1 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked\tthe Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) whether the running of hawker centres by social enterprises on a not-for-profit basis has achieved its desired outcomes; (b) whether it has reduced the overall operating costs for hawkers and food prices for consumers; and (c) whether it has helped attract new hawkers to the trade.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for the Environment and Water Resources (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan)\t(for the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources):Hawker centres are places where Singaporeans from all walks of life can interact while enjoying hygienic and affordable food. To meet the changing needs of society while ensuring the sustainability of the hawker trade and the affordability of hawker food, the Government has been exploring alternative management models where socially-conscious operators are appointed to manage hawker centres on a not-for-profit basis. These operators have the flexibility to innovate and customise solutions for each centre. With their experience in food and beverage operations as well as property and lease management, we believe these operators are able to improve the dining experience, enhance vibrancy, and improve the operational efficiency of hawker centres under their management.
There are currently four hawker centres managed by socially-conscious operators, namely at Blk 208B New Upper Changi Road and Bukit Panjang Hawker Centre which are managed by NTUC Foodfare Pte Ltd, Hougang Ci Yuan Hawker Centre managed by Fei Siong Social Enterprise Ltd and Our Tampines Hub Hawker Centre managed by OTMH.
The feedback from both hawkers and patrons of these centres has been largely positive. The operators monitor the prices of basic food items at these hawker centres to prevent unreasonable price hikes. In addition, some operators have ensured that the hawkers offer at least a few affordable entry-level meals in their menu. For example, the stalls at the centres in Ci Yuan and Our Tampines Hub need to have at least two dishes priced at $2.80 each or below. The operators also organise events at these hawker centres to further enhance the vibrancy of the centres.
To help hawkers address any manpower constraints they may face and manage manpower costs, the operators have implemented some innovative productivity measures. For example, the operator at Ci Yuan Hawker Centre has implemented a self-payment kiosk at all stalls, allowing the hawkers to focus on taking orders and cooking. Similarly, at the hawker centre in Our Tampines Hub, the operator has introduced a cashless payment system for the stalls. The operators at Bukit Panjang, Ci Yuan and Our Tampines Hub hawker centres have also introduced centralised dishwashing to reduce the hawkers' need for manpower for dishwashing. Besides improving the hawkers' productivity, centralised dishwashing can also ensure a more hygienic environment for patrons. Some operators have also offered the purchasing of ingredients in bulk to help hawkers reduce the cost of raw materials.
We have also seen encouraging initiatives to attract new entrants to the hawker trade. For example, the operator at Hougang Ci Yuan Hawker Centre has put in place an Entrepreneurship Programme. The new hawkers are given on-the-job training to gain skills and knowledge that can help them in operating hawker stalls. Thus far, 16 hawkers have benefitted from this Programme.
Given the encouraging outcomes observed in these pilots, we have recently announced an extension of the alternative management model to other hawker centres, with the appointment of NTUC Foodfare Co-Operative Limited, or NFC, to manage a group of new and existing hawker centres. Placing the management of a group of hawker centres under a single operator will enable the operator to derive economies of scale and have greater flexibility and space to experiment with new ideas and processes to further improve the vibrancy and operational efficiency of the hawker centres for the benefit of both hawkers and patrons.
Hawkers can be assured that there will be no change to the way rents are determined when the operator takes over the management of the existing centres. Subsidised stall-holders will continue to pay subsidised rents while non-subsidised stall-holders will continue to pay the prevailing market rents as assessed by professional valuers. The National Environment Agency (NEA) will work with the operator to explore ways to increase the vibrancy of the centres to enhance the business there and improve the patrons' dining experience.
I would like to assure the Member that regardless of the management model or the operator managing our hawker centres, my Ministry will ensure that hawker centres will continue to serve the fundamental objective of providing hygienic and affordable food while at the same time allowing the hawkers to make a decent livelihood.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I must say that the resumption in the building of new hawker centres is probably the best decision that MEWR has made, in my view, and my constituency is the direct beneficiary. I also support NEA's approach to try out the new model to finesse the way our hawker centres are run.
Can I ask the Senior Minister of State whether there are good learning points since we implemented the not-for-profit model? Has it improved the attractiveness of the hawker professional and lower the barrier for entry for aspiring hawkers?
I understand from stallholders from the Bukit Panjang new market that their new monthly conservancy charges are about almost $2,000. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State why are there no benefits of scale, since there is centralised dishwashing and so on, and can this charge be lowered?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan:Let me share that for the new centres that have been operated under the alternative management model, for instance, Ci Yuan Hawker Centre at Hougang and Our Tampines Hub (OTH) hawker centre which has just opened recently, the socially-conscious operators have in their tender proposals, proposed an entrepreneurship programme to allow new hawkers to enter the trade, to support and facilitate their entry. As I have noted earlier, in Ci Yuan Hawker Centre, they have an entrepreneurship programme where some 16 new hawkers have benefited. They trained these hawkers, and provided them the stalls and some initial setting-up costs to operate these stalls. In OTH, they also have a Train-and-Place entrepreneurship programme where new hawkers train with veteran hawkers for about three months, and then they operate the stalls at OTH.
These have helped to lower the entry barriers for aspiring hawkers, whether they are young hawkers or people looking to enter the trade. Between Ci Yuan and OTH, we have new hawkers who were formerly an engineer, an accountant, real estate agent and recently, at Chinatown Complex Food Centre, I met a former Deputy Superintendent (DSP) who has become a hawker. She has been selling herbal buk kut teh there for more than a month or so. Schemes like these would help.
With regard to the conservancy fees that the Member referred to, in effect, at Bukit Panjang Hawker Centre, this is not just one component, this $1,600-odd. It comprises three components: firstly, it is service and conservancy fees for general cleaning, routine maintenance and utilities of the common area; there is a second component which is table cleaning fees; and the third component is centralised dishwashing fees. All these fees are market-determined and paid directly to the contractors. For centralised dishwashing, it is to help the hawkers to address manpower constraints and challenges, as well as to manage manpower costs and improve productivity. With centralised dishwashing, what it means is that the hawkers will save on the cost of employing someone to wash the dishes.
In one of my visits to a hawker centre at Whampoa which does not have a centralised dishwashing programme at the moment, one of the hawkers has purchased his own dishwashing equipment and that helped him to address his difficulty of getting someone to wash the dishes, and saved nearly the equivalent of one full-time manpower cost. That would definitely offset the fees paid for centralised dishwashing.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Display of Prices at Wet Market Stalls","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Mr Leon Perera asked\tthe Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) whether it is compulsory for wet market stallholders to display their prices prominently; (b) if so, how does the Ministry enforce this; and (c) how many stallholders have been found to be in breach of such regulations over the past five years.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for the Environment and Water Resources (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan)\t(for the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources): Currently, all stallholders are required to display their prices as part of their licence conditions. Where it is not feasible to indicate fixed prices, stallholders can also indicate a price range instead. In 2016, in response to feedback, the National Environment Agency (NEA) issued verbal advisories to more than 110 market stallholders to display their prices and most of the stallholders had cooperated.
We recognise that many wet market stalls may face difficulty in displaying their prices as the prices of market produce may fluctuate on a daily basis and are currently looking into revising this requirement.
Regardless of the requirement, it is a good practice for stallholders to be transparent about their prices so that consumers will have greater peace of mind when patronising them and can make more informed choices.
\tMr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member):\tI thank the Senior Minister of State for the detailed answer. Would the Ministry consider a campaign to put up posters in some of these wet markets to educate consumers that stallholders are expected to display these prices and perhaps to have a hotline number they can call, if there are stallholders who are consistently not displaying prices?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan:Indeed, at these wet markets and hawker centres, we do have place managers there to monitor. Anyone is free to contact us to give us feedback on the display of food prices and any other issue with regards to hawker centres.
I do wish to highlight that we do understand that for market stalls, there are challenges for them in fulfilling this requirement. As I had said, for some stalls, in particular, where they are selling market produce and if the prices fluctuate on a daily basis, it is quite difficult. We have engaged them and advised them that they could display a price range instead, which would also comply with the requirements. Clearly, we will do more, in terms of reaching out and educating them through our place managers, too.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore Companies' Efforts to Upskill Employees and Use of SkillsFuture Credits to Train for Alternative Careers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Ms Foo Mee Har asked\tthe Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) (a) what is the progress made by Singapore companies' investment in skills training to support skills mastery and employees' transition to new growth areas in their respective companies; and (b) how do the training efforts of Singapore companies compare with the best-in-class globally in terms of training hours, dollars spend as a percentage of payroll, and track record in supporting employees to gain new skills.
4 Ms Foo Mee Har asked\tthe Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) whether the Government tracks the utilisation of SkillsFuture credits to prepare Singaporeans for alternative careers and how successful the scheme has been in preparing Singaporeans for new jobs especially amongst older workers.
\tThe Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) (Mr Ong Ye Kung):\tMdm Speaker, may I take Question Nos 3 and 4 together, please?
Mdm Speaker :\tYes, please.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung:Let me give a bit of background. Historically, our adult workers' training system tended to support employers training their workers, much more than empowering workers to take charge of their own lifelong learning journey. Just winding back to 10 years ago, Government funding for lifelong learning was heavily weighted towards employer-supported training, with a small proportion going to individual-initiated training. That is the historical background.
Over the years, the Government has expanded its funding support for lifelong learning, and also shifted funding more towards supporting individuals directly. This is necessary, given the increase in number of contract workers and freelancers, and that it is much more likely that individuals will take the initiative to prepare themselves for their next careers, as opposed to expecting employers doing so for them.
Today, the Ministry of Education (MOE) and SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) provide about $400 million a year in direct training subsidies for lifelong learning, with as much as 40% of that going towards supporting individual-initiated training. Sixty percent, the majority, still goes towards supporting companies and employers to train their workers.
Employed Singaporeans' participation rate in structured training is now 62%, higher than the OECD average of 55%. We are higher than Australia, Korea, Japan and France, but we are below US, the UK, Finland and Sweden. Further, based on our surveys in 2014, 82% of surveyed employers provided structured training to their employees, compared to 72% in 2006.
We are therefore not doing badly by international standards, and many companies do take the skills upgrading of their workers very seriously. But we can certainly do better, especially in encouraging SMEs to do so, and for all companies to be more active in offering structured in-house training and apprenticeship schemes, such Enhanced Internships under SkillsFuture, the SkillsFuture Earn and Learn Programme, and the Professional Conversion Programmes under Adapt and Grow.
All these are various measures we take under the SkillsFuture movement. Of course, within the movement, there is one small important scheme and that is the SkillsFuture Credit. It is one of many efforts to under the SkillsFuture movement to promote lifelong learning. We track the utilisation closely and the latest results were just released yesterday and carried widely in the papers. So, as at end December 2016, over 126,000 Singapore Citizens have utilised $37 million worth of the SkillsFuture Credit.
