derrick Goh’s1 filed for the Sitting on or after 10 September. The Payment Services Act 2019 (PS Act) prohibits persons who are unlicensed or not exempted from providing a payment service under the PS Act. Based on information provided to the Monetary Authority of Singapore, Worldcoin does not perform a payment service under the PS Act. However, persons who buy or sell Worldcoin accounts and tokens as a business may be providing a payment service.
The Police are investigating seven subjects for their suspected involvement in offering the services of buying or selling of Worldcoin accounts and tokens, which constitute offences under the Payment Services Act 2019. The Police have also issued a press release on 7 August 2024 to advise members of the public against giving away or selling their Worldcoin accounts, which may then be misused for criminal activities, such as money laundering and terrorism financing.
On data privacy, the Personal Data Protection Commission, under the Personal Data Protection Act, governs the collection, use, disclosure and care of personal data by organisations in Singapore. Organisations that handle such data, including biometric data, must ensure they put in place the necessary data protection and security arrangements to address the risks involved when designing and operating their systems and processes.
Consumers should beware inducements to transfer access of their digital payment token wallet or World ID as these accounts could be misused by third parties. We caution consumers against doing so.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether MAS has assessed the risks of Worldcoin’s operations in Singapore, including issues relating to data privacy, scams and cryptocurrencies; and (b) how will measures be enhanced to deter criminal activities relating to Worldcoin in Singapore."],"footNoteQuestions":["59"],"questionNo":"59"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of MediSave Withdrawal Limits with Rise in Healthcare Costs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"60 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Health (a) when did the Ministry last review and adjust MediSave withdrawal limits; and (b) whether the Ministry is considering raising MediSave withdrawal limits to better help Singaporeans cope with rising healthcare costs.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: MediSave is intended to help Singaporeans offset healthcare expenses over their lifetime, especially during significant health episodes requiring surgery and long hospital stay, which tend to happen during old age. It is, however, understandable that when young, we want to use more of our MediSave balances as we cannot anticipate the need for MediSave when we are old.
Hence, the Ministry of Health has schemes like MediSave 500/700, Flexi-MediSave and MediSave for diagnostics scan to cover more regular outpatient treatments. The areas of coverage and its limits are regularly reviewed and adjusted. For example, in 2021, we introduced a higher $700 limit to better support patients with complex chronic conditions who needed to seek care more frequently. In 2023, residents enrolled in HealthierSG can use MediSave to cover their copayment under the Chronic Disease Management Programme fully, without having to make any cash contributions.
Over the last three years, around 1,500 appeals were received annually from Singaporeans requesting to use their MediSave beyond withdrawal limits, out of roughly 1.4 million Singaporeans who make MediSave withdrawals each year. Around 40% of these were assessed to have genuine affordability concerns and were approved.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Review of NTUC Enterprise’s Undertaking for Shares of Income Insurance","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"62 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth whether an update can be provided on MAS' further work to establish the facts in relation to the representations made by the former CEO of Income Insurance Ltd (Income) and NTUC Enterprise, respectively, on whether NTUC Enterprise’s undertaking to hold on to the shares of Income was not for an indefinite period.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Government agencies are presently reviewing the facts and circumstances in relation to the proposed transaction between NTUC Enterprise and Allianz Europe BV. This includes the issue raised in this Parliamentary Question. It will not be appropriate to answer this Parliamentary Question until the agencies have completed their review.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Raising Awareness for Breast Cancer Screening and Proposed Cancer Genetic Test Subsides for High-risk Populations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"63 Mr Ong Hua Han asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the goal timeframe to increase breast screening take-up rates to at least 70% of women aged 50 to 69; (b) what are the Government’s plans to further educate the public on and address misconceptions of breast cancer and breast cancer screenings; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider looking into subsidising cancer genetic testing for high-risk populations.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Based on national survey data, the proportion of women aged 50 to 69 who have ever been screened for breast cancer through a mammogram increased from about 60% in 2007 to about 75% in 20231,2. However, the proportion for those who go for the recommended regular screening every two years is lower, at 35%2.
We will continue our efforts to increase the uptake of regular breast cancer screening through the Health Promotion Board, which works with the healthcare clusters, Singapore Cancer Society and Breast Cancer Foundation, to raise awareness, address barriers and dispel misperceptions to screening. Under Healthier SG, mammograms are fully-subsidised for eligible Singapore Citizen enrollees.
The Ministry of Health is assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of selected cancer genetic tests among high-risk populations. Subsidies are generally provided for tests that are found to be clinically and cost effective.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Source: National Health Surveillance Survey (NHSS) 2007","2 : Source National Population Health Survey (NPHS) 2023."],"footNoteQuestions":["63"],"questionNo":"63"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cases of Rioting with Deadly Weapons in Past Five Years and Cases where Offenders Were Aged 21 and Below","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"64 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many cases of rioting with deadly weapons have taken place in the last five years; (b) how many of those involved in these cases are under 21 years of age; and (c) how do the Police and other relevant authorities deal with these cases, especially when the perpetrators are under the age of 21.
Mr K Shanmugam: Between 2019 and 2023, there were, on average, about 10 cases every year involving rioting with a deadly weapon under section 148 of the Penal Code. Of these cases, slightly more than half involved offenders below 21 years of age.
The Police investigate all reports of rioting, including those involving youths. If the Attorney-General's Chambers decides subsequently to prosecute the case, it will be dealt with in the Youth Court or another appropriate Court, depending on the nature of the case and the age of the suspect.
There are measures in place to ensure the well-being of young offenders below the age of 18 during the investigation process. For example, the Appropriate Adult Scheme for Young Suspects ensures that law enforcement interviews are conducted in the presence of a neutral and independent adult who provides emotional support to the young suspect being interviewed and facilitates communication between the investigation officer and the suspect.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Limit of 18 Days for Leave of Absence during Practice Training Period for Trainee Lawyers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"65 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Law under the new Practice Training Period (PTP) framework for trainee lawyers (a) what is the rationale for the limit of 18 working days for which trainees may be absent from practice training for reasons, such as sick leave, annual leave, maternity leave or National Service leave; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider (i) expanding the PTP framework to regulate the pay structure of trainee lawyers and (ii) classifying trainee lawyers as employees with the doubling of PTP to 12 months.
Mr K Shanmugam: Regarding the issue of absence from practice training, under the previous admissions framework, trainees had to make up any absent days within eight months of the start of their practice training period (PTP).
Under the current admissions framework, the Working Group for the Implementation of the Committee for the Professional Training of Lawyers’ Recommendations (CPTL WG) decided, based on industry norms, that it would be reasonable to introduce up to 18 non-training days to better support trainees through a longer PTP. This duration was based on considerations, including (a) long absences during PTP would undermine its educational purpose and rigour as this would be disruptive and detrimental to the training; and (b) as the new training framework has more structured requirements that trainees must fulfill, they require sufficient time to complete all the requirements.
Trainees who require more than 18 non-training days can take additional time off, provided they make up the shortfall within 16 months from the start of their PTP.
I will now address the issue of trainee honoraria and benefits. The Ministry of Law has mentioned on previous occasions that honoraria would be determined between trainees and law firms as (a) mandating a minimum honorarium quantum would be “prescriptive, [introduce] rigidity and would need to be constantly reviewed to account for prevailing conditions”, and (b) this could also inadvertently reduce the number of available training places if smaller law firms cannot afford the mandated amount or benefits. [Please refer to \"Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill\", Official Report, 7 November 2023, Vol 95, Issue 116, Second Reading Bills section.]
We will continue to monitor industry trends in partnership with the Law Society of Singapore and will work with the Law Society to encourage law firms to give fair and reasonable financial recognition to the contributions of trainees.
The Law Society has issued guidance on trainee honoraria. Their Guidance Note 3.9.1, which is echoed in the CPTL’s Report, states that “a law practice should at a minimum, take into account the practice trainee’s direct and basic expenses reasonably incurred in the course of carrying out his/her day-to-day duties under the practice training contract, such as transport and meals”.
Finally, on the issue of whether trainees are considered employees, at its core, the relationship between supervising solicitors and trainees remains that of an apprenticeship. For those of us who remember the good old days, practice training used to be called “pupillage”, the supervising solicitor was called a “pupil-master”, and trainees were called “pupils”.
Trainees are not employees because the purpose of practice training is professionalisation and education. PTP adds to trainees’ academic legal learning by enabling them to pick up practical legal skills in a live environment under the safety of supervision from a senior practitioner.
Without the mentorship and experience gained from attachment to a supervising solicitor, the trainee would not be equipped to operate independently as a lawyer who is entrusted to provide legal advice.
Law firms invest resources and time into the supervision and mentorship of trainees. This is a labour-intensive undertaking which, historically, is not revenue generating and comes with the risk that the trainee may not continue with the firm after PTP. However, firms continue to invest in this to ensure a pipeline of fresh and well-trained legal talent in Singapore.
PTP provides trainees with their first taste of legal practice and its accompanying realities and rigours. The onus to ensure that their time and work are fairly recognised falls squarely within the law firms’ responsibility. It is incumbent upon law firms and supervising solicitors to support trainees through these new challenges with understanding, patience and fairness.
Law firms can choose to recognise trainees’ contributions by charging out for trainees’ work. This could also help defray some costs of a longer PTP. However, this risks altering the nature of the trainee’s relationship with the firm from that of an apprenticeship. This is something that should be discussed between trainees and their supervising solicitors before commencing PTP.
This is reiterated in the same Law Society Guidance Note 3.9.1, which highlights that if law firms choose to enter into an employer/employee relationship with trainees, this would attract consequential CPF and employment tax obligations owed to employees.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Opportunity for First-timer Applicants Who Exceed Income Ceiling to Buy HDB BTO Flats Instead of Executive Condominiums","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"66 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development whether the Government will consider providing an additional category of HDB BTO flats for first-timer applicants whose joint incomes fall between $14,000 and $16,000 and who find purchasing an Executive Condominium a financial burden.
Mr Desmond Lee: The income ceiling of $14,000 to buy a flat from the Housing and Development Board (HDB) ensures that the limited supply of new flats and significant subsidies that come with such flats is prioritised for those who need them more, such as lower- to middle-higher income families. The current income ceiling covers about eight in 10 Singaporean households.
Households whose monthly incomes fall between $14,000 and $16,000 are not limited to just Executive Condominiums. They can also choose from a wide range of resale HDB flats, for which there is no income ceiling. If they are buying a resale HDB flat to live with or near their parents or child, they will be eligible for the Proximity Housing Grant of up to $30,000. There are no plans to create a new category of Build-To-Order flats for them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposed Committee for Streamlining of Government Processes for Doing Business","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"67 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Ministry will consider setting up a formal committee to coordinate whole-of-Government efforts to streamline Government processes to reduce the complexity of doing business in Singapore; and (b) whether the Ministry can explain how such a committee’s efforts will differ from the role played by the Pro-Enterprise Panel.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: In April 2024, the Government set up the Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) for Pro-Enterprise Rules Review to oversee agency efforts to improve regulatory efficiency and reduce compliance burden, especially for small and medium enterprises (SMEs). The IMC provides Ministerial guidance to resolve major regulatory issues that cut across Government agencies. The Committee also supports the review of regulations by individual agencies. It aims to help SMEs better navigate Government rules and regulations.
IMC works closely with and complements the efforts of existing Government units and channels, including the Pro-Enterprise Panel (PEP). PEP, chaired by the Head of Civil Service and comprising business leaders and senior public officials, brings the private sector and the Public Service together to cooperate and advocate for a pro-enterprise environment through regulatory innovation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessing Work Done by Healthcare Workers Outside of Official Duty Hours","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"69 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health (a) whether a survey has been conducted to assess the extent to which healthcare workers, including doctors, nurses and allied health professionals, are working outside of official duty hours, including from offsite, for purposes of preparation or completion of administrative matters arising from clinical duties transpiring during official duty hours; and (b) what is being done to recognise such ground realities where they arise, and ensure this will not undermine the intent of flexible working arrangements.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The public healthcare clusters monitor and manage staffing needs to balance the workload of its healthcare workers. Based on a recent survey conducted for medical residents, about nine in 10 residents kept within the guidelines of an 80-hour work week and one out of seven days free from educational and clinical responsibilities.
That said, at times when there is high patient load, healthcare professionals complete administrative tasks after their official duty hours, when they are not busy attending to patients’ needs.
Ageing and rising patient load mean that the health system is under significant pressure and healthcare workers are all working hard. We need to recognise that relieving workload of one group often means more work for others or reduced patient care. Ultimately, we will need to expand the healthcare team, inculcate teamwork, foster understanding amongst healthcare professionals, enhance efficiency, deploy suitable technologies and encourage good health to manage workload.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Preventing Extreme Right-wing Influencers from Spreading Falsehood on Race and Religious Matters on Social Media","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"70 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Home Affairs what are the plans by the Police to prevent extreme right-wing influencers from spreading fake news or stirring up unhappiness on race and religious matters using the social media platforms.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Government has in place laws to enforce against behaviour that erodes our social cohesion, including hate and offensive speech of a racial or religious nature. These apply both offline and online.
One key legislation is the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA). We can issue Restraining Orders under MRHA to immediately take down religiously inflammatory online material. Restraining Orders can also require the individuals to stop undertaking communications activity related to religiously offensive material, including removing any materials posted on the Internet.
The Ministry of Home Affairs has announced plans to introduce the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill, which will provide for a similar Restraining Order regime for threats against our racial harmony. There are other laws that help set the boundaries of what is unacceptable conduct.
The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) can issue Directions under the Broadcasting Act to disable egregious content on social media services from being able to reach Singapore users. This includes content likely to cause feelings of hatred or hostility against different racial or religious groups in Singapore.
The Online Criminal Harms Act allows the Government to issue Directions to online services, including social media platforms, when there is reasonable suspicion that an online activity is criminal in nature. This includes activities that threaten racial or religious harmony.
The Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act allows us to swiftly address online falsehoods which, if left unchecked, can engender hate, xenophobia and societal discord.
