1 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health (a) for the past eight years, what are the annual median and average lengths of service of foreign nurses in restructured hospitals; and (b) if the data is not available, whether there has been an increasing or decreasing trend in the lengths of service of foreign nurses.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Deputy Speaker, the length of service of foreign nurses in restructured hospitals has increased over the years.
Between 2014 and 2021, the median increased from five to eight years, whilst the average increased from seven to 10 years. The actual median and average figures should be higher as the existing data does not take into account nurses who switched hospitals but remained in the public healthcare sector.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Thank you, Sir. I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. Could I just ask what is the current shortfall in terms of foreign nurses that we are planning to hire?
Secondly, I think Minister Ong Ye Kung yesterday mentioned how we are ramping up our efforts to hire foreign nurses. So, could I ask whether there is a timeline for this and when do we expect to be able to meet this shortfall?
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam: Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for the questions. I wanted to go back to the points that had been raised in the discussion during the Healthier SG White Paper debate and the further Parliamentary Questions (PQs) that had been raised in the past. Minister Ong Ye Kung had also given an indication of these numbers, extensively, during the debate on the White Paper.
We are looking at, by 2030, to have 82,000 nurses, allied health and support care staff, up from the 58,000 that we have today. A large portion of these numbers would be for nurses. This is something that we have already been working on and the target is by 2030 to up these numbers. The clusters are doing their best to step up recruitment efforts.
Minister Ong had earlier indicated that even in as far as our local intake is concerned, we have looked at the intakes at the schools, the Institute of Technical Education (ITE), Polytechnics and Universities. This is also going to be increased over time. We have about 2,100 from them and we are looking at increasing to 2,300.
These are the different efforts that are being put in place. We have discussed this extensively at the White Paper debate. With all the efforts in place, we are hoping to see a better number. We are not just looking at the shortfall. It is also important for us to also see what other needs there may be. So, these are the aspects we look at for the efforts we are doing.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: I have those numbers, but those numbers include both local and foreign. I am asking if we have a number specifically for foreign nurses. I think we debated this before that the problem is that a lot of the foreign nurses have left. And that is why there is a huge burden on the local nurses now. I am just wondering what is the shortfall in terms of foreign nurses and how we intend to meet that shortfall.
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam: As I mentioned earlier, we do not only just look at shortfall and work towards just filling up the shortfall. We are also having to look at the demands of the public and what are the needs. We do not necessarily find it valuable to make that distinction.
As much as possible, we try and see what are the different avenues and channels for us to increase this intake and we are making efforts on that front. We have explained how we have worked with the clusters to see how we can see to the well-being of the nurses and improve the stature of their career, career paths as well as increasing the intake from the different schools. This is an aspect that we are doing and that will never be enough – to reach the 82,000 that we are looking for. Hence, we have to complement that with the efforts we are doing in recruitment of overseas nurses.
This is the multi-pronged approach that we are taking and this is something that will, hopefully, increase and improve the situation in time to come.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Last supplementary question, please, Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Just one last one. I know we are trying to increase the intake but it will take some time. If today, we increase the intake, it will be a couple of years down the road before we see the effects in the wards.
So, the fastest way to alleviate the problem is perhaps to see whether we can increase the hiring of foreign nurses. In a few weeks, a few months, we could hire a huge number that will help to alleviate the current problem. That is why I keep pushing for information on what is MOH's expected number of foreign nurses that we are hoping to hire and how we are hoping to reach that. Minister Ong Ye Kung shared yesterday some of the countries we are looking at.
With those plans out there in the public, some of the local nurses might feel a bit more assured that help is on the horizon and not three or four years away.
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam: I understand the concerns. We have had a lot of extensive debates. The Member has filed a lot of questions on this matter. I have also repeatedly explained what our approach is.
We are taking a multi-pronged approach. We are clearly speeding up our efforts. We have given an indication of timing, which is by 2030, to have 82,000 in total. We are looking at the specific avenues and different avenues. I also hope that the Member could assist to explain to some of the nurses whom he is in touch with, who are concerned about this situation, that we are doing whatever is necessary to retain the nurses who are within our healthcare system right now; we are doing what we can to increase the numbers.
That is the more important focus, rather than talk about just the shortfall. Because we are talking about different avenues and different things have to change over time. We need to adjust because what is important to us is that we meet the demands, we address the current concerns that the healthcare sector is facing right now. So, we will do whatever it takes in the different aspects – increasing the intake from the local workforce, as well as to increase our recruitment. That is something the Member is quite familiar with.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai, do you have a supplementary question?
\tMr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Yes, Deputy Speaker, thank you. May I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to reach 80,000, what is the plan? How many of them will be foreigners and how many of them will be locals?
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam: Deputy Speaker, I think I am repeating myself ad nauseum. I think Mr Leong Mun Wai was also present at the discussion of the Healthier SG White Paper, at the debate. And Mr Louis Ng has also filed several PQs on this. You may want to check our responses in response to those PQs.
As I have explained, we have a target of 82,000 of all workers – nurses, allied health as well as all the other necessary workers in the healthcare sector. We have already set the target by 2030 because we are working towards Healthier SG. This number is in different categories and what is important for us is that we address the demands, the needs of the sector as well as the needs of the community.
We have already explained in many of those questions that were put earlier, the different ways in which we are doing this. We are recruiting from overseas, we are improving the well-being of the nurses here, we are improving the career pathways, we are supporting them with the different job redesigns to facilitate their workflow. These are the various efforts. I hope that Members can also support us by assuring the healthcare workers that this is a matter that is very close to the heart of the Ministry. We have been engaging extensively with the clusters, we have been engaging extensively with the healthcare workers and trying to give them some respite.
This is a multi-pronged approach. Everyone has a role to play in this – MOH, the public – in helping to alleviate the concerns and the challenges that our healthcare workers are currently facing.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Educating Foreign Workers on Available Channels to Settle Wage Disputes and Laws against Illegal Assembly","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Manpower whether foreign workers in Singapore have been informed of (i) the available channels to seek recourse against their employers who failed to pay their salaries and (ii) the law against illegal assembly.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Zaqy Mohamad) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Deputy Speaker, to help Migrant Workers (MWs) overcome the unfamiliarity of working in a new country, MOM requires them to attend the Settling-in Programme, or SIP, within two weeks of their arrival in Singapore. Conducted in native languages, the SIP educates MWs comprehensively on their employment rights, support channels, as well as on lawful and responsible behaviour, including the law against unlawful assembly or procession in public places.
The education of MWs does not stop at the SIP. MOM has developed a comprehensive MW guide, monthly newsletters as well as various infographics in native languages on topics, such as salary payment and channels to seek help. MOM and its partners also routinely disseminate information through online and physical platforms, for example, FWMOMCare application, social media posts, roadshows as well as events, to remind MWs of their employment rights and encourage those with employment issues to seek help from MOM and the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) for salary claims.
MWs with salary arrears may also approach the Forward Assurance and Support Team (FAST) officers or Friends of ACE (FACE). These are volunteers at the dormitories. Or they can also inform MOM through the monthly salary survey on the FWMOMCare app. The majority of MWs are registered users of the app. Unions and NGOs, such as the Migrant Workers’ Centre which operates a hotline, are another source of support for MWs and can advise MWs on the avenues of help and work with MOM to render the necessary assistance to MWs.
The number of salary claims filed by MWs has come down significantly in recent years. On average, in 2022, TADM handles about 160 salary claims from MWs each month, compared to 410 in 2019, pre-COVID-19.
Nonetheless, we recognise the importance of timely payment of salaries to all workers and we will continue our efforts to arrest salary arrears early and assist all workers, both local and foreign, to promptly recover their owed salaries.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.
\tMr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Thank you. Sir, I am concerned that foreign workers choose to make public their personal grievances or disputes with the companies because of non-payment of their salaries. Whilst I am sympathetic towards their concern, may I ask the Senior Minister of State whether MOM would be working with MHA to take action against companies that fail to pay the salaries and also the workers who choose to take the law into their own hands and make public protests? Would MOM be working with the Police to prosecute such workers?
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: I gather that the Member is referring to the recent incident on 18 October 2022. Specific to the incident, I am unable to give too much detail as the Police investigations are still ongoing. What I will say is this: pertaining to salary claims, we take a very strong view and a strong principle that when a worker is owed salary, he must be paid. That is quite clear.
Of the 10 workers that were involved in the incident, five of them had salary claims. The other five and the rest of the employees in Zhengda Corporation actually have no salary claims. They are all okay and they were not owed any salary payments. So, to a certain extent, that is good.
For those who were owed salary payments, we have assisted them to settle all the payments. So, that has been settled, once they come to MOM and we tried to mediate. But, in fact, we go one step further. In this case, we also investigated their main contractor – because these are subcontractors servicing the main contractor. We found that the main contractor, Shanghai Chong Kee, owed salary payments to 268 MWs. So, we moved upstream and found out about that and we have been assisting the workers. As at 31 October, Shanghai Chong Kee had settled the owed payments and we are working with them on the payment schedule for the rest.
So, it is not that the employer had deliberately held back the payments but we understand that during these challenging times, sometimes, payments are delayed. I think we all know the challenges the construction sector is facing. So, we try to mediate and see how we can best come to a middle ground and settle. If we push too hard, the company folds and it is not good for the workers, too.
Rest assured that most of the payments have already been paid. The owed salaries are partially settled; and we are now settling the rest and there is an instalment plan being worked out. We will handle that aspect.
For public order, MHA is fully apprised of the incident and is doing investigations and will take appropriate actions if necessary.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): One way forward, in terms of this salary dispute, is to ensure that MWs are paid electronically. Could I ask the Senior Minister of State for an update on what percentage of MWs are now paid electronically and whether we can completely fill the gap and make it 100%?
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: I thank the Member for his question. Since April 2020, when we had the circuit breaker and we made the commitment that all workers were going to be paid, we introduced a requirement for all employers to pay salary electronically for their MWs, especially those who are residing in dormitories. Today, I would say that almost all employers are already doing so. And this is up from 75%, pre-COVID-19. So, I think we have made that improvement in the last couple of years.
\t
Among the small minority of employers who have yet to switch, some indicated administrative issues, while others cited workers' preference for receiving salary in cash. But I would say this, that almost all are now on electronic payment. So, we have made that progress and I just want to thank all the employers for working with us on this.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Inspections to Proactively Identify Rental Flats that Require Repairs or Maintenance","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for National Development whether an update can be provided on the implementation of HDB’s policy on conducting periodic inspections on a yearly basis to proactively identify rental flats which require repairs or maintenance.
\tThe Minister of State for National Development (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for National Development): Sir, HDB visits occupied rental flats annually to proactively identify those that require repairs or maintenance. However, when COVID-19 safe management measures (SMMs) were imposed, HDB had to suspend this practice and physical inspections were conducted in response to tenants' feedback.
As the SMMs were progressively lifted, HDB has been working to resume periodic inspections and is reviewing the approach to prioritise inspections based on the age of the flat and the profile of tenants. We will share more details on the revised approach when ready.
Tenants can continue to alert HDB to repair or maintenance issues. HDB will attend to these requests promptly and the cost of repairs is almost always borne fully by HDB.
Besides regular maintenance, rental flats undergo upgrading similar to sold flats, as part of programmes, such as the Lift Upgrading Programme and the Home Improvement Programme. In addition, there have been specific enhancement programmes for rental flats, such as the Lift Improvement and Facilities Enhancement for the elderly, called Project LIFE.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.
\tMs Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): I thank the Minister of State. I first want to acknowledge the wonderful support that is given to my division and our GRC as well, from the HDB Branch Office and the HQ rental division. They are very conscientious people.
On my house visits, though, even before COVID-19, I noticed that the preventive maintenance for issues, such as spalling concrete, peeling paint on the door gates and so on, I do not think the preventive maintenance happens annually or regularly. There could be a difference in perception leading to a lot of reactive kind of complaints for us at the Meet-the-People sessions by our residents.
So, I wonder what the cause of this is. If, indeed, the constraint is resource or maybe such duties need to be outsourced, then could the resources be granted to the people on the ground?
\t
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I assure the Member that we do the proactive annual inspection. Wherever we can, we will help as much as possible. Nevertheless, those areas, for example, what the Member shared, the gate and also relating to maintenance and repairs of internal walls, fittings, fixtures, including doors and gates, these are where tenants are responsible for.
What we do for exceptional cases – for example, for elderly tenants – is we will work with community organisations, just like the grassroots organisation in the Member's area, to see how we can partner and work together with them and see how we can help these tenants.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.
\tMr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast): Question No 4, Sir.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Perhaps, Mr Ang, if you could give way, I will call Parliamentary Question No 5.
\tMr Ang Wei Neng: Yes, Sir.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Recycling Rate Targets by Waste Type","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in relation to the Zero Waste Masterplan’s target of achieving an overall recycling rate of 70% by 2030 (a) what is the breakdown of our recycling rate targets by waste type; (b) what is the target recycling rate for plastics; and (c) what are the pathways to raising the plastic recycling rate from 6% today to the intended 2030 target.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): In a resource- and carbon-constrained world, recycling enables us to reduce emissions and achieve a circular economy. Under the Zero Waste Masterplan, we have set a target to achieve a national recycling rate of 70% by 2030, which is supported by targets to increase the domestic recycling rate to 30% by 2030 and the non-domestic recycling rate to 81% by 2030.
We are focusing efforts on three priority waste streams, namely, packaging waste, including plastics, electronic waste and food waste. Plastics are generated in large quantities, but the recycling rate is low. We have various initiatives to drive plastics recycling on both the domestic and industrial fronts. The National Recycling Programme caters to residential premises, while the Mandatory Packaging Reporting scheme encourages companies to reduce the amount of packaging they use. Under this scheme, large producers of packaged products and retailers must report the amount of packaging they introduce into Singapore annually and develop 3R – or reduce, reuse, recycle – plans for packaging materials, including plastics.
Members of the public will have more opportunities to contribute to plastics recycling under the upcoming beverage container return scheme, which will encourage the return and recycling of beverage containers, such as plastic bottles. This scheme is expected to be in place by mid-2024 and will help cultivate recycling habits amongst the community and enable us to aggregate clean and high-quality recyclables. Similar schemes in countries, such as Norway, Sweden and Lithuania, have achieved return rates of 80% or higher.
Agencies are also exploring innovative solutions with the private sector that will allow us to recycle more plastics. One such initiative is chemical recycling which can process plastics that cannot be mechanically recycled, such as contaminated single-use plastics, and convert these into feedstock to manufacture new products like plastics, chemicals and even sustainable aviation fuels.
We will need everyone's collective efforts to reduce, reuse and recycle, in order to achieve our national recycling rate target.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
\tMr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just one supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. I am not sure I caught the answer to the question in the original Parliamentary Question (PQ), in terms of the target —
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Chua, could I invite you to speak up please, or speak into the microphone? Thank you.
\tMr Chua Kheng Wee Louis: Sure. Specific to the original PQ that I asked on the recycling rates by category, I asked that because if you look at the plastics, for example, it is only about 6%; whereas for categories, such as ferrous metal, it is already at 99%. So, in terms of getting to the 2030 target recycling rate, what would be the breakdown for some of these targets?
Specifically, for plastics, given that there have been studies which indicate that it is technically feasible to undertake chemical recycling here in Singapore, what are the plans around this in terms of implementation?
\t
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: First, I must clarify that I am answering the Member's question because there is only one question; there is no amended question.
My reply is, firstly, that under our Zero Waste Masterplan, we have an overall recycling rate target of 70%. This is accompanied by a domestic recycling target rate of 30% and a non-domestic target recycling rate of 81%.
The Member is right to say that, in the case of certain waste streams like ferrous metals, or construction and demolition waste, for instance, we have successfully achieved close to 100% recycling rate. As I have noted earlier, we have identified and are focusing on three priority waste streams – which are the packaging waste, that includes plastic; e-waste; as well as food waste – because these are generated in large volumes and we expect these volumes to likely increase, for instance, electrical and electronic waste. So, we are focusing and targeting on these. They are large volumes, but the recycling rate, as the Member has also rightly pointed out, is low. And we do track and publish these recycling rates.
But we also recognise that for certain waste streams, they are interconnected. For instance, when we implement the beverage container return scheme, which will cover plastic bottles as well as metal cans, the recycling rate for these used beverage containers will increase and is likely to reduce the contamination rate in our blue recycling bins or the recycling chutes; which means that the recycling rates for the other waste streams in the recycling bins or recycling chutes would increase.
And that is why we think that by having an overall recycling rate target, it provides us with a streamlined approach to track the progress we are making in terms of achieving our vision of a zero-waste nation.
Notwithstanding that, even though we do not have specific targets for certain waste streams, when we implement initiatives to drive the recycling rates for various waste streams – for instance, e-waste – we, actually, do set targets under the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme.
For e-waste, for instance, there is a collection target of 60% for large household appliances and 20% for the rest of the covered products. Similarly, for the beverage container return scheme, in countries that have implemented it, they have achieved collection or return rates of 80% and above. We are, currently, consulting the relevant stakeholders to determine the target return rates that we will set for the Beverage Container Return Scheme. When we implement an EPR for packaging waste, which we are planning to do, we will also similarly set targets for this.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: No further supplementary questions? We shall move on to Mr Lim Biow Chuan.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Educating Businesses on Protection of Customers' Data and Enhancing Punishment Against Hacking","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) whether IMDA can do more to educate businesses on the need to protect their customers' data from being hacked; and (b) whether the punishment against illegal hackers of such data can be enhanced.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information (Mr Tan Kiat How) (for the Minister for Communications and Information): Mr Deputy Speaker, our laws make clear the obligations that businesses must meet when they collect and store customers' data. In addition, the Personal Data Protection Commission, or PDPC, and the Cyber Security Agency, or CSA, have published resources on their websites to educate organisations, including businesses, on the importance of data protection and cybersecurity.
The PDPC's \"Guide to Data Protection Practices for ICT Systems\" compiles a set of good data protection practices that organisations can implement. PDPC has also published the common causes of breaches for IT systems, cloud-based applications and other IT systems, so that businesses are aware of the risks they face. CSA's website also has cybersecurity toolkits available for free, to guide organisations on the cybersecurity practices to protect themselves from cyberattacks and data breaches.
The Government has gone beyond education and raising awareness and is doing more to encourage businesses to adopt good cybersecurity and data protection measures. SMEs may participate in the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) and PDPC's Data Protection Essentials programme (DPE). It helps them implement baseline data protection and cybersecurity practices, such as antivirus, firewall, data back-up and encryption, with support from a curated panel of service providers. CSA has also launched the Cyber Trust and Cyber Essentials marks, which businesses can apply for and be recognised for good cybersecurity measures.
\tUnauthorised access to computer material is punishable under the Computer Misuse Act or CMA. Perpetrators are liable, upon conviction, for a fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or both. Knowingly obtaining or dealing in personal information that has been obtained through unauthorised access is also punishable under the CMA, with a fine of up to $10,000 or imprisonment of up to three years, or both. Penalties are more severe for a second or subsequent conviction.
These two offences under CMA are also listed as serious offences under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act. Persons who knowingly acquire, possess, use, conceal or transfer the benefits of such offences, or assist another to retain such benefits, are liable to a fine not exceeding $500,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, or to both. The Courts can also confiscate any benefit arising from both offences under this Act.
The Government takes illegal hacking very seriously and will ensure our laws remain effective in the development of a safe and secure cyberspace. Notwithstanding these penalties, it is, ultimately, the responsibility of businesses to be vigilant and adopt proper cybersecurity and data protection measures to keep their customers’ data safe.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.
\tMr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Sir, last year, it was reported that a total of $2.68 million was collected in fines for personal data protection breaches. And last month, it was reported that 2.6 million accounts of an online marketplace company were hacked and the data sold on the dark web. Is IMDA satisfied that enough has been done to encourage companies to protect the data, because it seems like this is going on and on?
For the second supplementary question, have any hackers been caught? If so, would IMDA be willing to publish more information so as to send the signal to hackers or hackers-to-be that there are serious consequences that they have to face for hacking into people's data?
Mr Tan Kiat How: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for raising pertinent points and it is an appreciation of the context that we are operating in. More businesses, more industries and individuals are spending more time online; we are putting our personal data in different systems; we are transacting more online in terms of B2B transactions, B2B2C and across P2P as well. So, it is the nature of our times that we get more digital and more online. That is why we see an increased focus on the need for good cybersecurity and data protection measures.
In fact, the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) was updated and amended in 2020, a couple of years ago, to reflect this growing trend that we see. And one important update to the PDPA was the enhancement of the penalty framework, which took effect from 1 October 2022. Previously, the financial penalty cap which may be imposed on organisations for breaches under the PDPA was up to $1 million. With the amendment and update, which came into effect on 1 October 2022, it is up to 10% of an organisation's annual turnover in Singapore or organisations with annual local turnover exceeding $10 million, whichever is higher.
This signals the Government's and I think our economy and society's focus on good data protection.
Having said that, I think going after the organisations after the data breach is almost like catching the horse after the barn door has opened and the horse has dashed out. What is more important is ex ante practices to even prevent the data from being exfiltrated or taken out of the organisation.
That is where the important philosophy and the fundamental principle of the amendment of the PDPA in 2020 put emphasis on that, which is about accountability. It is a fundamental principle of the PDPA – the organisations have to take responsibility for personal data under their possession or control. They have to be answerable to not just the regulatory authorities, their business partners, but, importantly, to the individuals and their clients and customers whose data is being entrusted to be kept under the control or possession of the organisation or business.
So, to Mr Lim's point on whether we are satisfied, I think this is something we have to continue working on. I call on all businesses and organisations – and I encourage them – to take this seriously. There are many resources and toolkits available on the website, including many different schemes, to help businesses start on their journey or enhance their cybersecurity or personal data protection.
In terms of transparency, as Mr Lim alluded to, we have the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) that publishes all the different decisions on the data breaches investigations on their website. This is not just to have a salutary impact on other businesses and organisations to take this seriously, but also for other businesses and organisations to understand the good practices of where other organisations have come short and to incorporate some of these good practices into their operations and business environment.
I encourage all businesses to take a look at what has been published on PDPC's website on the breaches around the PDPC regulatory regime.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: No supplementary questions? There is a supplementary question. Mr Lim Biow Chuan.
\tMr Lim Biow Chuan: Sorry, Sir. I just wanted to ask the Senior Minister of State whether any hackers have been caught and will he say something about the punishment.
\tMr Tan Kiat How: In terms of the hackers, I presume Mr Lim is asking in relation to the Computer Misuse Act – rather than the Personal Data Protection Act. Sorry, I thought he was referring to the PDPA and the PDPC.
The Computer Misuse Act was last amended in 2018 and we are consistently making sure it remains effective. It was already amended in 2017 to allow the authorities to handle the increasing scale and complexity of cybercrimes, which include hacking, as Mr Lim alluded to, as well as the evolving tactics of cybercriminals. One of the notable amendments was the criminalised act of dealing in hacked personal information.
On the specifics of the hackers being caught and some of the penalties that have been meted out, I do not have the specific information now because it is under the Computer Misuse Act. If Mr Lim is interested, do file a separate Parliamentary Question and we will take it up.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Insurance Claims Declined due to Difference in Definition of Medical Terms","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health (a) since 2020, how many appeals have been received from Integrated Shield Plan insurance policyholders regarding their difficulties in making a claim that arises from the insurers’ definition of medical terminologies which diverge from how members of the public, laypersons and medical professionals may interpret the same terms; and (b) what recourse do affected policyholders have.
\t
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Minister for Health): Deputy Speaker, MOH does not track the number of appeals made by Integrated Shield Plan (IP) policyholders against an insurer’s interpretation of definition of medical terminologies.
Policyholders who feel that their claims have been unfairly rejected and are unable to reach a satisfactory resolution with their insurer may seek recourse from the Clinical Claims Resolution Process (CCRP) if the IP claim disputes are clinical in nature. Policyholders may also approach the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (FIDReC) for assistance with other types of disputes.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for her answer. I declare that I am a medical doctor at a public hospital.
Sir, in The Straits Times Forum on 7 October 2022, an insurer was reported to have rejected a genuine claim on a technicality because the wording did not match a keyword, even though laypersons, healthcare professionals and the customer's own legal advisor felt the claim was correct. The company eventually admitted the claim. I have met Clementi residents and fellow Singaporeans facing similar difficulties.
Can I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, first, when such wrong decisions are overturned on appeal, is there any requirement for the insurer to look back at earlier cases to see if there were other legitimate, valid claims that were incorrectly denied?
Second, I have met fellow Singaporeans whose IP insurers said the hospital bill needed particular words or phrases in order for a genuine claim to be allowed. This became a problem for some patients using their private insurance at a public hospital, because the public hospital billing format is standardised and may not match the insurer's technicalities and technical requirements. What recourse do these patients have and would MOH be willing to look at this further to see if these are isolated cases or reflect a more systemic concern?
Because, Mr Deputy Speaker, we must not have a situation where a genuine claim cannot go through just because the customer is less literate, less eloquent and does not have access to their own legal team.
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam: I thank the Member for the question. I think these are legitimate concerns, especially if it involves laypersons who may not have access to legal advice on the matter.
MOH and the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) work very closely in exercising regulatory oversight over the IP insurers. And MOH and MAS expect IP insurers to treat the policyholders fairly. So, when MAS is alerted of any unfair claims or mishandling of practices through its own ongoing supervision of insurers or through complaints received, it will investigate and take the necessary action to pursue this matter with the insurers. And part of it is to also ask the insurers to review past cases and compensate the policyholder when necessary.
Dr Tan also asked about the recourse that is available to the policyholders in such situations when there is difficulty in processing their claims. I have explained earlier the two platforms for the recourse that the policyholders have. One, it is the Clinical Claims Resolution Process (CCRP) if the IP claim disputes are clinical in nature. The other one is through FIDReC, where it includes other types of disputes. FIDReC is an independent institution and it is set up specifically to handle disputes involving all types of retail, financial products and services. So, they are best-placed to deal with these situations. They also provide mediation and adjudication services. This is something very helpful to the policyholders.