Mdm Speaker :\tMs Foo Mee Har.
\tMs Foo Mee Har (West Coast):Thank you, Madam. I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response. I have two supplementary questions for him. The first is, I acknowledge the great efforts that Government is making in investing directly in the employees' training but there is a lot of sense on the ground that because Government is doing so much, the part of the employer is missing? I think whilst your statistics do show that they are having programmes, but I think the ground sense is that employers can do a lot of more. I would like to ask the Minister: would the Minister consider requiring companies to set aside specific amounts of funds towards training? Their funds, not Government funds. For example, having a target of 2% of payroll towards training which some countries do, failing which they will need to contribute the same amount towards SkillsFuture account of the Government.
The second question is, whilst SkillsFuture is a national movement for all Singaporeans 25 years and above to pursue lifelong learning, so understandably, it is very wide, but could the Government prioritise SkillsFuture efforts towards helping Singaporeans build new skills necessary for new jobs and prepare for alternative careers by providing differentiated funding and extensive internships opportunities, as well as Place and Train schemes? So, very, very targeted schemes towards getting new jobs and building new skills. Whilst there are other things important but prioritise towards getting new skills for new jobs.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. I think to set aside a certain percentage of payroll for training will help me and my officers meet all our KPIs but I think it is a heavy burden for companies.
In fact, we do have something similar. Under Skills Development Levy, every company set aside 0.25% of their payroll for workers up to $4,500 in salary. They pay towards today's SkillsFuture Singapore. That money is pooled together which they can then claim for the training of their workers.
So, in a way, that mechanism is in place. It is levied very lightly at 0.25% but I think we will be very careful not to add further burden.
What I think we should really do is what the Member suggested in her second question − prioritise where are the economic activities, which sectors, which companies are hiring and then put very focused efforts to help workers pick up the skills so that they can take up the new jobs. That is exactly what we are doing together with the Ministry of Manpower.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Progress on Plan to Set up School-based Student Care Centres in Primary Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked\tthe Minister for Education (Schools) (a) what is the progress on the setting up of school-based Student Care Centres (SCCs) in all primary schools; (b) whether the Ministry is seeing increasing demand for more places; and (c) whether the Ministry has plans to increase the number of places in each school.
\tThe Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministers for Education (Ms Low Yen Ling) (for the Minister for Education (Schools)):Mdm Speaker, after-school care is a golden opportunity to enhance and enrich our children's values, growth and character. Student Care Centres (SSCs) play an important role with their after-school support. Within five years, MOE has steadily increased the number of school-based SCCs from less than 50 to 147 centres today, which means 77% of our Primary schools have SCCs. Overall enrolment has risen steadily from about 3,000 to more than 18,000 students.
MOE is on track to open SCCs in all Primary schools by end 2020. The provision of school-based SCC places has largely kept pace with demand as the majority of the schools do not have waitlists. For the schools with a waitlist, the average number of students on a waitlist is less than 10.
But having said that, I want to assure the Member that MOE will continue to monitor the demand for school-based SCC places and work with our schools to improve the accessibility of SCCs through the setting up of new SCCs as well as expanding capacity for existing ones, where appropriate, and also at a pace that does not compromise quality of the after-school care.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah):\tMadam, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for sharing the very impressive numbers. The enrolment numbers for SCCs increasing from 3,000 to 18,000 is a six-fold increase. Parents I spoke to appreciate the SCC support as this makes their lives better as working parents. I sense that the demand will continue to rise. So, I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether does MOE has plans to further scale up both SCCs for within the school as well as those that are inside the schools. Would MOE work with some of the VWOs who are interested to set up SCCs which they slowed or stopped since the school-based SCCs were introduced? Thirdly, there is more demand and I think if MOE can increase the effort, that would really help parents especially the working the working parents.
\tMs Low Yen Ling:I want to thank the Member, Mr Liang, for his supplementary questions and also sharing the observation and feedback from the residents. We certainly agree that after-school care is a crucial period for influence and care where values and children's learning can be reinforced after school hours. It is certainly MOE's priority to ensure that a nurturing environment is availed to the students who most need after-school care, where they can grow and flourish after school.
We appreciate the observation that is shared with us, arising from residents' feedback. Maybe allow me to share some numbers. Out of 147 SCCs in the Primary schools now, 45% of the SCCs are operated by VWOs. So, 45% of the 147 centres are operated by VWOs and the remaining 55% of the centres are operated by private sector commercial operators. I wish to assure Mr Liang and the House that the current rate of expansion meets demand. We also recognise that demand may vary from school to school and from area to area. We work very closely with the school principals who will know, would have a good pulse check on the demand for SCC places in the school arising from meetings with parents and parents' feedback.
In places of higher demand, MOE works closely with the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) as well as our SCC operators, be it the VWOs or the private sector operators to increase capacity where were can. I have shared two ways where we can increase capacity. Number one, open up a SCC in remaining Primary schools and that will be another 43 more, to cover the total number of 190 Primary schools by year 2020. Another way we can inject capacity is to increase capacity in existing centre. Certainly, the school will be happy to work with the operators to provide them more classrooms so that they can extend capacity but it is not just the hardware; the software is also important. We want to make sure that as we expand capacity, we are also not compromising the quality of care given to our students.
I want to assure Mr Liang that the two Ministries will continue to work closely to monitor the capacity as well as the demand for SCC places across school-based centres as well as community-based centres. This is especially so for children who lack such a home environment after-school for various reasons. We do that because we know that with after-school support, from schools and community, more parents would be able to work with peace of mind knowing that their kids receive good care after school. And to this end, we will be happy to work Mr Liang to look at the needs of his constituency so that families and also students receive quality after-school care.
Mdm Speaker :\tMr Leon Perera.
\tMr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member):\tThank you, Madam. Just two supplementary questions for the Parliamentary Secretary. Does MOE play some role in reviewing the programmes that the SCCs run to level up in terms of the quality of their programmes and to share learnings as to the quality of the programmes? And my second question is on students with special needs. Are teachers in, at least some of these SCCs, trained to provide the appropriate care for students with different types of special needs?
\tMs Low Yen Ling:The MOE team works closely with the MSF team to support the Student Care Officers (SCOs) working in the Student Care Centres to provide care for the student after-school hours. And we also work with them to provide professional development support. To this end, in August 2015, the MOE signed an MOU with the four self-help groups − CDAC, MENDAKI, SINDA and Eurasian Association (EA). And under the MOU, the four self-help groups have set up a joint venture company in November 2015 and they aim to set up 30 Student Care Centres that would be owned by the self-help groups, which are also considered VWOs. So, they will set up 30 Student Care Centres by year 2020.
The self-help groups are happy to report to MOE that to-date, January 2017, they have already hit 50% of their target. They already have Student Care Centres in 15 schools to provide care for students who most need this. The MOE, together with the self-help groups as well as the other operators, are also looking at how to facilitate sharing of best practices for the Student Care Officers.
To the second question on special needs, based on the feedback from parents, they see a lot of benefits of having their children stay in a Student Care Centre in a school-based environment because it is within the school premises and this where the principal or what we call the Allied Educator (AED) will be able to bridge the communications with the Student Care Officers with regard to the learning needs or learning difficulties of certain students in the SCCs and provide relevant support to them. The support as being given is not just support from the MOE side but also the relevant disability division in MSF.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Government's Response to State Coroner's Suggestions to Mitigate Psychological Effects for Young People under Police Investigation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked\tthe Minister for Education (Schools) whether the Ministry will be accepting and adopting all the suggestions made by the State Coroner to mitigate the risks of suicide and adverse psychological effects for young people under police investigation.
\tThe Minister for Education (Schools) (Mr Ng Chee Meng):Mdm Speaker, the Ministry of Education is part of a multi-agency review committee formed to consider the State Coroner's suggestions. The committee is led by the Ministry of Home Affairs, and includes the Ministry of Social and Family Development and the Attorney-General's Chambers. As announced by the Minister for Home Affairs last week, the committee has undertaken a comprehensive review of the investigation processes for young persons. Following the recommendations, we will implement further measures that will provide enhanced support for the well-being of young persons under Police investigation. These measures will be implemented in schools by February 2017.
Any young person conveyed from one of our schools to the Police station for an interview will generally be accompanied by an appointed school personnel familiar to the young person. This could be his or her teacher, the Year Head, or the School Counsellor. The school will provide the Police relevant information for all cases to better understand the young person's personal circumstances. The Police will inform the parent about the arrest as soon as possible.
The review committee has also recommended the implementation of an Appropriate Adult (AA) Scheme for young suspects, as announced by the Minister for Home Affairs last week. This Appropriate Adult will provide emotional support and observe the young person for signs of psychological distress during the interview by Law Enforcement Agencies. Thereafter, the school personnel will keep in touch with the parent to work out the follow-on and follow-up steps to look after the young person's well-being. This includes monitoring his or her well-being and making counselling support available.
These efforts by our schools, other Government agencies, parents and the community, will support the well-being of young persons under investigation.
Mdm Speaker :\tAssoc Prof Daniel Goh.
\tAssoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member):\tThank you, Madam. I thank the Minister. The State Coroner suggested that the ideal person would be the school counsellor to be at the interview with the Police, mainly because he would be the resource person and can be the real time facilitator for communication between the different parties involved. So, by adding in the Appropriate Adults, would this add a new layer that complicates things? Why not just stick to the school counsellor as the resource or the key person to be involved in the process?
\tMr Ng Chee Meng:I thank the Member for the supplementary question. For the counsellor in question, he is familiar to the young suspect. According to the Review Committee, an Appropriate Adult is more suitable because in the police investigation, the person in attendance should be neutral. While a school counsellor may be in a better place to support the well-being of the young person, in those circumstances may not be neutral. So, that is one part of the answer.
Second, for the school counsellor, whether he or she is accompanying the young adult, a certain level of flexibility would be required given the school's circumstances. So, beyond the school counsellors specifically, we have decided to include the teacher, or the year head, that is familiar to the student to accompany him or her to the police station. In this way, this flexibility will actually have a wider space to support the young person.
\tAssoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong:\tA quick one for the Minister. Just a point of clarification. So, the school staff who is accompanying the student to the police station, he or she will be there the whole time during the interview process?
\tMr Ng Chee Meng:\tI thank the Member for the question. He may or may not be there, depending on the circumstances of the event. When the counsellor, teacher or the year head is at the police station, there will be a proper handover to the Appropriate Adult. If there is no Appropriate Adult at present, the school counsellor would have to make a judgement call to stay with the young person until such an adult shows up. So, this would be operational management and we trust the judgement of the school personnel to make the best call.
Mdm Speaker :\tMr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon):\tThank you, Madam. I just want to check with the Minister whether the teachers and the school counsellors have adequate training in mental health awareness and psychological first aid, especially awareness of the most common conditions like depression?