Apart from laws and regulations, there is also a need to foster social norms for respectful online behaviour and discourse. The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth works closely with community partners to encourage ground-up projects that promote racial and religious harmony. IMDA and its partners, such as the Media Literacy Council, provide resources under the Digital Skills for Life framework, to impart skills on how to use the Internet responsibly.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore Citizens and PRs with Digital Nomad Visas Offered by Other Countries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"71 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry has data on the number of (i) Singapore Citizens and (ii) Permanent Residents who are currently working on digital nomad visas offered by other countries; (b) if so, what is the number, respectively; and (c) what is the breakdown in number of digital nomad visa holders who are employed by (i) companies located in Singapore and (ii) companies located outside of Singapore.
Dr Tan See Leng: \tWe do not track the number of Singapore Citizens or Permanent Residents who are working on digital nomad visas offered by other countries, as these digital nomad visa schemes are operated by foreign jurisdictions.
72 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether he can provide an update on the progress made on the Enabling Masterplan 2030’s recommendations under Area 5 on Inclusive Living.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: We are making good progress implementing our Enabling Masterplan 2030 (EMP 2030). The goal set out under Area 5 of EMP 2030 on Inclusive Living is for persons with disabilities to have access to a continuum of services that enable them to fully and actively participate in community life.
The Taskforce for Developing New Community Living Models for Persons with Disabilities has been established to study and identify housing and care models for persons with disabilities to live well in the community. The task force will be releasing its recommendations later this year.
In addition to the work being done by the Community Living Taskforce, we are also working with community partners to build more inclusive neighbourhoods through the Enabling Services Hubs. These hubs foster inclusivity by developing an ecosystem of support for persons with disabilities and caregivers in the community. Following the launch of the first Enabling Services Hub last August in Tampines, SG Enable is launching two more Enabling Services Hubs in Jurong West and Punggol next year.
We are also increasing capacity of services for persons with disabilities. As announced at the Committee of Supply 2024, we will increase the capacity of our Day Activity Centres, which equip persons with disabilities with essential daily and community living skills, from 1,800 spaces to 2,300 by 2030. We will also increase the capacity of our Sheltered Workshops, which provide vocational training and employment opportunities for persons with disabilities, from 1,700 spaces to 2,200 by 2030.
We will continue to work with social service agencies, caregivers and persons with disabilities to enhance and co-create support options for individuals and families to achieve the goals outlined in EMP 2030.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enforcing Rule on Prohibiting Bicycles and Non-motorised Personal Mobility Devices from Footpaths Adjacent to Cycling Paths","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"74 Mr Xie Yao Quan asked the Minister for Transport with regard to the move to prohibit bicycles and non-motorised personal mobility devices from footpaths adjacent to cycling paths, how does LTA plan to enforce this new rule.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: To enhance safety for path users, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) will be converting footpaths adjacent to cycling paths into pedestrian-only paths. Bicycles and non-motorised personal mobility devices (PMDs) will no longer be allowed on these footpaths. Physical markings, including pedestrian logos and \"Pedestrians-Only\" wordings, will be imprinted on these paths at regular intervals to alert path users.
To provide sufficient time for path users to make adjustments, there will be a grace period for the transition. Currently, LTA’s Active Mobility Enforcement Officers have started engaging and educating cyclists and non-motorised PMD users at locations with upcoming pedestrian-only paths.
From 1 July 2025, LTA will begin enforcing against riding on these new pedestrian-only paths, converted from footpaths that are adjacent to cycling paths. LTA will deploy Active Mobility Enforcement Officers on regular patrols, and mobile closed-circuit televisions (CCTVs) at popular hotspots, to deter and enforce against errant riders. LTA will exercise discretion on the ground when riders are using pedestrian-only paths momentarily to overtake someone or bypass an obstruction on the cycling path, or to transit to an adjoining path.
Pedestrian-only paths are not new. For existing pedestrian-only paths, such as on pedestrian overhead bridges, LTA already enforces against the wrong use of active mobility devices. First-time offenders convicted of riding on a pedestrian-only path may be fined up to $2,000 or jailed up to three months, or both.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Raising Age Ceiling for Childcare Leave Provisions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"75 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Ministry will consider raising the age ceiling for childcare leave provisions until the child is 12 years of age, considering the wider adoption of home-based learning in primary schools.
Ms Indranee Rajah (for the Prime Minister): Today, each working parent is entitled to six days of paid childcare leave per year, when their youngest Singaporean child is below seven years old. In addition, each working parent will be entitled to two days of paid Extended Childcare Leave per year when the youngest child is aged between seven and 12.
These childcare leave provisions are on top of annual leave entitlements and are designed as such because older children are generally more independent compared to younger children. Hence, parents with younger children are granted more childcare leave provisions. There are no plans at present to raise the age ceiling for childcare leave.
Primary schools are not required to conduct Home-Based Learning (HBL) on a regular basis. They may conduct HBL on a few days each year based on the schools’ needs and as part of emergency preparedness in case they need to shift to HBL in contingency situations. Schools will inform parents in advance so they can make alternative care arrangements if needed. Student care centres also remain open as per other school days.
In considering any further enhancement to leave provisions, including increasing childcare leave for parents with older children, we will need to strike a balance between supporting the needs of parents and the impact on employers’ manpower and operational requirements.
Therefore, beyond legislated leave provisions, we encourage employers to put in place other sustainable family-friendly workplace practices, such as flexible work arrangements (FWAs). The Tripartite Guidelines on FWA Requests will take effect from 1 December 2024. The mandatory Guidelines will enable employers and employees to have open discussions and work out arrangements that can meet both parties’ needs and constraints. We encourage supervisors and colleagues to be supportive when working parents need to tap on these measures to care for their children.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Lessons from Implementing Gifted Education Programme for 40 Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"77 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Education (a) what lessons have been learnt from the Gifted Education Programme (GEP) in catering for the academic, emotional and social needs of high-ability students over the last 40 years; and (b) what measures have been planned to ensure that the revamped GEP will continue to meet the emotional and social needs of high-ability students, including ensuring that there is a sufficient number of teachers who are trained to manage high-ability learners.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Ministry of Education will provide an oral answer to this Parliamentary Question (PQ), together with other PQs which have been filed on this topic, at the next available opportunity. [Please refer to \"Outcomes from Gifted Education Programme, and Rationale and Plans for Programme Revamp \", Official Report, 10 September 2024, Vol 95, Issue 141, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Equitable Access to Quality Education following Gifted Education Programme Revamp","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"78 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education in light of the recent changes to the Gifted Education Programme (GEP) which aim to include more students, how does the Ministry plan to (i) address any potential disparity in resource allocation and learning opportunities between students in the GEP and those in the mainstream programme and (ii) ensure equitable access to quality education for all students.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Ministry of Education will provide an oral answer to this Parliamentary Question (PQ), together with other PQs which have been filed on this topic, at the next available opportunity. [Please refer to \"Outcomes from Gifted Education Programme, and Rationale and Plans for Programme Revamp \", Official Report, 10 September 2024, Vol 95, Issue 141, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Key Outcomes in Gifted Education Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"79 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Education (a) what key outcomes have been observed from the Gifted Education Programme (GEP) since its inception in terms of the students' academic and holistic development; and (b) how does the Ministry intend to build on the lessons learnt to address specific challenges in the revamped GEP model for high-ability learners.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Ministry of Education will provide an oral answer to this Parliamentary Question (PQ), together with other PQs which have been filed on this topic, at the next available opportunity. [Please refer to \"Outcomes from Gifted Education Programme, and Rationale and Plans for Programme Revamp \", Official Report, 10 September 2024, Vol 95, Issue 141, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Adequate Resources and Skills to Identify and Teach High-ability Learners Following Gifted Education Programme Revamp","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"80 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry can provide details on how the revamped Gifted Education Programme (GEP) will be implemented; and (b) how will the Ministry ensure that schools and teachers are adequately equipped and resourced to identify high-ability learners and that the needs of these students and teachers are supported.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Ministry of Education will provide an oral answer to this Parliamentary Question (PQ), together with other PQs which have been filed on this topic, at the next available opportunity. [Please refer to \"Outcomes from Gifted Education Programme, and Rationale and Plans for Programme Revamp \", Official Report, 10 September 2024, Vol 95, Issue 141, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Facilitating Legitimate Insurance Claims for Health Procedures and Treatments Despite Recent Wrongful Claim Cases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"82 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Health regarding the recent action taken against doctors for making wrongful insurance claims (a) what steps are taken to ensure that patients who need to claim on their insurance policies for health procedures and treatments are not adversely affected; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider working with relevant parties to allow certain procedures and treatments to be claimable in an outpatient setting, rather than requiring them to fall under the inpatient category to prevent doctors from warding patients unnecessarily to claim from their insurance.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry of Health (MOH) takes a serious view against providers who make wrongful financial claims. This is unfair to patients, a waste of public resources and goes against the professional ethics of a healthcare provider.
As of 1 April 2023, MOH has, therefore, instituted a more robust enforcement framework for such wrongful claims. Wrongful claims are surfaced via whistleblowing, complaints channels or analytics. Hence, the claims adjudication process takes place post-claim and the claims process for policyholders is unaffected. After an errant claim is discovered, MOH takes steps to require the healthcare provider to rectify the wrongful claims without affecting the patients.
All treatments and procedures must be administered in the appropriate setting. MOH encourages doctors to perform treatments and procedures in an outpatient or day surgery setting, if it is safe and delivers similar clinical outcomes to inpatient admissions. At no time should they admit patients for the sole purpose of making insurance claims.
MOH has allowed MediSave and MediShield Life claims to be made for selected outpatient treatments and tests, such as scans and blood tests ordered for a patient as part of cancer treatments, or for the purposes of diagnosis and treatment of a medical condition. MOH will continue to review existing healthcare financing schemes to ensure that they address Singaporeans’ needs while ensuring the long-term sustainability of healthcare costs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assistance for Seniors Who Find Automated Immigration Clearance Procedures Confusing","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"83 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether considerations are being made to assist seniors who find the automated procedures for immigration clearance at Changi Airport confusing; and (b) whether ICA officers are trained to proactively help these seniors.
Mr K Shanmugam: The automated immigration lanes at the checkpoints are designed to allow travellers to use them easily and independently. They have visual cues and on-screen videos, such as footprint stickers on the floor, and arrows to guide users where to look for the facial and iris scans.
Nevertheless, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority still deploys its officers onsite, who will approach and guide travellers whom they notice may require assistance during automated immigration clearance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Pedestrian-only Paths along Cycling Paths Throughout Park Connector Network","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"84 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development in respect of LTA’s recent announcements that it will be converting the footpaths adjacent to dedicated cycling paths into Pedestrian-Only Paths, whether NParks will align the use of its Park Connector Network (PCN) accordingly so that there will consistently be Pedestrian-Only Paths alongside paths for exclusive use of cyclists and active mobility users throughout PCN, in order to promote safety and consistency for all pedestrians and active mobility users.
Mr Desmond Lee: To enhance the user experience along our Park Connector Network (PCN), the National Parks Board (NParks) commenced pilots of a revised typology that segregates selected stretches of PCN into pedestrian-only paths and shared paths in 2022.
This has been rolled out for park connectors that are used primarily for recreation, such as along canals and coastal routes, and where there are contiguous stretches that are wide enough to accommodate segregated paths. A total of approximately 30 kilometres of park connectors in Changi Beach Park, East Coast Park, Pasir Panjang Park and Changi Bay have since adopted the revised typology.
In the next phase, NParks will roll out the revised typology for another 14 kilometres of park connectors, incorporating feedback received so far. Thereafter, NParks will engage stakeholders again and assess the feasibility to implement the revised typology for more park connectors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ban Use of Plastic Wrappers for Chopsticks at Food Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"85 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether NEA will ban the use of plastic wrappers for chopsticks to prevent the littering of such plastic wrappers at food centres.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The National Environment Agency (NEA) does not have plans to ban the use of plastic wrappers for chopsticks. To tackle table littering, since 2021, we have made it mandatory for diners to clear their used trays, crockery and litter, including plastic wrappers for chopsticks, after their meals at hawker centres, coffee shops and food courts. As chopstick plastic wrappers tend to be very light, we would like to remind diners to take extra care that the wrappers do not get blown away and end up as litter.
NEA has been working with various stakeholders, including the hawkers’ associations and our appointed operators, to reduce the use of disposables for dine-in meals at hawker centres. For example, the use of disposable crockery and cutlery for dine-in meals has been disallowed at new hawker centres since November 2016 and for all new stallholders in existing hawker centres since September 2018. Under GreenGov.SG, public agencies have been working with food and beverage outlets in public sector premises to phase out disposables for dine-in meals as far as possible.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Public Buses with Luggage Racks for Routes between Airport and City","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"86 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will consider procuring public buses that have luggage racks or retrofitting existing buses and trains so that travellers and commuters who are travelling on public transport from the airports to the city and vice versa have provisions to put their luggage.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Buses and trains that serve the airport also serve other areas, and the installation of dedicated luggage racks would reduce space available for other passengers, including for wheelchair users and prams. Our public transport operators do allow luggage to be placed in shared spaces when these are not occupied by wheelchairs and prams.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Criteria for Elected Members of Parliament to be Invited to Residents Network-organised Events","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"87 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what specific criteria does the People's Association use to determine whether an elected Member of Parliament (MP) can be invited to a Residents Network-organised event in their constituency; and (b) what policies are in place to ensure that all elected MPs, regardless of party affiliation, have equal opportunities to attend these publicly-funded events within their constituencies.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The People’s Association (PA) is a Statutory Board under the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth. Its mission includes fostering social cohesion and racial harmony, building a strong and resilient community as well as good people-to-people and people-to-Government ties. This is the core purpose of PA’s activities and programmes, which are open to everyone to attend, regardless of their background and political affiliation.