There is also CCRP, as I mentioned earlier, which is administered by the Academy of Medicine Singapore. It helps to deal specifically when there are issues relating to clinical matters pursuant to the IP plans.
At the end of the day, I think the first step is to go back to the insurers and see how it can be resolved. Because each IP provider would have their own dispute resolution process. If there is, indeed, some difficulty and unfairness, they can go through these two dispute resolution processes. Alternatively, if Dr Tan is aware of any specific cases, please refer them to us.
On his point about whether we will be looking into this, if there are specific cases that can be referred to MOH, we will definitely take a look and see how we can improve the processes to facilitate the claims made by policyholders.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Complaints of Noise and Smell from Live Chickens in HDB and Private Residential Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for National Development (a) for the past five years, what is the number of complaints received pertaining to the noise and smell generated from live chickens located in HDB estates and private residential estates respectively; and (b) whether there will be a review of chicken rearing policy in HDB flats, private residential apartments and private landed residential properties.
\t
\tThe Senior Minister of State for National Development (Mr Tan Kiat How) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Deputy Speaker, from 2017 to 2021, agencies and Town Councils received a total of about 2,400 and 1,700 pieces of feedback about chickens in HDB and private residential estates respectively.
To mitigate the risk of avian disease and to safeguard human and animal health, we, generally, limit the number of poultry that can be reared on any premises on a non-commercial basis to 10.
But for HDB flats, the rule is stricter and the keeping of poultry is not allowed for public health reasons and to manage disamenities. When HDB gets complaints about chicken rearing in HDB flats, we work closely with agencies to engage the flat owners to make alternative arrangements to rehome their chickens where necessary.
Private residential owners who keep chickens on their property are also urged to do their part to minimise any inconveniences to their neighbours, such as noise and smell. Under the Community Dispute Management Framework, disputing parties can seek mediation at the Community Mediation Centre or, in more intractable cases, refer the matter to the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal.
NParks will continue to work with our partners to raise public awareness on responsible pet ownership. NParks and HDB review pet ownership policies regularly to safeguard public health, while balancing the needs of different segments of the community.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.
\t
\tMr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I hope that the ban on chicken or live chicken imports from Malaysia have not prompted more Singaporeans to rear more chickens in their homes, especially private homes. But during my home visits to a private estate in Nanyang, I definitely experienced an increase in the number of complaints. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State so that I can understand correctly. The Senior Minister of State said that there were 2,100 complaints about chickens in private estates, compared to 1,700 in HDB estates. Which means that – okay, so we have more. Sorry, we have 1,700 in private estates.
I understand that, currently, we allow private estate home owners to have up to 10 chickens in the household. I wonder whether the Government is prepared to review the number so as to reduce the number of complaints about chickens.
My second supplementary question is, how many of the complaints have ended up being resolved and how many complaints have ended up going to the mediation centre, as explained by the Senior Minister of State?
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Mr Deputy Speaker, we do not track the number of chickens in houses. Just to clarify the point in the Member's question, I said that over the last five years, as asked by the Member, a total of 2,400 pieces of feedback were about chickens in HDB estates and 1,700 pieces of feedback in the last five years were for private residential estates. Just to clarify the point.
Whether we will see more chickens, I do not know. Personally, I have not come across many of such cases. NParks, HDB and MND do not track the number of chickens we have in residential properties in Singapore.
As for the Member's question on whether most of these issues have been resolved, I think many of them are between neighbours, especially when you are talking about the feedback around chickens in private residential estates. We do not track how many have gone to the Community Mediation Centre and how many have been resolved through that process, but we understand that many of the complaints are between neighbours and, together with the local advisors, they come together and talk through the issues as a community.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: I will take Mr Louis Ng and then Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Thank you, Sir. I feel I should join this debate. Could I just ask, on a serious note, specifically, under what legislation do we ban the keeping of chickens in HDB flats? Because I do believe we have been challenged before and maybe it is under the Memorandum of Lease that the people who buy HDB flats signed. But could I just ask, specifically, which legislation prevents this?
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Mr Deputy Speaker, I think there are a few parts to that question that I think is useful for me to clarify. One is the role of NParks, which looks at this from the point of view of public health concerns. We know there are diseases that can jump from animal hosts to humans – zoonotic diseases – and this is something we pay a lot of attention to. The other concern, from NParks' point of view, is really about the welfare of the animals – whether there are abuses or cruelty to animals. Those are the things that NParks looks after.
In terms of HDB, it is more specific to HDB's Memorandum of Lease. Flat owners are not allowed to keep any animal and not allowed to keep chickens under the Memorandum of Lease in the flat, or any part of the common area of the building, unless approved by HDB.
And to add on to the point that Mr Ng is also alluding to, instances of HDB residents keeping chickens in the flats are actually rare. If there are such cases, please let us know, we will work with the agencies to advise the owners to make alternative arrangements to home the chickens.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: The last supplementary question on this, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, please.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Thank you. I have two quick supplementary questions. The first is to obtain the assurance from the Senior Minister of State that the standard operating procedure is that the first resort is for mediation, rather than slapping the violators with any kind of fine. And I mention this because, I recall, as a child, going through experiments where you would hatch chickens from eggs and you would keep them in the flat while they grew. We do not want to penalise young children and students who are conducting little experiments in this fashion.
The second question has to do with whether the Ministry has thought about what happens when there are community chickens and in particular, roosters. And I mention this because, in Sengkang, we had incidences of reports of community roosters and, as you can imagine, no one necessarily lays claim to these roosters. Does NParks then intervene to assist the Town Council in managing early rooster crowing?
\tMr Deputy Speaker: A last word on the matter, Senior Minister of State.
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Yes, I am surprised there is a fair bit of interest around chickens today. On Assoc Prof Lim's first supplementary question, indeed, we do not resort to fines and enforcement penalties as a first resort. Often, if it is a community case, we do want to bring the different parties together, especially the advisors with the grassroots volunteers, the community leaders and the neighbours, to come together to talk about it and see how we can come to an accommodation, especially about chickens in private residential properties.
There is no intent to go after any students or anyone who hatch chickens at home. That is not the intent. First and foremost, I would like to reiterate that from NParks' point of view, it is really about public health, safeguarding all of our health, especially when it comes to zoonotic diseases. And secondly, whether the animal is treated well or if there is abuse or cruelty – the issue of animal welfare.
On Assoc Prof Lim's second supplementary question around the community rooster, perhaps I could seek a clarification from Assoc Prof Lim, just to understand a bit more about where he is coming from and the specific case he cited in Sengkang, because I am not familiar with it. Is it something the Member is supportive of – to have the community rooster, but for it to be better taken care of, or is he asking NParks to come and do something about the rooster?
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Just to clarify, in the end, as you can imagine, in the community situation, there are those that are pro-rooster and anti-rooster. As it turns out, in the end, the rooster was removed. But I am wondering whether NParks has standard advice for this kind of situations.
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Just to clarify, Mr Deputy Speaker. Was the rooster removed by NParks?
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: I believe it was by the Town Council, in collaboration with NParks.
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Assoc Prof Lim for the clarification. I think he reflects the tensions that we all face as advisors and as Members of Parliament on the ground. Different segments of the community, different segments of our residents, have different desires and preferences. And, oftentimes, as Government agencies, we do want to work with the local advisors and, in this case, the Town Council, to see how we can amicably resolve it.
Removing the rooster may be one option but there are many other ways of finding ways of accommodating. For example, if it is about rooster crowing – some roosters crow even when the sun is not rising, thinking that the sun rises because of it – we can consider managing the noise by relocating the rooster or, in the case of private estate homes, to encourage owners to cover the pen with a cloth, so that the roosters do not crow or fight with one another.
There are many ways to tackle the issue. Ultimately, the assurance that we give to members of the public and our residents is that we want to work together with them, different segments of the community. At the end of the day, it is about our home, our neighbourhood, and we want to see how we can work together.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Subsidies and Accreditation for Singapore International Schools Sited Outside Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"9 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry provides any subsidies and accreditation to Singapore international schools located in cities outside of Singapore.
\tThe Minister of State for Education (Ms Gan Siow Huang) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Deputy Speaker, MOE provides funding and teaching support to the Singapore International School in Hong Kong (SISHK).
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Thank you for the response. I am just wondering if we could get some numbers in terms of – of course, keeping in mind that these numbers are not strictly comparable due to price differences – cross-country prices. But is there a percentage of subsidies extended to international schools? And is there a distinction between such support for the school as an aggregate or is it directed specifically to reducing the fees paid by Singaporeans abroad.
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: The subsidy given to Singaporean students in the Singapore International School in Hong Kong is an absolute quantum. It is used for them to offset part of the school fees.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, go ahead.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Just very quickly, is there a strategic reason why Hong Kong and not any of the other international schools?
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: The Singapore International School in Hong Kong was set up in the 1990s at a time when there were many Singaporean adults who were working in Hong Kong with a sizeable number of children who wanted to have a Singapore-style and Singapore curriculum type of education there. MOE then extended assistance to the community in Hong Kong so that this would ease the Singaporean students' integration into our education system when they return to Singapore.
We look at the demand and while there are many Singaporeans working overseas in many large cities, we understand that not all are staying in the same place and some cities are large. Secondly, not all parents want a Singapore-style and Singapore curriculum type of education for their children. A lot of the consideration is driven by the demand from the parents. And, of course, we also consider the resources needed, the resources in terms of educators as well as funding, that have to be made available to these international schools.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: No other supplementary questions? Dr Lim Wee Kiak.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Infrastructural Plans for Increased Reliance on Low-carbon Hydrogen Fuel","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"10 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Trade and Industry with the new plans for increased reliance on low-carbon hydrogen fuel to address our power needs (a) what sources will the hydrogen come from; (b) how will the Government prepare our infrastructure to transport and store hydrogen; (c) whether the potential increase in spending on infrastructure will lead to significant cost increases for consumers; and (d) how will the Government work with regional countries to encourage the take-up and production rate of hydrogen for energy use.
\tThe Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Low Yen Ling) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Deputy Speaker, global developments surrounding low-carbon hydrogen have accelerated significantly in recent years. A growing pipeline of production projects from around the world is being announced. Key technologies that enable the transportation and use of hydrogen in various carrier forms, such as ammonia, are also expected to become commercially ready in the coming years.
Given the strong momentum, low-carbon hydrogen is showing increasing potential to be a broad-based decarbonisation pathway for Singapore, especially for our power sector. Nevertheless, there still remain uncertainties in its technological as well as supply chain development, and we will take a phased approach towards its adoption, including pacing significant investments in public infrastructure, accordingly.
Our immediate priority is to start gaining experience in the importing, storage, distribution and handling of hydrogen through small-scale pathfinder projects because these will help our industry, workers as well as the Government build up skills and capabilities to design infrastructure in a way that is safe, land efficient as well as scalable. The projects will also allow us to co-create solutions with the industry and develop rules and regulations to enable hydrogen supply chains in Singapore.
To enable widespread deployment of hydrogen in Singapore, new infrastructure, or the retrofitting of existing infrastructure, will be required. Such infrastructure will likely include import terminals that can unload hydrogen, large storage facilities and a distribution network to get the hydrogen to its end-use sites.
In developing the long-term infrastructure development roadmap, we will need to strike a careful balance between the pace of roll out to enable decarbonisation and the cost. To that end, we will take into consideration a range of factors, including the pace of technological and supply chain development of low-carbon hydrogen and the relative attractiveness of hydrogen vis-à-vis other low-carbon alternatives. We will also identify synergies for hydrogen adoption across different sectors and applications, to create greater economies of scale and to derive savings.
Besides domestic infrastructure, we also need to establish regional and global low-carbon hydrogen supply chains, so that we can import the hydrogen we need. Singapore adopts a diversified portfolio in importing our energy to ensure security and resilience, and we will take the same approach for hydrogen. Where we import from and in what quantities will depend on a few factors, such as the availability of exports, costs and the need for diversification in sources.
We are working closely with our international partners to enable these supply chains. Singapore has signed several MOUs with countries that have made significant strides in their hydrogen efforts. Together, we will collaborate on areas, such as advancing interoperable and mutually recognised guarantees of origin certifications for low-carbon hydrogen, facilitating the physical movement of hydrogen across the borders and joint R&D efforts to overcome technological challenges.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Lim Wee Kiak.
\tDr Lim Wee Kiak (Sembawang): Sir, let me thank Minister of State Low Yen Ling for the reply. The Government recently also announced that hydrogen could supply up to half of our power needs by 2050. Can MTI now share more on how this can be achieved and what is Singapore's target for the adoption of low-carbon hydrogen? How much hydrogen is Singapore expected to import in 2050? And to meet this net-zero goal by 2050, how soon and how fast can we expect to scale up hydrogen adoption, especially green hydrogen?
\tMs Low Yen Ling: I want to thank the Member, Dr Lim Wee Kiak, for his supplementary questions. Hydrogen will form an important part of our nation's long-term, low-emission development strategy and effort to fight climate change – a topic that we spent four hours talking about and debating during yesterday's Sitting.
In our strategy for the use of hydrogen, we envision, like what Dr Lim mentioned, that this fuel, hydrogen, has the potential to contribute up to 50% of Singapore's power needs by 2050, if technological advancements materialise.
However, like I shared earlier, there still remain some uncertainties in two areas, the technological development as well as the supply chain. Supply chain development is critical because it involves transportation and storage. We will take a very phased approach towards adoption, bearing in mind the cost – not just the cost of transporting, but also storing and distributing – and including placing a significant investment in our public infrastructure.
Therefore, we have, yet, to set the targets for the adoption of low-carbon hydrogen at this juncture. But for the time being, we will focus on taking very concrete steps in the near term to build up our skills, capabilities as well as our experience in four key areas: importing, storage, distribution and the safe handling of hydrogen.
And we will do so by embarking on smaller-scale projects. As we do so, we want to co-create the solutions with the industry. And as we do so, we want to develop rules and regulations to enable that hydrogen supply chain in Singapore.
As we embark on all these small-scale projects, this will allow us to scale up our workers, as well as the industries and also the Public Service officers in the Government to build up our capabilities in this important area.
As we do so, it will help us to design the infrastructure that has three very important attributes. We need an infrastructure that is safe, land-efficient for the storage of the hydrogen and also scalable. In developing our long-term infrastructure development plan for hydrogen, we are very mindful to keep our eyes and ears on the developments globally on what is the emerging technology in this area that is cost-effective and safe, and to strike a very careful balance between the speed of the rollout and the cost.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Monetary Policy and Targeted Measures to Rein in Food and Accommodation Prices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Prime Minister in light of Singapore’s core inflation at 5.3% in September 2022 being at the highest since November 2008 (a) whether Singapore will consider tightening its monetary policy again; and (b) whether the Government will consider more targeted measures to rein in food and accommodation prices.
\tThe Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, MAS began tightening monetary policy in October 2021. And it was among the earlier central banks in the world to do so, at a time when the pickup in global inflation was still quite modest. In October, it tightened monetary policy for a fifth time in the last 13 months, by re-centring up the mid-point of the Singapore dollar nominal effective exchange rate (S$NEER) policy band.
MAS expects core inflation to stay firm for the rest of this year and into the first half of 2023, before slowing more discernibly in the second half.
Monetary policy takes time to affect inflation. The effects of MAS' successive monetary policy moves are still working their way through the economy. It will also take time for external- and domestic-induced price pressures to ease more discernibly.
The cumulative effects of the five monetary policy tightening moves are estimated to dampen core inflation by an average of 1.5 percentage points each year, over 2022 to 2023.
MAS will continue to deploy monetary policy as appropriate, to ensure medium-term price stability, while recognising near-term risks to economic growth from a slowing and uncertain global economy.
The Member asked about whether the Government will consider more targeted measures to rein in food and accommodation prices. On food, the Minister for Trade and Industry had, in October 2022, spoken about how (a) the appreciating Singapore dollar, (b) the diversification of Singapore's food supply sources and (c) Government assistance to lower-income and vulnerable Singaporeans should mitigate the effects of higher global food prices.
As for accommodation prices, MND, HDB and MAS have, as Members know, taken steps to promote sustainable conditions in the property market. The Government has also increased market subsidies to ensure that prices of new HDB flats remain affordable, as well as increased supply in both the public and private housing markets.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): I thank the Minister of State for his answer. Can the Minister of State clarify our exchange rate policy and how MAS manages monetary policy? If monetary policy is tightened, would the Government ensure that the impact on unemployment in Singapore would not be adversely affected and how would MAS work with MOM on this?
\tMr Alvin Tan: Deputy Speaker, I thank the hon Member for his supplementary questions. First of all, let me start with the second question. Inflation affects everyone – employees, employers alike. We are now undergoing a very dynamic, volatile and challenging global environment. Employers must, on their own and also together with our partners in the tripartite arrangement, make their companies more productive, so that they can pay their employees more to cope with inflation.
Employers, employees and the Government work with tripartite partners to press on and we work together with all of these partners to transform our economy, to raise our productivity and also to turn all of the current challenges, which are not just faced by Singapore, but globally, into opportunities.
We have launched 23 Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs). These ITMs help to sharpen our competitiveness, for both our companies and our workers. They help to deepen skills and also set the stage for us to raise productivity.
All this, in turn, will, hopefully, also help us to raise and to have more and better wages.
The Government is helping employers by restructuring businesses and also upskilling employees. We have a couple of different schemes, including Workforce Singapore's Job Redesign and Reskilling programmes; Enterprise Singapore has the Enterprise Development Grant, as well as the Productivity Solutions Grant.
And on the whole, on the macroeconomic picture, our Economic Development Board is continuing to attract investments, even within this very volatile economic environment. That helps. And the profile of investments has now shifted also to higher value-added, more innovative investments into Singapore and that will help to provide for, create more higher paying jobs, as well as good wage growth.
On the Member's first question about the fundamentals and the basics of our monetary policy, I thought it was useful to clarify to Members of this House, the market, general public, as well as students, MAS' unique approach to monetary policy, given that the Parliamentary Question (PQ) is also related to monetary policy.
Yesterday, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim said in this House, and I quote, \"I am befuddled because even now, the Government routinely alters levers or policies, such as the interest rate where there is uncertainty on a year-to-year basis about the level of interest rate\". I wanted to clarify that, unlike most central banks which target interest rates, MAS uses the nominal exchange rate as the intermediate target of monetary policy.
This is a very unique approach to monetary policy. In fact, MAS' exchange rate policy is Singapore's only form of monetary policy. As Singapore's monetary policy is centred on the exchange rate and our capital markets are open, domestic interest rates are largely determined by global interest rates and foreign exchange rate market expectations of the Singapore dollar.
So, I thought it would be very useful for us to just clarify that MAS' unique approach to monetary policy is centred on the exchange rate monetary policy.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
\tMr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of State two supplementary questions. First, one indicator of whether MAS has done enough to tighten policies is to look at money supply growth. Does the Minister of State happen to have data, figures about the money growth in Singapore's economy in 2020 to 2021, and what is the latest in 2022?
The second question, what is the impact of the accumulation of reserves by MAS over the last two years on the inflation picture? Does MAS or the Minister of State have any opinion or views to share on that? Because we have been accumulating reserves at a much higher, faster rate, than in the past.
We all know, by now, that in 2021, MAS had accumulated more than $200 billion of reserves. Our normal rate of accumulation is about $40 billion to $50 billion a year. So, what is the impact of that? Does MAS or the Minister of State have any views to share on that?
\tMr Alvin Tan: Deputy Speaker, I thank the hon Member Mr Leong Mun Wai for his supplementary questions. I invite him to file a separate PQ. But I think MAS' monetary policy, as we mentioned, is very much exchange rate driven. Right now, central banks all over the world have, by and large, also tightened monetary policy to combat inflation. I think what we are trying to do is also to make sure that, in a very dynamic environment, we monitor the rate of increase in terms of prices, as I mentioned in my reply. But I invite the Member to file a separate PQ.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Last supplementary question. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): I thank the Minister of State. Since I was mentioned, I thought it would be useful to clarify with a follow-up question. Does MAS actually believe that its targeting of the exchange rate – which I understand, indeed, is the MAS' intermediate target; I teach that in my classes – does not actually have any influence on the short-term interest rate prevailing in the money markets?
\tMr Alvin Tan: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. As I mentioned earlier on, MAS' monetary policy is focused on – in fact, it is our only approach towards monetary policy – our exchange rate-based policy. Interest rates are set by financial institutions. MAS, because of our open trade architecture, we use our exchange rate, not our interest rate, to manage inflation. So, I think that is critical.
The global environment, as the hon Member knows, is very fluid. That is why, over the course of a year, we have been very careful, very calibrated in our approach towards monetary policy. We have tightened monetary policy five times. We will deploy monetary policy as appropriate and as the circumstances change.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Public Trustee's Role in Assisting Caregivers of Individuals without Lasting Powers of Attorney to Access Government Grants","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Law whether the Public Trustee may be empowered to provide caregivers of individuals who have not made Lasting Powers of Attorney and have become mentally disabled, with access to Government grants provided for the benefit of the mentally disabled individuals, such as Assurance Package for GST and the GST Voucher Scheme.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Minister for Law): Deputy Speaker, a number of Government payouts, such as the Assurance Package for GST and the GST-Voucher Scheme (GSTV), are disbursed directly to the bank accounts of individuals via PayNow-NRIC or direct bank transfers.
Where individuals have lost mental capacity, but do not have a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA), they require protection against unauthorised withdrawals from their bank accounts. Deputyship offers such protection by ensuring that the deputy is only granted powers in the specific decisions where the individual lacks capacity, for example, by allowing a deputy to withdraw the Government payouts credited to the mentally incapacitated individual's bank account for the benefit of the said individual.
\t As shared with the Member during the Sitting last month, the Family Justice Courts (FJC) have introduced a Simplified Track, which makes deputyship applications easier, faster and more affordable. FJC has also worked with DBS to create a further expedited track for caregivers who require emergency funding. Under this process, caregivers can apply at one of four POSB branches for a Court order to make a one-time withdrawal of up to $5,000 in emergency funds, without having to attend Court.
The above notwithstanding, the Government is aware that some caregivers may face difficulties in accessing bank accounts of persons who have lost mental capacity in the absence of an LPA or deputyship. We will consider how to streamline the processes for caregivers to access such grants at the scheme level where possible, without compromising the protection of the individuals. If necessary, we will study the possibility of the Public Trustee playing a role in this regard.
To facilitate access to Government payouts by caregivers in the event of unforeseen mental incapacity, members of the public are strongly encouraged to make an LPA. They will soon be able to do so faster and more easily through the Office of the Public Guardian online portal from 14 November 2022, and Singaporeans making an LPA using LPA Form 1 can benefit from the fee waiver that has been extended till 31 March 2023.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reports on and Penalties for Employers who Make CPF Contributions to \"Phantom Workers\"","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Manpower for each year from 2013 to 2022 (a) how many reports has the Ministry received against employers that made CPF contributions to \"phantom workers\"; (b) what are the (i) median, (ii) lowest and (iii) highest administrative financial penalties imposed for such infringements; (c) what other penalties are imposed; (d) whether the Ministry plans to step up enforcement and increase penalties for such infringements; and (e) whether random spot checks are performed.
\tThe Minister of State for Manpower (Ms Gan Siow Huang) (for the Minister for Manpower): From 2015 to 2021, MOM received about 660 reports per year on firms inflating their foreign worker quota by making CPF contributions to locals who are not working for the firm, otherwise known as \"phantom workers\".
Administrative financial penalties were issued against 11 employers per year over this period. The median penalty was $15,000 and the penalties ranged from $1,250 to $200,000. Other enforcement actions taken included issuing cautions, directions to rectify breaches and debarment from hiring migrant workers.
MOM investigates all reports received and generates investigation leads through data analytics. We also conduct no-notice enforcement checks. We will continue to monitor the effectiveness of our measures and review them where necessary.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): I thank the Minister of State for her answer. I have two supplementary questions.
When firms engage phantom workers or illegally recover costs from their foreign employees, they artificially inflate their firms' foreign worker quota and make foreigners cheaper to hire. This puts lower-income Singaporeans at a severe disadvantage, both in terms of landing jobs and bargaining for better salaries, and there is little incentive for workers to report this because they risk having their Work Permits cancelled. As a result, many of such offences may go undetected and unreported. So, my question is: can the Ministry conduct victimisation surveys of both local and foreign workers and employ more sophisticated intelligence gathering techniques to obtain a clearer picture of the extent of the problem and catch these offenders?
Secondly, I note that the Minister of State just said that of the 660 reports of phantom workers, there were only 11 penalties issued. This number of 11 seems very low, compared to the extent of the problem that is out there. Is there a reason for this gap between 660 and 11? And what is the reason why so few employers were taken to task for this?
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: I thank the Member for the two supplementary questions. On the first question, certainly, we will continue to look for ways, including conducting surveys and also giving reassurance to migrant workers to report and also to allow the detection capabilities to be improved.
Secondly, on why the number of employers who were found guilty seems to be relatively low compared to the number of reports made, it is actually the norm for a small proportion of complaints to be taken up for investigation. The complainants may not have the full facts, which are only surfaced upon investigation by MOM. We have to be fair to employers, too. So, we have to go deep into the facts and find evidence before we can take actions against employers. A complainant who sees a shop full of foreigners may not be aware that there are actually locals working backend or offsite. In such cases, there is no infringement committed and no enforcement action taken. In recent years, MOM has used data-mining capabilities to strengthen evidence gathering and enable MOM to take action against errant employers.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Safeguards against Volatility of Energy Prices under Revised Electricity Market Structure","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in light of the plans to revise the electricity market structure (a) what are the safeguards in place to ensure that volatility of energy prices is minimised; (b) what are the benefits to residents and consumers; and (c) when are the changes targeted to be implemented.
\tThe Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Low Yen Ling) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for his question. Second Minister for Trade and Industry Tan See Leng has explained at length in his reply yesterday the safeguards that we intend to put in place to manage the risks of volatility in our energy market. Allow me to broadly recap these measures.
First, the Energy Market Authority (EMA) will introduce a centralised approach to facilitate investments in new generation through a competitive tender to ensure that we continue to have sufficient generation capacity in time to come.