\tMr Ng Chee Meng:\tI thank the Member for the question. The basic answer is yes to a basic level to be able to monitor signs of distress, from the teachers and the year head. For the counsellors, they will have a little bit more in-depth training.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Appointment of New Attorney-General in Accordance with Article 35 of Constitution","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Ms Sylvia Lim asked\tthe Prime Minister whether the appointment of the new Attorney-General, to take effect on 14 January 2017, accords with Article 35 of the Constitution.
\tThe Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam) (for the Prime Minister):\tMadam, I am taking this question on behalf of the Prime Minister. The appointment of the new Attorney-General is in accordance with Article 35 of the Constitution.
\tMs Sylvia Lim (Aljunied):\tSupplementary question for the Minister. My concern is actually regarding specifically section 35(4) of the Constitution. I would like his comments on whether he feels that there is any issue with regard to the age of the new appointee.
\tMr K Shanmugam:\tThank you, Mdm Speaker, for allowing me to answer. No, Article 35(4) does not create an age issue for the Appointee.
Mdm Speaker :\tMs Lim.
\tMs Sylvia Lim:Thank you, Madam. I have a different view of the Article, and I would like to ask the Minister whether he agrees that this could be a reading of Article 35(4), and my view is this.
Article 35(4) provides that the AG may be appointed for a specific period of time and it also says that, subject to his being removed, he shall vacate his office at the expiration of the period but subject as aforesaid, meaning subject to the removal clause, he should otherwise hold office until the age of 60 years.
Furthermore, the proviso to Article 35(4) states that \"The President has a discretion if he concurs with the advice of the Prime Minister to permit an AG who has attained the 60 years to remain in office.\" So, my question is, the Article does not seem to contemplate the appointment of a new AG who is more than 60 years old to assume the post.
\tMr K Shanmugam:I think that would not be an accurate reading. In fact, it would be quite an inaccurate reading. If you look at Article 35(4) carefully, it provides for two types of appointments; appointments in two situations. One, an appointment of an AG, without a specific term. That can only be done when the appointee is under 60 years of age. There are two parts to Article 35(4). In that first situation, the appointment ends when he reaches the age of 60. The second situation is when the appointment of an AG is for a specified term − say two years, three years and so on. That person can be below 60, can be above 60 and the appointment ends when the term ends. And of course, in both cases, the Government may allow extensions beyond the age of 60 or beyond the specified term.
The proviso applies in one of those situations, when a person below 60 has been appointed, and then he is allowed to carry on beyond 60.
Any other reading would be − looking for a reasonable word − would not make much sense because that would say that you can carry on beyond 60 but only if you have been appointed before you reach 60. And in which case, then the age does not seem to be the relevant criteria.
And if you look at past practice, the late Mr Tan Boon Teik held the office until past the age of 63. At that time, the relevant provision stated age 55. Mr Chan Sek Keong who was AG as well as Chief Justice was appointed in 1992 at the age of 54. He was appointed for a two-year term past the age of 55. And in 1994, that age in Article 35(4) was changed from 55 to 60. And Mr Chan continued to hold the office past the age of 60. And he was re-appointed for a series of terms thereafter.
Current Judge of Appeal, Justice Chao Hick Tin was above the age of 60 when he was first appointed AG. He was 63 when he was appointed for a term of two years, and 65 when he left office. And we have had a number of AGs below the age of 60 who were appointed for a specific term; Mr Walter Woon, the current Chief Justice, Justice Steven Chong and Mr V K Rajah. All these appointments were in accordance with the Constitution. And the interpretation I have put forward, Mdm Speaker, is something we have confirmed with the Attorney-General's Chambers.
Mdm Speaker :\tMr Murali Pillai.
\tMs Sylvia Lim:\tSorry Madam, may I ask —”
Mdm Speaker :\tMs Lim, you have already asked two clarifications.
\tMs Sylvia Lim:\tMadam, I am still not satisfied with the Minister's answer. May I just ask —”
Mdm Speaker :\tOne final clarification.
\tMs Sylvia Lim:Thank you, Madam. Madam, I think the Minister would also note that there is an Article 35(5) where it is specifically provided that, \"Nothing that is done by the AG shall be invalid by reason only that he has attained the age at which it is required by this Article to vacate his office.\" So, there is an indication in the Constitution about the importance of the age, and some of the office-holders that he mentioned earlier − I think they were sitting AGs appointed before the cut-off, save for Chao Hick Tin, which case, I think, was never adjudicated.
So, my question is, whether the Government would, in good faith, to clarify this matter, apply to court for an interpretation to see whether the Government's view is correct.
\tMr K Shanmugam:That is quite ridiculous. The Government has taken advice. I am satisfied. Anybody who reads it will be satisfied. If the Member feels that there is something wrong, I would leave it to the Member to apply.
If the Member is right, a number of anomalies. Of course, Justice Chao Hick Tin's appointment as AG would then have been not in order.
Secondly, if you look at Article 35(5) − so according to the Member then, if a person is above 60 − then Article 35(4), since it only applies before the age of 60, then what happens to decisions taken by those people above 60? You must read the Constitution with common sense. \"The Attorney-General\" − I am reading 35(4) − \"may be appointed for a specific period\" − and that is the term appointment − \"and, if he was so appointed, shall, subject to clause (6), vacate his office − at the expiration of that period, but subject as aforesaid, shall otherwise hold office until he reaches the age of 60\". So, it clearly envisages two types of appointments.
And it is strange to ask the Government, which has taken a view and has taken advice from AGC: \"I disagree with you and therefore would you apply to court?\"
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessment by Traffic Police of Suitability to Drive for Drivers with Prescribed Diseases or Disabilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Mr Murali Pillai asked\tthe Minister for Home Affairs whether Traffic Police (TP) intends to require licensed drivers to notify TP when they develop prescribed diseases or disabilities under the Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Driving Licences) Rules after being issued with driving licences so that TP may assess and determine whether their driving licences should be suspended or revoked.
9 Mr Murali Pillai asked\tthe Minister for Home Affairs whether Traffic Police (TP) intends to require a medical professional to inform TP of licensed drivers whom he/she has examined and are reasonably believed to be suffering from prescribed diseases or disabilities under the Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Driving Licences) Rules so that TP may assess and determine whether the drivers' driving licences should be suspended or revoked.
\tThe Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Amrin Amin) (for the Minister for Home Affairs) : Mdm Speaker, may I take Question Nos 8 and 9 together?
Mdm Speaker :\tYes, please.
\tMr Amrin Amin:The prescribed disabilities and diseases are listed in the Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Driving Licences) Rules − examples include mental disorders and epilepsy. The list was drafted in consultation with relevant stakeholders such as Ministry of Health and Singapore Medical Association. This list was last reviewed in 2015.
Drivers should not drive if they develop diseases or disabilities that impede their driving abilities, or if they are unwell and have trouble operating their motor vehicles. Instead, they should get an appointed driver to assist in their commute or use public transport. However, if they decide to drive and subsequently get involved in an accident, they would be liable for having committed a negligent act under the Penal Code, or potentially a rash act if it is proven that they were involved in the accident due to their diseases or disabilities.
Currently, the Traffic Police (TP) require applicants for the Provisional Driving Licence to declare that they are medically fit to drive. TP also require drivers aged 65 and above to undergo medical examinations to determine their fitness to drive.
TP will also subject licence holders to medical examinations to ascertain their fitness to drive, if accidents or other investigations reveal that they might have disabilities or diseases that impede their driving abilities. Drivers who fail the medical examination will have their driving licences revoked. Over the past four years, TP have revoked 69 driving licences due to such disabilities or diseases.
We understand the Member of Parliament's concerns. Not many countries currently compel medical doctors to report such disabilities and diseases to the traffic authority, and requiring individuals to report such disabilities and diseases on their own may have limited effect practically. We will study the practices of other jurisdictions, and what are the best options for us. We have to be mindful that our regulations strike a balance in ensuring that drivers continue to be fit to drive on the roads, without imposing overly onerous reporting requirements.
Mdm Speaker :\tMr Murali Pillai.
\tMr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok):I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for his comprehensive response. May I ask whether is the Ministry is of the view that the current system adequately ensures road safety, given that presently, a person who attains the age of 18 and gets a driving licence, has no requirement to update on any adverse conditions until he reaches the age of 65?
Secondly, the experience of countries, such as UK and Australia, which mandate the reporting obligation, as set out in the questions, and also the experience in the UK, in terms of statistics, in 2011, it was reported that 7% of fatal accidents were caused by motorists having illnesses or disabilities.
I understand that Singapore's experience is a bit different. But in Singapore, we do not have yet an obligation to self-report or for a health professional to report in relation to disabilities that their patients may have. And in relation to the possible limited effectiveness of motorists' self-reporting, I think by and large, Singaporeans take their social responsibilities seriously. In any event —”
Mdm Speaker :\tMr Pillai, can you please put your supplementary questions?
\tMr Murali Pillai:\tYes, Mdm Speaker. In any event, the suggestion embedded in the Parliamentary Questions prevent the tail wagging the dog because, for the vast majority of motorists, of course, they are compliant. We are only talking about a small percentage.
\tMr Amrin Amin:The Member has summarised the regulations in that at the point of applying for the Provisional Driving Licence, drivers will declare they are medically fit to drive and they will also have to go through medical examinations after age 65. The other thing is, if there is an accident or investigation, then they will be subject to medical examinations.
The data currently does not require such an active intervention. Over the past four years, there were 12 cases in which drivers were involved in an accident and, upon being subjected to medical examination, they were found to be suffering from a prescribed disease or disability, and we have taken stern action. Nevertheless, we note the Member's concern. That is a very good suggestion and we will study that and review it to see what are the best solutions for us.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"'Break the Silence' Campaign to Encourage Intervention in Family Violence Situations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"10 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked\tthe Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether he can provide details on the three-year \"Break the Silence\" public education campaign to encourage witnesses to safely intervene in family violence situations; (b) whether the Ministry will set up a dedicated hotline for victims and witnesses of family violence to report abuses; and (c) whether the Ministry will provide urgent advice to victims and witnesses and coordinate interventions by specialist centres and the police.
\tThe Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Tan Chuan-Jin):Mdm Speaker, my Ministry launched the three-year \"Break the Silence | Against Family Violence\" campaign last November, essentially, to renew and to continue to raise awareness of family violence, with a focus on the role of bystanders. The key message is that family violence is not a private matter. Victims need help. They need to receive help early. The community, including neighbours, family members, friends and even strangers, can play a very important part to tackle family violence.