We have explained previously, in past Parliamentary Questions, that PA does not conduct any activity with any political party, nor does it allow its events or venues to be used for partisan purposes by any political party. In line with these principles, PA does not invite persons in their capacity as politicians to events that it organises or co-organises.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Use of MediSave to Pay For Nursing Home Fees for Families Taking Care of Elderlies with Advance-stage Dementia","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"88 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for Health for sandwich families who have elderlies in advance-stage dementia whose conditions are beyond home care and children who are still studying, whether the Ministry can consider allowing the use of MediSave of the family members to cover nursing home fees for the elderlies if the cash portion after Government means-tested subsidies is still challenging for the families to pay.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: There are three sources of financial support for patients with advanced dementia. First, they are eligible for means-tested subsidies of up to 75% for nursing home-care and up to 80% for home-care. Second, individuals who are assessed to have severe disability can withdraw up to $200 per month from their own or their spouse’s MediSave accounts, under the MediSave Care scheme. This can help to offset their long-term care costs, including but not limited to nursing home fees. Third, they may also benefit from long-term care insurance schemes, such as ElderShield and CareShield Life.
If these avenues are still insufficient, those who have challenges affording the residual nursing home fees may apply for financial assistance, such as MediFund.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Fatal Accidents Caused by Reversing Large Vehicles","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"89 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) in each year of the past 10 years, how many fatal accidents have been caused by a reversing large vehicle; and (b) whether large vehicles should be mandated to install the safety features that are found on public buses, such as blind spot cameras and warning sirens.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Traffic Police does not specifically track data related to whether a fatal accident was caused by a reversing large vehicle.
As previously shared in this House, the Land Transport Authority requires all heavy goods vehicles and buses to install devices that cover the vehicle's blind spots as well as the rear view. These devices include blind spot mirrors and camera systems. Owners of non-compliant vehicles may be subject to penalties, including fines and jail.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Utilisation Rate by Singaporeans of CareersFinder","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"90 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the utilisation rate of the CareersFinder by Singaporeans since the beta version has been launched; (b) what is the feedback on the effectiveness of this version of the CareersFinder; and (c) when will the full version be ready for use.
Dr Tan See Leng: CareersFinder was introduced on the MyCareersFuture portal in July 2023. It harnesses Government data and artificial intelligence to help jobseekers to identify adjacent occupations and training opportunities based on their skills. As of 30 June 2024, over 35,000 individuals have used CareersFinder.
The feedback on CareersFinder has been positive. Based on surveys and engagement sessions, users appreciate the data-driven insights on jobs and training opportunities. Users also go on to explore a wider range of opportunities. On average, jobseekers applied to 50% more occupations after they used CareersFinder.
In response to user feedback, we have enhanced CareersFinder with new features, such as allowing users to filter course recommendations based on skills for quicker identification of relevant courses. CareersFinder has been out of beta since March 2024. We will continue to take an iterative and agile approach to improving CareersFinder.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Improving Consumers’ Financial Literacy Given Recent Increase in Bad Credit Card Debts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"91 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance with regard to recent statistics from the Monetary Authority of Singapore which show an increase in bad credit card debts of nearly 20% in the first quarter of 2024 (a) whether more can be done to improve consumers’ personal finance literacy; and (b) whether more regulation on credit card spending is necessary to prevent consumers from spiralling into bad debts.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): Credit card spending rebounded after a contraction during the COVID-19 pandemic. Roll-over balances have also increased. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) monitors several indicators, including credit card bad debts that have been written off. Write-offs can be volatile as they depend on debt restructuring discussions. Therefore, MAS also tracks credit card delinquency rates, which give a more current sense of whether consumers are falling behind in their credit card payments. Credit card delinquency rates have remained stable and are still lower than pre-COVID levels.
MoneySENSE, our national financial education programme, actively educates the public on money management skills. With the increase in credit card use and rollover balances alongside the post-COVID recovery, MoneySENSE has urged consumers to not spend beyond their means, and reminded borrowers to prioritise paying off high interest debts like credit card bills to avoid high interest charges. MoneySENSE puts out these messages online and in person at events in collaboration with both the public and private sectors.
MoneySENSE’s partner, the Institute for Financial Literacy, or IFL, provides free financial education and training to consumers, including at their workplaces. Training modules include Basics of Money Management and Understanding Loans and Credit where participants learn how to manage borrowing and resolve debt issues. Consumers can also sign up for free one-on-one financial health clinics run by IFL to learn how to address gaps in their personal finances. We encourage employers and consumers to actively participate in these programmes.
To mitigate the risk of consumer over-indebtedness, MAS has put in place safeguards which were set out in our replies to Parliamentary Questions in May 2023 and January 2024. These safeguards are generally adequate and MAS will continue to monitor the situation and review these measures when necessary. [Please refer to (a) \"Review of Rules to Safeguard Against Over-indebtedness\", Official Report, 9 May 2023, Vol 95, Issue 103, Written Answers to Questions section; and (b) \"Revision of Metrics for Ensuring Appropriate Level of Household Indebtedness Given High Interest Rates\", Official Report, 9 January 2024, Vol 95, Issue 118, Written Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Creating Skills and Salary Guidelines for Arts Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"92 Ms Usha Chandradas asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth whether the Ministry has any plans to develop or lead any initiatives to create comprehensive skills and salary guidelines for arts workers so as to ensure that competitive salaries are provided to members of the arts community and to improve talent attraction and retention within the various arts groups.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Singapore’s vibrant arts and culture sector has grown over the years. We intend to continue to nurture the sector to evolve and develop to meet our society’s artistic and cultural needs. At the same time, it also presents a diverse range of job roles and work opportunities, along multiple career pathways.
The arts sector and incomes of arts workers have been growing.
The evolving strength of our sector reflects the talent and industriousness of our arts practitioners, along with the Government’s continued investment in the arts sector to sustain and nurture its development. During the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, the Government intervened heavily to support the sector. We rolled out the $75 million Arts and Culture Resilience Package which helped to sustain arts companies and preserve jobs, including for self-employed persons, within the industry. It also provided a boost to the sector, helping it emerge stronger from the pandemic when we fully resumed activities last year.
With the Government, arts community and private sector working together, the arts sector has been able to resume its growth trajectory. The nominal value-added of the arts sector rebounded from $740 million in 2020 to $910 million in 2022. This is nearly back to the pre-COVID level of $950 million in 20191.
Median nominal gross monthly incomes for full-time employed residents in the arts sector have also increased by 26.5% between 2018 and 2023. This is higher than the rate of growth for national median nominal gross monthly income, which increased by 17.1% over the same period2.
The Government, through Arts Plan 2.0, which will be elaborated upon below, and other initiatives, intends to further the growth of the arts sector. There are various opportunities which we can harness, such as improving technology, which makes it easier for artists to share their work with audiences worldwide. The Government is committed to working with the arts sector to help our artists take advantage of these opportunities and earn sustainable, competitive livelihoods.
The Government believes that creating good jobs and gigs in the arts sector requires a multi-pronged approach. It is not about setting salary guidelines per se. Rather, creating good jobs for artists requires a competitive and sustainable arts sector, with a strong foundation. That, in turn, requires three components: strong arts companies and skilled practitioners representing a diverse range of art forms, as well as a wide audience base supportive of and prepared to pay for the consumption of local arts. Under Our SG Arts Plan 2023-2027, the National Arts Council (NAC) aims to advance all three of these causes.
Strong companies. First, we need to strengthen Singaporean arts companies. Strong companies will be able to provide more and better work opportunities for arts workers and better pay. We are starting from a good base. The number of arts companies has increased over the past few years, from around 3,700 in 2019 to over 4,800 in 2022, showing that many recognise that there continues to be strong demand for arts products and services, and artists are prepared to set up companies to make art.
NAC has provided support to help our arts companies grow, whether through organisational schemes, such as the Major Company Scheme, or through the various project grants that cater to different purposes. Strong companies are significant in the overall ecosystem landscape, as they provide opportunities for our artists to hone their craft to and be recognised both locally and internationally.
One example is Jazz Association (Singapore), or JASS, founded by Cultural Medallion recipient Jeremy Monteiro in 2016. JASS’ vision is to expand the jazz community, advance jazz education and bring jazz music to new audiences through their outreach efforts. NAC has supported JASS over the years through project and organisational funding. JASS today is a staple of the arts scene and they have made it a part of their mission to give back and hone the next generation of our musicians.
For instance, JASS has played many gigs with Rit Xu, an outstanding Singaporean flautist who received NAC’s Young Artist Award in 2022 and who was celebrated as the first Southeast Asian to win a solo jazz competition in the United States. Through such opportunities and many others, Rit has been able to hone his practice over time, perfecting his craft with every gig and has been on world tour with the Jacky Cheung 60+ World Concert tour since 2023.
Skilled Practitioners. The second prong is to develop a pipeline of skilled practitioners who would be able to take on these jobs. Over the years, the Government has invested heavily in building up the local talent pool in the arts. For instance, we have set up arts education institutions, such as the School of the Arts and the new University of the Arts Singapore. These schools produce a pipeline of forward-looking, talented arts graduates with a good base of skills who enter the arts workforce already ready to contribute and share their unique voices and perspectives.
It is also important that arts workers who are already in the industry are able to further upgrade their skills and keep current. NAC provides support for arts workers to undergo continuing education and training, so that arts workers can continually improve their skills. We have introduced programmes to help arts workers to equip themselves with new and emerging skills to ensure their competitiveness and employability.
To maximise employability, we aim to help arts workers continually enhance their skillsets. First, workers need to know what skills they need to acquire. We have introduced initiatives like the Skills Framework for Arts, jointly launched by NAC and SkillsFuture Singapore in 2023. These structured frameworks are beneficial to help practitioners understand skill needs, improve their own capabilities and forge their own career pathways.
Second, when workers have understood what skills they need to acquire, NAC provides assistance to help them acquire those skills. For instance, NAC has introduced new training initiatives, such as the Backstage Affair’s Apprenticeship Pilot. This programme allows apprentices to learn the ropes of stage and production management through a hands-on approach in actual productions, providing valuable work opportunities to acquire new skills and build their work experience.
With these strategies, we will ensure that our arts workers are well-positioned to take advantage of the work opportunities available.
Developing Audiences. Finally, we will need audiences to be supportive of and willing to pay for the arts. Having a healthy demand for the arts and culture is key to ensuring that there will continue to be opportunities for arts companies and artists. This benefits not just our artists, but our society as well, nurturing social and emotional well-being, connection to our roots and social bonding.
Under Our SG Arts Plan 2023-2027, we are creating more ways for Singaporeans to get involved in and support the arts. For instance, ArtsEverywhere@CDC is a partnership between NAC and the five Community Development Councils to bring high quality arts experiences to major heartland nodes, such as Our Tampines Hub and Toa Payoh Hub. Through monthly performances and activities, we aim to engage more than 50,000 residents in various communities across Singapore, significantly expanding opportunities for Singaporeans to support local artists and arts groups. This initiative also creates job opportunities for artists and arts groups, helps them reach new audiences to grow their audience base and generates greater awareness of their art forms.
NAC is also supporting our arts companies and artists in reaching new audiences and markets. This helps our artists to enhance their stature and marketability. For example, in the visual arts sector, NAC has consistently worked to raise the prominence of Singapore’s visual artists on the international stage by supporting their efforts to expand their reach to new audiences and collectors. In 2024, NAC supported numerous artists at overseas exhibitions and Biennales, including Robert Zhao, Ho Rui An, Bani Haykal, Zarina Muhammad and more3. NAC also supports art galleries to present Singapore artists’ works at key international fairs, including Frieze Seoul, Asia Now and Taipei Dangdai.
NAC has also supported our local writers in finding international audiences. For example, NAC worked with publishers to participate in the 2023 Frankfurt Book Fair. The publishers reported a total of 14 sales of rights post-fair, including rights sold by Marshall Cavendish and World Scientific for Singapore literary titles and children’s picture books respectively. Such deals are part of NAC’s efforts to help our writers monetise their intellectual property, finding wider audiences and contributing to their income.
With wider audiences and strong demand, we will be able to create a robust ecosystem capable of supporting strong companies and good jobs for arts workers.
The effort to improve employment outcomes for arts workers is an ongoing one. Earlier this year, we announced that the Government would be investing another $100 million to grow the arts sector over the next four years under the Our SG Arts Plan 2023-2027, on top of existing funding. This will support our efforts to build a wider audience for the arts, develop our arts workers and strengthen a robust ecosystem, all of which will contribute to creating good jobs and work opportunities for Singaporeans in the arts sector.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Source: Department of Statistics","2 : Source: Comprehensive Labour Force Survey, MRSD, MOM. Numbers cited refer to the cumulative change in median nominal gross monthly income from employment, including employer CPF, of full-time employed residents. In real terms, the increase over the same time period was 10.7% for the arts and culture sector, versus 2.5% at the national level.","3 : Robert Zhao – Venice Biennale; Ho Rui An – group exhibition at Centre Pompidou in Paris; Bani Haykal – Busan Biennale; Zarina Muhammad – Gwangju Biennale; Charles Lim – 11th Asia-Pacific Triennial (Brisbane)."],"footNoteQuestions":["92"],"questionNo":"92"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"SkillsFuture Credits for Courses Leading to Professional Certifications for Financial Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"93 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Education whether SkillsFuture credits can be utilised to support Singaporeans in pursuing professional certifications, such as the Singapore Chartered Accountant Qualification (SCAQ), Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) and Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (IFOA) examinations to enhance their career prospects and professional development.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The SkillsFuture Credit base tier, which comprises the opening credit of $500 and a one-off top-up of $500 in 2020, can be used to cover over 200 examination-only certifications. To ensure prudent use of the credit, these certifications must be recognised by the industry and supported by the relevant public agency overseeing the sector.
Individuals who completed industry-relevant certifications that are not within this approved list of certifications on the MySkillsFuture Portal can write in to SkillsFuture Singapore to appeal for a reimbursement of their examination fees, using their base tier credit. This allows us to support professional certifications, such as the ones mentioned by the Member, where the certification body is based overseas or has not registered with SkillsFuture Singapore.