Second, EMA will institutionalise some of the emergency measures that we had introduced late last year in the wake of the global energy crisis, as permanent features of our market. These are regulations requiring our gencos to maintain sufficient fuel for power generation and the standby fuel facility to guard against risks of gas supply disruptions. EMA will also be working with the industry to explore ways to aggregate gas procurement and obtain longer-term, more secure contracts. These measures will help to safeguard energy security and enhance the resilience of our natural gas supply.
Third, EMA will also enhance the regulatory requirements imposed on electricity retailers, to ensure that they are sufficiently prepared and better able to withstand market volatilities. EMA will also look into tightening the eligibility criteria for consumers on Wholesale Electricity Price plans, so that only the larger consumers who are better equipped to deal with the risks of price volatilities would be allowed to enter into such plans.
Collectively, these measures will bring about a stronger and more secure power system, so that residents and consumers can continue to look forward to a stable and reliable supply of electricity for years to come. EMA will be consulting the industry and the public on the details of these proposed changes in due course. We plan to implement these enhancements progressively from 2023 onwards.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): I thank the Minister of State for her answer. Now that we have increased Government involvement in the electricity market again, how would that affect or curtail the market and how will MTI and EMA ensure that electricity prices continue to remain affordable to consumers?
\tMs Low Yen Ling: Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to thank the Member Mr Yip Hon Weng for his two supplementary questions. I want to assure him that MTI and EMA are very mindful that the enhancement could lead to higher regulatory costs and, to mitigate this, I want to assure him and the House that we will implement the measures in a very calibrated way by balancing the cost burden while ensuring that electricity remains affordable to our consumers, households and businesses. And how this is being achieved will become clearer when the details of the enhancements are released.
Meanwhile, despite the increased Government involvement, I want to assure the Member Mr Yip Hon Weng that the electricity market will largely remain liberalised and competitive. Yesterday, Second Minister Tan See Leng spoke about the guardrails that we are erecting in the power generation, gas supply and electricity retail markets. And these guardrails are intended to ensure that our energy market continues to function well even under volatile conditions.
So, our recommendations, for example, for a very structured process in the generation segment will allow EMA to better coordinate the investments in new generation capacity. This is important for two reasons. First, to minimise any risk of oversupply for generation companies, or gencos. In addition, this will also give greater assurance to the gencos to make investments in new capacity. Furthermore, for EMA, as the provider of last resort, there will be greater assurance of adequate generation capacity to meet demand.
I want to assure the Member Mr Yip Hon Weng and also the House that MTI and EMA will continue to review and consider all areas where our market structure can be enhanced to better deliver the outcomes of energy security, energy resilience, energy reliability and affordability for consumers as well as our businesses.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Allowing Singles or Estranged Persons to Live Alone Instead of Requiring Co-tenants for HDB Rental Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether HDB has an initiative that allows single or estranged persons to live alone instead of requiring a co-tenant for HDB rental flats; and (b) if so, whether the Ministry can provide an update on this initiative.
\tThe Minister of State for National Development (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for National Development): Sir, public rental flats under the Joint Singles Scheme (JSS) are provided on a flat-sharing basis as this allows the flats to accommodate more low-income Singaporeans who need housing assistance. For JSS applicants with exceptional circumstances, such as medical grounds, HDB has exercised flexibility to allow them to rent a flat alone.
While many applicants and tenants are able to find a flatmate and live amicably under the JSS, some face difficulties applying for or sharing a flat, and we have, therefore, been reviewing and improving the JSS in recent years. For instance, HDB has been building new rental flats with high partitions to provide more privacy and these have been well-received. HDB has also been installing partitions in existing rental flats at tenants’ request. There are now a total of 1,230 partitioned flats. HDB will continue to include partitions in new rental flats, where feasible, and install them in existing flats at tenants’ request.
HDB is also piloting the JSS Operator-Run model to allow singles to apply for a public rental flat individually, without having to find a flatmate first. We, currently, have three sites, with a total of 400 bedspaces. The sites are managed by Social Service Agencies which oversee the flat-sharing arrangements, provide social support and mediate among tenants when needed. The pilot has been well-subscribed and HDB is assessing the pilot to see how it can be expanded.
We will continue to explore ways to improve the lived experiences of singles in public rental. We are looking into alternative typologies and will share more details soon.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Ms Denise Phua, a short clarification because we are ending Question Time soon.
\tMs Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): I thank the Minister of State for his response. It is not uncommon for Members of Parliament to receive requests to live alone or to transfer to another flat and they are usually frustrated tenants who find it very hard to get along with their assigned co-tenants.
So, while I know it is costly to have only one tenant live in a whole flat, are there any other models also, beyond the partitions, that will decrease tensions of strangers living together, for example, reducing co-living spaces with shared facilities and so forth? I am just looking at other models that are a bit more out of the box and not so traditional.
\t
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, essentially, as I shared earlier, we provide on a flat-sharing basis as this allows us to accommodate more low-income Singaporeans. Nevertheless, as I shared in my answer, we will continue to explore new models and ways to improve the lived experiences of singles in public rental flats. In fact, we are looking at alternative typologies and will share more details soon.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Introduction of Government Bill.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 4, 16-18 and 20-27 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. The remaining Questions have been postponed to a later Sitting of Parliament or withdrawn.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Electric Vehicles Charging Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to regulate devices intended for charging electric vehicles and operators of charging stations and providers of charging services for electric vehicles, to expand the network of accessible electric vehicle charging points, and to make consequential and related amendments to certain other Acts\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) on behalf of the Minister for Transport, read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament on or after 28 November 2022, 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":"Online Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Resumption of Debate on Question [8 November 2022], \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\" – [Minister for Communications and Information]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Internet and social media have become a part of us and is a key component of our social lives. While the boundarylessness of social media has increased our access to information, eased communications with friends and family, and facilitated freedom of expression, it has also, inadvertently, exposed us to potentially undesirable content.
The Government has, in recent years, taken proactive steps to mitigate the possibilities of online harm through legislation, such as online falsehoods (POFMA), foreign interference, hostile information campaigns (FICA) and online harassment (POHA). I believe the Minister had referenced these in her speech yesterday.
Yet, I believe more can be done to help Singaporeans, especially our children and youths, navigate the World Wide Web where nefarious contents might lurk and negatively impact them.
I am thus heartened to know that this Bill seeks to introduce new safeguards into the Broadcasting Act (1994) by regulating online communication services (OCS), including social media services. Today, algorithms on social media platforms are designed to maximise users’ engagement by creating as many ways users can interact with them as possible and by appealing to what interests their users the most.
It is good that we are now considering how we can hold OCS more accountable and responsible for the type of content they carry, to limit the negative impact of egregious online content on our community and society.
The Cambridge Dictionary defines “egregious” as “extremely bad in a way that is very noticeable.” Using this definition, I believe that some content on OCS would clearly be regarded as egregious, for example, materials that encourage and instruct one on how to commit suicide, supporting and promoting communal violence, videos that preach intolerance, extremism, terrorism and so on.
However, not all content on OCS is so clear-cut. For instance, consider the now infamous “Blackout Challenge” that encourages participants to choke themselves until they pass out has actually claimed the lives of several youths and young children.
The parents of one of the deceased children sued a social media platform and its parent company in May 2022 for exposing their child to harmful content, only for the lawsuit to be dismissed by a federal judge just last month, stating that the social media platform and its parent company were not responsible for the child’s death.
What is the Government’s stand on such questionable social media trends? I would be interested to know how online materials that might not be so overtly and blatantly harmful would be regarded if there is the potential for them to be harmful.
Some viral Internet challenges posted on OCS, while not overtly life-threatening at first glance, might have the potential to lead to significant public nuisances, injuries and possibly the loss of life. You might or might not be aware of the “milk crate challenge”, for example, which encourages the stacking and climbing of milk crates, which might not seem directly life-threatening – quite ridiculous, I know, but not directly life-threatening – but I would imagine that it could result in significant injuries, such as dislocations, cartilage damage and even potential permanent spinal cord damage, if one should fall badly.
So, my question to the Government is, where would we draw the line on what would be considered egregious and what would be permitted? I must admit, Mr Deputy Speaker, as a parent of a 14- and 11-year-old, I would always want to err on the side of caution, but I also realise if we take that to the extreme, then we run the risk of anything with the slightest level of danger being banned. It would be good to have some clarity on this.
While we debate on what is egregious content, I would like to ask what the Government's stand would be with regard to egregious behaviour. If the aim is to keep the online space safe, as indicated in the title of the Bill, then behaviour that is egregious should also be dealt with.
By this, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am referring to the issue of online bullying or cyberbullying, as already referenced by other Members of the House. Bullying, especially of young people, is something that has always been an issue, especially in schools. However, with the pervasive proliferation of the online space, the issue of cyberbullying has multiplied into something that we cannot take lightly.
For children and youths, cyberbullying can be intense, overwhelming, psychologically harmful and can result in mental health issues, poor academic performance, school avoidance and even suicide ideation. While our counsellors and psychologists no doubt continue to work with the victims of cyberbullying and they are doing great work, I am sure, can we and should we expect the OCS to do more in this area? After all, if we feel that egregious online content that causes harm should be regulated and controlled, then should not egregious behaviour that could result in harmful or negative outcomes also be treated the same way?
And if OCS have the sophisticated algorithms to identify cases of cyberbullying, then should we not work towards treating egregious behaviour like egregious content and possibly remove such material from the online platforms?
Mr Deputy Speaker, legislation is an important lever in helping to protect our society from online harm, but it is not a panacea. While the Government can introduce measures to protect individuals from harmful content, individuals need to also exercise self- and social responsibilities. It would be impractical and impossible for the Government to monitor all contents on OCS. A large part of social monitoring would have to be done by end-users themselves.
When end-users come across questionable content, would there be a dedicated Government-administered portal for them to provide feedback to? Or would end-users be expected to file reports with the respective OCS? While there are different merits to having a centralised Government-administered portal versus a portal administered by the individual OCS, the crux to effective reporting would be that the portals are user-friendly and it would not be too onerous for users to file reports against questionable online content. The ease of reporting will help to encourage timely reporting of such content and facilitate timely actions to regulate the content that could possibly cause online harm.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe that everyone would agree that in our digitally evolving world, there needs to be a greater emphasis placed on online safety and safeguards, especially for children and young adults. However, it is also unrealistic to ban anything that seems remotely harmful or dangerous as that would over “nannify” the online space. Furthermore, I accept that what is deemed harmful and dangerous is, in itself, subjective.
Nevertheless, I believe that this Bill is a step in the right direction as it would compel a large number of OCS, some of which have been criticised in the past for using algorithms to encourage and even drive certain behaviours, to also play their part, a significant part, in ensuring that the online space remains safe and conducive.
I would like to conclude with a quote from Jaron Lainer, computer scientist and virtual reality pioneer. I believe this was from the documentary, \"The Social Dilemma\", which, if you have not seen it on Netflix, I would recommend all Members of the House to watch as a very sobering insight into how social media works. Jaron Lainer says: “We’ve created a world in which online connection has become primary, especially for younger generations. And yet, in that world, anytime two people connect, the only way it’s financed is through a sneaky third person who’s paying to manipulate those two people. So, we’ve created an entire global generation of people who were raised within a context with the very meaning of communication, the very meaning of culture, is manipulation.”
Does this manipulation lead to harmful outcomes? If it does, then it is good that all stakeholders – Government, users and the OCS – sit up, realise this and take steps to deal with this challenge. My clarifications notwithstanding, I end my speech in firm support of the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin.
Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. First, I would like to declare my interest as a board member of SG Her Empowerment, an Institution of Public Character that strives to empower girls and women through community engagements, partnerships and research, including on the topic of providing more holistic support to those who have faced online harms.
Sir, with this Online Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, Singapore joins the ranks of jurisdictions, such as Australia and Germany, which have dedicated laws regulating the online space. The proposed amendments aim to protect Singapore users from harmful online content and move beyond prescriptive statutory compliance towards public accountability.
Online platforms can enhance connectivity and access to information for users.
During COVID-19, online platforms allowed us to stay in touch and check in on each other. But social media platforms can be all-consuming, for example, when doom-scrolling displaces other forms of interactions and feeds on one's insecurities, putting the number of friends and followers you have on display and subjecting physical appearance to visible likes and comments, sometimes, under troll anonymous accounts. For many, it is a tricky place where being yourself is simply not enough and putting yourself out there may have unwanted consequences.
Nearly half of Singaporeans polled by the Sunlight Alliance for Action have personally experienced online harms. These include being cyberbullied, stalked virtually and befriended by people who have fake identities. Yet, over 40% of people affected said that they would not take action, as they believe that nothing will come out of it.
Recognising these grim realities, it is important to ensure that regulations are put in place to safeguard the online space as much as we would our physical space. This Bill sends a strong signal that the Government does not take online harms lightly. That said, I would like to highlight three specific portions where I believe there is room for the Bill to be expanded on and I will be addressing potentially sensitive issues, such as gender-based online harms and suicide, in my speech.
First, the amendment tackles online harms in general, but does not specifically address the prevalence of gender-based online harms. The gender element of online safety cannot be ignored. In fact, the Sunlight Alliance for Action found that 31% of respondents have experienced or witnessed gender-based online harms. While the Bill governs a wide range of actions by online communication services (OCS), it will not cover communications within private chat groups, such as SMS and direct messages. Gender-based online harms take many forms and a significant proportion of these occur in private communication channels.
A number of women have shared with me that they have been on the receiving end of lewd or explicit messages. In 2021, AWARE reported that 70% of technology-facilitated sexual violence seen by their Sexual Assault Care Centre involved image-based sexual abuse. And almost 30% of these cases took place on private message platforms, such as WhatsApp and Telegram, which is an increase in percentage from previous years.
I recognise that there are significant privacy concerns and logistical challenges in regulating private messaging.
Indeed, the UK's proposed Online Safety Bill came under significant fire last year for its heavy-handedness, which would have compelled online intermediaries to proactively access the content of users' private messages. There have been cases of heavy-handed content moderation in other jurisdictions, which can be seen as an over-reach and invasion of privacy, causing individuals to lose access to their email and social media accounts, leading to much consternation.
However, there is potential for the Bill to compel social media giants to share data, such as historical posts and messages when the user, who is a victim of image-based sexual abuse, requests it and requires evidence, for example. This is not impossible. For instance, the Personal Data Protection Act already requires organisations to reveal the data they have on platform users, should the users ask for it. In light of this, I would like to ask the Ministry what factors has it considered in deciding that the current Bill will not provide such recourse in covering private messaging channels.
Relatedly, I do appreciate that legislation exists to deal with other aspects of gender-based online harm. For example, when Telegram groups have been found to distribute obscene images of women, administrators were charged under the Penal Code, including with distributing obscene material and facilitating the provision of sexual services. Has the Government considered streamlining all online-related harms into the Online Safety Bill, rather than relying on sections in the Penal Code and Protection from Harassment Act, placing a burden on victims to show that harm has, indeed, been inflicted? For instance, Australia's Online Safety Act, which came into effect early this year, replaced the patchwork of online safety legislation to create a more consistent and clearer regulatory framework.
Next, more can be done to ensure that minors are protected from hyper-sexualisation or inappropriate content. In Parliament, I have spoken about the need to educate youths and parents on a safer Internet culture. Minors are a vulnerable group who may not understand the way algorithms work to micro-target audiences with tailored messages and content who could be influenced to consume or produce content that is not age-appropriate before they have the ability to fully evaluate the harms and risks of such behaviour.
Tragically, the case of Molly Russell in the United Kingdom is a striking reminder of the very real dangers. In 2017, 14-year-old Molly died by suicide after viewing online content about self-harm on platforms. In the six months before her death, it was reported that Molly had saved, liked or shared 16,300 pieces of content on one platform alone, of which more than 2,100 in total, or 12 a day, were related to suicide, depression and self-harm.
Algorithms had pushed harmful materials to her accounts, some of which she had not requested. The coroner's inquest concluded recently, ruling that harmful social media content contributed to her death \"in a more than minimal way\".
While such devastating cases are not common, even one case is one too many and we must do all we can to prevent such occurrences from happening in Singapore, including imposing appropriate regulations and considering how we can hold the appropriate parties responsible for the content they allow on their platforms, which can also lead to other physical harms, such as eating disorders or self-injury.
Sir, I have heard concerned parents debating the merits of confiscating the mobile phones of their children to prevent them from seeing such information. But banning Internet access from our youths today is unrealistic, if not impossible. It also fails to educate and empower them.
I continue to believe that more can be done to support minors to make informed decisions about Internet content which is age-appropriate for their consumption and hope that we will continue to evaluate whether age verification is an appropriate measure to be introduced.
I note that, in the Bill, there are references to restrictions protecting children of different age groups and, indeed, the knowledge of a 13-year-old would differ from that of an 18-year-old. I would be grateful if the Ministry could share some examples of age-appropriate restrictions and how these are differentiated.
Of course, regulating providers is only one side of the equation. Consumers of online content need to be savvy, too, and guardians need to be educated so that they are more aware of the cyber risks that their children are exposed to and feel confident to support minors.
MCI has previously pointed to useful resources by the Media Literacy Council and I hope that more proactive steps are taken to directly reach out to parents and educate them. I look forward to hearing more about the Government's future efforts in this area.
Lastly, I would like to seek clarification on the definitions of egregious content. One section of the Bill lays out the state's enhanced ability to regulate online communication services if they are found to display egregious content, including content advocating suicide or self-harm, physical or sexual violence, terrorism and so on.
While I agree it would be appropriate for access to extremely harmful content to be disabled in Singapore – for example, when misinformation outrightly serves to sow discord between different faiths or promote violence and harms – this is only loosely described and illustrated in the Bill and consultations. This could be problematic and I also wonder whether certain forms of satirical or creative content may be affected.
When it comes to regulation in this space, there are no easy answers. I recognise that in the ever-changing online space, egregious content can take many forms and, hence, it might be desirable for legislators to retain some flexibility when defining the parameters.
However, in borderline cases, whose standard of egregious content will prevail? Will there be a committee or council to decide on these boundaries? As the Internet develops and new types of content emerge, will a deliberative body be set up to monitor and revise the definition of \"egregious content\"?
How will such a body consult with Singaporeans to shape changes to these definitions to ensure that the standards of egregious content are widely accepted? Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Last year, a survey of an obscene nature involving 12 female relief teachers was uploaded on a social media platform. What was even more disappointing was that over 1,000 people took part in the survey.
This was a very appalling act and an affront to the dignity of women.
Many women grapple with online dangers and it could cause long-term trauma.
In addition, we have also read accounts of photos or videos of women, ex-girlfriends or ex-wives being uploaded on social media as a form of revenge or simply for entertainment.
I understand that, presently, this code of practice will only cover regulated OCS that MCI has determined as having significant reach or impact in Singapore. Here, I would like to ask how often the regulated OCS list will be reviewed in view of the development of social media applications and platforms, and how fast the information can be disseminated, so that any action will be taken decisively and visibly to mitigate the risk of harm to Singaporean users from exposure to harmful content and to inform their users to be responsible.
While we may not be able to eradicate all harmful online content, with the introduction of this Bill and greater responsibility on the part of technology platforms, I hope we can make the Internet a safer place for everyone.
However, legislation and actions taken by technology platforms alone are not enough. Parents should also educate children about proper conduct and ethics when they are online. At the same time, our community members, whether male or female, young or old, should not be afraid to lodge a report if they encounter any harmful content.
(In English): Deputy Speaker, Sir, the digital landscape is constantly changing and regulations will always be playing catch-up to realities on the ground. The flexibility in the Bill demonstrates an awareness of this, allowing legislators room to respond to emerging needs and OCS providers with some leeway and timelines to address cases, depending on each circumstance's complexity.
Moving forward, it is likely that further amendments may be needed to respond to new developments in the digital space. Any new regulations should be developed as a whole-of-society effort, in consultation with the people and private sectors, too. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Shahira Abdullah.
Dr Shahira Abdullah (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, an online poll conducted by the Sunlight Alliance for Action (AFA) in January 2022 found that nearly half of over 1,000 Singaporeans have personally experienced online harms – the bulk of them youths. About 43% of them will not take action against it. They think that it will not make a difference.
This is concerning. It is clear that although online spaces have opened up a whole new world of information for youths, allowing them the opportunity to express themselves and connect with people globally, it has also exposed them to new forms of dangers that the previous generation has not faced, such as cyberbullying and online grooming.
Sir, an important aspect of the Bill is that it has attempted to define this content, identifying seven categories of egregious harm.
I agree with these categories as they will bring about the most harm to society. Having these definitions gives enhanced clarity to online communication services as to what is harmful in Singapore's context.
For example, in 2020, a Facebook post from the NUS Atheist Society, which is actually not affiliated with NUS, suggested using the Bible and Quran as alternatives in the event of a toilet paper shortage. In that situation, IMDA stepped in to ask Facebook to disable access to the post before it was taken down.
As a healthcare professional, I am also gratified by the inclusion of content that constitutes a public health risk. A 2021 systematic review, which studied the impact of fake news on social media and its influence on health during the COVID-19 pandemic, found that social media platforms have contributed to the infodemic, which can perpetuate fake news and information. This, in turn, has caused distrust in governments, researchers and health professionals, which directly impacts people's lives and health.
I support this Bill. However, I have queries on certain aspects of it.
Firstly, section 45H directs the online communication services (OCS) provider to disable access by Singapore users to egregious content. May I ask whether there is a specified amount of time the OCS would have to disable the content? Certain content may be more harmful and may need to be disabled immediately to mitigate the damage. One case in point is the Christchurch Attack in 2019. Using a GoPro camera, the attacker filmed himself using Facebook Live, gunning down 51 people in two mosques. The video quickly went viral and was viewed about 4,000 times before it was removed. As Washington Post reporter Drew Harwell summed up in a tweet, \"The New Zealand massacre was livestreamed on Facebook, announced on 8chan, reposted on YouTube, commented about on Reddit and mirrored around the world before the tech companies could even react.\"
Secondly, if the OCS fails to comply with IMDA's direction to disable access or is unable to do it within a specified time, under section 45I, Internet service providers (ISPs) can be directed to block Singapore users' access to the OCS. Could the Minister clarify how long the OCS is expected to be blocked in such cases and what factors are used to determine the length of time?
Thirdly, I would also like to seek some clarity on who would be designated a regulated online communication (ROC) provider. Although section 45K(1) sets out some criteria, they are factors that do not bind IMDA and are actually quite wide. For example, how will IMDA quantify or measure \"the extent and nature of the effect that different types of OCS have on the people of Singapore\"?
Fourthly, section 45L sets out the boundaries of IMDA's powers in the code of practice. However, it is not clear how IMDA intends to implement the different objectives under section 45L. Could I seek clarification regarding the type of measures that may be introduced by IMDA under the code of practice? For example, how does IMDA intend to have OCS prevent children of different age groups access content that presents a material risk of significant harm to them? Most already have terms and conditions that require users to declare they are above a certain age. If a child user declares falsely, will OCS be liable for the child’s actions? If an OCS sets out community terms that explicitly prohibit egregious content but a user posts such content, will OCS be liable for the publishing of such content? What safeguards are there to ensure the audits requested by IMDA are not excessive?
Fifthly, technology evolves at a rapid speed. During the time the UK started drafting the online bill, TikTok emerged. We also now have the metaverse. How often will the code of practice be updated to keep up with these changes?
Finally, I would also like to draw attention to the work of the human content moderators. The constant exposure to disturbing and inappropriate content takes a toll on their well-being. In 2019, Cambridge Consultants reported that \"moderating harmful content can cause significant psychological damage to moderators. The psychological effects of viewing harmful content is well documented, with reports of moderators experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms and other mental health issues as a result of the disturbing content that they are exposed to.\" May I suggest, therefore, that we also make it a part of the code of practice to protect our protectors – the content moderators who risk personal wellness for social good?
In addition to continually improving artificial intelligence (AI), OCS can protect content moderators' mental health through a variety of practices, such as having access to mental health services and support, as well as having exposure limits.
Overall, I am glad that in the drafting of this Bill, extensive industry and public consultations were carried out. However, tackling harmful online content requires a whole-of-society effort.
As the good Minister stated yesterday, laws are not a silver bullet. It is also insufficient and inappropriate to pass the onus of regulating such content on OCS alone without recognising that OCS services are merely a tool or platform that reflects the way individuals use them.
Ultimately, individuals – parents, children, teachers – law enforcement authorities and governments all have a role to play, too. Everyone has a part to play by not engaging in online harm, by proactively taking steps to prevent exposure and by supporting those who have become victims of it. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, clarifications notwithstanding, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.
Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with Singapore having one of the highest rates of digital penetration globally, the ubiquitous influence of the Internet and social media among Singaporeans has been well documented and is certainly here to stay. Today, social media platforms are not merely a conduit through which people interact with one another, but they serve as an extension of an individual's being, a representation of who they are and what they stand for. Given how much our digital spaces shape our physical realities, the formation of online communities and groups mirrors the physical society we live in and, therefore, the actions we take and the information we read online bear no less significance than those we do in person and in print.
If we accept that our societies are governed by rules and laws that aim to maintain peace and harmony in our nation, then why should our online societies be absolved of such a need? It is for this reason that I welcome the proposed amendment to the Online Safety Bill and, in particular, two significant requirements that were laid out in the new measures.
Firstly, the call for greater transparency from social media platforms in their decision-making process and, secondly, the obligation for these platforms to provide practical guidance and guidelines to educate local online users, along with the implementation of simple ways for users to report harmful content and unwanted interactions.
First, greater transparency. Behind the personalised content that we see on our social media accounts, there exist complex algorithms with various inputs and metrics that determine what is recommended to us. With online platforms expected to provide greater clarity regarding how they intend to protect local users from harmful content, users are not only granted the opportunity to make informed decisions but are also able to better understand the decision-making process with regard to appeals and requests they make surrounding egregious content.
Secondly, the requirement for practical guidance from social media platforms. To successfully build a safe online environment, it is imperative that users are well-educated on what constitutes harmful conduct and content, and it is my hope that the new measures fulfil this need. Furthermore, providing easy and open communication channels will best allow users to voice their concerns as users play an equal part in fostering a safe online environment.