As part of the campaign, a \"First Steps\" video, depicting how a neighbour intervenes when violence occurs nearby, is available online. I do encourage each of us in the House to share the video and other collaterals on social media to start conversations around family violence and how we as bystanders can step in to help victims. The #breakthesilenceSG effort was started to also gather stories on social media of how everyday Singaporeans stepped in to prevent, interrupt and report suspected family violence. It can be done. There are people who have done so and who have made a difference and it is really to encourage all of us to realise that that is something that all of us can and should do.
Over the next three years, my Ministry will work with our community and corporate partners, including through ground-up efforts relating to music, through the sports community and the arts community, to further raise awareness of family violence. We also have roving community roadshows, training sessions and collaterals being produced to help raise awareness and to equip bystanders with resources and also to update them on skills that are required to safely step in to help victims.
Anyone who encounters family violence can call or approach the nearest Family Service Centre, Family Violence Specialist Centre or community-based Child Protection Specialist Centre. Alternatively, they can call the ComCare Hotline at 1800-222-0000, a number which many of us are familiar with and from there they can redirect the individuals to the specialist centres concerned. These agencies will assess each case and render the appropriate assistance required.
When emergencies occur, call the Police. Agencies are connected through the National Family Violence Networking System and will respond to cases regardless of where the first incident report is made. Where there are serious concerns, my Ministry will work closely with the Family Violence Specialist Centres and the Police to address the safety of the victim and any other vulnerable members in the family.
\tAssoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong:\tMadam, I thank the Minister. I think it is a great initiative but I am wondering about the risk that is now opened up for the bystanders because they are asked to safely intervene, and also for the alleged perpetrators because their privacy might be compromised through social media postings, for example, and of course the safety of bystanders themselves could be threatened by violent reactions from the perpetrators. So, how would MSF counter these issues?
\tMr Tan Chuan-Jin:I would like to thank the Member for his clarifications and these are very real concerns. In fact, that is the reason sometimes people are worried about stepping in: one, they are concerned about their own personal safety; another, of course, sometimes they feel that these are personal issues, family issues and really not for us to intervene.
I am not sure whether the Member has watched the video that we have shared. There are many quite good videos. For example, just knock on the door and just say, \"Hello, how are you? Is everything OK?\" In the video that we just produced, this old auntie, you look at her and you can tell she is really fed up about the situation. She got up and we thought she was going to get into a ruckus with the neighbours. But she actually cooked the cake or she brought out something and gave it to them, just for them to realise that, as neighbours we heard something, we noticed.
There are lots of ways where we can step in without necessarily making it confrontational. It allows a break in that event so that the individuals perpetrating violence would take a step back and realise that people are noticing it and that may start that whole process for them to self-reflect.
If at all, perhaps, it is just to raise concerns, call the hotline or call the Police, if necessary, if you think it is excessively violent and you are concerned about the well-being of those who are affected. Or just call the hotline and we will then assess accordingly and see whether the grassroots could step in.
These are ways where we want to encourage people to, perhaps, begin to see how we can play a part. The other roles that can be played are not just by strangers and neighbours. It is actually family members. You will realise that in many of these cases, family members were aware of some of these instances that were happening. In fact, in one very tragic case of a young boy, two years old, who died unfortunately, actually the grandmother was aware but we do not know why she did not raise it.
These are all steps. What we want to do is to encourage people to do something. Let us know. At least let us intervene and at least something can be done. If it turns out to be a false alarm, so be it. There are safe ways to do it and I think the whole idea of some of these collaterals being produced is to help raise awareness that there are ways to do it without putting ourselves at risk.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number and Profile of Persons who Attempted Suicide","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked\tthe Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the number of people who have committed suicide or attempted suicide each year in the past five years; (b) how many were aged 60 and above; (c) how many of these seniors were living by themselves and how many were living with their families; and (d) what resources and programmes are currently in place to help to address the likely causes of such suicides and to prevent the suicide rates from increasing.
\tThe Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Tan Chuan-Jin):Mdm Speaker, between 2011 and 2015, there was an average of about 415 deaths from suicides each year, of which an average of 116 involved persons aged 60 and above. In terms of trends, for the elderly specifically, there are no particular trends that we picked up. It varies from year to year but there is no particular spike in numbers. We do not also have the specific breakdown of the living arrangements of these persons who committed suicide.
As the causes of suicides are complex and multi-faceted, we do need to take a holistic perspective when we examine and try to review each individual suicide and to see how we should approach it. Certainly, we take a whole-of-government approach.
Why it seems a lot more visible today, I guess a lot of it has got to do with media, especially social media. When news breaks, stories sometimes are shared in various forums. It is circulated and a lot more awareness is there. But when we look at the numbers themselves, the trends are not picking up in a big way. It does not mean that it is not important because every life lost via suicide is one death too many and we should endeavour to try to prevent it.
It is also, perhaps, a bit simplistic to label the reasons as to why it happens because there are social issues, there are relationship issues, family issues, mental health issues and sometimes a combination of various factors that causes individuals to take their own lives.
We want to work together with community partners, particularly to raise awareness on suicide prevention, encourage distressed persons to seek help, and provide professional support and crisis intervention to at-risk groups.
Essentially, there are four ways in which we want to approach this.
The first one is through public education. Under the Seniors Health Curriculum, which is rolled out by Health Promotion Board (HPB), this is part of our National Seniors' Health Programme, where seniors are taught social-emotional and self-care skills, and how to seek help if necessary. HPB also conducts workshops in workplaces to educate Singaporeans, in particular mature workers, on mental resilience and well-being.
Secondly, it is through proactive outreach and support. To prevent social isolation and to help us detect risks among seniors early, Senior Activity Centres (SACs) conduct social activities and carry out home visits to reach out to elderly living in rental flats. The Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) also works with community-based organisations, including the SACs, to support seniors who may be at risk of depression and dementia via the Community Resource, Engagement and Support Teams (CREST) programme. It is part of the Community Befriending Programme that volunteer befrienders visit seniors regularly to prevent social isolation and support their needs. This is something that all of us as individuals can do. We really should think about mobilising our residents and volunteers to play a part in this effort because it is really about picking up information, picking tell-tale signs and providing social support where we can. Of course, Family Service Centres (FSCs) support families and individuals, including seniors, through casework and counselling to resolve their relationship, financial, emotional difficulties and so on.
Thirdly, in the crisis response effort. Those in distress or who are facing crises do call the Samaritans of Singapore, which operates a 24-hour hotline. IMH also operates a 24-hour Mental Health Helpline manned by counsellors who can assess and after that triage cases, and activate home visit teams if necessary.
Lastly, while all these initiatives are important, the most critical role really is played by the individuals themselves. Families − let us not forget the role that families play − and, of course, the community − the people who live around us.
At the individual level, individuals should take personal responsibility. They need to raise self-awareness − be self-aware and recognise tell-tale signs so that they can seek help early when feeling overwhelmed and emotionally distressed.
Family members must help to pick up signs of distress and render emotional support, or help the troubled family member to seek professional assistance early. Co-workers, colleagues at work, friends and neighbours can also play a very important role in offering assistance and support to those facing life's challenges.
Without these steps, even the best support programmes that we put in place will be rendered ineffective. So, we must all step forward and play an active part in looking out for our fellow Singaporeans, our loved ones and together with the rest of the other programmes we put in place, I think we have a good shot at reaching out to those who need help.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member):\tI thank the Minister for his comprehensive explanation. On the issue of social isolation, I understand from press reports that there has been a huge number of increase, over the last, say, 15 years, in the number of elderly people living alone compared to 15 years ago. I am particularly addressing people who live alone and whose spouses have moved on, passed on. I understand from my grassroots activities that some of these elderly do not want to be involved in some of these current activities at the SACs and other activity centres. I am just wondering whether the Ministry will consider taking a new approach to some form of befriender programme or something to interact with these elderly whose partners have passed on and to provide social company and to try to re-integrate them into society.
\tMr Tan Chuan-Jin:I would like to thank the Member for his question and follow-up comments. I think it is a very real concern for a number of reasons. One, the number of people who are ageing are increasing so the volume itself is increasing. The other factor that we are all familiar with is family structures are also changing. Families are smaller. So, sometimes, you may have children but they may be working abroad or, sometimes, in some cases, you do have strained relationships. So, you will gradually begin to see, of course, one, more elderly and, of course, there are elderly who are living alone for a range of reasons and you will also correspondingly see some of these numbers increase.
Now, does isolation in itself represent a problem? No, not necessarily. But certainly, isolation, I do not think it is necessarily a good thing either because people do need to be socially engaged. They may be living alone but it does not mean that they are necessarily socially engaged. They may be in contact with their family, their regular social activities. So, those are less of a concern. But they can become a concern at some point where they become less mobile, when they become less able to meet up with other people. Which is why it is very important for us to realise that the grassroots activities are very important. Ultimately, at some stage your neighbours and the community in which you live in become very critical.
Family members are there, and that is always the first line. That is critical and we hope that families continue to visit. Which is why we also want to re-define the sort of family structure and look beyond just the nuclear family, the extended family becomes important − cousins, nephews, uncles, aunts. We need to nurture that extended family relationship as well. Relationships within a family do not just automatically happen. We also need to put in effort to make sure that at least that part in terms of providing emotional support to their elderly and to family members remain. But the community becomes important.
Indeed, the Member is right. As Members know, some of the activities that we have, we have the same old people taking part in the activities. We want new old people to take part. And the Member is right that some do not participate, for a range of reasons. Sometimes, they may have just moved in, there is no social connection with the local community as yet. The befriending effort is on-going. That is a very important part of our programme in terms of outreach; slowly getting to know who are those people who are isolated, and then how do we begin to get to know them and slowly begin to connect them with the community at large and begin to get them out of their homes and to participate in activities. Once that ice is broken, we can begin to see some of them beginning to play an active role.
There are some who do not want to come out, again, for a range of reasons. Sometimes, when you become older, you have physical infirmities and then you feel self-conscious and, sometimes, it is just a question of perhaps regular visitation and that is something that we are looking at through the Befrienders' Programme, which is why I would urge Members to grow these grassroots activities, whether from the neighbours, the grassroots organisations, volunteers and, in fact, working with corporates. That is something I am exploring as well, because companies are looking at CSR efforts. Sometimes, we may be looking for some big-bang activities. But, actually, low-key, simple, weekly, fortnightly befriending visitation goes a very long way and that becomes a bridge to the other activities that we have.
So, indeed, the Member is right. It is something we need to pay attention to because we all know the ageing profile is changing, the numbers will expand, and it behooves us to put in the effort today, so that by the time we reach that stage in 10, 15 years' time when the numbers are quite phenomenal, we can have an environment where we may live long, but I think we can age well, both as individuals and as a community as well.
\tDr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio):Madam, I certainly agree with the Minister that in reaching out to our elderly, all of us have a part to play. Even here, in this House, all of us, as Members of Parliament, elected or otherwise, we can do something about it. We can visit them regularly at home with our volunteers and not just wait for grassroots events or the Government to do something about it.