We will continue to review how the SkillsFuture Credit can support industry-relevant training and certifications.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Use of Financial Assistance in Pioneer Generation Disability Assistance Scheme and Review of Quantum of Assistance","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"94 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Health (a) how many seniors are currently receiving financial assistance under the Pioneer Generation Disability Assistance Scheme; and (b) whether there are any plans to review the current grant quantum of $100 a month.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Around 50,000 Pioneers are currently receiving $100 in cash monthly under the Pioneer Generation Disability Assistance Scheme (PioneerDAS). PioneerDAS is part of a broader suite of Government support measures for long-term care needs, which includes mean-tested subsidies, insurance, grants and MediSave top-ups and safety nets. We will continue to review these schemes from time to time to ensure that care remains affordable to those who require it.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Working Hours Per Week for Resident Employees in Different Salary Brackets","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"95 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower for each year in the past five years, what is the mean and median number of working hours a week for full-time resident employees aged 25 to 64 earning (i) below $2,000 per month (ii) $2,000 to $4,999 per month and (iii) $5,000 and above per month, respectively.
Dr Tan See Leng: The mean and median number of hours worked per week for full-time resident employees aged 25-64 have decreased across almost all income groups between 2019 and 2023.
For employees earning below $2,000, mean hours worked decreased from 45.2 hours to 43.2 hours per week, while median hours worked decreased from 44 hours to 42 hours per week.
For those earning between $2,000 and $4,999, mean hours worked decreased from 45 hours to 43.9 hours per week, while median hours worked decreased from 44 hours to 43 hours per week.
For those earning $5,000 and above, mean hours worked decreased from 45.8 hours to 44.5 hours per week, while median hours worked remained the same at 44 hours per week.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Maintenance Checks for Toilets, Changing Rooms and Shower Facilities in ActiveSG’s Sports Complexes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"96 Mr Ong Hua Han asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) how often are maintenance checks conducted on toilets, changing rooms and shower facilities in ActiveSG’s sports facilities; (b) how often are they discovered to be in need of repair; and (c) what feedback on these facilities has been received through the feedback form provided on the ActiveSG website.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: SportSG staff conduct daily routine checks and walkabouts at ActiveSG sport centres to detect faults and irregularities that are discovered on a daily basis. This is done on top of regular scheduled cyclical maintenance and upgrading plans.
From time to time, SportSG receives feedback on ActiveSG facilities through the feedback form on the ActiveSG website and feedback provided to staff at sport centres. The feedback received include the cleanliness of facilities and faulty or damaged equipment and fixtures.
Upon the discovery of any faults during routine checks or when public feedback is received, the ActiveSG facilities management team and contractors will carry out rectification works promptly.
SportSG will continue to keep ActiveSG facilities well-maintained to meet the sporting needs of Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cases of Failure to Register Children with National Primary Schools, Legal Action Taken and Outcomes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"97 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Education in each year for the past five years, where parents fail to register a child for Primary 1 in a national primary school (a) how many cases have been escalated to the Compulsory Education Board and what are the outcomes of these cases; and (b) how many cases have resulted in legal action being taken against uncooperative parents and what are the outcomes of these cases.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: When a Singaporean child is not registered for Primary 1, the Ministry of Education (MOE) takes steps to locate the child and engage the parents on schooling matters, including placement into a suitable school. Where needed, MOE works with other Government agencies to support the child and the family. Should the parents remain uncooperative, MOE may escalate the case to the Compulsory Education Board.
Over the past five years, only one case needed to be escalated to the Board. Following the Board’s intervention, including summoning the parents for a hearing, the child was placed in a primary school and attendance has been regular. To date, there has not been a need for MOE to take legal action against uncooperative parents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Setting Up Active Ageing Centres within Private Housing Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"98 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider setting up more Active Ageing Centres within private housing estates, such as at parks or in shophouses, to serve seniors living nearby.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry of Health and the Agency for Integrated Care are continually seeking ways to increase the coverage of Active Ageing Centres by finding sites that are more accessible to seniors, including those living in private estates. This includes reviewing the suggestions by respective Grassroots Advisers. Besides ensuring the sites are accessible, we have to consider other factors, such as the size of the site and the availability of basic utilities needed to run programmes for seniors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Dedicated Waiting or Holding Areas within Residential Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"100 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether BCA requires residential estates to cater for proper waiting or holding areas within the estate which residents and drivers of vehicles are to adhere; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider enhancing the HDB and BCA regulations of such areas, including road planning inside residential estates.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Building and Contruction Authority's Code on Accessibility in the Built Environment requires residential developments to provide at least one accessible and sheltered passenger alighting and boarding point with direct access to every block. This requirement applies to new buildings, and existing buildings undergoing major retrofitting works, where the building plans are submitted for regulatory approval on or after 1 April 2014.
In addition, the Land Transport Authority's (LTA’s) Code of Practice on Vehicle Parking Provision in Development Proposals recommends the provision of sufficient waiting or holding areas to meet the needs of logistics services for all residential developments. LTA has published technical guidelines for alighting and boarding points, loading/unloading bays and vehicular access points that developers should incorporate in their design plans. As part of the development control process, LTA reviews the development’s vehicular circulation plans and guides developers to provide features in accordance with the technical guidelines.
Both the Housing and Development Board and private developers must comply with the technical agencies’ regulations for residential developments.
Review of the respective codes are conducted from time to time, and the Government welcomes suggestions to enhance the provisions for waiting or holding areas and estate road planning.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Making Public Reports on Feasibility and Safety Considerations for Nuclear Energy Generation Options for Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"101 Ms Poh Li San asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry in view of the recent signing of the Agreement for Nuclear Cooperation with the United States, whether the relevant Government agencies will publish reports on the feasibility and safety considerations related to nuclear energy generation options for Singapore so as to allay public concerns.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Government has not made any decision on the deployment of nuclear energy in Singapore. Advanced nuclear energy technologies, such as small modular reactors with a much smaller safety zone that could potentially be suitable for Singapore, have not been deployed on a commercial scale yet.
The Government will continue to study the developments in advanced nuclear energy technologies very closely, including the safety requirements of such technologies. We are steadily building up our capabilities to understand and assess such technologies and developments. We will update the public from time to time, so as to enhance Singaporeans’ understanding of nuclear energy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Open Door Programme Job Redesign Grant for Companies Hiring Persons with Disabilities on Part-time Basis","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"103 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Open Door Programme Job Redesign Grant under SG Enable is extended to companies hiring persons with disabilities (PWDs) on a part-time basis; and (b) if so, what is the number of companies that have used this grant to support hiring of PWDs on a part-time basis in the last five years.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Employers who hire persons with disabilities with an employment contract of at least one year can tap on the Open Door Programme Job Redesign Grant administered by SG Enable. This is regardless of whether the contract was offered on a part-time or full-time basis. The grant has supported over 110 organisations from 2019 to 2023. We do not have further breakdown by part-time or full-time employment of persons with disabilities hired by these organisations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Surveys on Community Support for Friendly Streets and Silver Zones Traffic Calming Schemes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"104 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry has conducted (i) any surveys on community support for the Friendly Streets and Silver Zones traffic calming schemes and (ii) longitudinal studies on the impact of the traffic calming schemes on road safety; and (b) if so, whether the Ministry can share its findings.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has been implementing Friendly Streets and Silver Zones, which have road features to slow down motorists so that pedestrians can have a safer walking environment. Works for two of the five pilot Friendly Streets have been completed and works for the remaining three sites are ongoing. We have implemented Silver Zones since 2014. We have seen an 80% reduction in the accident rate among senior pedestrians within Silver Zones.
Prior to implementation, LTA engages the community when developing features within the Friendly Streets and Silver Zones. We have received positive responses. For example, nine in 10 respondents living near the five pilot Friendly Streets felt that the traffic calming measures and pedestrian-friendly features would further improve safety in their neighbourhoods. More than 80% of motorists and pedestrians felt that the Silver Zone implemented at Circuit Road contributed to a safer road environment and are supportive of the various improvements within the zone.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Encouraging Car Rental Companies to Adopt Inclusive Consumer Practices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"106 Mr Ong Hua Han asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will consider steering car rental companies towards adopting inclusive consumer practices, such as providing cars with assistive driving equipment, to cater to drivers with disabilities.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: As there is a wide range of adaptive driving aids and equipment available to cater to various disabilities, vehicles suitable for Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) are often customised to meet each driver’s specific needs. This may make it challenging for rental companies to offer cars with the suitable assistive driving equipment for a range of users.
To ensure that PwDs have good transport options, we have invested significantly in making our public buses and trains accessible to commuters with different disabilities, including ramps and step-free access for wheelchair users and wayfinding tools for the visually- or hearing-impaired. We are also working with taxi and ride-hail operators to ensure that PwDs who require point-to-point transport services can indicate their requirements more easily when booking a taxi or private hire car.
PwDs who are unable to use public transport and require a private car to travel to work may apply through the means-tested Disabled Persons Scheme. This scheme allows them to register a vehicle customised to their needs without having to pay the Additional Registration Fee or for a Certificate of Entitlement.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Allowing Use of Electronic Vehicles that Produce Lower Noise Levels for Work Beyond 9.00 pm at Construction Sites","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"107 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether NEA will permit construction worksites that utilise electric cranes, electric power generators and electric trucks, which produce low decibel noise levels, to operate beyond 9.00 pm.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Subject to the No-Work Rule on Sundays and Public Holidays, work is permitted at construction sites as long as the permissible noise limits stipulated in the Environmental Protection and Management (Control of Noise at Construction Sites) Regulations are complied with.
To protect residents’ rest at night, more stringent permissible noise limits are applied after 7.00 pm and 10.00 pm respectively, and 9.00 pm is not used as a specific threshold in our regulations. More stringent limits also apply around residential buildings and noise-sensitive premises, for instance, hospitals, schools, institutes of higher learning and homes for the aged. Contractors should implement noise mitigation measures where necessary to ensure compliance with the applicable permissible noise limits. This may include utilising quieter construction equipment, such as electric machinery.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Singapore Citizen Deaths in Past 10 Years and Projected Population Trends","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Ministry can release the data on deaths of Singapore Citizens over the last 10 years, as distinct from resident deaths; and (b) what is the projected year in which Citizen deaths will exceed Citizen births based on current trends.
Ms Indranee Rajah (for the Prime Minister): The total number of resident deaths has increased from 18,200 in 2014 to 25,600 in 2023. The total number of Citizen deaths has increased from 17,700 in 2014 to 24,700 in 2023.
Based on current trends1, the number of Citizen deaths could exceed the number of Citizen births in the first half of the 2030s.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : The projections are meant to illustrate the growth and change in population that could occur if certain demographic assumptions prevail over the projection period. These assumptions may or may not be realised."],"footNoteQuestions":["1"],"questionNo":"1"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mandating More Manpower at Bank Branches to Enhance Accessibility for Seniors and Reduce Queue Time","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether banks can be mandated to maintain more manpower at bank branches amid a broader shift towards digital banking so as to reduce queue time at bank branches and to reduce the impact on seniors who are not technologically savvy.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): Banks have taken steps to ensure that customers, who are less technologically savvy, continue to be well-supported amid a broader shift towards digital banking. Examples include, deploying digital ambassadors at their branches to guide customers to perform transactions via digital channels and working with community partners to organise digital literacy programmes to help elderly customers acquire digital skills and bolster digital inclusion. Branch and phone banking also remain available to customers who prefer to bank via non-digital channels.
Banks monitor and manage queue time at bank branches. Examples of measures implemented by banks include, mobile queue ticketing services that allow customers to be informed of the queue situation before visiting the branch and to apply for a queue ticket digitally and designated queues or priority assistance for elderly customers. They have also increased their manpower to manage surges at branches during peak periods.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore will, through our supervisory engagements with banks, check that they have given adequate management attention to managing customer service and queues at bank branches, including increasing manpower where necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Takeaways from Singlife's Financial Freedom Index 2024 Survey and Steps to Enhance Financial Stability for Singaporeans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what are some of the key takeaways for the Government from the results of Singlife's Financial Freedom Index 2024 survey; (b) what are some of the key concerns in the area of ensuring financial freedom and stability especially amongst the younger generation of Singaporeans; and (c) what steps can the community and business organisations take to enhance public education on financial stability for Singaporeans.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): There are various surveys conducted by private sector organisations. MoneySense, our national financial education programme, conducted the 2021 National Financial Capability Survey (NFCS), which has a comprehensive scope covering financial knowledge, attitudes and behaviour. The survey found that Singaporeans have done better in adopting good basic financial habits, such as budgeting and maintaining emergency savings, compared to the previous survey in 2017.
NFCS also highlights the importance of helping individuals make sound financial decisions and manage their money well. To this end, MoneySense has partnered industry partners to promote positive financial behaviour and attitudes among Singaporeans. In addition, MoneySense's partner, the Institute for Financial Literacy, provides free talks and workshops on financial planning topics at workplaces and to the public.
We are actively helping Singaporeans start their financial planning journey. Last year, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), the Central Provident Fund Board and MoneySense, together with financial industry associations, jointly developed a Basic Financial Planning Guide. The Guide sets out rules of thumb for emergency savings, insurance protection, investing and retirement planning. These are customised to follow a Singaporean's six key life stages, from when he starts work to when he retires. We have disseminated this Guide across Singapore through digital and physical channels. MAS also encourages financial institutions and their representatives to use the Guide when they take their clients through their financial planning journeys.