While these developments are, indeed, a first step in the right direction, it is important that we do not just stop at this juncture. While the amendment primarily focuses on specific egregious content that includes posts advocating suicide, self-harm, terrorism, sexual exploitation and other material that risk damaging our social fabric, these are not the only issues that constitute online harm. If we recognise that our online society is very much an extension of the physical society we share in, then we, as a country, should strive to regulate our social media just as we would our physical reality. This is especially important for native issues that arise specifically from the use of social media. Specifically, in the realm of their public and private posts, and their platform's direct messaging services on issues, such as cyberbullying, doxxing, or even revenge porn.
Even as Singapore has enacted legislation, such as the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA), to deal with such specific issues, these laws, currently, do not afford the capacity to hold social media platforms responsible regarding their action, or lack thereof, in dealing with such situations, especially where the platform wields significant control over the speed of the entire process and the final outcome. For a victim to have no agency over information about their private lives being shared online, such an experience can be extremely destabilising and traumatising and, in certain cases, this could even place them at risk of physical harm.
I am reminded of a rather vexing and traumatic personal story shared with me by a young lady who was scared, traumatised, worried and confused. As a victim of doxxing, she had her personal details – her name, school, employer, amongst other things – revealed online against her desire by an anonymous account. When she attempted to remove the post and sought recourse from the social media platform, the lack of urgency in dealing with the matter exacerbated the already extreme levels of vulnerability and fear she experienced, knowing that every extra second the post was allowed to remain online was another opportunity for a vile user to re-victimise her. Even though she had also lodged a Police report, there was no certainty that the report would expedite the removal of her personal identifiable information that has been shared online.
On my part, I had reported the offending account to the social media platform on the same day that the young lady had reached out to me for help. I received an acknowledgement note almost immediately from the platform saying that they had received the report and that they would use their community guidelines to review the account. It was not until four days later that I received a note from the social media platform saying this, \"We didn’t remove xxx account. Because of the high volume of reports we receive, our team hasn’t been able to review this account. Bullying and harassment are not okay and are against our community guidelines. There are a few things you can do to avoid seeing accounts you find upsetting. If you don’t want to see xxx on our media platform, you can unfollow, mute, or block them to hide their posts and comments from your feed. If you think this account has posted specific content that shows bullying or harassment, please let us know by reporting the relevant post, comment or story, so we can review it. Case closed.\"
I note that at the time of the report, the account only had one post, which is the one the young lady had brought to my attention.
It was extremely troubling to know how helpless she, and even I, felt throughout this whole situation, as she received no update or communication from the social media platform regarding the case until the outcome was finalised, of which the post was removed only after an extended period of time. The account, however, remains active to this day, leaving the victim at the mercy of the anonymous user who could yet again subject the victim to another episode of doxxing. Clearly, social media platforms ought to take more responsibility in such a situation.
Social media platforms, you can do better, and we can do better for online safety.
Mr Deputy Speaker, while I know that we cannot reasonably expect social media platforms to transform their processes and policies overnight, I hope this anecdote serves as a reminder of the extent of harm that our local users can potentially be subjected to, and perhaps provide a reference point and an impetus from which regulation can derive its requirements from. It is, therefore, heartening to see the call for greater transparency surrounding the decision-making processes of social media platforms, along with the tools, resources and enforcement options available to them. With greater clarity, users are better informed and well-assured about how social media platforms can support them upon experiencing online harm. Yet, these measures do not fully grasp the emotional and mental turbulence that one experiences as a victim of online harm. The apparent lack of a human touch in the process of dealing with online harm by social media platforms reflects a certain degree of uncongeniality and coldness that does not work to protect and support victims in times of need, and perhaps should be re-evaluated.
In conclusion, if the new laws enacted aim to mitigate the present online harms, then it is my hope that we will continue to expand our remit and regulations to protect our users from having to suffer from experiences, such as that which I have recounted. I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Janet Ang.
Ms Janet Ang (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the amendment to the Online Safety Bill.
This Bill is very timely and I appreciate MCI taking proactive steps to put safeguards in place to protect Singaporeans from harmful content, especially those created and distributed with malicious intentions to disrespect, bully, cause division in society, degrade the dignity of persons and of humanity. In her speech yesterday, the Minister had given many examples of such harms and I trust that we do not need to be persuaded further that it is urgent and imperative for the amendment Bill to pass.
After listening to hon Member Tin Pei Ling's horror stories involving an avatar in Web 3.0, I am more convinced than ever that we need to take courage to act urgently to protect ourselves, our children and our children's children.
I support the approach which will be taken under the amended Act, but I do have a few questions for the Minister.
What are the challenges envisaged by the Ministry with regard to enforcement of the law and how does the Ministry intend to address those challenges?
Second, it is good that education of students in schools and Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs), as well as education of the general public, will be undertaken in conjunction with the legislation. Education will increase awareness in the vulnerable community and the general public of the prevalence of harmful contents that are lurking in the web and how they can participate in reporting sites or services that carry those contents and, in doing so, be part of the \"neighbourhood police\" to detect and help to catch bad actors on our Internet and social media platforms. Just as in the fight against scams, awareness and alertness in the community can go a long way to fight the proliferation of harmful malicious content. How does the Ministry intend to organise such neighbourhood policing against online harmful content? How can volunteers and civic-minded tech-savvy Singaporeans and residents support the Government in this effort?
Third, it is critical that the Government is able to act quickly when there is non-compliance to the Act so that the harmful content does not spread and cause any social epidemic or even pandemic. Like COVID-19, we needed a circuit breaker to ensure that the common good of our society and the social health of our citizens and people are protected. Whether the content is harmful or otherwise, it may be said to depend on the values of the adult individuals. Who will decide what content is harmful and thus will be subject to the legislation? How does the Government intend to facilitate the voices of the society to be heard as far as determining what is harmful without compromising the need for swift action to take down the bad actors?
How will the Government handle cases when the content originates from overseas and is not distributed by locally-licensed online communication service providers?
How will MCI leverage technology in this war against online harmful content?
Harmful malicious content spreads like virus and we need the Government and the whole of society to fight against this virus of harmful online content together. This Bill, which is being debated today, is downstream, when the content is already out there, and actions laid out in the Bill are needed to stop the spread and protect Singaporeans from being harmed.
As parents, educators, Government and professionals in the business of communication, we need to focus on moving upstream and pay attention to the need to assist people, especially young people, to develop sound and critical sensing, and to learn how to distinguish truth from falsehood, right from wrong, good from evil.
As a country, it is on us that the soul of our nation and the values of our society are not put at risk, even as I appeal to the conscience of creators of content and online service providers everywhere to do no evil. Notwithstanding my clarifications, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I thank the Government for holding a public consultation and multiple engagement sessions in preparing for this Bill.
After all, the Government cannot, by itself, ensure online safety for Singaporeans. Internet companies, experts, parents and young people are all essential partners it must work with.
The discussion on online safety also comes at a time when I am being pressured by my daughter, Ella, to allow her to play Roblox. Actually, she has been nagging me for years to be allowed to play this game, but it has intensified lately as all her friends are playing this game. I am terrified of her being exposed to harmful and inappropriate content online. All parents are. I hope this discussion and this Bill will make steps forward to ensuring a safer online space for our children.
I have three clarifications on this Bill.
My first clarification is about the definitions of \"egregious content\" and \"harmful content\".
First, the Bill defines one category of \"egregious content\" as content that is \"likely to cause feelings of enmity, hatred, ill will or hostility against, or contempt for or ridicule of, different racial or religious groups in Singapore.\" Can the Minister share why this category does not include content that has a similar impact on other demographic segments, such as gender?
Second, IMDA's draft of the Code of Practice for Online Safety lists six categories of harmful content. Social media platforms must \"minimise users' exposure\" to such content. In the final version of the Code, will IMDA provide more specific category names, detailed explanations for each category or sub-categories for exclusion? The ambiguity makes it possible for educational or otherwise beneficial content to be caught in the dragnet for harmful content.
Third, will IMDA also consider adding new categories for harmful content? For instance, harmful content should include content that promotes extreme beauty standards. Such content harms our youths by giving them unrealistic expectations. It affects their self-esteem and encourages them to engage in unhealthy behaviour to meet these standards.
My second set of clarifications relates to the scope of these new provisions.
It seems clear that these regulations will apply to platforms like Facebook, YouTube or TikTok. But many other companies also use user-generated content. For example, e-commerce platforms may rely on user reviews and comments. Online games, as I shared earlier, may have extensive user interaction. Can the Minister clarify if social media services also include online platforms whose core business is not social media?
Private or domestic communications are also excluded from these provisions. Can the Minister clarify if this excludes direct messages (DMs) or other user-to-user interactions? This is a potential channel for harmful content to be transmitted. For example, a study has found that one in 15 DMs sent by strangers to high-profile women are potentially abusive.
Can the Minister also clarify if semi-private communities, such as Discord servers or Telegram groups, will be treated as private or domestic communication?
My last set of clarifications relate to whether we can do more to help individual victims of harmful content. Victims of revenge porn, cyberbullying or doxxing suffer direct harm to their lives.
Since 2016, AWARE's Sexual Assault Care Centre has supported 747 clients who experienced technology-facilitated sexual violence. Survivors suffer a loss of dignity and privacy and experience an uphill battle in containing the spread of content once uploaded onto the Internet.
I have three suggestions on how we can help these victims.
First, funds from penalties under this Bill can be set aside to support these victim-survivors. These funds should be used in partnership with civil society groups who are already active in the community in helping these victims.
Second, we can create a general duty of care on online communication providers to compensate individuals for harm they suffer due to the platform's negligence in managing harmful content. Platforms could be negligent if they are too slow in taking down harmful content or failing to meet standards in the Code of Practice for Online Safety. This duty of care allows the victim to be compensated for their harm under the law of negligence.
This duty of care should apply not only to large social media platforms, but all online communication providers, as the potential harm does not discriminate. Small platforms may also be a way to escape detection by sharing harmful content there, then using links to circumvent the safeguards in larger platforms.
Finally, as long as end-users believe they can hide behind the cloak of anonymity of the digital world, they will continue to try and publish harmful content. Individuals who are affected have to rely on themselves to work with the online platform to get the content removed.
Going to the Police may not be useful as the Police may lack the jurisdiction or capability to investigate matters of this nature. To ensure sufficient deterrence against end-users, will the Government consider increasing resources and training for the Police to assist victims and take swift action against end-users who post harmful content? Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Mark Chay.
Mr Mark Chay (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to join this debate on the Online Safety Bill. I believe that this is a move in the right direction in making the Internet safer for all to use.
I am comforted that measures are now being taken to combat the proliferation of violent and harmful materials online. Through this Bill, we are sending a strong statement that, in Singapore, we will regulate our online communication services and hold them to a high standard of conduct because there is no place for the public sharing of content that can reasonably be deemed to have a harmful outcome or intent.
The Bill introduces a new part to the Broadcasting Act to regulate Online Communication Services (OCS). Social Media Services (SMS) are listed as a type of OCS. Under the Bill, SMS will need to implement measures to limit local users' exposure to harmful content, thus forcing OCS to be more accountable to users. As there are many forms of social media, it would be good if the Ministry can clarify if messaging platforms, such as WhatsApp, Telegram, WeChat and Kakao Talk would be considered as SMS.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am also pleased that, in Singapore, we recognise that the law is only one vehicle of the social order. With respect to safeguarding children from online harms, rather than tackling this issue primarily from the legislature, robust and comprehensive education programmes should be in place to complement these policies. I am particularly heartened to see that MOE's Character and Citizenship Education syllabus includes \"cyber wellness\". As part of the syllabus, students learn about navigating cyberspace. Students gain knowledge and skills to, one, harness the power of information and communication technology (ICT) for positive purposes; two, maintain a positive presence online; and three, be safe and responsible users of ICT.
Going a step further, I would suggest creating easily accessible safe counselling spaces in schools or create online chatrooms for children to access counselling services if they are adversely affected after an incident or exposure.
Ideally, parents should be the first port of call to address any feelings of confusion, disgust or anxiety that can follow exposure to online harassment. The reality is that not all parents are equipped or prepared to have such conversations in a helpful, supportive or productive manner. Children, and even adults, can be severely traumatised by explicit content and hateful language. When trauma is left unaddressed and repressed, it can manifest itself in unhealthy ways. In the code proposed for designated SMS, I would like to propose that tools that allow children and parents to manage online safety and directions to where to seek help if exposed to harmful or inappropriate material be made available.
Mr Deputy Speaker, while this new Bill puts a lot of emphasis on moderating and cleaning up content on social media services and platforms, harmful content also exists in online games as well.
Toxic behaviours, coarse language, harassment, threats and explicit sexual and violent content are examples of harmful content found in online games. And while this Bill is not intended to address gaming, perhaps the Ministry can engage the e-sports and gaming community and consider similar protections for players and gamers in the future. Today, the industry is already recognising toxicity as a problem and some major gaming companies have taken initiatives to launch their own anti-toxicity programmes, but with little success.
As technology and graphics become increasingly sophisticated, many of the most popular games are thrilling and exciting in part because they showcase violent behaviour and explicit conduct with realistic detail. Storylines and game themes can also depict disagreeable messages and social behaviours. With Big Tech firms investing heavily in the metaverse, we can expect more pervasive, more immersive technology and experiences very soon in our everyday lives. Clearly stated age ratings, warnings and age restrictions are already in place. But are these enough? Can we better protect children from exposure to sexualisation and violence? I would like to encourage the Ministry to consider how players and gamers can be protected as well.
Online gaming may also expose vulnerable groups to Loot Boxes and Gochas. They are a commonplace in game design and architecture. They create an element of chance and reward which, in turn, creates a stickiness to the game. This element of chance may seed undesirable habits which not only affect the players, but their families and persons around them, much like how problem gambling affects a community and not just the gambler alone.
At this juncture, I would like to declare that I am an officer at the Global Esports Federation. And I would like to say that not all games are violent or gratuitous. There are many genres of games that focus on strategy, desirable values and are productive. I agree with the Minister that the Internet and technology are changing rapidly and as we debate about the Online Safety Bill in the context of SMS today, we can plan for legislation on gaming in the future. We should keep the conversation going. In fact, we should speak openly about gaming and how to game responsibly. I would like to suggest that the Ministry, together with other relevant agencies, such as MOE and MHA, come together with the gaming and e-sports community to craft a path forward.
In closing, Mr Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding my clarifications, I am in support of the Online Safety Bill. The Internet was created to be a tool of empowerment and should be a safe space for Singaporeans to explore and engage freely and securely.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill, which proposes new measures to tackle harmful content on online services accessible to users in Singapore.
Sir, the Bill proposes a wide range of measures to improve online safety of Internet users in Singapore, combat harmful content and empower users with information and tools to protect themselves from content which is harmful or detrimental to their well-being. In my speech today, I will touch on how we need to protect our most vulnerable groups and suggest ways that we can further enhance protection, particularly for children.
Sir, it is a fact that Internet users in Singapore are not immune from harmful online content. And we all know that content that is racially offensive, that promotes violence against individuals or certain groups and those that try to cause divisions among racial and religious groups, can have a destabilising effect on our society.
In her opening speech, the Minister also mentioned various engagement sessions that showed the growing public concerns amongst Singaporeans with regard to online safety. The proposed measures under this Bill are, therefore, timely, as it will require online communication service (OCS) providers to be regulated and to remove harmful online content when asked to do so.
Actually, I would argue that legislation has become necessary because the OCS providers have failed to properly self-regulate and remove harmful content from being posted on their platforms. Today, many, if not all, OCS providers have a robust algorithm that removes copyrighted content almost instantaneously. The technology to remove content automatically and fast already exists and I hope that the social media sites can channel this technology beyond policing copyrighted content and focus also on what is deemed as socially harmful content.
However, just as an OCS provider can use technology to aid enforcement, consumers can use technology, too, to circumvent blocked content. In cases where an OCS provider disables access by Singapore users to a harmful content, it can still be easily accessible with a simple subscription to a VPN service. I would like to ask how is the Ministry planning to address this gap.
I would also like to ask how fast must an OCS provider comply with a directive issued by IMDA under this Bill. I note that the current draft Code of Practice for Online Safety for Designated Social Media Services does not specify a timeline for compliance. I understand that in some of the European countries, the OCS provider is required to comply with a take-down notice within a stipulated time. I am, therefore, curious to know what are the reasons behind the omission of a timeline to comply with the IMDA directive.
The speed at which a video of the 2019 New Zealand mosque shooting spread across social media platforms has demonstrated yet again that tech companies are still struggling to control content, especially from popular social media services that offer livestreaming of events.
I read that, in Germany, social media companies, such as Facebook, Twitter, Google and YouTube, are part of a self-regulatory task force committed to removing harmful content quickly. These companies have introduced or improved internal reporting mechanisms and employed local experts to undertake supervision of content. Will the Ministry consider working with the key OCS providers to establish such a task force in Singapore?
Mr Deputy Speaker, the second half of my speech deals with the need to protect our children from harmful online content.
Children today have grown up with the Internet, and online media is a key part of their daily lives. According to various research, social media and other online media have a direct impact on our children. The content that our children see online shapes the way they think and influences how they perceive themselves and others.
Despite many social media services having minimum age limits for new account sign-ups, many young children do have a social media account. Some even have two accounts! One for their parents to see, and another for their friends which, typically, includes content deemed not suitable for the parents. Against such a backdrop, we must strive to protect our children when they are at an impressionable age and ensure that they have a safe space when they access the Internet and use social media services.
For our vulnerable young children, I hope that companies can put in place speed humps to slow down their use of the social media services. We can do so in two ways.
First, I call for mandatory age verification to be done for all new sign-ups, to ensure that new accounts being created comply with the terms of use set out by the social media service. While I note that the draft code of practice proposes that the services must minimise users' exposure to harmful content through measures, such as through content moderation measures, these are imperfect and many seemingly innocuous posts can end up being harmful to the very young.
Second, we should introduce mandatory screen times for very young children. Excessive screen time has been linked to poor development outcomes and we must ensure that our very young do not get hooked onto the never-ending spiral of scrolling mindlessly through social media content.
Sir, in addition to introducing speed humps to control online media consumption by our children, we must also do all we can to tackle online bullying that many children face.
According to statistics from MOE, the number of bullying incidents reported each year to schools has remained low, at about two incidents per 1,000 Primary school pupils and five incidents per 1,000 Secondary school pupils. I wonder if these figures included online bullying.
In August 2022, a video emerged on social media showing three teenage girls beating up another girl in a carpark. For every such incident that goes viral, how many more fly undetected under the radar? What about more subtle, but no less harmful, forms of online bullying, such as posting hateful and \"troll\" comments among peers?
Bullying, including online bullying, impacts the mental health of our children and we need to do all we can to tackle this. I hope that the Ministry can review the proposed code of practice and allow users to flag comments or posts that can be deemed as bullying behaviour, so that such harmful content can be addressed promptly.
Beyond social media sites, online bullying behaviour is prevalent in online games, too. As advisor to the Singapore Cybersports and Online Gaming Association, this is an area that I am greatly concerned about, as our children tend to treat what happens in online games very seriously.
A key concern about the popularity of video games is that so much of the content is hypersexualised. Pornography is often embedded in these games and many games do glorify violence and sexual exploitation. In fact, a quick online search will surface many stories about how violence towards women is encouraged amongst gamers who hide under the cover of anonymity. For example, in the game \"The Sims Online\", a \"cyber-brothel\" was developed by a 17-year-old boy using the game alias \"Evangeline\" and customers paid sim-money for cybersex by the minute. It was later reported that his account was cancelled, but no legal action was taken against him.
Sir, online games have evolved from being single player, single console activities to massively multiplayer online interactions, which often integrates playing with networking to build a huge online community. As such, many children unwittingly interact with strangers for the first time in these gaming platforms, raising significantly their online safety risk. I really hope that the Ministry can include regulation of the online gaming space in the next review of the code of practice.
Sir, the business models of social media services hinge on capturing our attention span. The longer we spend on the site, the more advertisements they can serve and the more revenue they can generate. Children, unlike adults, cannot make this trade-off conscientiously and they do not understand the potential unknown side effects from being hooked onto these social media sites. We must, therefore, strive to protect them and introduce speed humps to manage their consumption of such online content. We must also do all we can to stop and prevent online bullying, which can cause real and sometimes deadly, real-world consequences. With that, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, according to Statista's research department, an estimated 5.29 million Singapore residents accessed the Internet in 2021. If you take into account users who access online social media platforms using their mobile device, the Internet penetration rate goes up higher from 89.5% to around 90%. The age of such users is also getting younger and younger. When speaking to children and their parents at community events, I have found that it is no longer surprising for Primary school children to have their own accounts on at least one or two social media platforms.
This Bill, therefore, is timely in putting in some minimum protections from the increasingly widespread use of online platforms. I have some clarifications to seek on the Bill, as well as several comments on how we can make the online aspect of our society a safe and secure place for Singaporeans and Singapore residents.
First, the principal amendment of the Bill is the addition of a new Part in the Broadcasting Act that will allow IMDA to issue directions to providers of online communication services to disable or block access to \"egregious content\". \"Egregious content\" is then defined in the new section 45D to include content that advocates or instructs on suicide, self-harm, child nudity and terrorism.
In connection with limb (b), I have two questions.
First, does \"content that advocates or instructs on violence or cruelty to, physical abuse of, or acts of torture or other infliction of serious physical harm on, human beings\" catch videos that encourage Singaporeans to participate in a foreign armed conflict? I recall that when the Ukraine conflict broke out in February this year, there were people ringing up the Ukrainian Embassy in Singapore wanting to join the fight in Ukraine. MHA even had to put out a statement to warn that it would be an offence to join a foreign war.
Second, why do we stop at violence, cruelty, abuse or torture on human beings? Are videos of animal cruelty or abuse not equally offensive? Perhaps this can be prescribed as \"egregious content\", too, under other Part 10A regulations.
I would also like to seek clarifications on whether there are any other categories of \"egregious content\" that the Ministry or IMDA is intending to prescribe under regulations. Will we also look to censor content which explicitly promotes lifestyles which are not in line with what is presently accepted as norms? Or the commercialisation of obscene and nude photos and videos? Should we also designate obvious scam advertisements as \"egregious content\"? I look forward to the Minister's response on this.
The amendments in this Bill will allow for more effective enforcement against \"egregious content\", by placing the onus on the online platform providers to disable or block access. On social media platforms with millions, if not billions, of users, it is more efficient to regulate the platform rather than individual uploaders.
The Bill provides that an electronic service provider is covered so long as it allows content to be accessed in Singapore, unless it is an \"excluded electronic service\". This would extend to a service that is provided from outside Singapore. For such foreign service providers who do not have a place of business in Singapore or its headquarters (HQ), how does the Ministry intend to effectively enforce the regulations which are premised on giving a direction to the service provider and making non-compliance with such directions a criminal offence? What will stop these foreign service providers from keeping their operations strictly outside Singapore, while flagrantly delivering \"egregious content\" into Singapore?
It appears from the new section 45R(3) that there will be individuals tasked to monitor and flag \"egregious content\" for the purpose of enforcing these new laws. Would a new department be set up under IMDA or the Singapore Police Force to do this? What would be the size of this enforcement department? This is relevant because the effectiveness of protection will depend on the speed at which we are able to block and \"take down\" offensive content.
For example, back in March 2019 – I believe this example has been shared in many speeches before me – the far-right extremist livestreamed himself on Facebook Live shooting and killing 50 people in the New Zealand mosques. Facebook did not block the livestream. Facebook, YouTube and Twitter had to fight to take down more than one million copies of the videos circulating online within the first 24 hours. The damage was already done.
I am sure most will agree that that is an obvious example of \"egregious content\". But there may also be other types that are more debatable, especially where Singapore's tolerance level and definition of racially or religiously offensive content may differ from the rest of the world or even from the perspective of the content provider or the service provider globally.
How fast do we expect to act to issue disabling and blocking directions to electronic service providers? Can the Government share some detail about the processes it intends to put in place to arrest any unforeseen scenarios promptly?
Even after the electronic service providers are issued the disabling or blocking directions, how long will they be given to comply with the directions given? Will the timeframe be stated in the direction? This is especially significant because the new section 45G reverses the burden of proof onto the electronic service provider to show that it had done the best that was reasonably practicable to do when it is charged with an offence under section 45E(1) or 45F(1).
Perhaps we can consider enhancing a second prong of enforcement by relying on the user reporting avenues to flag objectionable content. This may result in faster detection because we effectively rely on a wider pool of eyes to identify and flag \"egregious content\". From a regulatory standpoint, we could legislate higher frequency instead of an annual basis or more frequent audits on how quickly and effectively these electronic service providers act on the user reports that it receives and the systems and processes it has put in place.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I also note that the Bill provides for the potential expansion of the regulatory scope through the issuance of subsidiary legislation, orders or online codes of practice. While the Bill, if passed, starts off by targeting \"social media services\" only, the Minister will be authorised to amend or add to this list of services in the Fourth Schedule by publishing an order in the Gazette.
May I ask what other types of electronic services may, potentially, be brought within the scope of these new provisions? There are also going to be enhanced regulation of certain platforms that are designated a \"regulated online communication service\", having regard to the range of services provided to Singapore end-users and the extent and nature of the effect of such services in Singapore.
Has the Ministry provisionally identified which platforms will be designated as a \"regulated online communication service\" and whether the Ministry has already engaged with these platforms?
I give one example. We had a hackaton in Toa Payoh East CC and I had chatted with some of the youths there. They did share with me a platform called \"Discord\" – some of the gamers in this House may know about that. It is a gaming platform where gamers can chat, amongst others, within the Discord server. It is an online chat service. However, what is significant is that it has more than 140 million monthly active users now and it is being used beyond gaming. So, it is one example of an online communications service that has evolved and new things have come up.
These \"regulated online communication services\" may be subjected to one or more online codes of practice to be issued by IMDA, and the new section 45L states that the Minister will prescribe certain consultation processes to be followed before an online code of practice can be issued, amended or revoked. Are these processes already ready to be presented to Parliament for consideration? If not, when can we expect these processes to be finalised and legislated?