Would MSF consider working with MOH to look at how our PG Ambassadors can also be that first line of befrienders to visit our elderly, because they are already out there and are already trained?
\tMr Tan Chuan-Jin:Indeed, the partnership between MSF and MOH is critical. It is very hard to just draw a line that this is a social issue, this is a health issue. I would say the third factor is a community issue. So, the grassroots organisations and structure are a very valuable set-up. The PG office is particularly important because they are actively visiting the Pioneer Generation. We are also picking up information from them because they sometimes notice that elderly folks are just so happy to have someone to talk to. These are not the elderly folks living on their own. They are living with family members. This suggests to us that, sometimes, they may be living with their older parents but they are not being engaged or are being disregarded in some ways. What we are trying to do, now that the information is being picked up, whether at the Pioneer General Ambassador level or the grassroots level, is decide how we then pool the information together so that we can then direct efforts at befriending in a lot more targeted and effective manner.
That is something we are focusing on to see how to operationalise this. Some of us are doing this on the ground as Members of Parliament. I have spoken to a number of you on some of the possible outreach efforts that can be done and I do sincerely believe that this is possible. It is really a question of us organising ourselves at the ground level to do this. No shortage of outreach efforts, but I think we need to work together to collaborate. But that effort is on-going.
\tMr Kok Heng Leun (Nominated Member):\tI thank the Minister. In my experience working with the elderly, I realise that language plays a very important part in communication. I wonder if all of MSF's outreach programmes would also include other languages. Besides English, which most of the organisations are comfortable with, we are really looking at Mandarin, Malay, Tamil or even various dialects. Would such programmes be available? And how do we make sure that these are going out to the elderly?
\tMr Tan Chuan-Jin:I thank the Member for the insight. Indeed, the Member will notice we have a lot more dialect programmes and advertisements. We work closely with the getai community to get some of the messages out. Dialects become important, as well as Malay, Tamil and so on. In terms of the outreach for befriending, it is not just in English. We are looking out for volunteers from different backgrounds. I would urge the different communities to step forward to play a part because we do need to leverage on your language skills.
We do have people who want to reach out. But sometimes there is an impediment because of language. When that happens and we find that some elderly person is not able to communicate beyond a particular language, we will then source for someone who is able to speak the language to come in.
It definitely helps once again to call out for those who are from different backgrounds to play a part, because that is important. In terms of collaterals, such as videos, we are stepping up the effort, working with different producers, directors, to generate some of the materials. I am sure you have seen a lot of the Hokkien and various advertisements which have gone down very well with the elderly. I know some people are a bit ‒ for want of a better word ‒ kind of scornful about \"Why do you have this kind of videos? It is a bit slapstick\". But it is different strokes for different folks. We may not always relate to some of these types of programmes and collaterals, but it reaches out to different segments of our society. The key thing, as far as we are concerned, is that it does not matter what the platform is. Get the message out and then enable individuals to then look after themselves as well, and also to encourage those around them to do that. It really takes a collective effort.
So, the Member is absolutely right. Language plays a very important role, particularly presently when a lot of the elderly, perhaps because of their education level where their language competencies are not quite the same. As we go forward in the next 10, 15 years, this issue should be less acute. A lot more people should be able to speak the main languages. But it is something that we still need to look out for.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mandatory Safety Barriers at Escalator Handrails","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked\tthe Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry will consider requiring all building owners to erect vertical barriers along the handrails of escalators as a safety measure; and (b) if not, what other safety measures are in place to protect people especially children from injuries or fatal accidents as a result of falling over the handrails.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee) (for the Minister for National Development):Mdm Speaker, escalators in Singapore are designed and installed according to the prevailing Singapore Standards Code of Practice. The Code includes several safety requirements to reduce the risk of users falling over handrails. For instance, balustrades have to be designed to discourage users from climbing across the handrails. Handrails also have to be of a certain height. Furthermore, the Building Control Act requires safety barriers of at least 1m at escalator landings to prevent users from falling through the gaps between two escalators. These requirements are in line with international standards across Europe and the US.
Apart from design and safety requirements, escalator users also have a role to play in ensuring their own safety and the safety of others. Holding onto handrails, not getting distracted by mobile devices, and taking extra care when carrying heavy or bulky items, are some of the good practices that will reduce the risk of accidents. Young children should also always be closely supervised when they are on the escalator. BCA is working with building owners and operators to raise public awareness on safe and proper usage of escalators, such as by displaying posters on safety tips.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon):\tI thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I understand there are safety measures in place, but I think some of us may have watched the footage of a grandmother who lost her footing on the escalator when she was carrying her grandchild and then dropped the grandchild over the handrail. Can I just check with the Senior Minister of State what safety measures we have in place to prevent this kind of accidents from happening?
\tMr Desmond Lee:\tI think they are in my answer earlier. The escalators have to comply with certain safety standards. User behaviour is also a major part of incidents that occur on escalators. In many buildings where there are escalators, there will also likely be lifts which people can use if they feel that there is a certain risk to them and others around them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Repairs for Spalling Concrete, Ceiling and Sewage Pipe Leaks beyond Defects Liability Period","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked\tthe Minister for National Development in the past three years, what is the number of cases that HDB has received seeking repair assistance for spalling concrete, ceiling and sewage pipe leaks in a period of a year beyond the defects liability period under the Home Improvement Programme.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee) (for the Minister for National Development):Madam, the Home Improvement Programme (HIP) helps flat owners address common maintenance issues in ageing flats, such as spalling concrete and ceiling leak.
However, occasionally, such problems could still recur after the HIP improvement works are done. For defects reported within the one-year Defects Liability Period (DLP) upon completion of the HIP works, HDB's contractors will carry out the necessary rectification.
For cases reported after DLP, HDB will look into the nature and cause of the feedback, and advise flat owners on the follow-up action accordingly. Over the past three years, the number of reported cases of defects due to workmanship of HIP works after the one-year DLP is small − about one to two cases per 10,000 units per year for spalling concrete, ceiling and sewage pipe leaks.
For ceiling leaks or spalling concrete cases that arise out of wear and tear, HDB may also offer assistance to flat owners to repair and co-share the cost of repairs under the Goodwill Repair Assistance Scheme.
\tMr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied):I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply and thank you, Mdm Speaker. Madam, I have attended to cases where residents had sought assistance to appeal to HDB for rectification of the mentioned problems. As mentioned by the Senior Minister of State, usually HDB would reply that they would grant the Goodwill Repair Assistance Scheme.
However, most of these residents feel that the cost for such repairs should be fully borne by the HDB. To them, such problems should not surface within a short period after the DLP has expired. I just want to know whether HDB can consider absorbing fully the cost for such repairs, especially for problems that are observed to have resulted from poor workmanship or due to oversights during the pre-repair assessment.
\tMr Desmond Lee:\tMadam, I think the Member has asked this question recently and an answer was given. But if workmanship is the cause of a leak recurring at the area where the repair works have been carried out, then even though it is after the DLP, if it is due to workmanship, the contractor will fix it. We have said that before.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Profile of Organisations that Received Disbursements from Cultural Matching Fund","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Mr Kok Heng Leun asked\tthe Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) since its inception, what is the respective amount of funds that has been disbursed from the Cultural Matching Fund to (i) national companies and museums (ii) major grant and seed grant companies (iii) other cultural and arts organisations not covered in (i) and (ii); (b) what is the number of receiving entities within each of these categories; and (c) what is the amount that has been respectively disbursed to the (i) visual arts (ii) performing arts (iii) literary arts (iv) traditional arts and (v) heritage sectors.
\tThe Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr Baey Yam Keng)\t(for the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth):Mdm Speaker, since its inception three years ago, the Cultural Matching Fund (CMF) has matched about $152 million of corporate and private giving. Among the arts and heritage charities that qualify for CMF, about six out of 10 have applied for and received funding from CMF. The amount matched by CMF comprised $65 million for 12 national companies and museums; $33 million for 36 Major Grant and Seed Grant companies; and $54 million for 37 other charities supporting arts and heritage causes.
The breakdown by sector is as follows: $23 million for visual arts; $40 million for performing arts; $0.6 million for literary arts; $24 million for traditional arts; $20 million for heritage, and $44 million for the remaining groups.
\tMr Kok Heng Leun (Nominated Member):I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the detailed answer. Looking at it, out of $200 million, $152 million has been actually used up. So, would this scheme stop when the current Cultural Matching Fund runs out? Would the Government continue to support this scheme?
The second supplementary question is: under what conditions are applications for such Cultural Matching grants rejected?
Lastly, I do note that a huge sum has gone to the national companies. So, I am wondering, while this Fund is good for companies, but at the same time, I think the rationale behind it is to help to build other companies in terms of their capacity to get sponsorship. Has this aim been achieved and how do you ensure that this process is being cultivated?
\tMr Baey Yam Keng:I thank the Member for his interest in the CMF. Indeed, the Ministry is currently reviewing the CMF and we are looking at the possibility of a new tranche when it runs out.
As for the eligibility for the CMF matching, in order to qualify for CMF, applications must meet the following criteria.
All arts and heritage charities and Institutes of Public Character (IPCs) are eligible for the CMF. But the CMF may also consider other charities and IPCs that contribute significantly to the arts and heritage sectors. The CMF will also only consider cash donations that are certified by a certified public accountant or auditor. So, in-kind donations will not be matched. The CMF will also not match grants given by the Government or Statutory Boards, donations from ComChest, President's Challenge or similar entities. The CMF will also match donations with benefits that are in line with the IRAS guidelines on donations with benefits.
In terms of calculation of the amount of cash donations, it is based on the amount that is received up to the previous financial year of the receiving organisation. So, applications which do not meet these above criteria will be rejected.
On the Member's questions about the inclusion of national companies and museums, the CMF's primary objective is to promote cultural philanthropy and to encourage individuals and corporations to include arts and heritage causes in their giving. National companies and museums, being larger organisations, are able to raise funds on a bigger scale and will have a greater impact to move the needle in raising public awareness of and support for cultural philanthropy.
However, we are mindful that our national companies and museums should not crowd out the other smaller arts and heritage organisations. Therefore, we have put in place a $15 million funding cap for each CMF recipient. This cap limits the amount of funding that each CMF recipient can obtain, and this will ensure that smaller groups can still tap on the CMF over the longer term.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review Arrangements for Malay-Muslim Community Development Fund Disbursements","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Mr Azmoon Ahmad asked\tthe Minister for Communications and Information and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) whether there is any plan to review the arrangements for the Malay-Muslim Community Development Fund (MMCDF) disbursements since the Fund's initiation more than 20 years ago; and (b) whether the approval process for grants under MMCDF can be simplified.