The 2021 NFCS found that youths generally had higher levels of financial literacy compared to their elders. MoneySense has prioritised youths to encourage healthy financial habits and set good foundations. We teach financial literacy concepts through our school curriculum from primary through the tertiary levels. MoneySense also organises financial talks and workshops for youths to supplement what they have learnt in school.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Monitoring Infrastructure Projects Awarded across All Tenders to Mitigate Risk of Overexposure on Particular Contractors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Ministry monitors the number and monetary quantum of infrastructure projects awarded to contractors across all tenders or projects administered by the various Ministries and agencies to ensure that there is no risk of overexposure of liability, finance or resource on a particular contractor or party.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Managing the risk of overexposure to particular contractors or suppliers is a multi-agency effort. The Ministry of Finance, together with the Building and Construction Authority, collaborates with Government agencies to diversify the contractor and supplier pool and put in place contingency plans. Each agency structures its procurement to avoid over-reliance on a small pool of suppliers and regularly monitors the concentration risks.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Eligibility for GST Vouchers and Assurance Package Payments for 2023 and 2024 and Appeals Received","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what is the number of Singaporeans who are not eligible for GST Vouchers and Assurance Package payments in 2024 based on their income in 2022 as assessed for Year of Assessment 2023 but who will meet the income eligibility criteria based on their income for 2023 as assessed for Year of Assessment 2024; and (b) how many of them have received the GST Vouchers and Assurance Package payments on appeal.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The assessable income is used to assess each individual's means to ensure more support under the Goods and Services Tax Voucher (GSTV) – Cash and the Assurance Package (AP) Cash schemes, are targeted at those who are in greater need. The choice of Year of Assessment (YA) considers the availability of completed tax assessment data, to ensure consistency and fairness in allotment across the population.
We used \tassessable income for YA 2023, that is, income in 2022, to determine eligibility for GSTV – Cash paid in August 2024, as income tax assessments for YA 2024 are processed progressively from April 2024 to March 2025. Hence, the full number of Singaporeans who would turn eligible, if we had used \tassessable income for YA 2024, is not yet available. While some Singaporeans would become eligible for the schemes if \tassessable income for YA 2024 is used, a proportion of Singaporeans would also become ineligible, due to increases in their \tassessable incomes.
Singaporeans who experience changes to their income may come forward and appeals will be considered on a case-by-case basis. As of end-August 2024, about 3,000 appeals relating to income changes have been approved for the 2024 GSTV – Cash scheme. The number of successful appeals for the AP Cash is currently not available as it will only be disbursed in December 2024.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Share of GDP Growth Driven by Resident Full-Time Income Earners across Percentile Groups, Including Employers' CPF Contributions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry for each year between 2016 and 2023, what is the share of gross domestic product growth driven by resident full-time income earners in the (i) 20th percentile (ii) 50th percentile (iii) 80th percentile and (iv) 90th percentile of such residents' total annual compensation received including CPF contributions by employers.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: A breakdown of the growth in Gross Domestic Product in terms of the contribution by resident full-time income earners in the various income percentile groups is not available.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cumulative Growth of Unit Labour and Business Costs and Unit Net Operating Surplus from 2016 to 2024","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry in each year from 2016 to 2023 and 2024 on a seasonally adjusted basis, what is the cumulative growth of the overall economy's (i) unit labour cost (ii) unit business cost and (iii) unit net operating surplus, also known as \"unit net profit\", respectively.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Data on the (i) growth in unit labour cost for the overall economy and (ii) growth in unit business cost for the manufacturing and services sectors1 from 2016 to 2023 and in the first two quarters of 20242, are in Figure 1 below. Data on unit net operating surplus is not available.
8 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Defence in the last five years (a) what is the number of complaints made to the SAF Hotline; (b) of which, how many of such calls were made by (i) full-time National Servicemen and (ii) Regulars, respectively; and (c) how many of these calls resulted in an investigation where an officer or sergeant was penalised.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: The National Service (NS) Call Centre hotline is one of the feedback channels in the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF). Over the last five years, the hotline received a total of 2,326 complaints. About 30% of these complaints were made by full-time National Servicemen and 10% were made by SAF Regulars. Most of the complaints are about administration matters and unit management issues. A small number are on alleged misconduct.
The complaints are taken seriously. They will be investigated with appropriate actions taken where warranted. Specifically on disciplinary actions, two sergeants and one officer were disciplined arising from complaints received through the NS Call Centre hotline over the past five years.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Pre-enlistees Exempted from National Service on Grounds of Mental Health Disorder","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Defence (a) in each year since 2010, how many National Service (NS) pre-enlistees have been exempted from NS because of mental health disorders; (b) how many of such individuals voluntarily choose to serve NS despite their exemption; (c) of these individuals, how many subsequently completed NS; and (d) how does the Ministry verify that pre-enlistees who have been diagnosed with mental health disorders by private doctors are indeed unfit to serve NS.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: Since 2010, about 650 individuals on average (or around 2.7% of pre-enlistees) have been exempted from National Service (NS) each year due to severe mental health conditions. These individuals are exempted from NS to ensure their safety and those around them and, therefore, are not suitable as volunteers.
The assessment of mental health conditions and exemptions, where medically warranted, are performed by the Singapore Armed Forces' (SAF's) medical doctors, based on guidelines developed in consultation with senior psychiatrists from our public healthcare institutions who serve on the SAF's Psychiatry Specialist Advisory Board. Inputs from the pre-enlistees' treating physicians, which may include private sector doctors, are included for these assessments.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore's Obligations under International Court of Justice's Findings on International Law Violations in Palestinian Territories","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs in view of Singapore's position on the illegality of Israeli settlements in the Palestinian Territories, what are Singapore's obligations with regard to the International Court of Justice's recent finding on international law violations in the Palestinian Territories including the continued unlawful occupation of the Palestinian Territories and how will Singapore support it.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: This question has been addressed in my reply to Member of Parliament Christopher de Souza on 7 August 2024. [Please refer to \"Impact of Escalating Tensions and Intensified Fighting in Middle East on Singapore\", Official Report, 7 August 2024, Vol 95, Issue 139, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Recovery by CAD in Sunshine Empire Case and Timeline for Liquidation and Distribution of Funds to Creditors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) has recovered any funds from Sunshine Empire since 2007; (b) if so, whether CAD is still holding on to any of the funds; and (c) what is the process and estimated completion timeline for the funds to be liquidated and distributed to creditors.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) had seized funds of $15.16 million and US$4.97 million in connection with the investigation into Sunshine Empire Pte Ltd (Sunshine).
Given the large number of potential claimants and the complex financial relationships between Sunshine and its affiliates, verifying these competing claims and distributing the seized funds is a complicated and protracted exercise. Professional liquidators had been engaged to ensure a fair and equitable distribution of funds to entitled claimants.
Subsequent to an order made by High Court in September 2020, CAD had released all the funds seized, including accrued interest, to the liquidators. The liquidators have written to potential claimants to invite them to submit their claims. To date, more than 4,000 creditors have filed their proof of debt. The liquidators are in the advanced stages of assessing the validity and quantum of these claims and expect to conclude the liquidation by the middle of next year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Requests for and Issuance of Death Certificates for Individuals Presumed Dead by Courts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Home Affairs in the past five years (a) how many requests have the Ministry received for a death certificate to be issued for individuals who have been presumed dead by the courts; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider issuing a death certificate to the next-of-kin of such individuals who have been presumed dead and, if not, why not.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) does not track the number of requests it receives for death certificates to be issued for persons presumed dead by the Courts. ICA does not issue death certificates for such persons. A Court order for the presumption of death is generally sufficient for administrative purposes, such as estate management.
However, the next-of-kin of a person presumed dead can submit the Court order for the presumption of death to ICA to update the Registry of Deaths accordingly.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Student Passes Issued and Measures in Place to Mitigate against Abuse","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) in 2023, how many Student's Passes have been issued to foreign students; (b) what is the proportion of holders who are found to have abused their Student's Passes, such as for illegal employment; and (c) what are the measures in place to mitigate against such abuses.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) issued about 74,000 Student's Passes in 2023, with the median duration of the pass issued being about a year. In 2023, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) took enforcement action against 143 Student's Pass holders, or 0.16% of all Student's Pass holders, for working illegally.
ICA assesses every application carefully. For example, applicants who cannot demonstrate that they have the financial means to support themselves during their studies in Singapore will be rejected. There are also penalties to deter and punish Student's Pass holders who work illegally. Offenders can face a fine of up to $20,000 or imprisonment of up to two years, or both. ICA and MOM will also cancel their Student's Pass, deport them and debar them from future employment in Singapore.
Employers who illegally employ Student's Pass holders or abet Student's Pass holders in illegal employment may face a fine of at least $5,000 and up to $30,000 or imprisonment of up to 12 months, or both. Their work pass privileges may also be suspended.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Means-testing and Qualifying Criteria for Pro Bono Legal Representation from Legal Aid Bureau","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Law in order for an individual to pass the means test before qualifying for pro-bono legal representation from the Legal Aid Bureau (a) whether an individual is obliged to declare assets held overseas, such as property; (b) whether such overseas assets are taken into account for the purposes of the means test; and (c) if not, why not.
Mr K Shanmugam: In order to qualify for legal aid, an applicant will have to pass both a means test and a merits test. For the means test, the applicant has to declare all savings, investments and property, including those overseas, which will be taken into account as part of the means test assessment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Improving Plastic Packaging Recycling Outcomes through Consumer Education and Clear Timelines for Sustainable Alternatives","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what are the Ministry's plans to improve recycling outcomes of plastic packaging; and (b) whether the Ministry will require food and beverage merchants to (i) educate consumers on what and how to recycle disposables correctly to avoid contamination of clean recyclables in the recycling bin and (ii) commit to clear timelines for the replacement of disposable plastic packaging with sustainable and affordable alternatives.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Packaging waste, including plastics, is a priority waste stream under the Zero Waste Masterplan. My Ministry and the National Environment Agency (NEA) promote the recycling of packaging waste through regulatory measures and educational campaigns. One such example is the upcoming beverage container return scheme. In July 2024, NEA issued a licence to Beverage Container Return Scheme Ltd., a not-for-profit company formed by a consortium of beverage producers comprising Coca-Cola Singapore Beverages, Fraser and Neave (F&N) Foods and Pokka, to operate the beverage container return scheme from April 2026. Under the scheme, a 10-cent deposit will be refunded to consumers when they return their metal or plastic beverage containers for recycling.
NEA also carries out regular campaigns to promote good recycling habits. As part of the Recycle Right campaign rolled out in 2019, tips are shared with business owners and consumers on how to identify, segregate and clean recyclables so that they can be properly recycled. Resources can be downloaded from the Clean & Green Singapore website (www.cgs.gov.sg).
All types of non-reusable packaging, including those made from biodegradable materials, result in some form of environmental impact. Reducing the use of disposable packaging, regardless of material type and promoting the use of reusables are more sustainable approaches. To this end, NEA has been working with partners across both the retail and food and beverage industries to promote sustainable practices, such as bring-your-own-bag, food container and bottle, under the Say YES to Waste Less campaign.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Recycling Achieved Since Launch of Reverse Vending Machines for Beverage Containers under Recycle N Save Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Ministry can provide data on the amount of recycling achieved since the launch of the Reverse Vending Machines (RVM) scheme under Recycle N Save, a joint initiative by F&N and NEA to place 50 Smart RVMs across Singapore to encourage recycling of used drink bottles and cans; and (b) following the discontinuation of Recycle N Save rewards on 31 July 2023, whether the RVMs are still being adequately maintained to continue the recycling of beverage containers.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Under Recycle N Save, a joint initiative by the National Environment Agency (NEA) and Fraser and Neave (F&N) Foods Pte Ltd, 50 Reverse Vending Machines (RVMs) were placed at public locations and in schools across the island, to encourage Singaporeans to adopt an eco-conscious lifestyle by offering them a convenient way to recycle. Since its launch in October 2019, more than 16 million drink containers have been collected.
Following the cessation of the Recycle N Save rewards on 31 July 2023, RVMs remain accessible at various locations, such as at partnering malls and sports centres, where the drink containers are collected by the location partners. F&N also continues to provide regular maintenance for RVMs to ensure that they remain in good working condition.
When the beverage container return scheme commences in 2026, consumers will be able to return empty beverage containers at conveniently located designated return points and claim a full refund of the deposit.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Production of Educational Materials by NEA to Remind Residents of Penalties for High-Rise Littering","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether NEA will produce more educational materials to remind residents on the penalties for high-rise littering.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: As part of a multi-pronged approach to deter high-rise litterbugs, the National Environment Agency (NEA) undertakes public education to increase public awareness of the adverse environmental and social impacts and penalties associated with high-rise littering. These efforts aim to influence behaviour and cultivate good habits. They include, social media posts, news articles and cleanliness campaigns. NEA also works with Town Councils to deploy physical standees and posters at the Housing and Development Board blocks to highlight ongoing surveillance and statistics on high-rise littering offences. NEA also conducts targeted educational outreach to households in the stack of residential units that is affected by high-rise littering. NEA will continue to refine our educational materials and outreach efforts as needed and support our partners including Town Councils to do more to deter high-rise littering.
High-rise littering is an antisocial and irresponsible act which affects public safety in addition to environmental hygiene. NEA will continue to encourage members of the public to exercise social graciousness and take personal ownership in keeping Singapore clean.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enforcement Actions Taken for Pet Defecation and Urination in Common Areas in HDB Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) in the past year, how many requests for enforcement action has NEA received for (i) pet defecation and (ii) pet urination in common areas of HDB estates; (b) how many times has NEA taken enforcement action against pet owners who fail to clean up after their pets in such areas; (c) whether there are any regulations that require owners to clean up pet urination; and (d) if not, whether the Ministry will consider introducing such regulations.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Not cleaning up after one's pet is an irresponsible behaviour that impacts public hygiene. Members of the public who fail to clean up after their pets defecate in public areas, can be fined under the Environmental Public Health (Public Cleansing) Regulations.
In 2023, the National Environment Agency (NEA) received about 670 cases of feedback on pet defecation and urination in HDB estates. For feedback received, public education efforts were conducted, including putting up standees at prominent locations to remind pet owners to clean up after their pets. Due to the transient nature of the offence, enforcement is challenging. Over the same period, NEA took one enforcement action against a pet owner who failed to remove and dispose of faecal matter deposited by the pet.