Besides a robust consultation process leading up to the issuance of an online code of practice, may I also suggest that the Ministry think about a periodic consultation process that can be put in place so that industry feedback can be canvassed on amendments that need to be made to an existing online code of practice.
May I also suggest that we have a council and, possibly, an advisory panel, set up to draw up and update the online code of practice from a diverse group of representatives?
Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to conclude by sharing some thoughts that are beyond the scope of this Bill, but which I believe we should consider in our safety review of our online landscape.
First, I understand that this Bill presently targets \"egregious content\" which should not be appropriate for consumption regardless of age or maturity. On behalf of concerned parents with young or teenage children like myself, I would like to ask if the Ministry foresees that some of the provisions here may be watered down in future to provide for age-specific classification of objectionable content. My worry there is that it is simply not as easy to verify one's age in the online world as checking one's EZ-Link card or NRIC at the cinema.
Second, the algorithms on social media platforms that create \"echo chambers\" with like-minded individuals, while shunning opposing views, also have the risk of deepening divides in our society. While it is understandable for platforms to push products that are matched to user interests so as to maximise advertising revenues, there should be certain controls on pushing views that are consistent with an individual's echo chambers. The latter will only push people towards extremes and worsen the divisiveness of our society.
Third, there is also an observation that society will become less and less informed as social media platforms deprioritise news and other serious content in favour of entertainment-related content. This is especially acute, given the success of TikTok in recent years, where user clicks are driven more by less serious content and platforms are adapting their algorithms to stay commercially competitive. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the clarifications sought, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Alex Yam.
Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Deputy Speaker, most, if not all the hon Members who spoke before me are parents of young children or teens. I have four precocious young children of my own. Jocelyn and I, like many parents, sometimes relent and allow tablets and smartphones to be their temporary guardians, a salve for those moments that you just need a quick break from parenting. Yet, truth be told, our fussing and anxiety over them continue even while they quieten down for their much-enjoyed screen time.
As parents, these thoughts do course through our minds: are they playing games that are too violent? What questionable videos are they accessing, perhaps involuntarily? Are they being exposed to the wrong company or the wrong content in their online interactions? We cannot discount that the Internet and social media have been a great force for good over the last two decades. They have revolutionised education, transformed the global economy, increased the flow of information and knowledge, and also helped us all to keep in touch with one another. But the Internet is like water – a good servant, but a bad master.
As far back as in 1998, our late founding father, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, had described the Internet as a force for both good and evil; that the Internet is as much a purveyor of truth as it is of outright lies. He further pointed out that though it may take some time, morality and wisdom must find a way to control and tame new technology to preserve the fundamental values of society by which parents bring up their children to be good citizens.
Sir, big tech today is worth over $10 trillion. Let that sink in. Big tech is now so big and so ubiquitous that we have forgotten to be shocked by its growth and its value. And big tech needs to be held accountable. Let us just start by looking at what is deemed by some as the new epidemic of our times: pornographic content on various platforms. Up until the early 2000s, pornography in all its forms was somewhat isolated, consigned to corners of red-light districts, back alleys of night markets, confined to the margins by social norms and, to some extent, shame.
Today, by some estimates, the industry is estimated to be worth more than $100 billion annually. While statistics are hard to come by, some researchers indicate that it comprises one quarter of daily search engine requests and seven in 10 children are inadvertently exposed to such materials daily. I am glad that this Bill makes it clear that such content should not be exposed to our children, and child sexual exploitation in all its various forms on all platforms will be tackled aggressively. But I also believe it still does not go far enough to curb the risk to children through other content.
The safeguards proposed in this Bill require algorithms to be adjusted to prevent any content \"detrimental to the physical or mental well-being of children\" and to also include automatic parental tools. But these, as other members have pointed out, can be easily circumvented. I do agree that, for some, age verification dwells into the realm of privacy, but I think it is the only sure and needed way for content to become age-sensitive for the end user.
Over the last two years, we have lived through the crisis of a generation. The pandemic has forced us to make uncomfortable decisions at times. But, yet, for the sake of public health, some small sacrifices have had to be made. It has all turned out to be better. We can now freely debate various issues in this hallowed chamber without restrictions because we, collectively, took a sensible course of action.
But the lessons of COVID-19 misinformation must not be forgotten. How easily, in a crisis, public safety can be compromised through fake news, quack treatments and bogus remedies. If we had allowed misinformation to run rampant, thousands more could have died. From COVID-19 conspiracy theorists to vaccine deniers, we could all be in a vastly different situation today if we did not take a rational, science-based, evidential approach.
Some of you might be aware, I for one, was badly affected by a booster shot, enough to put me in hospital with still some lasting after-effects, perhaps for the long term. Yet, despite being amongst a very small minority unfortunate enough to suffer a severe reaction, I believe my decision to be vaccinated was firmly informed by science and evidence rather than to be hoodwinked by online hocus pocus.
We all saw how it could have been vastly different in other countries; even, locally, we have examples. The elderly lady, taken violently ill and hospitalised because her circle of friends convinced her through mutually shared online fakery, that deworming drug, Ivermectin, was a miracle drug against COVID-19. And these are just a small sliver of the massive deluge of misinformation online on COVID-19 that have flooded all countries and could have compromised, not just individual health, but the entire community and the safety of various countries.
As such, I do wonder if the Ministry has enough manpower to ensure that such egregious content can be expeditiously removed before further harm can be done. The current proposed Bill does not stipulate a timeline, as many other Members have pointed out, compared to other countries, for example, in Australia, that indicate a 24-hour take-down window. We should perhaps apply the same to our laws, so that the damage is limited and action can be taken so that harm to individuals can be avoided quickly in the light speed by which content travels in the metaverse today.
By the same measure of speed of content viralling, the entire industry itself is evolving dramatically day by day. While the major social media platforms have been engaged for this Bill, one of the players, Twitter, has changed hands just last week. The new owner, Elon Musk, is a free speech absolutist. He wants to transform Twitter into a platform that, oxymoronically, is a safe haven for all forms of free speech, including harmful ones.
As the company evolves to fit into their new owner's worldview, how will the Ministry take the process forward and how will we deal with potential difficulties of a social media giant which may well now become unwilling to accept the rules that we seek to enforce for the safety of Singaporean users? While I also accept that the Bill will similarly evolve and include more industry players, platforms, as the metaverse expands, I do call on the Government to consider including in the very near future social messaging and private messaging platforms where information can spread like wildfire, especially amongst older audiences, and also gaming platforms and chat platforms like Discord, where cyberbullying and misogyny are becoming rampant.
Regulating the metaverse is more challenging than herding cats. Therefore, we must act quickly before they run amok.
Mr Deputy Speaker, some commentators have also seen shadows everywhere. They decry the chilling effect on free speech that Bills like these introduced elsewhere and here will have on free speech.
But let us look at some surveys of what users themselves want out of their online experience.
In the most recent survey published by Pew Research in August 2022 on sentiments amongst teens and adults in that bastion of free speech, the US, 62% of teen respondents aged 13 to 17, who were surveyed, said that their top priority is a welcoming, safe online environment, and that is far more important than being able to speak their minds freely online. Even with the adults who were surveyed, while the results are more evenly spread, 50% as compared to 47%, they also prefer the same safe environment online. So, it does show that a safe environment both in the real world and in the online world, are what we aspire to, and we must do what we can.
Apart from regulations, which are needful, I believe that the Ministry would do well to empower all users – adults, parents and children – to do some self-policing. Online safety requires a whole-of-society effort to be educated on what is proper behaviour online personally and what is safe interactions with others.
Just as parents cannot simply hand over responsibility, care and control of their children to others in the physical world, we must be aware of our own rights and responsibilities online and how we educate our children to look out for themselves. We do not as yet have to confront the tragedy of Molly Russell within our own country. As observers, we can sympathise, we can lament; but I think, as parents, it is an experience that no one of us, no child, no family, should have to go through or endure.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we have a huge task at hand. I foresee the challenges that the changes to the metaverse would pose to society and to the Ministry in policing it and helping to keep all of us safe. I do hope that the Ministry will be able to muster sufficient manpower resources to quickly ensure that the safeguards spelt out in this Bill are as good in words as they are in action. Our children, especially, need us to take the right decisions to keep them safe. We owe them and others our responsibility. And so, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this Bill and hope that my suggestions can be adopted.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join the debate on this Bill.
Harmful content found online has proliferated with the expansion and pervasiveness of social media services in recent years. Bad or irresponsible actors have exploited the accessibility of the digital world to spread harmful materials. We are now in a world where the nature of harm to minors are vastly different. There has been a pronounced shift from physical to online dangers, but still leading to real and physical harm.
As hon Member Alex Yam shared, the suicide of a teenager in the United Kingdom, Ms Molly Russell, in 2017 is a stark reminder of the harms in the online world. At the coroner's inquest, they found that the harmful content Molly encountered on social media had played a contributing role in her suicide. Coroner Andrew Walker said images of self-harm and suicide she viewed \"shouldn't have been available for a child to see\". Her death sent shockwaves across the UK and beyond, and the UK is now similarly considering a Bill to the one we are debating today.
According to Molly's father, Ian Russell, at the inquest, \"It's a world I don't recognise. It's a ghetto of the online world that once you fall into it, the algorithm means you can't escape it and it keeps recommending more content. You can't escape it.\"
The law must be strengthened so that our minors do not fall into this commercially-driven quicksand.
The proposed Bill mirrors society's consensus. Social media services must take up more responsibility to protect people of all ages, especially minors, from harmful content.
It provides for a calibrated regulatory approach by implementing a code of practice prescribed which social media services must comply or face consequences, along with the authorities' overriding oversight to deal with egregious content. We are just one of the few jurisdictions in the world to consider codifying the responsibilities of these social media services. I believe that many other jurisdictions will follow in time to come.
I would like to offer a few areas for the Ministry's consideration to refine the Bill and offer a few suggestions to the code as follows.
First, we need to refine section A of the code to implement a robust age verification system to effectively delineate a higher standard of responsibility social media services owe to minors.
The Bill and the code rightfully prescribe additional obligations to be undertaken by these services to prevent minors from accessing harmful content. In practical terms, minors would be flagged out as minors by these services if the user inputs their age to show that they are under the age of 18. With this, the services can then moderate the content shown to minors.
My concern with this is that the current age verification process is very much circumventable. For example, what if a 12-year-old could falsely input their age as a 21-year-old? Hence, they would not be treated as a minor as far as the services are concerned.
In such an instance, it must also be the responsibility of the services to implement a secure age verification system. What are the standards required of the services for such verification?
In addition, would the Ministry also look into implementing a robust nationwide age verification system to ensure that the responsibility of services to children can be adequately effected in practice?
Such nationwide age verification systems are currently being trialed in Australia. Perhaps, this is something that we can also learn from.
Next, section B of the Code of Practice states that there must be an easy-to-use mechanism for Singapore end-users to report harmful content and unwanted interaction. However, clauses which directly relate to the liability of the services arising from their failure to comply with user requests in the code are not readily apparent.
Would the Ministry establish an avenue for Singapore end-users to report such non-compliance with the code?
Further, I understand that even though the code is still under review, section B, which imposes obligations on the services to act on user reports in a timely manner, seems to leave some room for ambiguity. Could the Ministry elaborate on whether it would consider implementing an objective or specific timeframe for the services to respond to user reports and perhaps have different timeframes which are proportionate to the nature of the harmful content identified? For example, the timeframe for services to respond to sexual cyberbullying content should arguably be done as soon as possible.
Next, on the legislative provisions in the Bill, under the proposed section 45E(1) where a service does not comply with blocking directions and the proposed section 45N which contemplates a situation where a prescribed service does not comply with the Code, the defaulting service may be liable to a maximum fine of up to $1 million.
For comparison, under the Privacy and Data Protection Act, the maximum financial penalty was increased to the higher 10% of an organisation's annual turnover in Singapore or $1 million to send a stronger signal of Singapore's stance towards the importance of privacy and data protection.
I believe that online safety is as equally important as privacy and data protection, if not even more. Both are crucial gears that must be safeguarded in the digital ecosystem. Would the Ministry thus consider increasing the maximum penalties that can be meted out under the Bill? This would also give the Ministry more flexibility in proposing appropriate penalties based on the non-compliance complained of.
On a related note, the current penalties almost seem like a slap on the wrist, compared to other jurisdictions. In the United Kingdom, the Online Safety Bill currently prescribes a maximum fine of the higher of £18 million or 10% of the defaulting service's worldwide revenue. In Germany, the Network Enforcement Act prescribes a maximum penalty of up to €50 million.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, I believe that the Bill will, nonetheless, make considerable strides in our efforts to protect our people against harmful content.
The success of this goal will also be premised on contemplating a whole-of-society approach, where our efforts are to work closely with the community and industry stakeholders to equip Singaporeans with the knowledge and skills to keep themselves safe online. This remains a key piece in this journey. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.30 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.07 pm until 3.30 pm.
Sitting resumed at 3.30 pm.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
The Minister for Communications and Information (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Members for their interest in the Bill. All 16 Members who spoke have given their support, reflecting the broad consensus on the need and timeliness of the proposals. Members raised many useful points which I will address.
Let me start with clarifications on the types of services that the Bill will cover. Ms Tin Pei Ling, Mr Louis Ng and Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked what other types of services, besides social media services, may be specified in the Schedule of Online Communication Services, or OCS. Dr Shahira Abdullah wanted to know how IMDA will decide which service providers to designate. She and Ms Tin Pei Ling also asked about updating our regulations to keep in step with new technologies.
Like many Singaporeans we engaged, Members acknowledged the fast pace of change in the online landscape. We are, therefore, committed to updating our laws and regulations as frequently as necessary to keep them relevant and effective. In terms of the type of services, we will prioritise those that are more widely used in Singapore and where the safety risks have become or are becoming apparent. IMDA will use various data sources on user trends in Singapore to aid these assessments.
The Government is actively studying several areas, but I seek Members’ understanding that it can be counter-productive to discuss them prematurely. Let us instead better understand and characterise the issues, taking reference from regulatory attempts elsewhere, before moving to design a suitable set of interventions for Singapore. For example, Mr Melvin Yong, Mr Alex Yam, Mr Gerald Giam and Mr Mark Chay asked about online gaming, whereas the Bill only covers social media services currently. We share their concerns about online gaming. We have been thinking about it and we will share more details when ready.
Within each specified OCS, which entities to designate will depend on how much reach or impact they have with Singapore viewers. IMDA will consult services before designating them under the Bill, to ensure that designated services are clear on the requirements and are given the opportunity to provide input on the proposals laid out by IMDA.
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Leon Perera asked about the consultation process. Details will be set out on how IMDA will work closely with the designated services. Having built constructive relationships with many of these services over the years, we are confident the processes will be robust. The list of services to be designated eventually will be published by IMDA.
Ms Nadia Samdin, Mr Alex Yam and Ms Tin Pei Ling asked why private communications have been excluded. The short answer is that there are legitimate privacy concerns, which Mr Gerald Giam also shares. But users are not without recourse. IMDA’s draft Code of Practice for Online Safety will require designated social media services to provide easily accessible user reporting mechanisms throughout its service. If individuals encounter harmful messages or unwanted interactions in private messages when using these social media services, they could block the sender or report the sender to the service.
While we do not intend to police private communications, we are also aware that there are groups with very large memberships, which could be used to propagate egregious content, making them no different from non-private communications. In such instances, IMDA will be empowered to take the same actions against them. Mr Louis Ng and Mr Zhulkarnain asked about the specific factors in determining whether communications are private, that could shield such services from complying with IMDA’s protective measures. Mr Mark Chay asked about messaging platforms.
Labelling a group or communications as private does not make it so. The Bill sets out a list of factors that must be considered collectively. For example, it may be possible to conclude that a social media group is public, even if that social media group has been set to “private” and requires the owner to grant permission before one can access the content, but the owner is indiscriminate in granting that access. We will continue to study this issue closely with other agencies, industry and international partners.
Next, on what type of content the Bill will, or will not, address. Mr Zhulkarnain asked whether drug abuse and other illegal activities will be covered. Mr Saktiandi highlighted a particular area in the online domain that is of growing concern to many users – scams.
Under “egregious content”, as defined under the Bill, content that may cause risk to public health will be covered. Depending on the facts of the case, this may include drug-related content. IMDA’s Code of Practice for Online Safety also requires services to apply content moderation systems to vice and organised crime, including fraud and scam content.
Mr Gerald Giam and Mr Leon Perera asked whether the Bill would cover non-consensual sharing of intimate images, and Mr Louis Ng asked why content “likely to cause feelings of enmity, hatred, ill will or hostility” is applied only to racial and religious groups, and not to other demographic segments, such as gender.
To a large extent, the kinds of problematic content the Members have in mind will already be covered within the Bill. Content that advocates or instructs on violence, including sexual violence, to individuals will be covered. IMDA’s draft code of practice for Online Safety will require services to assess and act on cyberbullying, including content that is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to the user, which Mr Leon Perera and Mr Darryl David, as well as Mr Melvin Yong, also emphasised the need for. For cases of harassment, there may also be recourse under laws, such as the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA). I will say more about this later.
To Mr Louis Ng’s question on providing more details of “harmful content” under the Code, IMDA has issued a set of draft guidelines giving examples of the content covered, which will be finalised together with the Code.
Mr Leon Perera spoke at length about the problem of loot boxes in online gaming. Mr Mark Chay also raised this issue. This matter falls under the Gambling Control Act, but since Members have raised it, I will briefly address it.
The Government recognises the potential harms of loot boxes. This is why we made significant updates to the Gambling Control Act earlier this year to ensure that our laws are able to address emerging trends and products, such as in-game loot boxes, which are monitored by the Gambling Regulatory Authority. I invite the Members to file Parliamentary Questions if they wish to discuss this issue in greater detail.
Mr Saktiandi also raised queries on content, such as lifestyles that go against traditional norms of society, participation in foreign armed conflicts, animal cruelty and commercialised nudity. Should we go beyond concerns over safety of individuals and communities to cover other types of content at this juncture? This has the same problem as if our proposals attempted to cover other types of services prematurely. The Bill will become unwieldy, our proposals lacking in focus and the results likely ineffective.
Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked if we had considered streamlining all online-related harms into the Online Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. Our approach has been to identify and address specific areas of harm in a targeted manner. As to whether the laws will be consolidated later, that remains to be seen. At this time, it is more important that we put in place legislation that effectively addresses and combats the respective harms. For example, at the Committee of Supply debates this year, MHA announced that it was studying potential levers to deal with criminal offences committed online. Work is in progress. These levers are envisioned to complement the provisions under the Online Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill.
This leads me to questions raised by quite a few Members on how the types or thresholds of harmful or egregious content are determined and whether a committee or deliberative body could be set up to formulate or review these thresholds.
The Government had consulted various stakeholders, including parents, community groups and industry representatives in arriving at the proposals in the Bill. Egregious content can take many forms and exist in grey areas which can be difficult to define clearly. A case in point is Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin’s example of online forums for users to share their experiences with one another to deal with depression and anxiety, and to provide mutual support.
When assessing whether a piece of content is harmful or egregious, IMDA will take an objective approach, considering the context in which it is presented. If such content is educational in nature or helps users to overcome these harms, naturally, it will not be considered harmful or egregious. On the other hand, social media trends or challenges may sometimes appear innocuous, such as the “milk crate” challenge Mr Darryl David had mentioned. But if they result in harm to users, such as by advocating or providing instructions on self-harm or suicide, they would be considered harmful.
If the concern is whether individual social media services have done enough to curb exposure to harmful content, the Government will continue to consult widely across society and share the feedback with the companies. In other words, we would want to hold the mirror to them so that they know what our society’s expectations are and be able to make adjustments accordingly.
When urgent action is needed, such as to remove offensive content that advocates violence towards certain communities or could cause serious injuries to them, IMDA must be able to act fast. In such situations, consultations with stakeholders are better done as part of an after-action review.
To Mr Gerald Giam’s question, if services are aggrieved by IMDA’s regulatory decisions, they can appeal to the Minister. And the Minister’s decision can also be challenged on judicial review.
Mr Gerald Giam and Mr Leon Perera sought assurances that the Bill will not be used to curtail democratic rights or freedom of expression. I stated in my opening address that IMDA does not have unfettered ability to issue new Codes. The Bill clearly sets out the purposes for which IMDA can issue these Codes, which are recorded in Hansard. I would also like to remind Members of the overarching purpose of the Bill. And that is, to provide a safe environment and conditions that protect online users, while respecting freedom of speech and expression, as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.
Let me also address a specific area that Mr Giam raised – the provisions on journalistic content in the UK’s draft Online Safety Bill. I thank Mr Giam for his support of the Bill – I mean the Singapore Bill, not the UK Bill – and also his suggestion for Singapore to mirror the UK proposal. We are always watching developments internationally and considering what would be useful in our context. I will make three brief points on Mr Giam’s suggestion.
First, the draft Bill in the UK has not been passed into law. The draft provisions have been through several revisions and are far from final. So, whether this part goes in eventually, that remains to be seen.
Second, without going into detail, there have been criticisms that the provisions on journalistic content may be exploited by bad actors. It could inadvertently allow anyone, under the guise of being a “citizen journalist”, to communicate egregious content and expose users to harm.
Third, this Bill is about online safety. It has no interest in curbing legitimate journalistic content.
This brings me to my next point on enforcement, which several Members have raised. I will explain the enforcement measures that the Bill provides for at each stage and how these relate to the online service providers.
IMDA will, first, assess if there are instances of non-compliance, either with the Code's requirements or with directions issued by IMDA. It does not matter whether there are management changes within the companies. Accountability resides with the legal entities.
Where there is non-compliance, in general, IMDA will engage the services to understand their reasons. This includes services that do not have a corporate presence in Singapore.
Thereafter, if there is no meaningful response or mutually acceptable solution, and IMDA finds the services to still be in breach of their obligations, measures, such as financial penalties, will be considered.
Mr Desmond Choo asked if the penalties for non-compliance are too low to have sufficient impact or deterrence. The financial penalty quantum is comparable with other local legislation that covers social media services, such as the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act and the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act.
Services will also face reputational damage. Imagine if a service is consistently found to be in breach, and IMDA over a period of time is regularly issuing them penalties, these will be known to the public and users themselves can exercise the decision whether to continue using the service. So, I think the reputational damage has also to be considered.
In the event that these still fail to address our serious concerns, IMDA may then issue a blocking direction to Internet Access Service Providers to stop Singapore users from accessing these services.
But to Mr Zhulkarnain's question, the purpose of section 45H(2)(b) is to ensure that this happens only if the platform had refused to comply with IMDA's direction. This reflects our proportionate approach towards regulating content.
To Dr Shahira Abdullah's question regarding the details of a blocking direction, such as duration, this will depend on the individual case. Suffice to say that it is a measure IMDA will not take lightly. But IMDA's resolve in protecting Singaporeans' interests should not be tested.
Let me also address various technical questions from Members.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked how \"Singapore users\" will be determined. The OCS providers will, typically, have geolocation data on whether a user accesses the service from Singapore. This is common practice.
Mr Gan and Mr Melvin Yong also asked how the Government would ensure that Singapore users are not exposed to harmful content, given the use of VPNs.
Just like fire codes cannot prevent people from playing with fire, neither can we shield people completely if they intentionally seek out harmful content online. Parents have a role to play, as do the individuals themselves as well as our wider society, to be aware and vigilant.
Mr Zhulkarnain asked what we mean by \"reasonably practicable\" steps taken by the OCS to comply with IMDA's direction. This requires the balancing of various considerations, such as the technology that is available to implement that direction. So, we will have to look into the details.
Mr Zhulkarnain also asked about the proposed section 45J(2). This provision ensures that compliance with IMDA's directions does not cause a service provider to incur liability in Singapore, if, for example, the content creator takes issue with it. IMDA's concern is to protect users in Singapore and this Bill only requires action against content accessible in Singapore. Thus, this provision, naturally, only insulates against liability under Singapore law.
Since our measures are also proportionate to the harm and consistent with leading jurisdictions, it is unlikely that the service providers will attract liability elsewhere for complying with IMDA's directions in Singapore.
But we will monitor international developments and keep in mind his suggestions on reciprocal immunity.
Mr Zhulkarnain, Mr Alex Yam, Mr Saktiandi Supaat as well as Mr Gerald Giam asked who will enforce the Bill, whether it is a dedicated new body, such as an eSafety Commissioner that will be set up, and whether the respective Government teams are sufficiently resourced.
I thank them for looking out for the teams working behind the scenes on online safety, including their mental well-being, as highlighted by Dr Shahira Abdullah. As I mentioned above, compliance assessments will be undertaken by IMDA, which has both the experience and expertise in performing this role. If egregious content is flagged to IMDA, and IMDA assesses there is a need to act, action will be taken.
All this will be a lot of work, but we will, periodically, review our resourcing to ensure that the team is able to carry out its responsibilities fully and effectively. And, here, I notice that my colleague from MOF is also right behind. I am sure we have the support of the Ministry if more resources are to be needed.
Members have asked how individual users can provide feedback about problematic content or non-compliance. I agree with Mr Saktiandi Supaat that users are effectively a wider pool of eyes who can help to identify and flag problematic content.
Mr Alex Yam is also right to remind us that users must play a role in policing harms they may come across.
Users are, indeed, our first line of defence. This is why we expect social media services to take user reports seriously and to ensure that their systems and processes are sufficiently robust.
Under IMDA's draft Code of Practice for Online Safety, designated services will be required to provide effective, transparent, easy-to-access and easy-to-use reporting mechanisms to all individuals. This is a more effective way, to tackle voluminous online content at source.
In turn, users expect that social media services assess their reports and take appropriate action in a timely and diligent manner. Services will be required to include information on these actions in their annual reports. With this information, IMDA will be able to assess the adequacy of the service's measures. Audits may also be undertaken to ensure compliance.
Mr Gerald Giam and, I believe, also Mr Saktiandi Supaat, asked for the social media services to submit reports at a higher frequency than annually to establish the services' effectiveness in acting on user reports. As a start, IMDA intends for the reports to be submitted annually but this can be reviewed later on.
Given the speed at which harmful or egregious content can be amplified and spread online, the speed of action must be proportionate to the potential harm of the content identified.