\tThe Minister for Communications and Information and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim):Madam, the Malay-Muslim Community Development Fund (MMCDF) was launched in 2001. The last review was conducted in 2014 and saw an increase in the Government's matching grant, as well as an expansion in the scope of the MMCDF to help our Malay-Muslim organisations build capabilities and improve organisational development.
The Community Leaders Forum Secretariat, based in MENDAKI, manages and regularly reviews the operational aspects of the MMCDF, including its funding guidelines and processes. The Secretariat started work on the latest round of reviews in August last year and targets to complete the review by March 2017. Thereafter, the Secretariat will share the outcome of the review.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Medical House Calls on Home-bound Patients at Subsidised Rates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"16 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked\tthe Minister for Health for patients with mobility needs who are physically unable to visit the nearest polyclinic, what measures are available to arrange a subsidised medical assessment at home so that the patient can qualify for assistance from the Agency for Integrated Care, SG Enable and related agencies.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Health):Seniors with mobility difficulties can contact the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) to request an assessment by AIC's Community Care Assessment Team (ComCAT) at their homes. This can be done through AIC touch-points such as AICare Links at our acute hospitals, Singapore Silver Line and Singapore Silver Pages.
Once contacted, AIC will arrange for the ComCAT to visit the senior at his or her home to assess their eligibility for subsidies under the various schemes, such as the Seniors' Mobility and Enabling Fund (SMF).
As of end 2016, the ComCAT has responded to a total of 1,357 cases in the community.
We will continue to monitor the care needs in the community to ensure that our schemes and services are accessible to patients who require them.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong):Madam, I thank the Senior Minister of State for her answer. I have two supplementary questions.
Firstly, on my home visits to residents in Clementi, I have come across elderly residents with mobility needs who are seeking subsidised referrals to specialist clinics at our restructured hospitals, but because they are not mobile, they have difficulties going to the nearest polyclinic. So, I was wondering what options or recourse they may have to access the specialist clinics at our restructured hospitals.
Secondly, Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask whether the assessment made by AIC is routinely shared with other agencies, so as to minimise the need for elderly residents to have multiple assessments which may add to the paperwork and potential inconvenience.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan:I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. Firstly, with regard to elderly with mobility difficulties who may need referrals to subsidised care, they can contact AIC, or their care-giver can contact AIC, to arrange for home medical visits by MOH-subvented providers, where a doctor can visit them at the convenience of their home to assess their needs and, if necessary, provide them with the subsidised referral to see a specialist.
Such services are provided by various community organisations like Home Nursing Foundation, and eligible seniors can receive subsidies for this service. In fact, for these frail seniors, they can contact AIC for home medical and home nursing services, and doctors and nurses can provide care for them within the convenience of their homes. Seniors with mobility difficulties can also contact AIC to request for Medical Escort and Transport (MET) services, where the provider can escort and transport the senior for medical appointments, including at the polyclinics.
With regard to the second question about sharing of the results of the mobility and medical assessments, we note the requirement and the need to minimise such assessments as much as possible to reduce inconvenience, particularly for the frail elderly.
The medical and mobility assessments are shared and applied for eligibility assessment for similar schemes, as far as possible. For instance, AIC will allow the use of ElderShield assessments for similar schemes run by AIC, such as the Foreign Domestic Worker (FDW) Grant, and the Pioneer Generation Disability Assistance Scheme (PioneerDAS).
However, as different schemes may have different eligibility criteria to ensure that we target the right group of beneficiaries, clients may in some instances, still need to undergo additional assessments for schemes with different or additional criteria. However, we are mindful of this and we will try to minimise this as much as possible. As Minister Tan Chuan-Jin had said, MOH and MSF work very closely together, so in instances, AIC and SG Enable, if need to, we will also share information on the medical and mobility assessments.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enhancing Skills and Capabilities of Nurses and Nursing Aides","subTitle":"Including aides in nursing homes","sectionType":"OA","content":"17 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked\tthe Minister for Health whether the Ministry will explore ways to up-skill and enhance the capabilities of enrolled nurses and nursing aides including those serving in nursing homes through measures such as training and certification.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan)\t(for the Minister for Health):Enrolled Nurses (ENs) and support care staff, such as healthcare assistants and nursing aides, are important healthcare staff in the delivery of care. They assist Registered Nurses (RNs) in the provision of nursing care. ENs are able to carry out tasks, such as inserting stomach feeding tubes and blood glucose monitoring.
As our population ages, healthcare needs will increase and become more complex. We agree with the Member that we should continue to up-skill ENs and support care staff to perform a wider scope of patient care.
ENs and support care staff can undergo in-house training provided by our public healthcare institutions.
They can also attend courses offered by training providers, such as the SingHealth Alice Lee Institute of Advanced Nursing Studies and the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC)'s Learning Institute.
ENs can also up-skill to be RNs through the Diploma in Nursing course offered by Nanyang Polytechnic and Ngee Ann Polytechnic. As part of the recommendations by the National Nursing Taskforce in 2014, more ENs can progress to become RNs by undertaking the Certificate in Bridging Studies for ENs course, and subsequently the Diploma in Nursing course, if they have at least three years of post-enrolment work experience and an employer's testimonial.
The MOH has also increased funding for our public healthcare institutions to support the upgrading of ENs to RNs. With these changes, the number of ENs enrolling in the Diploma in Nursing course increased by 7% from 237 in 2014, to 253 in 2016.
We will continue to study ways to enhance the roles, professional growth and career pathways for our ENs and support care staff, so that we can continue to deliver good quality care for Singaporeans.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong):I thank the Senior Minister of State for Health for her answer. I have one supplementary question to ask.
At present, my residents tell me, and from my own experience in healthcare, a patient's care-giver can learn how to give an insulin injection under the skin. This may be a spouse or a loved one, but in essence, a layperson can be taught this skill through a short course. So, I was wondering whether MOH will consider making these courses available for nursing aides, especially at our nursing homes. This will help them up-skill and also allow cross-training of staff, and improve deployability.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan:Allow me to explain first, that while a diabetic patient is trained, he can be trained to give himself a specific type of insulin injection for self-care, or the care-giver could be trained to do so. Healthcare staff, particularly those in healthcare institutions, are required to work with a broad range of different insulin on different patients, and this increases the need for safe care.
Nursing aides are currently not allowed to administer insulin and other subcutaneous injections to nursing home residents.
Such injections are to be done by nurses (RNs and ENs) with training. This is in view that insulin is classed under the group of high-alert medications, which are medications that are most likely to cause significant harm to the patient, even when used as intended. Although any medication used improperly can cause harm, high-alert medications cause harm more commonly, and the harm they produce is likely to be more serious and may lead to patients suffering and incurring of additional costs associated with care of these patients. For instance, insulin injection, if wrongly administered, may cause the patient to go into a coma, and further complications can arise.
Nonetheless, as I have noted earlier in my reply, we are looking at the expanding role and scope of patient care by up-skilling our ENs and support care staff, so MOH will work with the nursing homes to review whether nursing aides and other support care staff may be allowed, with appropriate training, to administer subcutaneous injections, while maintaining safe care.
\tMr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member):Madam, just one supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State.
Does the MOH currently benchmark the level of professional training, specifically for nursing home staff, such as ENs and nursing aides, with other countries that may have a best practice in this area, like Japan, for example, which I think is known for high standards for eldercare and care in nursing homes, to see if there is scope to further improve the level of training and the level of continuous training that nursing staff receive in Singapore nursing homes? I suspect the level of training is rather uneven at the present moment when we look at the nursing home space.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan:I thank the Member for his question. Indeed, we do conduct study visits, as well as share information with healthcare institutions in different countries, including the Western developed countries, as well as Japan and Hong Kong.
As I am speaking on this, there is a committee that is looking at reviewing the curriculum and training of nurses, to expand their role and scope. It will also be looking at expanding the role and scope, and up-skilling of healthcare support staff.
1.30 pm
Mdm Speaker: Order. End of Question Time.
\t[\tPursuant to Standing Order No. 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos. 20-22, 24-26, 29 and 31-32 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question Nos. 18-19, 23, 27-28 and 30 have been postponed to the next available sitting of Parliament.\t]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"\"to \tamend the Road Traffic Act (Chapter 276 of the 2004 Revised Edition), to validate certain sums collected for the purposes of that Act, and to make related amendments to the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Chapter 189 of the 2000 Revised Edition)\",
presented by the Second Minister for Transport (Mr Ng Chee Meng); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mediation Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Law (Ms Indranee Rajah):Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Singapore is today a leading centre in the world for cross-border dispute resolution, alongside London, Paris, Geneva and Hong Kong. While our legal sector is relatively small, over the last 10 years, we were able to go beyond our shores, ride the wave of rising inter- and intra-Asia trade and investment and establish for ourselves a global brand name as a trusted location for high-quality cross-border dispute resolution.
We are trusted, not only because of our legal expertise, but also because people know that we are, and will remain, neutral, and that our legal regime is stable. In the next decade, when trust commands an even higher premium, Singapore is well poised to achieve even more.
We are tabling two Bills today − the Mediation Bill and the Civil Law (Amendment) Bill − as part of a number of moves that we will make in 2017 to grow dispute resolution work in Singapore to the next level.
Strengthening our position as an international dispute resolution centre will benefit Singaporeans and Singapore. First, it helps create growth and jobs for Singapore law firms and lawyers, amidst a more challenging economic environment. Second, exposure to more, and more wide-ranging, legal work helps broaden and deepen the legal expertise available for domestic cases. Third, our position as a legal service hub will bolster Singapore's overall attractiveness as a business hub and create value for other parts of the economy.
I will now address the Mediation Bill. In Singapore, we provide a full suite of dispute resolution services so that businesses can pick and choose the services that best meet their particular needs. Mediation is one such service, complementing court litigation and arbitration. It provides a more cost effective, flexible and faster means of settling disputes. Mediation is also well-suited to our Asian context, where harmony and amicable resolution are valued highly in the dispute resolution process. It is particularly attractive for parties who desire to preserve long-term relationships and continue to do business.
In 2013, the Chief Justice and the Ministry of Law set up an International Commercial Mediation Working Group to look into developing the international commercial mediation space in Singapore. Arising from the Working Group's recommendations, in 2014, the Ministry set up the Singapore International Mediation Centre (SIMC) and the Singapore International Mediation Institute (SIMI). I am happy to report that both institutions have done well in just two short years.
The SIMC has, as of end 2016, successfully attracted case filings from parties from more than 20 different jurisdictions and a wide range of industries and sectors. The sums in dispute ranged from S$0.5 million to more than S$600 million. Part of SIMC's success lies in its strong focus on meeting the needs of businesses. For example, SIMC has worked across institutional boundaries, to partner the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) to develop the SIAC-SIMC arb-med-arb, an innovative protocol that offers businesses the option of both arbitration and mediation.