My Ministry regularly reviews the regulations and there are currently no plans to require pet owners to clean up pet urination. The main approach to tackling the issue of pet defecation and urination has been to foster a culture of responsible pet ownership. NEA and the National Parks Board work with community leaders and Town Councils to educate pet owners on the \"do's and don'ts\" of being a responsible pet owner. I urge all pet owners to be considerate and exercise care when walking their pets, so that we can keep our environment clean and hygienic.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposals Received under Air Quality Monitoring and Control Funding Initiative on Particulate Matter Generated by Tyres and Brakes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the Ministry can provide an update on the invitation for research proposals on studies on particulate matter generated by tyres and brakes under the Air Quality Monitoring and Control Funding Initiative.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Request For Proposal on Characterisation of Vehicular Emissions in Singapore was called in June 2023 and closed in September 2023. The project scope was revised to include additional pollutants under the new Euro 7 emission standards, which were introduced in April 2024. The research proposals received are currently being evaluated.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Investigation and Security Measures Following Mobile Guardian App Breach","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Education (a) whether investigations have identified the cause and possible security vulnerabilities that may have led to the breach of the Mobile Guardian app in August 2024; (b) whether the app's security vulnerabilities highlighted in a report dated 30 May 2024 and received by the Ministry are related to the subsequent cybersecurity breach in August 2024; and (c) what additional measures have been implemented to further secure the cybersecurity of all students' devices and data.
21 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Education before the security breach of Mobile Guardian in August 2024 (a) what are the dates of the most recent two vulnerability assessments and penetration tests (VAPT) conducted on the application; (b) how many vulnerability reports about Mobile Guardian have been submitted by members of the public; (c) whether all the vulnerabilities identified by each VAPT and vulnerability report have been resolved before the security breach; and (d) what is the frequency of VAPTs conducted on applications installed on students' personal learning devices.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Ministry of Education will provide an Oral Answer to these Parliamentary Questions, together with other \tParliamentary Questions which have been filed on this topic, at the next available opportunity. [Please refer to \"Investigation and Security Measures following Mobile Guardian App Breach\", Official Report, 10 September 2024, Vol 95, Issue 141, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Justification for Fee Discrepancies for Non-ASEAN International Students in Polytechnics and Universities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the respective fees paid by non-ASEAN international students (i) in polytechnics or (ii) who are undergraduates and who pay fees nett of a tuition grant, are lower than their fees for secondary school and junior college; and (b) if so, what is the justification for such a situation.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: International students pay higher tuition fees than Singaporean and Singapore Permanent Resident students at the same level of study. Tuition fees for international students in polytechnics and autonomous universities are also higher than those paid by international students in secondary schools and junior colleges.
Eligible international students enrolled in the polytechnics and autonomous universities can apply for a Ministry of Education (MOE) Tuition Grant. If successful, they will pay lower tuition fees, but they are required to work in a Singapore entity for three years upon graduation. International students in secondary schools and junior colleges do not receive Tuition Grant nor have such obligations, so the annual fees they pay are higher than the fees paid by international students receiving Tuition Grant at polytechnics and some university courses. However, even with Tuition Grant, the annual fees payable by international students are higher than Singaporean students in the same course.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Improving Quality of Private Education IHLs to Ensure Graduates Are Good Source to Complement Local Workforce","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Education (a) what are the measures that have been taken to improve the quality of private education institutes of higher learning in Singapore; and (b) whether graduates of such institutes are a good source of foreign manpower to complement the local workforce.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: All registered Private Education Institutions (PEIs) must adhere to baseline standards established in the Private Education Act and Regulations. These standards are in place to safeguard consumer interest and promote informed decision-making.
SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) also implements the EduTrust Certification Scheme (EduTrust) to raise sector performance and institutional quality. The latest version of the EduTrust Guidance Document, last revised in August 2023, sets minimum requirements for critical areas, such as student protection and academic quality. It also includes new requirements to benchmark additional outcomes (e.g. service quality and operational standards) against national or international standards.
PEIs train both local and foreign students. Based on the PEI Annual Returns exercise, 36% of full-time Bachelor external degree programme graduates from PEIs were foreigners. The PEI Graduate Employment Survey (GES) 2022/2023 found that 55% of the foreign graduates who responded to the survey found full-time employment.
It is for employers to assess if PEI foreign graduates make good hires. SSG's focus is to enhance the capabilities and employability of our local workforce through SkillsFuture initiatives, including the recently implemented SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Making Kindergarten Education Compulsory and Integrating It into Formal Education System","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Government will consider making kindergarten education compulsory; and (b) if so, what will be the factors taken into consideration for it to be integrated into the formal education system.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: To enable our children to have a good start, the Government has invested significantly in preschool education over the last decade. Preschool enrolment has also grown and 95% of Singaporean children aged five to six years are now enrolled in preschool. There are sufficient places for every child.
Rather than impose compulsory kindergarten education, the Government's approach has been to remove impediments to preschool enrolment by ensuring access to affordable and quality preschools, such as in Government-supported preschools. Today, over 65% of preschoolers are in Government-supported preschools, up from just over half in 2019. We will continue to increase spaces so that 80% of preschoolers can have a place in a Government-supported preschool by around 2025.
We also provide targeted assistance to lower-income families to address practical challenges in enrolling their children in preschool and ensuring their regular attendance. Children from lower-income families are accorded priority when enrolling in MOE Kindergartens (MKs) and Anchor Operator (AOP) preschools. After Government subsidies, low-income families may pay as low as $1 per month for half-day kindergarten in MKs and AOP preschools.
As kindergarten education is affordable and accessible to all Singaporeans, we have no plans to make it compulsory at the moment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Seniors Dying Alone at Home in Past Year","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Ministry tracks the number of seniors who die alone in their homes, with their passing only detected days later; and (b) if so, what is the number of such cases in the past year.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Ministry of Social and Family Development does not track the number of seniors who die alone in their homes. The Government works with community partners on multi-pronged interventions to support seniors living alone to stay connected and age safely in their communities.
First, the Silver Generation Office (SGO) under the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) conducts outreach to all seniors aged 60 and above to identify those with needs and refer them to the relevant support or services for follow-up.
Second, seniors who need social support will be connected to an Active Ageing Centre (AAC) for befriending and buddying services and receive regular check-ins. At the AACs, seniors can also participate in active ageing programmes to expand their social networks. Apart from the AACs, SGO also assists interested seniors to sign up for activities offered by the People's Association (PA) at the Community Centres and Residents' Network Centres. Volunteers from PA and the grassroots organisations also reach out to seniors who require assistance and befriending.
Third, the Ministry of National Development and the Housing and Development Board also support seniors living alone, through the provision of alert alarm systems which they can use to call for help during emergencies, in studio apartments and rental blocks.
Beyond these efforts, each of us plays an important role to look out for one another as neighbours and support our seniors to stay connected and age safely in the community. The Government will continue to work with our community partners and agencies to support our seniors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Employment of Special Needs Persons in Public Sector and Measures to Sustain Their Long-term Employability","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how many persons with special needs are currently employed in the public sector; (b) what are the main challenges faced by these public sector employees; and (c) what are the measures to support them in sustaining long-term employment in the public sector.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: As at December 2023, about one in 420 public officers are Persons with Disabilities (PwDs).
Across all sectors, employees with disabilities have generally shared that the lack of disability knowledge, understanding and acceptance among employers, supervisors and co-workers were key challenges they faced. Organisations that have taken steps to address these are able to cultivate a more inclusive workplace environment that supports the integration and retention of employees with disabilities.
The Public Sector builds on the national support available for all employers to address the above challenges and will continue to do so to support the employment of PwDs.
First, improving disability awareness and knowledge. Under the Open Door Programme (ODP), administered by SG Enable, PwDs and employers receive up to one year of customised employment support from trained job coaches. Job coaches will advise employers on how they can create accessible work environments and make reasonable job accommodations to enable employees with disabilities to perform their roles effectively and work well with co-workers. Grants under the ODP also provide subsidies for employers and their employees without disabilities to attend workshops that equip them with the knowledge and skills to interact with, hire, integrate and retain employees with disabilities in their organisation.
Next, fair employment practices. The Public Service is aligned with the Tripartite Guidelines for Fair Employment Practices and does not discriminate job applicants and officers based on their disabilities. Officers are recruited based on their competencies and their performance is assessed based on their work outcomes.
Finally, providing flexibility. Public agencies have adopted the Tripartite Standards for Flexible Work Arrangements and Work-Life Harmony. All officers, including those with disabilities, can apply for flexi-load (e.g. part-time), flexi-place (e.g. hybrid work arrangements) and flexi-time (e.g. allowing later start and end times), where the nature of the job allows.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Better Support for Smaller Enterprises in Hiring Singaporeans with Special Needs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Ministry can consider further enhancements in collaboration with SG Enable to better incentivize and support smaller enterprises in hiring Singaporeans with special needs, beyond the existing schemes; and (b) how will the Ministry evaluate the effectiveness of these measures.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Government has been working with SG Enable to encourage and support employers to hire Persons with Disabilities (PwDs), including small and medium enterprises (SMEs) which make up 99% of all enterprises in Singapore.
All employers can tap on the range of support available. Under the Open Door Programme (ODP) that SG Enable administers, PwDs and employers receive up to one year of job matching and customised employment support from trained job coaches. Employers can tap on the ODP Job Redesign Grant, which supports up to 90% of costs incurred, capped at $20,000 per PwD, to redesign the job, purchase new equipment or modify the workplace to be more conducive for their employees with disabilities.
The Enabling Employment Credit (EEC), which was last enhanced in 2023, provides up to 20% wage support for all employers hiring local PwDs earning below $4,000 per month, capped at $400. In addition, employers who hire PwDs who have not been working for at least six months will receive an additional 20% of wage support, capped at $400 per employee, for the first nine months of employment. Under the Place-and-Train (PnT) programme, employers of PwDs receive up to 90% wage support and 90% course fee subsidies in the first year of hiring.
In December 2023, SG Enable launched the first Enabling Business Hub at Jurong (EBH@Jurong), partnering employers, training providers and social service agencies, to bring job opportunities in the logistics sector closer to PwDs in the West, as well as support inclusive employers in the West region.
In addition, SG Enable has targeted engagements with SMEs through partners, such as the Singapore Business Federation, SME Centres, Chambers of Commerce and Trade Associations. Under \"The Unlimited\" initiative, the United Overseas Bank acts as the private sector catalyst for inclusive hiring, engaging companies to generate interest in the hiring of PwDs.
We track the employment rate for PwDs on an annual basis via the Comprehensive Labour Force Survey. We aim to increase the employment rate of PwDs from 32.7% in 2022/2023 to the aspirational target of 40% by 2030.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Monthly Basic Subsidy for Working Mothers with Singapore Citizen Children Enrolled in Full-Day Childcare Programmes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) when will be the next review of the $300 monthly basic subsidy for working mothers with Singapore citizen children aged 18 months to below seven years old who are enrolled in full-day childcare programmes; and (b) what will be the factors considered before increasing the subsidy amount.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Government regularly reviews our policies to ensure that preschool out-of-pocket (OOP) expenses remains affordable for families. The Basic Subsidy is only one of several avenues affecting preschool affordability. In recent years, the Government has enhanced preschool affordability in other ways to effectively lower OOP expenses for parents.
In 2020, we raised the household income ceiling for means-tested additional subsidies from $7,500 to $12,000 and increased the quantum of additional subsidy across all eligible income tiers. In addition, we keep fees at Government-supported preschools affordable by imposing fee caps on Anchor Operators (AOPs) and Partner Operators (POPs). In January 2023, monthly fee caps for full-day childcare at AOP and POP centres were lowered by $40 to $680 and $720 respectively. With these moves, a median-income household, with a child attending full-day childcare in an AOP centre, would spend 3.1% of their household income on preschool in 2023, which is lower compared to 4.6% in 2019. We will further lower fee caps in Government-supported preschools in 2025 and 2026, so that dual-income families with a child in full-day childcare, in an AOP centre, will eventually pay around the equivalent of primary school and student care fees, before means-tested subsidies.
We are also increasing the number of Government-supported preschool places, which allows more families to benefit from these lower fee caps. By around 2025, 80% of preschoolers can have a place in a Government-supported preschool. This is more effective than increasing the Basic Subsidy in enabling the vast majority of families to benefit from lower preschool OOP expenses.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Care and Protection Orders Issued by Youth Court and Actions Taken Against Parents Breaching Bond Undertakings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development for each year in the past five years (a) what is the number of care and protection orders issued by the Youth Court where parents are required to sign a bond to (i) exercise proper care and guardianship over the child or (ii) attend counselling; (b) what is the number of such bonds breached; and (c) what other actions are taken against parents found to have breached these bonds besides the forfeiture of the bond.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Youth Court does not track the data requested. Under the law, a breach of the bond terms is an offence, liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $2,000.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"MediSave Claims for Overseas Treatment and Expansion of MediShield Life Coverage to Healthcare Bills Incurred in Malaysian Hospitals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Health since the use of MediSave for overseas elective hospitalisations and day surgeries has been allowed (a) what is the number of MediSave claims that have been made for such treatments in accredited hospitals in Malaysia per year; and (b) what is the corresponding amount of MediSave claimed for such treatments in accredited hospitals in Malaysia per year.