Members asked about the timelines for services to act on directions issued by IMDA or to respond to user reports. IMDA's directions will stipulate a specific timeline for disabling access. For egregious content that could cause serious harm, the timeline would, generally, be within hours.
IMDA will also require social media services to act on user reports in a timely and diligent manner that is proportionate to the severity of the potential harm. In particular, timelines must be expedited for content and activity related to terrorism.
Members have expressed concerns about the impact of harmful online content on young users. Ms Janet Ang and Mr Gerald Giam raised the need to leverage technology to combat harmful online content, including through setting default content restriction settings for young users.
We understand and share these concerns. Therefore, IMDA's draft codes will put in place additional safeguards to protect young users, including minimising their exposure to inappropriate content and providing tools for children or their parents to manage their safety online. The code also requires that services provide differentiated accounts to children, whereby safety settings are robust and set to more restrictive levels that are age-appropriate by default. Children and their parents or guardians must be provided clear warnings of implications if they opt out of the default settings.
We will continue working with industry players to see how such measures can be strengthened. We recognise that there are gaps. In practice though, users might try to circumvent these measures.
Mr Desmond Choo, Mr Melvin Yong, Mr Gerald Giam, as well as some respondents to MCI's public consultation in July, have asked about the possibility of requiring age verification systems. Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Alex Yam, Mr Mark Chay and Mr Melvin Yong asked about measures to better protect the young, including age-specific provisions or mandating screen-time restrictions.
Most social media services that have got significant reach or impact already require users to be at least 13 years old to register for an account. Users have to declare their date of birth at the point of registration. This way, services will be able to apply age-appropriate policies to their respective users, including content moderation.
In line with this, PDPC will be clarifying that personal data may be used to implement such age-appropriate policies on social media services. It is permitted and we will make it clear.
To mitigate against false age declarations, which is the problem I think we all recognise, some social media services use a combination of artificial intelligence, machine learning technology and facial recognition algorithms to proactively detect and remove underage accounts. Some also allow users to report accounts suspected to be underage, which will be investigated and suspended if the reports are accurate.
However, there is, currently, no international consensus on the standards for effective and reliable age verification by social media services which Singapore can also reliably reference. Instead, we will continue to closely monitor and extensively consult on the latest developments in age verification technology, taking into account data protection safeguards and consider viable regulatory options. In addition, we will continue to work with social media services, educators and other stakeholders, to help parents guide young users navigating online spaces and make young users better aware of the safety tools that are available to them.
Members have also raised the importance of providing support to victims or users affected by online harms. We recognise that while laws provide the necessary legal tools for victims, they can often be daunting and difficult to approach.
Members would be glad to know that organisations, such as SG Her Empowerment, or SHE, have stepped up to augment Defence Guild's efforts in providing legal support to victims of online abuse. May I just register the MCI family's sincere appreciation to Mr Zhulkarnain and his fellow volunteers for stepping up to perform this very important function.
Continuing the work of the Sunlight AFA, which concluded its tenure in July this year, SHE is working with the Singapore Council of Women's Organisations to launch a support centre for victims of online harm. We see this as an important gap to plug. We are committed to making it happen and I believe that it will be made available soon. Those in need will then be able to seek support and legal advice from counsellors and probono lawyers from this centre.
As I mentioned in my opening speech, online harassment, cyberbullying and doxxing are dealt with under the Protection from Harassment Act 2014 (POHA). Victims of gender-based online harms, of which a commonly known example is image-based sexual abuse, will be able to seek recourse under POHA where the online harm amounts to harassment.
The Protection from Harassment Court has served many victims since it was established last year. And a reason that more have been able to get redress is because of the wider awareness of its existence.
MinLaw is also looking into how victims can be better empowered to put a stop to such online harms generally, and to seek redress against and hold accountable those who are responsible. This includes cyberbullying and more novel forms of online hurt, such as cancel campaigns, which Minister Shanmugam has spoken about before.
MinLaw's efforts will complement MCI's efforts to enhance the Government's regulatory tool kit, as well as MHA's efforts to address criminal offences committed online. More details will be announced at an appropriate juncture. But I think Members see that we are not stopping with this Bill. There are other proposals that are being considered and we probably will not have to wait very much longer for these to be known publicly.
Which leads me to my final point – that public education must come hand in hand with legislation. Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin, Mr Alex Yam, Mr Mark Chay, Mr Leon Perera and Mr Zhulkarnain spoke about this. Members also called for more collaboration with service providers in this area.
For example, Mr Melvin Yong asked whether the Government would consider setting up a self-regulatory task force with key OCS providers. We can explore this suggestion when we engage further with the industry.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek your permission to distribute a handout to Members which contain a list of safety measures on social media services and public education programmes organised in collaboration with various technology companies and community partners.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Please do. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]
Mrs Josephine Teo: Thank you. This will give Members a sense of the breadth and depth of public education efforts that are already available in Singapore even as we recognise that there are gaps that need to be plugged.
To highlight a few examples, Google held its Online Safety Park at the Digital for Life Festival earlier this year and it is partnering the Media Literacy Council (MLC) to bring its \"Be Internet Awesome\" programme to Primary schools to train 50,000 parents and children on online safety measures. The last I met with them, they said that the 50,000 target has been met. They are actually aiming to double it to 100,000.
Meta collaborated with the National Crime Prevention Council and MLC on a campaign to educate users on top scam typologies and tips to keep safe. This campaign reached over two million users and a second campaign has been launched on e-commerce scams. There are many others and we will continue to build on these efforts.
Mr Deputy Speaker, may I make a few comments in Mandarin, please?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Please do.
Mrs Josephine Teo: (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Deputy Speaker, in this day and age, a piece of harmful online content has the potential to spread like wildfire, causing serious damage. We all know that firefighters are needed to put out fires. The cyberspace, too, needs such first responders. The purpose of the Online Safety Bill is to enable us to \"fight fires\" in a timely and effective manner.
\tWhile it is important to put in place relevant laws, it is impossible for the law to eradicate harmful online content completely. Instead, we need to adopt an agile and accretive approach to deal with the fast-changing cyberspace.
\tMore importantly, the Government fully understands that we need partners to co-develop solutions.
\tOne important stakeholder is parents. However, many parents are not digital natives themselves. Hence, keeping up with the ever-evolving online space proves to be challenging for them. The Government is, therefore, working with multiple stakeholders to enhance parents’ awareness of online safety and strengthen their capabilities to guide their children, for instance, by informing parents about the safety options available on social media platforms.
\tAlthough keeping the cyberspace safe is an uphill task, so long as we work together, I am confident we can create a safer and more vibrant digital future for Singaporeans.
(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, I have tried to respond to as many of the questions and suggestions as I can.
The Bill before us today seeks to create a safer online environment for Singapore users. Users will be empowered with the tools to manage their own safety and equipped with the information needed to make informed decisions about how they wish to use online services.
In turn, online services will be held accountable for their systems, processes and actions. And where there is egregious content, such as content that undermines racial and religious harmony, the Government will step in to protect users.
Ultimately, we must recognise that there is no single measure that will assure us of online safety. We will need laws, codes, education, user reporting and a whole range of interventions. We will also need to keep updating our measures to deal with new risks. I am heartened that Members are united on this and I thank the House for its unanimous support.
Shared responsibility, parental guidance and active individual involvement will play a key role in ensuring that even in the face of harmful online content, users, including children, can stay safe online.
This Bill is a first step. We will continue to work with all of you and our various partners to keep our people safe online. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move. [Applause.]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Are there any clarifications? None.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
[(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. – [Mrs Josephine Teo]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Accountancy Functions (Consolidation) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The Accountancy Functions (Consolidation) Bill merges the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA), the Accounting Standards Council (ASC) and the Singapore Accountancy Commission (SAC) under one entity. The merger was first announced in July last year and the merged entity will take on the name of ACRA. Upon the passing of the Bill, we intend for the merger to take effect on 1 April 2023.
The Government's accountancy-related functions have evolved over the years.
ACRA was created in 2004, following the merger of the Registry of Companies and Businesses and the Public Accountants Board to consolidate complementary functions in financial statement regulation and audit regulation. ACRA, currently, registers and regulates public accountants, business entities and corporate service providers.
ASC was formed in 2007 to set accounting standards that would apply to companies and non-corporate entities, such as charities, societies and co-operative societies.
SAC was set up in 2013 following a recommendation made by the Committee to Develop the Accountancy Sector (CDAS). SAC's key function is to grow the accountancy sector and related fields in Singapore, including the development of the Singapore Chartered Accountant Qualification (SCAQ), which leads to the conferment of the \"Chartered Accountant of Singapore\" designation.
The Government has reviewed the structure of these entities and assessed that there is value in consolidating these accounting-related functions within one entity. The merger seeks to achieve the two key objectives while preserving the existing strengths of the constituent parts.
One, it will strengthen the effectiveness of regulation, standard setting and sector development by harnessing synergies across complementary functions.
Sustainability reporting is an example. ACRA has set up a sustainability reporting office and is taking the lead to monitor global reporting developments on this front. ACRA is also working with industry stakeholders to develop an implementation roadmap.
For the roadmap to be feasible, our accounting firms and professionals need to be equipped with the necessary knowledge. Such capability building and sector development initiatives are, currently, overseen by SAC.
The merger of these entities will allow for closer partnership and forge a stronger feedback loop between regulatory and sector development matters, enabling us to respond more nimbly.
We expect more of such cross-cutting issues in the future, for example, on the valuation of intangible assets and implications on financial reporting standards. Thus, the merger of these entities is timely.
Two, it will strengthen the merged entity's ability to develop and manage talent in a sustained manner as well as provide better career development opportunities to officers. Today, SAC and ASC secretariats are both small organisations with a staff strength of less than 30 officers. By merging them with ACRA, which has a wider range of responsibilities and larger staff strength of about 200 officers, there will be more opportunities for existing SAC and ASC secretariat officers to be cross-deployed, cross-trained and move forward in their careers.
The Bill seeks to give effect to the merger through two key sets of amendments. Let me elaborate on them.
The first set of amendments relates to amendments to the ACRA Act and the repeal of the SAC Act.
Currently, the SAC Act provides for the SAC to perform the functions and powers relating to the growth and development of the accountancy sector and its related fields, such as business valuation. The SAC Act also provides for SAC to register persons as Chartered Accountants of Singapore and handle issues relating to the suspension or termination of such membership.
Part 1 of the Bill amends the ACRA Act to allow ACRA to take on the functions and powers that currently reside with SAC. The Bill also provides for SAC's assets, liabilities, records and employees to be transferred to ACRA with no change to the employment terms of SAC's employees. SAC's current employment terms are the same as those of ACRA.
Consequentially, the SAC Act will be repealed and the SAC dissolved accordingly. Savings and transitional provisions have been provided under Part 5 of the Bill to ensure that the handover from SAC to ACRA can be smoothly effected, for example, where there are pending applications relating to Chartered Accountants of Singapore.
The second set of amendments pertains to amendments to the Accounting Standards Act.
Currently, ASC sets accounting standards that apply to companies, charities, societies and co-operative societies in Singapore.
Following the merger, the Bill provides for an Accounting Standards Committee to be established within ACRA. The appointment of members to the Committee will have to be approved by the Minister for Finance, as is the case with the appointment of members to ASC today.
The Bill confers the accounting standards setting function for companies, charities, societies and co-operative societies in Singapore on ACRA. This would allow the Accounting Standards Committee, which will now be reconstituted under ACRA, to continue performing its function of setting accounting standards in the same way as the Accounting Standards Council does today.
The Bill also provides that the accounting standards made or formulated by ASC that are currently in force will remain valid, until otherwise superseded by the Accounting Standards Committee.
Part 3 of the Bill provides for the amendments to the Accounting Standards Act.
Finally, Part 2 and Part 4 of the Bill provide for consequential and related amendments to other Acts. These are to allow non-ACRA Board members to be appointed to the Public Accountants Oversight Committee, and to replace existing references to “Singapore Accountancy Commission” with “Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority” and existing references to the “Accounting Standards Council” with “Accounting Standards Committee”.
In conclusion, Sir, the amendments in this Bill is to effect the merger of ACRA, SAC and ASC into a strengthened accountancy function under one entity. Over the past decade, the accountancy sector has evolved from bookkeeping and auditing to include a myriad of other roles, such as corporate governance, insolvency and business advisory services. With emerging trends, such as sustainability, the accountancy sector will continue to evolve further.
We are committed to supporting the industry on this transformation journey and the merger will better serve the accountancy sector. This will, in turn, enhance Singapore’s pro-business and trusted regulatory environment. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Don Wee.
Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I declare that I am an elected Council Member of the Institute of Singapore Chartered Accountants (ISCA) and a member of the Accountancy Workforce Review Committee, but I do not have any commercial interest in any accounting entity.
Accountancy has continued to thrive because of the key role it plays in supporting capital markets and businesses, and it continues to evolve and remain relevant to industry needs. As reflected in the Accountancy Jobs Transformation Maps for In-house Finance and Accounting Functions and Accounting Practices, job roles in accountancy continue to evolve and new roles are emerging, in tandem with the rapidly changing business landscape. I commend the Government for the Jobs Transformation Maps and various other initiatives to upskill and reskill the profession.
All professions have to constantly adapt to changes arising from technological advancement and climate change, and the accountancy profession, in particular, is adapting well. These developments reflect the need for the Government to prepare accountants for emerging roles. Therefore, the merger of the accountancy-related units in ACRA, SAC and ASC secretariats into a strengthened accountancy function under one entity is a step in the right direction.
This merger will strengthen the effectiveness of regulation, standard-setting and sector development by harnessing synergies across complementary functions. The merged entity will also be better able to support the needs of the accountancy profession as Singapore transitions to a green economy.
Looking ahead, there are pertinent areas that need to be enhanced to further grow the accountancy sector and profession.
For instance, there is a misperception that the accountancy sector is no longer an attractive career. The Business Times reported that students are choosing courses that will lead to hot jobs in fields, such as data science and environmental sustainability, over accountancy. The accountancy talent pool has also shrunk. According to data published by MOE, the total intake of accountancy students at the Autonomous Universities has fallen from 1,508 in 2017 to 1,368 in 2020.
This seems to contradict with my observations, as there is now a severe shortage of accountants in the jobs marketplace, with demand outstripping supply. Demand for accountants will continue to grow. Singapore's accountancy sector is expected to add 6,000 to 7,000 jobs by 2025, from a workforce of about 100,000 now. The talent shortage in the accountancy sector is an urgent issue and we need to develop the accountancy talent pipeline to meet the projected demand to support the growth of Singapore’s businesses and the economy.
More needs to be done to increase the supply of professional accountants. I would like to suggest the merged entity to look into these three key areas.
The first area is on the enhancements to the Singapore Chartered Accountant Qualification (SCAQ). SCAQ is the gateway to the future of the accountancy sector. It is the main qualification pathway for one to qualify as a Chartered Accountant of Singapore. As the national Chartered Accountant (CA) qualification, SCAQ is an important product of Singapore and a brand with the potential to be marketed regionally and internationally, just like the renowned ACCA, which is a key export of the UK.
SCAQ was launched in 2013. It should be reviewed and enhanced holistically to be more in line with market expectations.
Given the diverse roles professional accountants can play in an increasingly complex business environment, SCAQ should be designed to cater to a wider range of career pathways. I note that SCAQ, currently, contains a module on valuation but does not delve deeper into the topics of sustainability and forensics.
For the existing valuation module, a review should be undertaken to consider if the curriculum should be broadened to provide appreciation of pertinent valuation issues driving the businesses currently, for example, changes and impact to businesses caused by climate change and/or other ESG factors. The review can be conducted jointly with the Institute of Valuers and Appraisers Singapore, which is supported by the Singapore Accountancy Commission currently.
To further enhance the programme’s value proposition, it should focus on attracting a wider audience to inject talent diversity through the review of the programme entry requirements and structure enhancements, increasing flexibility on how practical experience is recognised and exploring regionalisation opportunities.
For greater inclusivity and to widen the talent pool beyond those who have pursued accountancy tertiary studies, having multiple entry pathways and recognition of relevant competencies would improve the profession’s accessibility.
The second area is the need to tighten policy and enhance regulation of preparers of financial statements.
While we build the talent pool, it is important to also look at upholding financial reporting quality, which is crucial to maintaining Singapore’s reputation as a global financial centre and business hub. To do this, there should be regulation whereby preparers of financial statements, especially those working in public interest entities, must be Chartered Accountants.
Accountants in Singapore are, primarily, unregulated as long as they are not public accountants. Under the Accountants Act, only those who provide public accountancy services must register with the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority. There are no regulations governing those who provide non-audit services like accounting, taxation or consultancy, financial services and those who are employed in business, commerce and industry.
Furthermore, the title \"accountant\" is used loosely, as any individual can practise and declare themselves an accountant. This has grave implications. There is no incentive for unregulated accountants to continuously upskill or adhere to ethical requirements as they are not required to comply with continuous professional development requirements and are not answerable for misconduct or any forms of discredit to the accountancy profession. For instance, unregulated accountants who are not kept abreast of the anti-money laundering regulations and sanctions may be susceptible to being used by money launderers as they may not be aware of the latest money laundering methods and trends.
Another concern is the impact of poor quality financial reporting on audits and the effective functioning of capital markets. Relevant and reliable financial information is core to the functioning and integrity of our capital markets and it supports the reputation of Singapore as an attractive place of business with strong financial systems and credible finance as well as accounting professionals and advisors.
Furthermore, unregulated accountants and accountancy services can lead to a negative perception of the accountancy profession and its competencies. This will undermine public confidence and trust in both our accountancy profession, the regulatory system and Singapore’s credibility as a global financial centre.
I propose, for a start, to make it compulsory for financial statements of public-listed companies to be signed by the preparer who must be a Chartered Accountant. I would also suggest making it mandatory for the Audit Committee chairperson of a public-listed company to be a Chartered Accountant. This will help ensure that the entire financial reporting value chain is subject to proper and adequate quality control.
The third area is the need to boost sustainability skillsets. As I mentioned in my Parliamentary speech last month, the accountancy profession plays a critical role in supporting Singapore’s transition towards a green economy. Accountants are required to meet the demands arising from these trends, which include decarbonisation, sustainability reporting and green finance.
CFOs and finance managers will need to manage carbon trading. They need to understand carbon markets, credits and measurement of emissions, as well as sustainability reporting frameworks, guidelines and principles. They also need to navigate different and difficult regulatory and sustainability frameworks, both regionally and internationally. Those in corporate finance will need the skillsets in green finance and sustainability risk management. This is timely, as this House has just passed the Carbon Pricing Bill yesterday.
Audit and assurance professionals will require upskilling in sustainability reporting and assurance requirements. They will also be called upon to enhance internal processes. Audit professionals and tax advisors, CFOs and finance teams must understand and apply carbon tax regulations and guidelines, both regionally and globally.
With the sustainability movement being at a nascent stage, there is insufficient skilled talent in this area. More must be done to equip the accountancy profession with certifiable skills in sustainability. In this regard, the Government can partner professional bodies, like ISCA, in preparing the accountancy profession for the transition to a green economy.
To conclude, I commend the Government again on its efforts to ensure greater alignment among the Government agencies. I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Indranee Rajah. Oh, my apologies. Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Whatever I have done, I am sorry. [Laughter.]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Nothing! It was just a presumption that you would not be speaking.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Accountancy is a key sub-sector of the Professional Services Industry Transformation Map that was launched in January 2018. In June 2018, the Accountancy Sector Roadmap was launched, charting an ambitious plan for the accountancy sector over the next five to 10 years to develop Singapore into a global accountancy hub.
This Bill is an important step in that direction. It will streamline the regulation of accountancy in Singapore and put ACRA in a stronger position to shape the development of the accountancy sector.
I have four points to make.
My first point is on the process for revoking or suspending a Chartered Accountant’s (CA) registration. The new section 35F provides the procedures for revoking or suspending a CA’s registration, which must be done in line with the designated entity’s rules. Can the Minister clarify whether designated entities will be required to provide in their rules a right for the CAs to be heard before any revocation or suspension?
Section 35G allows ACRA to review steps taken by a designated entity for any contravention by a CA where the entity did not take any action against the CA or, having taken such action, suspends the member’s registration or imposes any lesser penalty. Can the Minister clarify whether ACRA has the power to conduct a review in two further situations? First, where the entity took action and, ultimately, decided not to make any order against the CA. Second, where the entity took action and decided to revoke the CA’s registration.
I ask these because section 35G(2)(b) on the situations where ACRA may conduct a review refers specifically to suspension but not revocation by an entity.
On conducting a review, section 35G(3) and (4) give ACRA the power to revoke registration, extend suspension, or suspend registration. It appears that ACRA has the powers to impose heavier, but not lighter sanctions than those initially imposed by the designated entity. Can the Minister clarify if ACRA has the powers, on a review, to impose lighter sanctions, or overrule the designated entity’s decision and not impose any sanction?
Under section 35G(5), before revoking, suspending or extending the suspension of a CA’s registration, ACRA must give the person written notice of its intention to do so and an opportunity to submit reasons against ACRA’s decision. Can the Minister share why the opportunity for the CA to submit reasons appears to come only after ACRA has come to an initial view on whether the CA’s registration should be revoked or suspended? Will the CA be provided an opportunity to submit reasons before ACRA makes an initial determination at all?
My second point is on ACRA’s powers to delete designated entities. Under section 35L, before deleting a designated entity, ACRA must give the entity written notice of its intention to do so and the opportunity to submit reasons. Can the Minister share why the opportunity to submit reasons comes only after ACRA has come to a view whether the entity should be deleted? Will ACRA inform the designated entity that its designation is currently under review and provide the entity a chance to respond even before it takes a position on the deletion?
Can the Minister share what considerations ACRA will take into account in deciding whether a designated entity should be deleted? This will provide guidance to entities in providing reasons why they should not be deleted.
My third point is on retaining talent in accountancy. In January this year, the Singapore Accountancy Commission (SAC) worked on and unveiled a new Job Transformation Map (JTM) for the accounting industry intended to chart a path forward for the sector in a post-COVID-19 world and introduce support initiatives to upskill and redesign jobs in this field. This is a welcome step forward for the industry, which is currently being transformed extensively by digitalisation and technology, and even newer drivers, such as climate change. It will help safeguard jobs and create new ones.
However, while JTM will address concerns on the supply side, more work can be done on the demand side. In June this year, The Straits Times reported that the sector was experiencing an acute labour shortage, with the Big Four accounting companies raising salaries to retain talent. With ACRA's broadened scope to develop the accountancy sector and oversee qualifications and programmes relating to the sector with the dissolution of SAC, what measures will be explored as part of JTM, or otherwise, to attract and retain accountancy talent?
My final point is on climate and sustainability-related accounting standards. Part 3 of the Bill introduces a new Accounting Standards Committee, which will take over the functions of the Accounting Standards Council (ASC). ASC is responsible for making and prescribing accounting standards for use by various entities.
ASC takes reference from the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), while taking into account local business and economic needs and circumstances. IASB is currently working on a set of global, climate and sustainability-related disclosures designed to meet the information needs of investors in assessing enterprise value. Has the Council, or will the Committee, evaluate its stance on these new green standards?
Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Indranee Rajah.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was so hopeful there for a moment, but always happy to have Mr Louis Ng's speeches and to respond to them. [Laughter.]
Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank Mr Don Wee and Mr Louis Ng, for their support of the Bill and for their comments and suggestions. Members raised questions around three themes: one, the processes to revoke or suspend Chartered Accountants and delete designated entities (DEs); two, regulating those who prepare financial statements; and three, talent-related challenges and emerging trends in the accountancy sector. I will address them in turn.
Mr Louis Ng sought a few clarifications on the process of revocation or suspension of a CA's registration and deletion of DEs from the Act. I would like to, first, highlight that the processes to revoke or suspend CAs and to delete DEs are currently provided for in the Singapore Accountancy Commission Act. There are no changes to these provisions arising from the merger. Today, ISCA is the only designated entity, appointed by SAC, to confer the Chartered Accountants' designation.
I will now address Mr Louis Ng's questions, in turn.
First, Mr Louis Ng asked whether DE's will be required to provide, in their membership rules, a right for CAs to be heard before they revoke or suspend a CA's registration. This is not provided for under the Act because the rules of natural justice would apply to accord affected CAs with the right to be heard before any adverse action can be taken against the CA.
Second, Mr Ng asked about two aspects of ACRA's powers with respect to DEs and CAs: one, whether ACRA has the power to conduct a review, if DE did not take any action against the CA in respect of an alleged contravention by a CA, or if DE has revoked the CA's registration; two, whether ACRA has the power to impose lighter sanctions than what DE meted out or to overrule the DE's decision upon review.
I will take these questions together. Generally, ACRA has the right to conduct a review of the actions taken by DE against the CA, under section 35G of the Act, upon being informed by DE of its investigation undertaken. ACRA's review power is limited to revocation, suspension or extending a suspension on a CA. Such review power is intended to deal with cases where more punishment than what DE has meted out may be warranted.
If such a CA is aggrieved by the decision of DE, including the DE's revocation or suspension, of his or her registration, and feels that his or her case is deserving of a lighter punishment, there is a separate channel for the CA to appeal to ACRA, under section 35 of the Act. In an appeal, ACRA has the power to then take various actions as necessary, including quashing the revocation or suspension of the CA.
Third, Mr Louis Ng asked why the opportunity for the CA and DE to submit reasons arises only after ACRA has reached an initial view on whether the CA's registration should be revoked or suspended, or the DE's designation deleted respectively. In practice, ACRA will review the relevant materials in the proceedings that the DE has previously undertaken, which will, typically, include the explanation given by the CA before arriving at the preliminary view of an intended revocation or suspension. The Member should rest assured that the final decision will only be made after allowing the CA an opportunity to be heard.
Lastly, Mr Louis Ng asked for the factors that ACRA will take into account in deciding whether a DE should be deleted from the Act. When we appointed a DE, which is ISCA today, it is because we see a role for DE in ensuring professional competence, standards and ethics of CAs.