As a professional standards body for mediation, SIMI has successfully implemented and maintains a four-tiered credentialing scheme for 116 − and growing − local and international mediators, and a three-tiered partner scheme for two − soon to be seven − organisations offering mediation services and/or training. SIMI works closely with more than 20 domestic and international organisations to promote mediation and set high competency standards in mediation practice.
Besides building strong institutions, Singapore needs a legislative framework for mediation if we desire to be an international centre for commercial mediation. This Mediation Bill provides such a framework. Its provisions will strengthen the enforceability of a mediated settlement agreement. They will also provide much-valued certainty for cross-border mediation users, in areas where the common law position is unclear or differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
The Bill will implement the last of the recommendations made by the International Commercial Mediation Working Group. Its provisions incorporate inputs from public consultation and extensive stakeholder engagement with lawyers, mediation and alternative dispute resolution practitioners and service providers, academics and mediation professional bodies. The stakeholders we consulted are very much looking forward to this new legislation. It will help draw even more international commercial mediation work to Singapore and further strengthen Singapore's position as an international dispute resolution hub.
Let me now address the Bill's features. First, the scope of the Bill. The Bill will apply to mediations which are conducted wholly or partly in Singapore; or internationally, where the agreement to mediate provides that Singapore law or the Bill, if passed, should apply. The Minister is also able, on consultation with the Chief Justice, to extend any provision of the Bill to any mediation conducted by or under the direction of a court.
To prevent inconsistencies with existing mediation legislation and frameworks, for instance, community mediations governed by the Community Mediation Centres Act, mediation processes conducted under, or provided by or under any written law, will be excluded. In the same way, the Minister may, where appropriate, also exclude specified mediation proceedings.
The key features of the Bill are to strengthen the enforceability of settlement agreements resulting from mediation; clarify confidentiality and admissibility rules; provide for stay of court proceedings; and make clear that the restrictions under the Legal Profession Act do not apply under certain circumstances.
I will now take the House through these four key aspects. First, enforceability provisions.
The first key aspect of the Bill relates to strengthening the enforceability of mediated settlement agreements. The lack of enforceability of a mediated settlement agreement is an oft-cited concern of mediation. To illustrate, having gone through significant time and effort in a mediation, parties may finally reach a settlement agreement. However, if one party later reneges on his obligations, the innocent party needs to commence court proceedings firstly to prove a contract exists, and secondly, that the terms have been breached. This lack of enforceability is seen as an inhibiting factor in attracting commercial parties to mediate a dispute, since finality and certainty of dispute resolution outcomes is key.
The Bill therefore provides an additional, expedited way for parties to ensure that the settlement agreement is enforceable. It does not alter or restrict the court's existing powers to record a settlement agreement as a consent order, in cases where the dispute is already before the court.
The additional expedited method provided by the Bill is as follows. First, once parties reach settlement, subject to the Bill's requirements, parties may further agree to apply to court to have the settlement agreement recorded as a court order.
To use this procedure, all parties to the agreement must agree to the application being made. The settlement agreement must be in writing, and the mediation administered by a designated mediation service provider, or conducted by a certified mediator. Such safeguards aim to ensure that the quality of the mediated settlement agreement is appropriate for being recorded and enforced as a court order.
The court may refuse to record the settlement agreement as a court order under certain circumstances. For example, if this is contrary to public policy, if the subject matter of the agreement is not capable of settlement, if any term is not capable of enforcement as an order of court, and so on.
Parties who are not able to use this procedure, for example, because other parties refuse to consent to the application, will still be able to commence court proceedings to enforce the settlement agreement as a contract.
Consequential and related amendments are made to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act and Family Justice Act, to make clear that the court has jurisdiction to record such mediated settlement agreements as court orders.
Second, restrictions on disclosure and admissibility. The second set of key provisions relate to confidentiality and admissibility of mediation communications. The Bill makes clear that except under narrow circumstances set out under the Bill, communications made in a mediation cannot be disclosed to third parties to the mediation, and cannot be admitted in court or arbitral proceedings as evidence. These positions seek to reflect current practices, and expectations of mediation users.
Confidentiality and privilege are considered key cornerstones of the mediation process. Today, however, such rules are based on a mixture of common law privileges, contractual protections, and equitable remedies for breach of confidence. In practice, parties may not be clear on how such protections apply to their individual circumstances.
Under the Bill, a protected mediation communication includes anything said or done, documents prepared, or information provided in the course or for the purpose of the mediation. This also includes the agreement to mediate, and the settlement agreement, if any.
Mediation communications are protected in two broad ways under the Bill. First, a mediation communication cannot be disclosed to any third party to the mediation, unless this falls under one of the listed exceptions, for example, party consent, or for the purpose of requesting legal advice, and so on. Short of these exceptions, any further disclosure will require the leave of court, or an arbitral tribunal if the request for disclosure is being made in the context of arbitral proceedings. The usual civil remedies for a breach of confidentiality will be available if unauthorised disclosure is made or threatened.
Second, a mediation communication is not to be admitted into evidence in any court, arbitral, or disciplinary proceedings, except with the leave of a court or arbitral tribunal.
Next, stay of court proceedings. The third key aspect of the Bill is a provision to stay court proceedings. The Bill will provide parties to a mediation agreement with a specific statutory basis to apply to court to stay any on-going court proceedings in relation to the same dispute. The court may subject the stay order to any terms and conditions as it thinks fit, and make further orders to preserve the rights of parties. The provision will provide parties to a mediation with assurance that their legal position in any court proceeding can be preserved pending the outcome of mediation.
Fourth, Legal Profession Act provisions. The fourth key aspect of the Bill is amendments to the Legal Profession Act, which make it clear that the restrictions on the practice of Singapore law will not apply to the mediation context where the mediation is conducted by (1) a certified mediator; or (2) administered by a designated mediation service provider. These are similar to existing provisions for arbitration.
Such provisions will support international commercial mediation in Singapore by providing flexibility for parties intending to mediate to choose their own mediators and counsel, and encourage foreign mediators and counsel to use Singapore as a venue for mediation.
Mdm Speaker, the present reforms are part of our overall effort to ensure Singapore's dispute resolution framework continues to be progressive and user focused. The introduction of the Bill is timely. With a strong base of legal talent, high-quality dispute resolution service providers, and standard-setting professional bodies, the Bill will serve to create a more conducive environment in Singapore for international commercial mediation, and reinforce Singapore's position as a premier venue for the conduct of international commercial mediation. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.
Question proposed.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok):Mdm Speaker, I first wish to declare my interest as a dispute resolution lawyer in private practice. The Mediation Bill serves to introduce a coherent mediation framework in Singapore on various aspects of mediation currently dealt with by agreement between parties to mediation, such as issues of confidentiality and enforceability of mediated settlement agreements. I support the objectives of the Bill including the economic objectives outlined by the learned Senior Minister of State earlier in her speech.
I take this opportunity to seek clarification on the policy underpinnings of the Bill in two areas.
With the recent launches of the Singapore International Mediation Centre and the Singapore International Mediation Institute, we have made much further inroad into encouraging mediation as a cost effective form of dispute resolution for potential litigants and in attracting such work into Singapore. Indeed, I note that the courts are now empowered to take the parties' conduct, including conduct in relation to whether the disputes were or were not submitted to mediation, into account when making decisions about costs at the end of proceedings.
In a parallel development in the UK occurring in July last year, it was recommended by Lord Justice Briggs in his Final Report of the UK Civil Courts Structure Review, that \"resolution by parties [be made] a normal part of civil dispute resolution, rather than something alternative to the mainstream.\" In his words, the recommendation seeks to \"take the 'A' out of ADR\", or Alternative Dispute Resolution.
Could the Senior Minister of State kindly clarify if the policy intention behind the Mediation Bill vis a vis litigation in the courts is to promote mediation as a mainstream form of dispute resolution mechanism rather than an alternative dispute resolution, that is, to encourage parties, especially commercial parties, to turn to pre-action mediation to resolve their disputes before resorting to litigation or arbitration?
If so, I wonder if the Mediation Bill can be strengthened even further to encourage parties to refer their dispute to mediation before litigating by providing for a suspension or extension of the limitation period for instituting litigation or arbitration of a case that is being mediated. Currently, in Singapore, a party wishing to mediate has to either obtain the agreement of the other party to suspend the limitation period, or to first commence proceedings and seek a stay of proceedings while the mediation takes place. In contrast, pursuant to the EU Mediation Directive applicable to cross-border disputes, EU member states are required ensure that the limitation period shall be extended during the period of the mediation process.
Some criticism may be levied that allowing the limitation period to be suspended while mediation takes place may be abused by parties as a tactical manoeuvre to buy more time to commence a claim. While this is possible, I wish to highlight that mediation is, at its core, a voluntary process. It is open to a party to withdraw from a mediation process if it is of the view that the other party is not genuinely interested in mediating to resolve the dispute amicably, or if is using the mediation process to obtain an advantage in respect of the limitation period.
While we should not go so far as to mandate mediation before litigation as this would be an unwarranted restraint on an individual's right of access to court, we should do as much as possible to encourage pre-action mediation, and incentivise parties to do so.
Second, with respect to litigants who are represented by the Legal Aid Bureau in civil claims not involving family matters, I note that, pursuant to section 16(1) of the Legal Aid and Advice Act, aided persons are generally not liable to pay legal costs. There is therefore no structural incentive for legally aided persons to mediate their disputes that are subject of court proceedings.
In addition, legal aid is granted only in relation to civil proceedings in the courts under the 1st schedule to the Legal Aid and Advice Act, not mediation.
Since costs of legally aided persons are borne by the state and it is plainly obvious that pre-action mediation can result in significant savings of cost and time, I wonder if legal aid may be extended to cover mediation as well. I further suggest that it be provided that aided persons in pending court proceedings be obliged to comply with advice by their assigned solicitors to submit their cases for mediation.
To conclude, I believe the Mediation Bill will achieve the objectives of enhancing and strengthening the mediation framework in Singapore to facilitate the resolution of disputes by mediation. I support the Bill.
Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan (Nominated Member):Mdm Speaker, the Mediation Bill before this House today gives effect, as the Senior Minister of State said, to the Working Group's final major recommendation in 2013 that mediation should have statutory force. The Bill should be welcomed and I think I speak on behalf of all the legal academics that I can think of, to say that mediation has been often proposed as a form of dispute resolution that has been described as the poorer cousin of dispute resolution when compared to litigation and arbitration.
But seeing people like Mr Joel Lee, Chairman of the Singapore International Mediation Institute (SIMI), chairing it, we have a lot of encouragement and hope.
This Bill should be welcomed, not only because it codifies the definitions that we are used to as lawyers and the principles of mediation and mediation agreement, and the mediation settlement agreement, but also because it provides clarity on the position of mediation in relation to litigation and arbitration.