31 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider expanding MediShield Life insurance to cover Singaporeans' healthcare bills incurred in Malaysian hospitals that have approved working arrangements with MediSave-accredited hospitals in Singapore.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: MediShield Life is a basic health insurance plan that is designed to cover subsidised bills at public hospitals locally and, hence, is not extended for medical treatments overseas. Nevertheless, MediSave use is currently permitted for overseas elective hospitalisations and day surgeries at accredited hospitals. In the last three years, around 250 MediSave claims were made annually with an average claim of $3,400.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Prevalence of Perinatal Depression in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry tracks the prevalence of perinatal depression in Singapore; and (b) if so, whether the Ministry can provide the statistics on the prevalence of perinatal depression among Singapore residents in the past five years.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The prevalence of perinatal depression in Singapore, which comprises antenatal and postnatal depression, is estimated based on local research studies. The local prevalence of antenatal depression is about 7% to 9%, while that of postnatal depression ranges from 6.8% to 10.4%1.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Chen, H., Chua. T, Lee, T., et al. (2023) Consensus statement on Singapore Perinatal Mental Health Guidelines on Depression and Anxiety. Ann Acad Med Singapore, 52(9), 467-75."],"footNoteQuestions":["32"],"questionNo":"32"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Survey on Diversity of Pharmacists' Job Roles, Duties and Skills, and Leveraging Postgraduate Skills in Public Healthcare Institutions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health (a) whether a strategic survey has been conducted to assess the diversity of job roles, duties and skills within the pharmacist professional community and if not already done so, whether this will be done; and (b) whether the public healthcare institutions consider potential new roles and contributions when a pharmacist is sponsored for a postgraduate degree and how the subsequent deployments can leverage on the new skills.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry of Health (MOH) conducts regular engagements through surveys, workshops, focus group discussions and international experts' consultations to evaluate the diversity of job roles, duties and skills for pharmacists. Such engagements have contributed to greater clarity of the breadth of pharmacist competencies across different domains. For example, the Development Framework for Pharmacists (DFP) published in May 2020, set out four levels of pharmacy competencies in the domains of professional practice, education, research and evaluation, as well as leadership and management.
The public healthcare institutions identify appropriate local and overseas training programmes and skills attachments and sponsor pharmacists to undertake such training, to prepare them to take on specific higher-level roles. This could take the form of enhanced clinical roles, such as those in antimicrobial stewardship programmes, medication therapy management clinics or anti-coagulation clinics; specialist clinical roles in areas, such as Oncology, Critical Care and Geriatrics; as well as general management and leadership roles within the institution.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Survey on Medical Safety Contributions of Pharmacists in Preventing Potential Adverse Outcomes for Patients","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"34 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health (a) whether a survey will be conducted to study the medical safety contributions of pharmacists, including how pharmacist interventions have prevented potential adverse outcomes for patients; and (b) what is the estimated cost of these averted adverse outcomes would have been, including the averted potential economic adversity and human suffering.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Pharmacists play a pivotal role in safeguarding medication safety for patients. Pharmacists participate in medication reconciliation, both in the inpatient and outpatient settings, to ensure that patients' medications are correct and safe. This helps to reduce the risk of patients taking their medications inappropriately. Not all the benefits from pharmacists' interventions are quantifiable. Local studies have demonstrated that pharmacist-led medication therapy management service in the outpatient setting decreased unplanned hospital admissions and emergency department visits. Pharmacists helped to optimise patients' medications and worked with the healthcare team to resolve medication issues, which would have otherwise increased patients' risk of adverse outcomes, such as falls, heart attack and stroke.
Pharmacists work in multi-disciplinary care teams to help patients achieve good chronic disease control and avoid potential complications. A 2017 study showed that regular follow-ups by pharmacists in a collaborative care model with physicians, nurses and dieticians improved blood sugar control for patients with poorly-managed Type 2 diabetes. Pharmacists worked with patients to address common misunderstandings about their medications to improve adherence to the treatment and empowered patients to manage their own conditions.
In the intensive care unit (ICU) setting, a 2023 study showed that timely interventions made by critical care pharmacists to correct inappropriate drug regimens and discontinue unnecessary medications helped to reduce the ICU length of stay and the overall healthcare expenditure borne by patients and the system.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Decrease in Suicide Rate and Measures to Enhance Mental Health Support for Vulnerable Groups","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"35 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Health (a) what factors have contributed to the decrease in the number of suicides in Singapore in 2023; and (b) what measures are being implemented to sustain this trend and enhance mental health support particularly for vulnerable groups, such as youths and the elderly.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Member is referring to the data in in the Report on Registration of Births and Deaths 2023 published by the Immigration & Checkpoints Authority. These are provisional data and the finalised figures will be published in the following year's report.
We have adopted a whole-of-society approach to address the issue of suicide. We have run several public education campaigns, trained peer supporters and frontline personnel to support those with mental health needs, built up resilience among our youth and students and expanded our community mental health services and 24/7 crisis helplines.
However, what is most important and hopefully starting to reduce the prevalence of suicides, is to change societal attitudes, by normalising conversations around mental health and reducing stigma in seeking help early. These are fundamental goals that we are on.
For youths, we will continue to promote mental well-being and resilience and equip them with skills, such as emotion regulation. Educators and school counsellors are also trained to identify students with mental health challenges and refer them to additional support where necessary. We are also building up peer support.
For seniors, the Silver Generation Office reaches out to those aged 60 and above to identify their needs and refer them to relevant support or services, such as Active Ageing Centres for regular check-ins, and befriending and buddying services.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Safeguards to Protect Workers Dealing with Birds Against H5N1 Avian Flu","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"36 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for National Development whether there are any safeguards imposed by NParks on its licensed contractors to ensure that their workers who are dealing with birds, are protected from the H5N1 avian flu.
Mr Desmond Lee: The National Parks Board's (NParks) contractors are required to take necessary precautionary measures when working in close contact with birds. These measures include, wearing protective equipment, such as disposable gloves and masks, and the double bagging of carcasses in biohazard bags before disposal. Contractors are also required to wash their hands thoroughly and disinfect or dispose of equipment to prevent cross contamination. To further mitigate the risks of disease transmission, animal rescue services have implemented vaccination policies for their workers. To date, there are no confirmed human or animal cases of Avian influenza, including influenza A (H5N1), in Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulating and Licensing Pet Service Providers to Ensure Pet Welfare","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"37 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will consider implementing more regulations over pet service providers to ensure the welfare of pets, such as requiring pet service providers to be trained by approved institutions and licensed.
Mr Desmond Lee: Commercial pet boarders, breeders, pet shops and veterinary clinics require licences to operate. Under the respective licensing conditions, key personnel are required to have the relevant accreditation and certification. For instance, licensees and employees responsible for the day-to-day management and care of animals at commercial pet boarders, breeders and pet shops must attend mandatory training on pet care and management at a teaching institution approved by the National Parks Board.
In addition, all individuals working in animal-related businesses, including pet groomers and trainers, are expected to uphold higher standards of animal welfare, given that they are entrusted with the care of their clients' pet animals. Under the Animals and Birds Act, any person who is found guilty of animal cruelty or failure of duty of care will be taken to task. Penalties are more severe for individuals operating or employed by an animal-related business. The Code of Animal Welfare (for the Pet Industry) also sets out minimum animal housing, management and care standards for pet service providers and failure to meet minimum standards stipulated in the Code may be used as evidence to support enforcement action.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Additional Cooling Measures in Private Condominium Market and Prioritising HDB Flats for Owner Occupation over Private Property","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"38 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry will consider implementing additional cooling measures for the private condominium market, such as raising the Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty or having stricter loan-to-value limits, to moderate demand and potentially relieve upward pressure on HDB flat prices; and (b) whether the Ministry will further curb investment demand and prioritise HDB flats for owner occupation by restricting HDB flat owners from owning private properties.
Mr Desmond Lee: This question has been addressed in the reply to Parliamentary Questions on the residential property market and housing affordability, which was issued on 9 September 2024. [Please refer to \"Impact of Housing Grant Increase on HDB Resale Flat Prices, and Trend for Resale Flat Prices By Flat Type\", Official Report, 9 September 2024, Vol 95, Issue 140, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Race and Citizenship Status of HDB Flat Owners Whose Flats Sold for Over $1 Million","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"39 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for National Development for each year since 2020, what is the breakdown by race and citizenship status of HDB flat owners whose HDB flats sold for at least $1 million.
Mr Desmond Lee: From 2020 to 1H2024, only about 1% of HDB flats were transacted at $1 million and above. Given the year-to-year fluctuations, we have provided the aggregated analysis for such transactions that: (a) almost all sellers were Singapore citizen households; and (b) the annual proportion of Chinese sellers ranged between 86% and 93%. Accordingly, the proportion of sellers from other ethnic groups ranged between 7% and 14%.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Appeals for HDB Concessionary Loans and Recourse for Homebuyers Ineligible for Bank Loan","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"40 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development (a) in the past five years, what is the number of appeals for a HDB concessionary loan and, of these, what is the number of successful appeals; and (b) what recourse is available to would-be HDB flat purchasers who require financing to purchase a home but are ineligible for a commercial bank loan.
Mr Desmond Lee: Flat buyers who need a housing loan can apply for one from either the financial institutions or the Housing and Development Board (HDB). In the last five years, HDB granted about 265,000 housing loans. Over the same period, HDB also received 14,000 appeals for a housing loan, of which, one in five was successful. The majority of rejected appeals did not meet the eligibility conditions to apply for an HDB loan, such as those that have exceeded the income ceiling or had already taken two HDB housing loans in the past.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Animal Cruelty and Welfare Cases Investigated and Enforcement Actions Taken","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"41 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for National Development in each year of the last five years (a) how many animal cruelty and welfare cases has the Ministry (i) investigated and (ii) taken enforcement actions on; (b) what is the breakdown of the cases by types of offence; and (c) what is the breakdown of the cases by types of animal.
Mr Desmond Lee: From 2019 to 2023, the National Parks Board (NParks) investigated an average of about 1,200 cases of alleged animal cruelty and welfare cases annually. Majority of the cases involved dogs and cats. Among the cases investigated, an average of 50 cases resulted in enforcement against the offender, such as the issuance of warning letter, composition fine or court prosecution. The annual breakdown is shown in Table 1 below.
The remaining cases resulted in no further enforcement action due to a lack of evidence or were unrelated to cruelty and welfare. Such cases were often associated with disputes or disamenities caused by pets or community animals, or deaths of community animals due to unrelated reasons, such as accidental falls from height.
* Enforcement action refers to the issuance of a warning letter, a composition fine, or to court prosecution. Investigations for some cases are ongoing and have not been included in the count.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extending Senior Citizen Rate for Usage of Mainstream ActiveSG Sports Facilities to Persons with Disabilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"42 Mr Ong Hua Han asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth whether the Ministry can consider extending the senior citizen rate for usage of mainstream ActiveSG’s sports facilities to persons with disabilities (PwDs) to encourage more PwDs to use such facilities for exercise and promote inclusive sports participation.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: SportSG agrees with the objective of enhancing access to sports for persons with disabilities (PwDs) and has facilitated free group entries for PwDs from Special Education (SPED) Schools and Social Service Agencies through the Social Service Corporate Membership (SSCM) scheme since 2022. This corporate membership also provides $1,000 ActiveSG credits for the booking of sports facilities for regular sports programmes. Around 50 SPED Schools and Disability Adult Centres/Homes have enrolled on the SSCM scheme.
To promote inclusive sports participation, SportSG has also introduced a range of programmes so that PwDs can take part in sports. These include learn-to-play programmes, recreational programmes and the annual Play Inclusive campaign. We will also continue to enhance our facilities so that persons of all abilities can use them comfortably.
We recognise that more can be done to increase access to opportunities for exercise and sports participation among PwDs. We have, thus, been working with various partners to engage stakeholders to gather ideas to update the Disability Sports Master Plan. We will study the suggestion on extending the senior citizen rate for usage of mainstream ActiveSG's sports facilities to PwDs as part of our ongoing efforts to promote inclusive sports.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Arts Resource Hub's Success in Achieving Its Goals and Plans to Benefit Arts Community","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"43 Ms Usha Chandradas asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether the Arts Resource Hub has achieved its intended goals; and (b) what further plans are underway to develop this resource for the benefit of the arts community.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The National Arts Council (NAC) set up the Arts Resource Hub (ARH) in 2019 after extensive consultations with over 370 arts and culture practitioners across disciplines and practices. The ARH aims to enable Self-Employed Persons (SEPs) in the arts to develop their practices, unlock opportunities and grow meaningful careers.
SEPs in the arts have less access to some resources compared to their peers in regular employment. For instance, many companies have human resource professionals to support employees in upskilling and career development, legal professionals to provide advice in case of any contract disputes and venues to rehearse and exhibit their works.
The ARH provides arts SEP with these resources. Since its establishment in 2019, the ARH has implemented an array of initiatives and programmes to support SEPs in these areas, including:
(a) Professional career development guidance to help SEPs chart out their skills and career progression pathways. The recently launched Ignite Mentorship is one example. It was designed for new and emerging practitioners to develop critical skills, such as entrepreneurship, personal brand management and project management. The Coaching for Creatives programme is another example. It provides opportunities for SEPs to work with certified life and career coaches, to develop clarity on their career goals and explore strategies to enable sustainable careers.
(b) Seminars and digital resources on topics, such as intellectual property, copyright and fair use, arts entrepreneurship, financial planning for healthcare and retirement, and more. For instance, ARH recently collaborated with creative director, curator and producer Mr Jeremiah Choy to create a series of videos, equipping arts practitioners with the know-how to start and sustain their own arts businesses.
(c) Access to co-working and collaboration spaces for SEPs to create, network and collaborate. These include meeting rooms, a rehearsal studio, a black box and co-working spaces. Many of these affordable spaces are utilised by younger and less-well-established artists and arts groups to help them kickstart their careers.
(d) Events for arts SEPs to build community and networks. SEPs have shared that they often feel isolated in their work and would benefit from structured programmes and events to build their sense of community and peer support networks. NAC has organised various \"ARH Connects\" events to upskill arts SEPs and provide opportunities to meet other SEPs in the arts space.
(e) Resources for SEPs to learn how to protect their own well-being. ARH has collaborated with an arts collective, Care, Intimacy, TRaUma-informed and Safer (CITRUS) practices, to put together resources, including a series of peer-sharing sessions and workshops, designed to help improve care and wellbeing for arts workers.