As part of the appointment, the roles and responsibilities of DE are specified and agreed between DE and SA currently, or, in future, ACRA. The arrangement enables the Government to work with partners to build and nurture a strong accountancy sector. In assessing whether to continue with or delete a DE from the third schedule of the Act, ACRA would take into account the effectiveness of the arrangement with the DE, in ensuring that the desired outcomes for the sector are met, as well as the ability of the DE to fulfil the roles and responsibilities.
Next, I move on to Mr Don Wee's suggestion to regulate those who prepare financial statements. Specifically, Mr Don Wee suggested to mandate the chairpersons of Audit Committees of publicly-listed companies to be a CA and all financial statements of publicly-listed companies to be signed off by a preparer who is a CA.
Today, the code of corporate governance already requires at least two members, including the Chairperson of the Audit Committee, to have recent and relevant accounting or financial management expertise and/or experience. This takes into account the need for the Audit Committee members to have diverse finance and accounting skillsets, and experience in business contexts beyond a professional designation.
Under the Singapore exchange listing rules, listed companies must comply with the Code of Corporate Governance or provide justifications for non-compliance in the Annual Report. On the suggestion to require all financial statements of listed companies to be signed off by a preparer who is a CA, we will have to study the proposal further as it would require careful consideration on areas, such as impact on business costs and the talent pool.
Today, we hold directors responsible for the preparation of financial statements, given their fiduciary duties to shareholders over the company's finances.
Mr Don Wee and Mr Louis Ng raised concerns on the talent shortage in the accountancy sector and highlighted the need to do more to expand the talent pool. Ensuring a healthy pipeline of talent is, indeed, important. MOF and SAC have convened an Accountancy Workforce Review Committee, or AWRC, to recommend strategies to better attract, develop and retain talent.
This Committee comprises key industry players, including our national professional body for accountancy, the Institute of Chartered Accountants (ISCA) and academia. We will share more details about the recommendations in due time.
Mr Don Wee asked for a review of SCAQ, in particular, areas, such as entry pathways and curriculum coverage, as well as to include emerging areas, such as forensics, valuation and sustainability, in the SCAQ curriculum.
I would like to assure Mr Don Wee that SAC has a professional education council and two learning and assessment committees, one each at foundational and professional programme level, that review the SCAQ curriculum, and ensure its continued relevance as the industry evolves. The council and committees draw representatives from the industry and academia, some are also ISCA members. I agree with Mr Don Wee that a more comprehensive and holistic review of SCAQ from time to time is useful. In this regard, work is currently underway to review the SCAQ programme to ensure that the qualification and syllabus stay future-ready and industry-relevant. This is one of the areas that AWRC will look into.
ISCA has also, separately, convened an SCAQ advisory panel to assess and provide recommendations to the Government on possible enhancements to SCAQ. I look forward to the recommendations of the panel.
Next, I will touch on sustainability, a trend that both Mr Louis Ng and Mr Don Wee highlighted in their speeches. Mr Don Wee suggested that the Government partner professional bodies to help accountancy professionals build capabilities in sustainability-related areas, such as sustainability reporting and assurance requirements. On this front, SAC will be providing funding support to ISCA to develop sustainability reporting and assurance certifications targeted to be launched in the next two years. We will continue to monitor these trends and see how the Government can do more to enable the green agenda.
Beyond building capabilities, there have been calls for more consistent sustainability reporting standards to facilitate comparison. Mr Ng asked if the Accounting Standards Committee would be developing a position on the future sustainability-related standards set by the International Sustainability Standards Board, or ISSB.
Currently, ACRA and the Singapore Exchange RegCo have set up the Sustainability Reporting Advisory Committee, comprising relevant industry stakeholders, to develop a sustainability reporting implementation roadmap. Part of the committee's work is to study various reporting standards, bearing in mind the need for international convergence. The Committee's work is well under way and recommendations will likely be issued for public consultation sometime next year.
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, the proposed amendments in this Bill seek to effect the merger of ACRA, SAC and ASC into a strengthened accountancy function under one entity to harness greater synergies across complementary functions. Just like how things are evolving around the world, the Government will continue to respond with agility and transform ourselves to better serve the industry.
The merged entity will build on the good work done by ACRA, SAC and ASC and continue to work closely with industry players to grow the accountancy profession and sector. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
Mr Deputy Speaker: There being no clarifications, I will put the question.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to a date to be fixed.\" – [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":"Celebrating SG Families: Embracing Parenthood through Live, Work and Play","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Deputy Speaker, I have on several occasions shared with this House that in our Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC's Woodgrove division, we have a GEL Mission, where \"G\" pertains to \"Green-Living initiatives\"; \"E\" for \"Embracing Parenthood\" which entails creating opportunities to support parents with young children and helping them to achieve their aspirations while at the same time promoting multi-generational bonding amongst the young and old; and \"L\" is about raising \"Law Awareness\" in our community.
For the purpose of today's Adjournment Motion, I will be focusing my speech on \"E\", the \"Embracing Parenthood\" component, as the preservation and strengthening of family ties are an important part of our Singapore society.
Much effort has been made accordingly throughout the years in this aspect, such as the formation of the National Family Council, now known as Families for Life, and the introduction of family-oriented resources, including the parenting workshops and symposiums.
This endeavour continues today, as 2022 has been dedicated as a year in celebration of families in Singapore and the plan of \"A Singapore Made for Families 2025\", or \"MFF 2025\" in short, was launched recently as the Government's plan for creating a Singapore that values and supports family well-being.
In support, the Alliance for Action to Strengthen Marriages and Family Relation (AFAM) introduced an initiative for Singaporeans to pledge and commit towards strengthening our family bonds. In this pledge, one agrees, among others, to make time for one another, show love, care and concern, and support one another through good times and bad.
To help families and individuals turn these pledges into reality, I hope to take this opportunity to highlight some of the feedback which my Woodgrove residents and our PAP Women's Wing activists have shared with me pertaining to the challenges which many Singaporeans are facing as parents with young children, along with some recommendations on possible ways that the Government, employers and the community can play a supportive role in their own capacities, as well as suggestions to jumpstart new initiatives that aim to do so.
For the past two years, during my engagements through regular house visits and thematic townhalls, I have had numerous opportunities to interact with many of my Woodgrove residents who are working parents.
Out of the 11 zones of Residents' Network in Woodgrove, we have three zones comprising HDB BTO flats which were completed within the last 10 years. They are Tree Trail and Tree Grove at our Woodgrove Zone 3, Champions Court at Zone 4 and Woodlands Peak at Zone 10. Another two BTO projects are currently under construction, these being Champions Green and Woodgrove Ascent.
Most of the residents who are residing in these BTO flats have infant children. Many of them are small families with both parents holding full-time jobs, including working mummies who are about to return to work after fully utilising their maternity leave and would usually seek my assistance in securing a placement for their child in infant care.
While their own circumstances are unique, they all share the same dilemma, in that due to work commitment, they can no longer be always around to care for their little ones. They hope to entrust their child to a safe location, with responsible caregivers and, hopefully, within close proximity to their residences and at affordable rates. Many of them have searched high and low for such a facility but to no avail and are desperate for a solution when they came looking for help.
Recently, a resident sought for my help to obtain a placement in an infant care centre for her seven-month-old daughter. The child's grandmother used to look after her on behalf of the family but changing circumstances have made this arrangement no longer possible. Both the resident and her husband are also holding jobs that require on-site work, which meant that, without support, one of them would need to give up their job to look after their child.
In another case, a resident shared with me that his family is facing difficulties in securing a slot in the preschool just below their residence for their two-year-old son. They had applied last year but were informed that the infant care centres are full and have a waitlist stretching to 2023. In addition, the pandemic has required them to care for their son and new-born daughter without support from other family members who reside overseas. Although both he and his wife are employed, they had made it work thus far by hiring a helper and relying on his wife's maternity leave. But their time is running out as the helper is returning to her hometown and the agency is still sourcing for a new replacement for them, with the whole process likely to take many more months.
I sympathise with my residents going through such challenging tough situations.
Based on the two examples that I have just shared, the main bottleneck seems to be in the lack of available slots in preschool childcare, especially for infant care and playgroup sessions, particularly in areas with more young families where demand has grown over the COVID-19 period. In this regard, I am heartened to learn about the recent Government announcement that an additional 22,000 full-day preschool places will be created over the next two years, of which, 2,800 places will be set aside for infant care and 4,400 for playgroup programmes.
In relation to this Government offering more resources in this aspect, I hope to make the following suggestions.
Firstly, apart from building more preschool centres in BTO estates, I suggest that ECDA should look into working closely with LTA and URA to identify common travel routes taken by young parents to their potential workplaces and explore the possibility of establishing more of such services to be provided along their commute.
Secondly, to address the shortage of infant and childcare facilities for those preschools that are already observing long waiting lists, I suggest that ECDA consider providing more flexibility in regulations to allow such facilities to increase their capabilities, whether through the extension of premises, for example, for HDB or URA to allow direct allocation of void deck spaces or premises using market value without competition, or allowing anchor preschool operators to enrol more students by relaxing on staff-student ratio without compromising safety and quality, especially for those that are in close proximity to amenities.
I hope that ECDA can also consider encouraging the five anchor preschool operators to rent more premises near MRT and bus interchanges by appealing for and facilitating subsidised rental rates with Government support. This is akin to the concept behind the 21,500 square feet Space @ Woods Square that was donated by the developers of an integrated commercial development, with the aim of providing new community space in Woodlands, bringing together three non-profit organisations, such as the Care Corner Singapore, New Life Community Services and World Vision Singapore, so that they can more effectively partner and help Singaporeans in need who live in the northern part of the country. Currently, these spaces have looked into providing mental health screening and support for youth with mental health issues and operating a strength training gym for the seniors. It would be ideal if such community spaces can also be offered to preschools and non-profit organisations to provide after-school care services to support working parents, especially single parents and those who are on shift work.
One exemplary example of anchor preschool operators stepping forward is the PAP Community Foundation (PCF) Sparkletots. Its Cashew Centre, which is situated in Hillion Mall, spreads over 21,500 square feet, offering high-quality and accessible full-day childcare and infant care services for up to 287 children, ranging from the age of two months to six years old. Recently, PCF has further announced that another 2,500 preschool spaces will be added by the end of next year. We need more anchor preschool operators like PCF to step up, come forward and offer more of such facilities.
While it has been a rough two years for every Singaporean, the pandemic has shown that we, as a people, are resilient and highly capable of adapting to changing circumstances.
The era of safe distancing has encouraged innovations in our daily lifestyles, from rapid delivery of food and necessities, to e-learning and remote working.
In the context of family life, the shift towards flexible working arrangements may have allowed some to have more time and opportunities to enjoy the company of our families and increased our ability to assist one another during trying times.
I am glad to note that, for the past few months, our COVID-19 restrictions have been loosened to the point where many of us are able to see friends and extended family members again after a long time. But I also understand that the relaxed policies have also encouraged companies to recall their workers back to the office, in some cases, reverting to the pre-pandemic, five days a week schedule.
While it is, of course, the employers' prerogative as to how they wish to run their businesses, I would like to point out that the reinstatement of mandatory office attendance will likely cause some families to cut back on quality time once again, time that they had perhaps found as a pleasant surprise amidst the bleaker days of the pandemic.
Some parents may once again become more absorbed in their work away from home as their children re-adapt to their lack of presence. It is also worth considering that some families with dependants have come to rely on the flexibility of being available at home to better care for them, which will cause logistical issues if they were ever recalled back to the office on a permanent basis.
The pandemic has shown us that full remote working can be made possible across many industries and that the hybrid approach has proven to be very popular in the workforce. Not only will families regain precious time to spend with one another, they will, in turn, become highly motivated and loyal staff members for the companies that welcome it.
While I understand that some employees, whether due to personal preference or their particular job scope, may deem it more suitable for themselves to return physically to work, I would also like to highlight the possibility that some workers may actually prove to be more productive at home, as compared to being in the office. In that regard, there is really no one-size-fits-all solution.
In fact, in the recent Straits Times article titled \"Making Flexible Arrangements Work\", both the pros and cons of flexible work arrangements were highlighted.
It would, therefore, make sense, and I urge more employers and employees to better understand each other's needs and concerns and explore whether a hybrid work arrangement by adopting the Tripartite Standard on Flexible Work Arrangements (FWAs) is viable, with a common view towards achieving a goal-oriented approach, in the interest of maximising productivity.
It is one thing to mandate that families should make the effort to create family bonding activities whenever possible, but it can be difficult to research and plan interesting outings after a long week at work. Moreover, with rising costs due to inflation, affordability has quickly become another main concern.
As tiny as Singapore might be in geographical terms, there are many hidden and inexpensive attractions that would make for great outing ideas for families. Just recently, my husband and I took our three-year-old daughter to visit the Live Turtle and Tortoise Museum, which is located somewhere within Yishun and we spent a very enjoyable afternoon there.
I believe that the community can play a bigger part in highlighting lesser-known attractions that are situated within their neighbourhoods, so that families have more options when it comes to spending precious time together.
Woodgrove has already made some progress in this regard by collaborating with community partners, such as ActiveSG, on several occasions to create grassroots events, most of which focus on physical activity and exercise.
One example is Sporting Day, which allows families to bond through weekly sporting activities that promote play. Friday evenings, in particular, are specially reserved for family time, when parents and their children can each pursue their own interests all within the same venue in our Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC divisions.
Another example is the school holiday camp, where families each occupies a four-man tent together and participate in camp-related activities throughout their stay.
In addition to that, the collaborations with ActiveSG have also created special events, such as pool parties, where parents and their children can roam around the pool filled with animal floats, and terrarium creation workshops in which families learn to make their own forests in a jar.
I hope that more funding support can be provided to partners, such as ActiveSG, to encourage even more collaborations with the community to form Made For Families interest groups and organise sports surrounding this theme on a weekly basis.
Woodgrove is prepared and looks forward to furthering our collaboration with partners, such as ActiveSG, to develop even more Made For Families events in the future in these aspects. Besides direct collaborations with community partners, we may be able to tap on Government resources to nudge other organisations to contribute. In Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The usual prices for admission tickets to some local attractions were usually out of the budget for some families. However, in the recent two years, several of my residents have informed me that they were, finally, able to afford them, thanks to the SingapoRediscovers Vouchers. As such, to consider offering another round of such concessions will likely be well-received by Singaporeans, especially those families with young children and grandparents.
I would, therefore, propose that the Government and the Community work together again to reintroduce the vouchers in some capacity, branding it as an initiative to encourage family bonding in Singapore.
Many countries, such as China, have offered free admission to locals to encourage local tourism and create vibrancy at their local attractions. This has also supported many F&B shops at or near the attractions and created more employment opportunities. For a start in Singapore, apart from the introduction of incentive vouchers, I hope we can have free Sunday admissions to selected local attractions, such as the Zoo, museums, Gardens by the Bay and so on. This will encourage families to go for outings together. If possible, build hawker centres to provide affordable local food at these attractions as well.
Not only will these initiatives offer families yet another opportunity to forge stronger ties with one another, but also result in a further boost for establishments within the tourism industry.
(In English): COVID-19 has made a significant impact on individuals, families and businesses. It has changed our lifestyles and working habits.
With the easing of safety measures and with our country now embarking on Forward SG conversations, consulting and planning for the next 50 years and beyond, I believe it is now the right opportunity for all relevant stakeholders to review existing family-related policies, regulations and family-friendly work practices moving forward so as to build more support networks and resilience among Singaporeans, their families and the business community.
Businesses must be prepared to face future disruptions, prepare their workers to stay employable and be more pro-family to retain talent in their firms. Both employers and employees need to recognise that workplace productivity can be preserved even outside of the office through the use of technology and smart mobile devices. At the same time, individuals should take the initiative in strengthening familial bonds to better cope with future life challenges.
In other words, just as businesses must have business continuity plans (BCP), so should families create their emergency preparedness plans (EPP).
The Government, together with the community, would always stand ready to provide the support needed for one another and create opportunities for fellow Singaporeans to embrace the various milestones in life and to care for our future generations, both in good times and in bad.
In Woodgrove, we look forward to continuing our deep partnership with the relevant agencies and community partners to realise the plans as set forth in A Singapore Made For Families 2025 (MFF 2025) and champion Made for Families in our division.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister of State Sun Xueling.
The Minister of State for Social and Family Development (Ms Sun Xueling): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member Ms Hany Soh for reaffirming the importance of the institution of the family in Singapore's society and for her suggestions.
Strong families are the bedrock of our society. They can be an individual's first pillar of support in good and bad times. Strong families also help to build resilient individuals who can then be able to tackle challenges that come their way.
The Government is fully committed to strengthening our families throughout their life journey and had designated this year as the Year of Celebrating SG Families (YCF).
Just yesterday, Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat launched A Singapore Made For Families 2025 plan (MFF 2025). This is a national plan that affirms our whole-of-society effort to create a family-friendly Singapore. It encapsulates the aspirations arising from numerous engagements with families, community partners and faith groups and builds on the work of the Alliance for Action to Strengthen Marriages and Family Relationships (AFAM).
I will now respond specifically to the issues Ms Hany Soh had highlighted.
First, Ms Hany Soh spoke about the availability of infant care. Providing access to quality, affordable preschools remains a key priority for the Government. We have made preschools more affordable by enhancing preschool subsidies and lowering fee caps at Government-supported preschools. Over the last five years, we have increased the national supply of preschool places significantly – infant care places by around 60%, from 7,500 places in 2017 to over 12,000 places today, and childcare places by 35%, from 143,000 places in 2017 to 195,000 places.
As Ms Hany Soh shared, Minister Masagos Zulkifli had recently announced an expansion of another 22,000 places over the next two years, including about 2,800 places and 4,400 places set aside for infant care and playgroups respectively. With this, we are on track to ensure that 80% of preschoolers can have a place in Government-supported preschools by about 2025.
Currently, over 90% of children are enrolled in preschool by the age of four but we recognise that the situation remains tight for the earlier years, especially in newer housing developments with many young families. We are working closely with HDB and anchor operators to ramp up operations and manpower, where possible, to enrol more infants and children in newly opened centres in the coming months.
Similar to what Ms Hany Soh suggested, we are also exploring if it is possible to build extensions, such as through activating available void deck space or communal spaces, and also whether there is room to increase capacity and the capabilities of our existing preschools while balancing the needs of our children and our educators.
Even as we continue to develop more preschools closer to homes, we also seek parents' understanding that it is not always possible to ensure all families have a preschool right next door, near to their homes, as there can be various constraints both in terms of manpower as well as physical infrastructure constraints.
Hence, we echo Ms Hany Soh's suggestion that a possibility could be to look at preschools near workplaces. We are already doing so – exploring this – but we would also need parents to be amenable to these suggestions.
I had earlier mentioned working closely with anchor operators to ramp up operations and manpower. These include increasing recruitment, reallocating and optimising manpower.
Despite the number of early childhood educators increasing steadily from 18,000 in 2018 to over 23,000 in 2021, the workforce will require about 3,500 more educators by 2025 to meet the demands of the growing number of preschool places in Singapore.
We hope that the recently announced salary revisions of a 10% to 30% pay raise for preschool educators can help to meet this demand but, fundamentally, to echo what Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong had said before, we, as a society, have to value the work of social service professionals and early childhood educators in order to attract more people into the sector. Without a core workforce to support our early childhood sector, we will face constraints growing capacity.
I agree with Ms Hany Soh that working from home has given many parents the joy of spending more time with their families and that working parents sometimes need the flexibility to leave office earlier or to adjust their work schedules to tend to family commitments.
This brings me to the second point on flexible work arrangements (FWAs) and the critical role that employers play here.
The pandemic has made FWAs like telecommuting and staggered work hours much more prevalent, such as the hybrid work arrangements practised by the Public Service. More employers have also come to realise how FWAs can help them both strengthen business resilience and enhance their ability to attract and retain talent. Employees also appreciate how FWAs enable them to spend more quality family time, which, in turn, energises them to go the extra mile in their work.
When implemented well, FWAs achieve a win-win outcome for employers and employees.
This is why the Government and our tripartite partners have urged employers to sustain their FWAs through the Tripartite Statement released in April this year. The tripartite partners have been steadily bringing more companies on board the Tripartite Standard on FWAs and we encourage employers who intend to or already provide FWAs to adopt the Standard and be recognised as a progressive employer of choice.
By 2024, we will introduce the Tripartite Guidelines on FWAs, which will require all employers to consider requests for FWAs fairly and properly.
Families for Life (FFL), the national movement to strengthen and support families, has also been working closely with trade associations and companies to champion family-friendly practices in the workplace, such as leaving work early for Eat With Your Family days, something that was also highlighted by Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat yesterday. Companies with family-friendly programmes are encouraged to adopt the Made For Families brand mark and are recognised through the Centre for Fathering's annual \"Great Companies for Dads Awards\".
Of course, family time is not just about quantity but also quality. The AFAM's Focal Area 3: Parenting Together has been working together with our community partners and myself to share parenting tips to better support quality family time.
I note Ms Soh's suggestion on the importance of having affordable options for family bonding activities. Although the SingapoRediscovers Vouchers scheme has ended, there are still deals and promotions for family activities, such as those by our Made For Families partners.
As Ms Soh has mentioned, there are many hidden gems in Singapore that families can discover together. From child-friendly museums to nature playgrounds, the options for the perfect family day out are endless.
Quite a few of these activities are admission-free and of high quality, such as the heritage trails found around the various heartlands in Singapore that allow families to discover the untold stories behind our well-known neighbourhoods.
At the grassroots level, families can find workshops, carnivals and festival celebrations within their neighbourhoods.
I am glad to hear of the initiatives Ms Hany Soh mentioned. With the school holidays coming up, families can look forward to activities and courses run by People's Association (PA) under their School Holidays Series, which are specially curated courses catered for families. Parents can also spend quality time bonding with their children through parent-child craft workshops or learn more through various parenting courses.
I would like to assure her that the Government firmly believes that amenities and activities which are family-friendly should, as far as possible, be made available to as many residents as possible and we will try our best to nudge corporates and organisations to contribute.
As part of the Made for Families 2025 plan, Families for Life will also be working with partners to organise events, such as family picnics and family days.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, building a Singapore Made For Families takes a whole-of-society effort. The Government is committed to doing its part and we will work closely with employers, community partners and the wider society so that all can play this very important role to nurture a supportive ecosystem for families to live, play and work in Singapore.
In this Year of Celebrating SG Families, it is timely for us to reflect on how each and every one of us can come together in our own ways to make Singapore truly a home, a playground and a caring society that values and supports families at every stage of life. Let us, collectively, work towards achieving A Singapore Made for Families.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 5.16 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":"Matter Raised On Adjournment Motion","questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Release of Latest Guidelines by National Wages Council and Impact on Recent Revision to Civil Servants' Salaries","subTitle":"Answer to Question No 4 under Standing Order No 22(4) Proviso","sectionType":"WANA","content":"4 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Prime Minister (a) whether the National Wages Council (NWC) has completed its review on the wage guidelines for the coming year; and (b) how will the Ministry work with the Public Service Commission to ensure that the wages of civil servants are consistent with the guidelines to be developed by NWC.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): The National Wages Council (NWC) has formulated its guidelines for 2022/2023, which are scheduled for release on 14 November 2022.
The Public Service Division (PSD) is the agency that oversees wages of civil servants and is a member of the NWC. When determining salary adjustments and payments for the Civil Service, PSD takes reference from prevailing economic and labour market conditions and NWC’s guidelines. In line with the NWC’s recommendations, annual variable payments for civil servants have been progressive, with officers in more junior grades, generally, receiving a higher payment as a proportion of their salaries.
PSD and the relevant agencies have also been working with the Amalgamated Union of Public Employees (AUPE) on other strategies to uplift their wages sustainably, such as through job redesign and improving their skills.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Government Expenditure in Support of Hospitals' Care Ambassador Positions Filled by Aviation Flight Crew","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"16 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the amount of Government expenditure each year to support the Care Ambassador positions filled by the Singapore Airlines Group; and (b) what are the sources of funds used.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: This question has been addressed in my reply to Question No 46 for oral answer on the Order Paper for 8 November 2022. [Please refer to \"Vacancies at Healthcare Institutions Created by Employees Returning to Aviation Sector\", Official Report, 8 November 2022, Vol 95, Issue No 74, 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":"Review of Section 366(2)(i) of Companies Act 1967","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"17 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Ministry will review section 366(2)(i) of the Companies Act 1967, under which foreign companies are not to be regarded as carrying on business in Singapore for the reason only that in Singapore it invests any of its funds or holds any property and, therefore, not subject to registration requirements under the same Act, to ensure that these companies are also subject to disclosure requirements pertaining to beneficial ownership and control as a safeguard against money laundering.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Under the Companies Act, a foreign company that carries on business in Singapore is required to be registered with ACRA and subject to various requirements under the Act, including, but not limited to, the disclosure of beneficial ownership information.
Section 366(2) of the Companies Act sets out a list of activities that, if undertaken by themselves, would not lead to the foreign company being regarded as carrying on business in Singapore. The list includes the investment of funds or the holding of property in Singapore. If the foreign company only engages in the activities on this list, it is not required to register with ACRA.
If the foreign company undertakes other actions with its funds or property that result in it carrying on business in Singapore, it must register with ACRA and be subject to the requirements under the Companies Act.
This is a calibrated approach to strike a balance between regulatory compliance and ease of doing business. In doing so, we have, nonetheless, ensured that there are other safeguards in place to deter money laundering and make information on ownership and control of foreign companies available to our law enforcement agencies.
For example, the beneficial ownership information of any entity that invests its funds or engages in property transactions, such as buying or selling real estate in Singapore, would be captured by relevant intermediaries. These include financial institutions and professionals, such as real estate agents and lawyers, when they establish business relations or undertake transactions for their customers. Law enforcement agencies in Singapore have the power to obtain information from these intermediaries.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cases of and Penalties for Employers Found to Have Illegally Recovered Employment Costs from Foreign Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"18 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Manpower for each year from 2013 to 2022 (a) how many reports has the Ministry received against employers for illegally recovering employment costs from foreign workers; (b) how many employers have been taken to task; (c) what are the (i) median, (ii) lowest and (iii) highest administrative financial penalties imposed; (d) what other penalties are imposed; (e) whether the Ministry plans to step up enforcement and increase penalties for such infringements; and (f) whether random spot checks are performed.
Dr Tan See Leng: From 2015 to 2021, MOM received about 390 reports each year against employers for illegally recovering employment costs from migrant workers. The number of reports has been declining since 2017.
Administrative financial penalties were issued against about nine employers per year over this period. The median penalty was $12,000, and the penalties ranged from $7,500 to $95,000. Other enforcement actions taken included issuing cautions, directions to rectify breaches, and debarment from hiring migrant workers.
The range of penalties permitted has enabled MOM to take the needed action. MOM investigates all complaints and has also stepped-up engagement efforts to educate migrant workers that their employers cannot make such demands from them. Migrant workers who are asked to do so should approach MOM for assistance.
In addition to following up on reports, MOM has made use of data analytics to identify and detect firms with unusual patterns in hiring practices. This could signal illegal hiring practices or other contraventions and MOM will follow-up with inspections.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Relevance of Redundancy Insurance","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"20 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will consider the introduction of a Redundancy Insurance Scheme to ease financial pressure on workers who have been made redundant as they search for new jobs and which complements existing programmes for retraining and re-employment.
Dr Tan See Leng: We note the Member’s call to introduce a Redundancy Insurance Scheme, which echoes the recommendation of the PME Taskforce, helmed by NTUC and SNEF, for the Government to look into unemployment support. We have been studying how to provide better support to displaced workers. Let me first explain the support available today.
Today, workers who have been made redundant are supported through the tripartite Retrenchment Taskforce, which follows up with every notified retrenchment by proactively reaching out to the affected workers and offering them employment assistance. This includes providing information kits on career resources, briefings on available employment facilitation and one-on-one coaching by career coaches from Workforce Singapore and NTUC’s Employment and Employability Institute. Re-entry rates of retrenched workers are encouraging. Based on latest available data, the six-month re-entry rate amongst all retrenched residents was 66% in the second quarter of 2022, higher than it was a year ago.
Retrenched workers who want to reskill for new careers can also tap on Career Conversion Programmes (CCPs) which provide course fee and salary support of up to 90% to move into new occupations or sectors that have good prospects and opportunities for progression. Those who are aged 40 and over can tap on the SGUnited Mid-Career Pathways programme, or SGUP, which provides full-time attachments to allow employers to better assess their job-fit, while providing them with training and industry experience. About seven in 10 CCP participants earn higher wages, compared to their last drawn salaries.
We recognise that the support available today can be strengthened in light of an uncertain and rapidly changing world. We are, therefore, looking at ways to provide better support for displaced workers, including those who have been made redundant. We have to structure this carefully, in order to help displaced workers to bounce back into a job. This requires motivating them to be persistent while enabling them to be effective in their job search.
In summary, workers who are made redundant will receive support through the tripartite Retrenchment Taskforce and can tap on CCPs and the SGUP programme to reskill for new careers. We are reviewing the support system available to them, including consulting the Labour Movement. We will provide an update when ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"HDB Flat Owners who are Occupiers in Their Flats and Yet Own Private Properties or Rent Out Bedrooms in Their Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"21 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for National Development since 2010, what are the respective annual number and percentage of HDB flats whose owners are occupiers of the flat and (i) own private residential property, (ii) own private residential property and have at least one room in the flat rented out, (iii) do not own private residential property and (iv) do not own any private residential property and have at least one room in the flat rented out.
Mr Desmond Lee: We have responded to Mr Leong Mun Wai’s question about HDB flat owners who concurrently own private properties and rent out their flat or bedrooms, in our response to Mr Gerald Giam’s question during the Parliamentary Sitting on 7 November 2022. [Please refer to \"HDB Flat Lessees Who Concurrently Own One or More Private Residential Properties\", Official Report, 7 November 2022, Vol 95, Issue 73, 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":"Buses and Drivers Required to Transport Workers in Buses Instead of Lorries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"22 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry is able to provide the estimated numbers of buses and bus drivers required to transport all workers in buses instead of lorries and, if so, what are they; (b) based on the required numbers and currently available resources, whether there is a shortfall; and (c) whether the Ministry is working with private bus operators to address this shortfall and, if so, what is the estimated timeline for this.
Mr S Iswaran: Based on our consultation with the industry, a full transition to buses to ferry all workers will require many more buses than the available fleet of private buses. In addition, with the relaxation of COVID-19 measures and the resumption of travel, the demand for private buses has returned. Hence, just like pre-COVID-19, these existing buses will largely not be available for the transport of workers. Added to this is the shortage of drivers for both private and public buses.
The extent of additional buses needed would depend on how businesses adjust their operations and the extent to which bus-pooling arrangements are feasible and adopted. That said, even if multiple and staggered trips were made, the demand for buses and, hence, drivers would still be significant and difficult to meet. Thus, even as we continue to study how we can encourage more companies to transit to using alternative modes of transporting workers, including buses, we need to be mindful of the serious practical challenges the industry faces in doing so.
Last month, I announced the implementation details of several new measures which will help improve the safety and welfare of workers on lorries. We will not stop there but will continue to study further measures to improve the safety of workers, including encouraging companies to move towards alternative modes of transport.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rollout of Chemical Recycling of Plastic Waste in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"23 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether any updates can be provided on studies into chemical recycling of plastic waste in Singapore; (b) what are the implementation plans and whether these can be accelerated with additional support from private or public sectors; and (c) if not, what are the key limitations to the roll-out of chemical recycling of plastic waste.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: As part of our efforts to develop a circular economy and reduce our emissions, the Government is working with industry to explore chemical recycling of plastic waste as a complementary approach to mechanical recycling. Chemical recycling enables Singapore to expand our capabilities to treat plastics which are not suitable for mechanical recycling, such as contaminated packaging and single-use plastics.
In October 2020, NEA and Shell launched a joint study on the feasibility of chemically recycling plastic waste in Singapore. Findings from the study indicated that chemical recycling in Singapore is technically feasible. In January 2021, NEA launched a feasibility study for a pilot Plastic Recovery Facility to recover plastic waste from domestic waste for chemical recycling. NEA is, currently, analysing the findings of the two studies before deciding on our next steps.
We remain open and committed to working with interested stakeholders in the ecosystem to close the plastic waste loop locally, diversify petrochemical feedstock towards sustainable sources and reduce national carbon emissions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"HDB Flats Rented Out by Owners Residing Overseas and Locally","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"24 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for National Development from 2010 to 2021, what is the annual number of HDB flats that are being fully rented out by (i) owners who are residing locally and (ii) owners who are residing overseas, respectively.
Mr Desmond Lee: Between 2010 and 2021, there was an average of about 35,000 to 60,000 flats that were rented out annually. These are flats owned by Singaporeans, since households made up of only Singapore Permanent Resident owners are not permitted to rent out their flats. Less than 10% of the HDB flat owners who rented out their flats are residing overseas, with such individuals likely being abroad for work or study reasons.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Financial Impact on Businesses Given New Target to Reach Net-Zero Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2050","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in view of the new target to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and with the revised target to reduce our emissions to around 60 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent in 2030 (a) what will be the financial implications on our businesses; and (b) how will the Government help our businesses to cope with additional financial costs of meeting our long-term national climate change targets.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: I thank the Member for the question. This question has been addressed in my reply to Question Nos 32 and 33 for oral answer on the Order Paper for 7 November 2022. [Please refer to \"Support for Development of Green Local Firms and Uptake of Enterprise Sustainability Programme\", Official Report, 7 November 2022, Vol 95, Issue 73, 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":"Approvals for Permanent Resident Households to Rent Out Bedrooms in HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"26 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the reason for the decline in rental approvals for HDB bedrooms being granted to Permanent Resident households since 2018 till to date; (b) whether Permanent Resident households are always allowed to rent out bedrooms; and (c) what have been the changes to the approval requirements over the years.
Mr Desmond Lee: Since 12 January 2013, Singapore Permanent Resident (SPR) flat owners have been disallowed from renting out their whole flat. However, those who own a 3-room or larger flat are allowed to rent out their spare bedrooms. The owners and all authorised occupiers must continue to stay in the flat with the tenants while the spare bedrooms are being rented out.
From 1 May 2018, all flat owners have been required to seek HDB’s approval for bedroom rental before the commencement of the tenancy. This is to ensure that the eligibility conditions are met before the tenancy commences. There has been no change to the approval requirements since.
We understand that the Member is asking about the decline in bedroom rental approvals given to SPR households from 2018 to date, reflected in our written reply to the Member’s question for the Sitting on 20 October 2022. The figures provided reflect the number of new bedroom rental approvals granted to SPR households in each year and do not include SPR households which renew their bedroom rentals. The decline in the new bedroom rental approvals given to SPR flat owners could be due to various reasons, such as open market forces or personal choices of the SPR flat owners.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Fair Outcomes for Individuals Facing Corporate Claims at Small Claims Tribunal","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Law (a) whether there have been studies conducted on the education background and English literacy levels of Small Claims Tribunal (SCT) respondents who are individual natural persons; and (b) what measures exist to ensure fair and equitable outcomes when an individual respondent is subject to a SCT claim from a corporate entity whose representatives have access to legal advice and administrative resources prior to the SCT proceedings.
Mr K Shanmugam: We are not aware of any studies on the educational background and English literacy levels of respondents in Small Claims Tribunal (SCT) cases, who are individual natural persons.
The SCT processes are designed to achieve a fair and just outcome for all parties, regardless of whether they have access to legal advice and resources outside of the proceedings.
First, legal representation is not allowed, and SCT proceedings are Judge-led. The Judge will guide the parties to issues or evidence that are relevant to the claim, even if these have not been raised by either party.
Second, in limited cases, SCT may allow a person to represent an individual party who is unable to present his or her own case, because the party is of old age, illiterate or has an infirmity of mind or body. SCT may also allow a party who is presenting his own case to seek assistance from a family member, friend or probono agency to assist in the preparation and filing of documents relevant to the proceedings, provide emotional and moral support during the proceedings, or take notes of the proceedings and directions given by SCT.
Third, individual claimants or respondents who require legal assistance may approach the State Courts’ Community Justice Centre for free on-site legal advice, or seek assistance from other legal clinics, such as those organised by the Law Society Pro Bono Services, or community centres. Individuals may also visit the Judiciary website which contains a page with comprehensive information on SCT. For those with specific queries on SCT’s processes, they can call the State Courts’ general hotline number or visit the SCT Registry located at the State Courts where there are officers and student representatives on hand to render assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Budgeting for Infrastructure to Cope with Rising Sea Levels and Climate Change","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance how is our national Budget planned in order to build the necessary infrastructure to cope with rising sea levels and climate change.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Climate adaptation is a long-term endeavour to ensure that Singapore remains resilient to rising sea levels and climate change.
We do not yet have good estimates of the cost of the major infrastructural investments needed. A high-level estimate is that these will cost more than $100 billion over 100 years and will add to our medium- to long-term spending needs. We plan to employ a combination of funding methods to finance various climate adaptation measures, in a way that is fiscally sustainable and equitable across generations.
The Coastal and Flood Protection Fund (CFPF), which was set up in 2020 with an initial injection of $5 billion, will allow the Government to set aside monies when fiscal conditions permit for future spending. In addition to the annual Budget and CFPF, the Government will look at the option of borrowing, for example, through green bonds, to spread the cost across the generations that will benefit from these measures. Where the measures include land reclamation, the land reclamation costs can be met from past reserves.
As the Government develops a better understanding of the impact of climate change and the possible options of coastal protection measures, we will be better placed to determine the funding and specific financing options needed to support these measures.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Total Chargeable Income for Companies by Earning Brackets","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) in each of the years from 2018 to 2022, what is the total chargeable income for companies with (i) up to $10,000, (ii) from $10,000 to $200,000, (iii) from $200,000 to $1 million, (iv) from $1 million to $10 million, (v) from $10 million to $100 million, (vi) from $100 million to $1 billion and (vii) more than $1 billion, in profits respectively; and (b) what is the number of companies in each of these brackets.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Louis Chua has requested for different types of information on corporate tax on several occasions since last year. Each new permutation of data request requires intensive effort to compile. The Government already publishes extensive data on corporate tax, which is publicly available on www.data.gov.sg. We suggest that Mr Louis Chua refer to the website to access the necessary data.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Malaysia's Intended Legal Action at ICJ on Singapore's Development Plans In and Around Pedra Branca","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) whether Malaysia's intention to continue legal action at the International Court of Justice in the case concerning Singapore's sovereignty over Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge impacts Singapore's existing and planned development and land reclamation works in and around Pedra Branca; and (b) if so, how.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: After the International Court of Justice's (ICJ’s) judgment in 2008 awarding sovereignty over Pedra Branca to Singapore, both Singapore and Malaysia publicly announced that they will accept and abide by the Court’s decision, which is final. Under the Statute of the ICJ, an application for revision cannot be made after the expiry of 10 years from the date of the 2008 judgment, that is, May 2018. To date, we have not received any details from Malaysia regarding their intention to continue legal action at the ICJ.
Nevertheless, Singapore stands ready to deal with whatever legal action Malaysia may pursue, so as to robustly defend our sovereignty over Pedra Branca. The development and land reclamation works at Pedra Branca are carried out within Singapore Territorial Waters and in accordance with international law.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Current and Year-to-date Marginal Cost and Long-run Marginal Cost of Producing Electricity","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what is the current and year-to-date short-run marginal cost and long-run marginal cost of producing electricity, as compared to the Uniform Singapore Electricity Price.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The short-run marginal cost (SRMC) and long-run marginal cost (LRMC) have averaged at $157 per megawatt hour and $202 per megawatt hour respectively for the period January to October 2022. SRMC reflects the variable costs, including fuel, while LRMC reflects both the fixed costs and the variable costs.
The Uniform Singapore Energy Price (USEP) is the wholesale price of electricity determined in the Singapore Wholesale Electricity Market. The USEP fluctuates every half-hour and is determined by various factors. Besides fuel costs, which have surged over the past year due to the ongoing global energy crisis, the USEP is also influenced by prevailing demand and supply conditions which may fluctuate significantly within the day. It is not meaningful to compare the USEP to the regulated tariff, which is served by long-term gas supply with fuel costs indexed to oil prices. Between January and October this year, the USEP has averaged at around $300 per megawatt hour, which reflects the higher fuel costs and prevailing demand and supply conditions.
The vast majority of consumers do not buy electricity in the wholesale market at the USEP. Consumers who prefer greater price certainty can consider buying electricity from a retailer in the Open Electricity Market or, in the case of households and smaller consumers, at the regulated tariff from SP Group.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Electricity Power Generation Capacity","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how has electricity power generation capacity changed in the last five years; (b) what is the projected capacity in the next five years; and (c) what are the plans to ensure that the required reserve margin of 27% is met in the next five years, assuming the upper bound of projected system peak demand is reached.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Over the last five years, the total installed generation capacity has decreased from 13.5 gigawatts (GW) in 2018, to 11.8 GW in 2022, with the retirement of older power generating units. This is higher than our current peak demand of around 7.8 GW. The reserve margin, which provides for planned and unplanned outages of generating units to safeguard the reliability of our power system, is currently around 50%. This is above the 27% required reserve margin (RRM).
Generation capacity is expected to remain around the current levels over the next few years before new generation units enter the system from 2025. While we can expect the reserve margin to tighten over the next few years due to increasing demand, there will be sufficient generation capacity to meet the RRM of 27%.
The Energy Market Authority (EMA) has been encouraging generation companies to build more capacity to meet growing demand. In August 2022, Keppel Infrastructure announced plans to develop a 600-MW advanced combined cycle gas turbine power plant. To ensure sufficient generation capacity over the longer term, EMA will introduce a centralised approach to facilitate and guide private investments in new generation capacity through a competitive tender. The tender will be conducted in advance of when the new capacity is needed, taking into account the lead time required for construction and development. Should there be inadequate interest to plant new capacity, EMA will build the required new capacity.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Motorcycle COE Quota Limit","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Transport having regard to motorcycle Certificate of Entitlement (COE) premiums reaching new highs recently and recognising that motorcycles, generally, cause less congestion on roads and are more heavily relied upon for livelihoods, whether the COE quota limit for motorcycles may be reviewed upwards.
Mr S Iswaran: In land-scarce Singapore, we have to manage our vehicle population. As motorcycles also contribute to congestion and require road and parking spaces, we have no plans to increase the vehicle growth rate of motorcycles.
Nevertheless, especially as some motorists rely on motorcycles for their livelihoods, the Government applies lower Additional Registration Fees, road taxes and Electronic Road Pricing charges to motorcycles, compared to other vehicle types.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Technological and Engineering Advances Utilised to Tackle Rising Sea Levels","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment how many technological and engineering advances are utilised to tackle future problems of flooding and rising sea levels.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Climate change will bring about sea level rise and more frequent and intense rainstorms, which could exacerbate flood risks. The Government is making timely investments to shore up our coastal and flood resilience, leveraging science, technology and engineering as key enablers.
To better assess the combined risks of coastal and inland flooding, national water agency PUB has been working with NUS and Hydroinformatics Institute to develop the Coastal-Inland Flood Model. This is an advanced computational hydrodynamics model that can simulate flood scenarios to support the planning and design of coastal protection and drainage infrastructure.
Innovative engineering methods are employed to overcome land constraints in Singapore. Examples include underground detention tanks, such as the Stamford Detention Tank, which free up space aboveground for other land uses, as well as multifunctional solutions like the Marina Barrage and Alkaff Lake in the new Bidadari estate, which provide recreational spaces while also enhancing flood resilience.
In the area of coastal protection, the Government is actively trialing different solutions and assessing their suitability to be implemented in Singapore. For instance, learning from the Netherlands, HDB is piloting polder development at Pulau Tekong. PUB is exploring the potential of using customised modular blocks that could reduce land and materials needed for coastal protection structures and will also be studying the feasibility of implementing coastal barriers to protect Singapore’s southwestern coastline from storm surges.
To address flooding, PUB utilises radar technology which helps to predict locations where heavy rainfall might occur. Together with an extensive network of over 1,000 water level sensors and 400 CCTVs installed at flood-prone areas, this enables PUB to issue advance flood risk warnings to keep the public out of harm’s way.
The Government is committed to strengthening Singapore’s climate resilience. PUB will plan for coastal protection and flood management in an integrated manner, leveraging technological advances and building local long-term capabilities. Nonetheless, the effects of climate change cannot be tackled by technological developments and infrastructural investments alone. We also need to partner the community, such as by working with building owners to install flood protection measures to protect their properties and by equipping the public through weather alerts to make adjustments to their daily routines.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support for Agri-tech Startups and SMEs to Enhance Food Security and Resilience","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment how is the Government supporting agri-tech startups and other SMEs that focus on growing food locally.
9 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment how advanced technology, such as blockchain technology and automated climate control, is utilised to support our urban agriculture.
10 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment what further plans are there to drive innovation and collaboration among the agri-food sector and to attract more students from Institutes of Higher Learning into that sector in our country’s bid to increase its food security and resilience.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: In land- and resource-scarce Singapore, we need to \"grow more with less\", in a productive, climate-resilient and resource-efficient way. Technology and innovation are key enablers. In 2019, we launched the $144 million Singapore Food Story (SFS) R&D Programme, which has since supported 50 projects in various areas.
Fresh funding of $165 million has been allocated for SFS 2.0, which will have a greater emphasis on food security challenges and enhancing food safety amidst the emergence of novel food. The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) will also collaborate with Temasek Foundation to co-present a Food Grand Challenge. Food Grand Challenge will focus on supporting disruptive circular urban agriculture, aquaculture solutions, as well as alternative protein innovations.
The deployment of advanced technologies is essential for our agri-food industry to maximise productivity amid our land and manpower constraints. For instance, Sustenir Agriculture is an indoor farm that uses controlled-environment agriculture to ensure optimal conditions for plant growth. Fish farms, such as Singapore Aquaculture Technologies and Blue Aqua, are tapping on artificial intelligence to monitor and optimise fish growth.
EnterpriseSG also helps to catalyse innovation and scalable solutions in the agri-food sector by providing support for agri-food enterprises from startup to scale-up. They have anchored five global agri-food accelerators and one local life sciences accelerator, for example, Big Idea Ventures and GROW, under the Startup SG accelerator programme.
Sustaining a workforce pipeline is also an important strategy to realise “30 by 30”. SFA works closely with our Institutes of Higher Learning and the industry to build a pipeline of talent for the sector and upskill our existing workforce. For example, Republic Polytechnic offers the Diploma in Environmental and Marine Science, which trains students to develop sustainable environmental and aquaculture solutions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enrolment in Enhanced School Resourcing Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Education for each year in the past three years (a) how many students have been enrolled in the Enhanced School Resourcing programme set up by the Uplifting Pupils in Life and Inspiring Families Taskforce; and (b) what are the rates of improvement in school attendance by the enrolled students per year.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: \tThe Uplifting Pupils in Life and Inspiring Families Taskforce (UPLIFT) Enhanced School Resourcing provides schools with additional teacher posts to put in place structures, processes and customised programmes to support disadvantaged and at-risk students. The pilot phase of UPLIFT Enhanced School Resourcing in 23 schools supported around 2,600 students each year in the past three years.
Attendance has improved. The percentage of students absent for more than 10% of school days per year decreased from 3.2% in 2019 to 2.8% in 2021 in the pilot schools. Improved student learning outcomes will take more time to be achieved.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Including Mandatory Treatment Order in Sentencing Options for Animal Cruelty and Abuse Cases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will consider including Mandatory Treatment Order as part of the sentencing option for cases of animal cruelty and abuse.
Mr Desmond Lee: A Mandatory Treatment Order (MTO) is a sentencing option for offenders who suffer from psychiatric conditions which contributed to their commission of the offence, provided that certain conditions are met. There have been cases of animal cruelty and abuse in which the offender was issued an MTO. Ultimately, the Courts will decide whether an MTO is the appropriate sentence for each case.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Highest Rental Registered Annually for Whole HDB Flat by Type and Location","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for National Development since 2010, what is the highest amount of rental that has been registered annually for the rental of a whole HDB flat for the different HDB flat types in (i) prime areas, (ii) mature estates and (iii) non-mature estates respectively.
Mr Desmond Lee: Based on the flat owners’ declaration in the applications, the median of the highest rents for each month in the year, after accounting for outliers, for various HDB flat types in 2010 has ranged from $1,150 to $2,100 in non-mature estates and $1,100 to $2,200 in mature estates. In 2022, it has ranged from $1,700 to $2,600 in non-mature estates and $1,350 to $2,800 in mature estates.
There is no rental data for flats under the Prime Location Public Housing model as such flats were only launched for sale in November 2021 and are still under construction.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Past and Projected Data on Attribution of HDB Housing Demand","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for National Development what is the quantitative data on the attribution of the HDB housing demand observed in the past 20 years and projected for the future that is due to (i) smaller household sizes, (ii) aspirations for larger units, (iii) growing residential population and (iv) rental demand from the growing non-local population.
Mr Desmond Lee: HDB adopts a comprehensive approach in planning new flat supply, taking into account demographic and socioeconomic trends, prevailing market conditions and the supply of resale flats on the open market.
Over the past 20 years, the total number of HDB dwelling units has increased by 1.2% per year from about 850,000 in 2001 to about 1.10 million in 2021. The number of residents living in HDB flats grew by around 0.5% per year, from 2,812,400 in 2001 to 3,091,000 in 2021. Over the same period, the number of HDB dwelling units increased by 29%, while the number of residents living in HDB flats increased by 10%. The average household size among resident households living in HDB flats shrank from 3.57 to 3.09.
For the near future, we expect housing demand to be robust due to strong household formation and societal trends towards smaller households. To meet this demand, HDB is on track to launch up to 23,000 flats per year in 2022 and 2023, a 35% increase from 2021. In doing so, HDB provides flats of different sizes and types within the constraint of Singapore’s very limited land.
Non-citizens renting HDB flats account for a very small proportion of the stock of HDB flats. In 2014, the non-citizen quota for subletting of flats was implemented to prevent the formation of foreigner enclaves and to maintain the Singaporean character of our HDB heartlands.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of One-year Period for Reimbursement of HDB Upgrading Subsidy for Singapore Permanent Residents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for National Development whether the one-year period for reimbursement with upgrading subsidy for Singaporeans who are Singapore Permanent Residents at the point when they subscribed to HDB’s Home Improvement Programme may be extended.
Mr Desmond Lee: Subsidies for HDB upgrading programmes are only extended to Singapore Citizen households. At the point of polling for HDB’s upgrading programmes, including the Home Improvement Programme, Singapore Permanent Resident (SPR) households are informed that they will have to pay the full upgrading cost billed to them upon completion of the upgrading works, but they can submit a claim for the upgrading subsidy if any of the flat co-owners becomes a Singapore Citizen within one year from the date of billing.
Appeals for the reimbursement of the upgrading subsidy from SPR households who had obtained Singapore Citizenship more than one year after the date of billing will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Migrant Domestic Workers Hired at Concessionary Levy Rate in Last Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Manpower in the last five years, what is the annual number of migrant domestic workers hired at a concessionary levy rate, broken down into a hire to care for (i) children, (ii) elderly persons and (iii) persons with disabilities.
Dr Tan See Leng: From 2017 to 2021, there were an average of about 98,000, 68,000 and 3,000 migrant domestic workers annually who were hired at a concessionary levy rate to care for young children, elderly persons and persons with disabilities, respectively.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":5254,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20221109/vernacular-9 Nov 2022 - Ms Nadia A Samdin - Online Safety (Misc Amnd) Bill.pdf","fileName":"9 Nov 2022 - Ms Nadia A Samdin - Online Safety (Misc Amnd) Bill.pdf"},{"vernacularID":5255,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mrs Josephine Teo","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20221109/vernacular-Josephine Teo Online Safety 9Nov2022 -Chinese(MCI).pdf","fileName":"Josephine Teo Online Safety 9Nov2022 -Chinese(MCI).pdf"},{"vernacularID":5256,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Hany Soh","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20221109/vernacular-Hany Soh Adj Motion 9Nov2022 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Hany Soh Adj Motion 9Nov2022 -Chinese.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}