(f) ARH also serves as a way for NAC to reach out to the community of arts SEPs to better understand their needs. This was particularly important during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The impact of ARH has been significant. During the pandemic, for example, the ARH was an important sensemaking and community outreach platform that allowed NAC to engage SEPs and roll out the Self-Employed Persons Grant (SEPG) based on their feedback. The SEPG supported more than 800 SEPs to carry out projects that generated more than 5,000 work and training opportunities. Physical spaces provided by ARH are well-used, with an average utilisation rate of around 75%. Nine in 10 survey respondents who attended the 2023 \"ARH Connects\" events were satisfied with the programmes and indicated that they would attend again. Today, ARH has more than 3,200 members and the number is still growing.
In the coming years, NAC will further enhance the ARH with a focus on two key areas. Firstly, the ARH will provide SEPs easier access to professional expertise. Two specific examples that are in the works include, greater access to legal knowledge and advice as well as programmes relating to mental and physical well-being. Secondly, the ARH aims to create more platforms for SEPs to meet, network and collaborate. This will be especially useful for young and emerging SEPs.
More details on these initiatives will be announced soon. NAC will continue to work closely with the arts community to improve the resources and offerings of ARH.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans and Initiatives to Support Minority Arts Groups to Reach Wider Audiences","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"44 Ms Usha Chandradas asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth whether the Ministry has any plans or initiatives to assist or encourage minority arts groups that perform and present their work in non-English mediums, to reach out to wider audiences.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The Government provides significant support for minority arts groups to develop their craft and reach out to wider audiences.
The National Arts Council (NAC) offers several grants and initiatives to support content production and audience development in the arts sector, including for minority artists and arts groups that perform and present their work in non-English language mediums. For instance, NAC's Major Company Scheme has provided multi-year funding to groups, such as Malay dance company Era Dance Theatre, Indian dance company Apsaras Arts and Malay theatre company Teater Ekamatra, to present their shows and festivals.
Under the Presentation and Participation grant, NAC has supported the creation and presentation of works by minority artists and arts groups. Examples include, singer-songwriter Ahmadul Amin's debut album Bukan Untuk Semua, the Singapore Malayalee Association's annual Varnum exhibition and the Singapore Indian Orchestra and Choir's Spring Harmony concert.
The Government also supports platforms that enable minority artists and arts groups to showcase their work to diverse audiences.
For example, the annual Malay CultureFest, a signature programme by the Malay Heritage Centre (MHC), is a key platform for local Malay artists to showcase traditional and contemporary craft and performances. Some arts groups that have worked with MHC include, Malay folk music ensemble Nobat Kota Singa, traditional Malay orchestra Orkestra Sri Temasek and fusion Indonesian-Western ensemble Djoko Mangkrengg.
In addition, Esplanade – Theatres on the Bay presents two annual festivals, Pesta Raya – Malay Festival of Arts and Kalaa Utsavam – Indian Festival of Arts, as well as the year-round cultural series Pentas and Raga. These programmes provide our Malay and Indian artists opportunities to create and present their works to local and international audiences. For example, for the 2024 edition of Pesta Raya, Esplanade commissioned Teater Ekamatra to present Bangwang Putih Bangwang Merah, a retelling of a Nusantara folktale. The production, which was written by Malaysian playwright Ridhwan Saidi and directed by Singaporean director Mohd Raren Jainal, featured a cast from Singapore and Malaysia. Esplanade also co-produced Arisi: Rice with Apsaras Arts, which was presented at Kalaa Utsavam in 2022 and, subsequently, at the Madras Music Academy in India in January 2024.
The Esplanade's cultural festivals and series also allow our minority artists to collaborate with their regional counterparts. As part of Pentas, traditional Malay music troupe Persatuan Pemuzik Tradisional Melayu Singapura organised Gemada, a two-day gathering of audiences and artists interested in Malay traditional music. Meanwhile, Raga has supported Apsaras Arts to organise the upcoming Indian Performing Arts Conference.
The annual Chingay Parade, organised by the People's Association (PA), is another opportunity for our minority artists to reach out to a wide audience. Each year, PA recruits over 300 performers to present the Malay and Indian ethnic segments of the Chingay performance. Past participants in Chingay include, the Sri Warisan Som Said Performing Arts Group, Sakthi Fine Arts, Singapore Indian Fine Arts Society (SIFAS), Damaru Singapore and Manimaran Creations.
In the area of literary arts, the Singapore Writers Festival (SWF) has consistently featured non-English Language programming. The 2023 SWF included a Malay panel session Layar ke Teks featuring Jamal Ismail, Asnida Daud and Fadhli Fadzil, as well as a panel session Perspectives on Literary Critique in Tamil Literature featuring local Tamil writers Azhagunila and Neelakandan Sivanantham alongside Indian writer Suneel Krishnan.
The Government has a range of initiatives that offer minority artists opportunities to engage younger audiences. For example, NAC's Arts Education Programme features over 180 programmes conducted by minority artists and arts groups that the Ministry of Education schools can use in their arts education plans. These include, workshops and performances in traditional arts, such as Malay and Indian dance and music; as well as visual arts workshops, such as Batik painting by Kamal Dollah and screen printing by Shariefah Shamsir.
At the community level, the Government also organises several initiatives that allow minority artists to reach wider audiences. For instance, the recently launched ArtsEverywhere@CDC initiative brings quality performances by professional arts groups, including minority arts groups, to heartland locations across the island. Traditional Malay drumming group NADI Singapura performed at the launch event in July 2024 and the current series of performances also involves Indian music troupe Brahmastra. Such community-based initiatives enable our minority artists and arts groups to extend their offerings beyond traditional arts spaces and develop new audiences.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expected Total and Annual Operating Costs for Development of Founders' Memorial","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"45 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth what are the (i) expected total costs to develop the Founders’ Memorial and (ii) annual operating costs thereafter.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The Founders' Memorial will be an integrated gallery and gardens experience at Bay East, commemorating the values and ideals exemplified by Singapore's founding leaders and generation. When it opens in end-2028, the Memorial will serve as a space to capture the spirit of our nation and unify Singaporeans by enabling different generations of Singaporeans to reflect on our past and be inspired for the future. The development cost of the Memorial is estimated at $335 million, based on current outlook and projections. The estimated cost encompasses building construction and fit-out costs for the exhibition galleries, viewing gallery and outdoor amphitheatre, education and family spaces and amenities and a 5-hectare outdoor public garden.
The annual operating cost is being worked out in tandem with the development of operational plans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support Measures for Companies Employing Singaporeans with Special Needs Beyond Foreign Worker Quota Adjustments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"46 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Manpower in lieu of using of foreign worker quota adjustments as a lever to incentivise companies to hire special needs workers, what alternative measures are being considered to support companies that employ Singaporeans with special needs, particularly in managing operational challenges.
Dr Tan See Leng: There are several measures today that support companies that employ Singaporeans with special needs. The Open Door Programme (ODP) provides employers with up to one year of complimentary recruitment and job support services. SG Enable, the focal agency for disability and inclusion in Singapore, supports companies in adapting the job role and work environment to better suit persons with disabilities (PwDs). The Job Redesign Grant, under the ODP, covers up to 90% of the cost of job redesign and workplace modifications for employees with disabilities. The ODP Training Grant provides course fee subsidies of up to 90% for courses, such as SG Enable's High Impact Recruitment and Employment workshops, which provide a comprehensive and structured training framework for employers hiring PwDs. The Enabling Employment Credit, which was enhanced in 2023, provides wage support for employers to offset the cost of hiring PwDs earning below $4,000 a month.
We encourage employers to tap on the various measures to support employment of PwDs. The Government will continue to review these measures to ensure that we can better support the employment of PwDs and their employers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Dormitories Adopting Interim and New Dormitory Standards Earlier Under Dormitory Transition Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"47 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower how many dormitories have informed the Ministry of their plans to start work earlier to meet the (i) interim standards and (ii) New Dormitory Standards, respectively, under the Dormitory Transition Scheme to improve living conditions for dormitory residents.
Dr Tan See Leng: Dormitories will need to meet the new dormitory standards by 2040 and interim standards by 2030. Currently, about 200 new dormitories with a combined capacity of about 70,000 beds already meet the new dormitory standards. A further 14 existing dormitories, or another 100,000 beds, have either commenced works or informed the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) of their transition plans.
48 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry can work with the MAS to explore implementing short-term repayment freezes on housing loans and insurance premiums for Singaporeans facing unemployment.
Dr Tan See Leng: Unemployed homeowners who face difficulties in servicing their housing loans from the Housing and Development Board (HDB) can approach HDB for financial counselling. HDB may offer various financial assistance measures depending on the household's circumstances, such as allowing them to temporarily reduce or defer their loan instalments or extending their loan tenure to reduce their monthly instalments.
Homeowners who are facing difficulties servicing their private housing loans can approach their lenders to explore options, such as loan restructuring solutions. Government agencies have put in place processes for financial institutions to refer cases to social service agencies for assistance where needed.
Individuals who face difficulties in servicing their insurance premiums can approach their insurers early to find out about available options. Depending on the terms of the policy, options include obtaining premium loans, converting to a paid-up policy and applying a time-bound premium holiday.
These measures will complement the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support (JS) scheme, which is designed to give assurance to those facing involuntary unemployment by providing them with temporary financial support while they search for a job that fits their skills and experience.
The scheme is not a social assistance scheme and the payout quantum is not sized to meet the needs of households facing financial distress when a household member becomes involuntarily unemployed. For jobseekers from households with financial difficulties, they may be eligible for support from schemes, such as ComCare's Short-to-Medium Term Assistance scheme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Age Limit for Foreign Domestic Workers and Considerations for Appeals for Yearly Extensions by Employers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"49 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry will review the age limit of 60 years old for foreign domestic workers (FDWs) to work in Singapore; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider employers’ appeals for yearly extensions of their FDWs’ work permit to work in Singapore beyond this age limit.
Dr Tan See Leng: As employers are responsible for the medical costs of their migrant domestic workers (MDWs), which generally increase with age. The age limit of 60 years old is to mitigate the cost impact on households. However, on appeal, the Ministry of Manpower may approve the renewal of work permits beyond the age limit, taking into account the MDW's health, experience and the employer's household needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Incidence of Salary Claims with Breakdown by Work Pass Types and of Work Permit Holders by Industry","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"50 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Manpower in each year of the last three years (a) what is the number of incidence of salary claims with a breakdown by work pass types; and (b) what is the number of incidence of salary claims among work permit holders with a breakdown by industry.
Dr Tan See Leng: The incidence of salary claims by foreign employees with breakdown by work pass type from 2021 to 2023 is in Table 1 below. The incidence of salary claims by Work Permit holders for the top 3 industries with salary claims by Work Permit holders from 2021 to 2023 is in Table 2 below.
51 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the current status of plans to build the Tuas South extension of the MRT line; and (b) whether the two unused platforms at Gul Circle MRT station will be utilised under such plans.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Based on projections of travel demand, there are currently no plans to build a Mass Rapid Transit extension to Tuas South. The two unused platforms at Gul Circle Station will be activated should projected travel demand make the extension viable in future.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WS","content":"[(proc text) The following statement was made by the Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Koh Poh Koon) during Question Time for Question No 16 on “Impact of Escalating Hawker Stall Rentals on Food Affordability” at the Sitting on 9 September 2024: (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Koh Poh Koon): For those who have, for example, bid a very high price, such as $10,000 or $8,000, in their first tenancy term, this price will hold. But following their first tenancy term, that price will be adjusted to the assessed market rent, which is about $1,800 to $1,500, thereabout. So, that will help to make the price more sustainable for this hawker in the longer term over the next tenancy terms. [Please refer to \"Impact of Escalating Hawker Stall Rentals on Food Affordability\", Official Report, 9 September 2024, Vol 95, Issue 140, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
[(proc text) Written statement by Dr Koh Poh Koon circulated with leave of the Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5): (proc text)]
I wish to make the following factual correction to my reply to the supplementary question from Member Mr Yip Hon Weng during Question Time at the Sitting on 9 September 2024. My reply should read as follows:
The Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Koh Poh Koon): For those who have, for example, bid a very high price, such as $10,000 or $8,000, in their first tenancy term, this price will hold. But following their first tenancy term, that price will be adjusted to the assessed market rent, at which the median for non-subsidised cooked food stalls is about $1,200. So, that will help to make the price more sustainable for this hawker in the longer term over the next tenancy terms.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":6211,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Dr Tan See Leng","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240909/vernacular-Tan See Leng Energy 9Sep2024 -Chinese .pdf","fileName":"Tan See Leng Energy 9Sep2024 -Chinese .pdf"},{"vernacularID":6212,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Don Wee","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240909/vernacular-Don Wee Energy 9Sep2024_Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Don Wee Energy 9Sep2024_Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6213,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Dr Koh Poh Koon","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240909/vernacular-Koh Poh Koon Platform Workers 9Sep2024-Chinese (MOM).pdf","fileName":"Koh Poh Koon Platform Workers 9Sep2024-Chinese (MOM).pdf"},{"vernacularID":6214,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Yeo Wan Ling","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240909/vernacular-Yeo Wan Ling Platform Workers 9Sep2024 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Yeo Wan Ling Platform Workers 9Sep2024 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6215,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Joan Pereira","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240909/vernacular-Joan Pereira Platform Workers 9Sep2024 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Joan Pereira Platform Workers 9Sep2024 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6216,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Leong Mun Wai","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240909/vernacular-Leong Mun Wai Platform Workers 9Sep2024-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Leong Mun Wai Platform Workers 9Sep2024-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6217,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Sharael Taha","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240909/vernacular-9 Sept 2024 - Mr Sharael Taha - Platform Workers Bill.pdf","fileName":"9 Sept 2024 - Mr Sharael Taha - Platform Workers Bill.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6218,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240909/vernacular-9 Sept 2024 - AP Razwana Begum - Adj Motion.pdf","fileName":"9 Sept 2024 - AP Razwana Begum - Adj Motion.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6219,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240909/vernacular-AP Razwana Begum Tamil Portion of Speech 09 September 2024.pdf","fileName":"AP Razwana Begum Tamil Portion of Speech 09 September 2024.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}