Clause 8, for example, enables parties to a mediation agreement to apply to court for a stay of proceedings and for the court to make interim or supplementary orders to preserve the parties' rights as long as the court proceedings relate to the subject of the mediation agreement. This is something that is commonplace in the arbitration context, but is not so well known in the mediation one.
Clause 12 responds to a complaint that counsel and clients often level at mediation, as the Senior Minister of State mentioned earlier. That is, that mediated settlements are only contractually enforceable between parties. This new clause allows parties to consensually apply to court for a record of the mediated settlement as an order of court which can be enforced in the same manner as a court judgement would. Importantly, clause 12(4) gives the court useful guidance as to the circumstances when it can, in its discretion, refuse to record a mediated settlement agreement.
Finally, clauses 9 to 11 underline the fact that mediation is a private and confidential process. This is something that mediation shares with arbitration. The Bill prescribes a general duty of confidentiality over all mediation communications with defined crave-outs and exceptions under which disclosure may take place in certain circumstances. This will certainly add certainty to the law of mediation.
Having said this, Madam, I would like to ask the following questions of the Ministry in clarification.
First, in response to feedback during the public consultations, the Ministry responded to say that the Bill \"does not seek to regulate the conduct of mediation itself, or set out mediator standards\". I ask the Senior Minister of State, will ethical breaches in mediation, such as conflicts of interest, impartiality and even mediator competence, be left to the courts alone? Or, could this, in time, be something that the Ministry could envision being resolved by committees established by the Singapore International Mediation Centre (SIMC) the Singapore Medication Centre (SMC) or the Singapore International Mediation Institute, as the designated mediation service providers and mediation institutions respectively?
I ask this as well, as this seems to be a direction that arbitration seems to be headed in − looking to the chartered institutes as a training body, resolving some conflict of interest problems, as opposed to having it always decided by the institutions.
In some respects, Madam, this Bill seems to be a nod to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Conciliation. What is the Ministry's position on the proposed UNCITRAL Convention on Enforcement of Conciliated Settlement Agreements? In the meantime, while we are waiting for such a convention to come about, how does the Ministry believe that the SIAC-SIMC arb-med-arb, which the Senior Minister of State mentioned, could provide the requisite basis to secure appropriate enforcement? I support this Bill, Madam.
Ms K Thanaletchimi (Nominated Member):Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. Singapore prides itself to have a clear and distinct mediation framework that effectively resolves disputes or conflicts in a smooth, expeditious and cost-effective manner. The Singapore Government has also been actively promoting mediation in Singapore and encouraging parties to resolve disputes through mediation rather than litigation or arbitration.
In industrial relations disputes, cases are resolved through negotiations between two parties and if this comes to no avail, the dispute is being sought for third-party mediation, so that issues are resolved without further damage and to arrive at a win-win outcome.
Madam, with reference to the Bill, I would like to seek the following clarifications.
Clause 6(2)(a) states that this Act does not apply to, or in relation to: any mediation or conciliation proceeding, process, scheme or framework conducted under, or provided by or under, any written law. I would like to seek clarification on the coverage of the application of this Act as clause 6(2)(a) provides wide exclusions regarding its application.
For example, it would exclude workplace disputes involving executive employees and their employers as there are provisions for tripartite mediation of disputes involving executive employees under Industrial Relations Act? Similarly are family disputes also excluded from this Act as there are laws covering mediation referred by Family Justice Courts, and mediation for Commercial disputes are also covered by the Small Claims Tribunals?
What roles do the Singapore Mediation Centre (SMC) or Singapore International Mediation Centre (SIMC) play with reference to the Act? Will they be considered as the \"designated mediation service providers\" under this Act? Do the mediation procedures of Singapore Mediation Centre apply in this Act?
Does the Act require the presence of lawyers representing the interests of the parties involved in drafting the mediation agreement? Madam, with this, I thank you.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah):Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Mediation Bill that is before us today. Borne out of the recommendation by the Working Group for International Commercial Mediation, this Bill is a welcome move to advance the standing of mediation as a choice mode of alternative dispute resolution in Singapore. I declare my interest as an advocate. In practice, I have seen the fruits of mediation and experienced hearings before excellent mediators at the Singapore Mediation Centre and the Singapore International Mediation Centre. This would not have been possible without the support and collaboration of the Ministry of Law to promote Singapore as an international mediation centre.
It is with much foresight that the Government and the Judiciary promoted mediation as a choice alternative dispute resolution mechanism. Mediation places a priority on the reconciliation of relationships and from my experience, this is very useful. Even though the main litigation is hard-fought, when mediation is attempted in parallel, parties sometimes settle. When that happens, there is a win-win for all, companies and individuals alike. If the mediation does not yield a settlement, the suit continues and rights are adjudicated at trial. So, mediation offers no disadvantage.
The Ministry of Law lent valuable support to the mediation movement by forming by forming the Community Mediation Unit within the Ministry and an Alternative Dispute Resolution resource panel. The panel sought to promote mediation in a wide variety of settings and comprised of members of varied background. The Singapore Mediation Centre was started in 1997 and plays an important role in Singapore's mediation landscape. In 2013, the mediation movement sought to further promote the mediation in international commercial disputes. The Working Group was thus set up. We have seen the fruits of the first two of the recommendations. Through excellent team work, Singapore mediation power houses in the like of the SIMC and the Singapore International Mediation Institute uphold the standard of our mediation services. This is on top of the excellent SMC, CMC and court-based State Court Centre for Dispute Resolution, among others.
Today is therefore the time to make the next step, to buttress the current advantages the mediation lends to Singapore as a legal hub. Why? Because mediation is an excellent forum for parties to come together in a non-adversarial platform to understand and resolve the underlying issues that bear on the case.
There are other advantages too. For example, having a co-mediator which allows industry experts to weigh in on the matter or ensuring that communications are without prejudice which disarms parties and promotes a conciliatory approach, or, and importantly, having control over the outcome. These and others culminate to facilitate a possible settlement agreement that is agreeable to all parties.
Clause 12 of the Bill provides the welcome ability for a settlement agreement to have the potential to be enforced in the same manner as a court order where parties agree. Currently, a settlement agreement is purely contractual, requiring further action to enforce the bite of the settlement agreement. To solve this problem, SIMC has resorted to the SIMC-SIAC arb-med-arb protocol. Without this amendment, a party has to go through onerous steps of enforcing the agreement as a contractual claim or apply to court for a consent order. This though remedies this deficiency and enhances the attractiveness of mediation as a choice alternative dispute resolution with finality and expediency where the parties decide to exercise its right.
Secondly, I would like to highlight the merits of clause 8 which retains parties' option to apply for a stay. The option not to stay an action while mediation is carried out is a valuable tool in litigation. With the clock ticking, the parties may have more incentive to settle in mediation. Let me explain this a little bit further.
If a stay was made mandatory, then there will be little incentive to settle the matter promptly with no timelines due, no affidavits to file, parties would not have the incentive to enter into mediation quickly. Thus, parallel proceedings running in tandem with any scheduled mediation hearing may actually prompt settlement.
In closing, no emphasis on mediation should remove the parties' right to have their rights and duties adjudicated at the full trial. As I understand it, this Bill does not intend to remove a right to a full trial if a company or private citizen seeks it. As such, and for reasons I have explained, I support the Bill.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon):Madam, this Bill seeks to strengthen the overall framework for mediation in Singapore, paving the way for Singapore to position itself as a major international centre.
I applaud the work done by the International Commercial Mediation Working Group in putting together these recommendations. Most notably, I welcome the provisions for parties to apply for stay of court proceedings, and defining the scope of confidentiality of these proceedings. I understand that while the mediation process has always been regarded as confidential, the scope of confidentiality was unclear. Furthermore, the Bill also codifies the circumstances under which disclosure may take place.
I also welcome the proposal to extend the existing Legal Profession Act exceptions applicable to arbitration, to mediation. Mediation, unlike arbitration, is not commonly understood to involve the practice of law, and often does not refer to legal principles at all. Nonetheless, in certain cases the relevant law may be discussed during the mediation session.
The amendment to the Legal Profession Act makes clear that participation by foreign mediators and foreign-qualified counsel in such mediation sessions will not amount to unauthorised practice of Singapore law.
Madam, while I believe these recommendations have been well-thought through, allow me to ask a few questions and seek clarifications.
Firstly, if this Bill is enacted, it will substantially enhance the enforceability of successfully-mediated cases. However, the Bill mentions that the court may refuse to record a mediated settlement if the subject matter is incapable of settlement. This provision seems to envisage that some matters may not be settled through mediation − for example, a mediated settlement on the custody of a child that may not be in the interest of the child. But it is the view of some mediators that all cases can be settled through mediation. Would the Ministry be able to provide more clarity on which cases it envisages to be unsuitable for mediation?
Secondly, how will the mediation process be affected by the proposed changes from the Civil Law (Amendment) Bill? I ask this with the knowledge that the Bill covers third-party funding for international arbitration proceedings and related proceedings, which also includes mediation. Madam, these questions notwithstanding, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast):Mdm Speaker, I declare my interest as an Accredited Mediator with Singapore Mediation Centre. I rise in support of this Bill which seeks to promote, encourage and facilitate the resolution of disputes by mediation.
I have two suggestions to make.
First, the continual appraisal of accredited mediators. The Singapore International Mediation Institute (SIMI) was incorporated in 2014 as a non-profit organisation supported by the Ministry of Law to set up professional standards for mediators further to the International Commercial Mediation Working Group's recommendations to develop Singapore into a centre for international commercial mediation.
Based on the offerings stated on SIMI's website, SIMI's work is primarily focused on accrediting at the moment although it also states that it aims to apply and enforce world-class standards of mediation, to make tools available to parties to make basic decisions about mediation and to promote mediation education and awareness.
At the Singapore Mediation Lecture in 2013, Lord Woolf said that \"There is a need for the continual appraisal of mediators who are accredited\". Mediation has come a long way but it is still a journey. The field now needs to evolve quickly into a true profession. High minimum practice and ethical standards need to be set, made transparent and achieved internationally. Users of mediation need to see these standards operating effectively. More and better information needs to be made available by individual mediators about their skills, capabilities and personalities. Quality and transparency together will enable mediation to grow. Mediators too need to be suitably recognised for their expertise and skills.
Clause 12 of the Mediation Bill allows the recording of a mediated settlement agreement as an order of court with parties' consent where the mediation is administered by a designated mediation service provider or conducted by a certified mediator and subject to other qualifying factors. This facilitates the ease of enforcement of the mediation settlement agreement as parties currently have to commence legal proceedings to enforce the settlement agreement.
With the passing of the Mediation Bill and in light of clause 12, there is now a greater need to set standards, increase transparency and ensure the continual appraisal of accredited mediators through professional bodies. The professional bodies can also determine the threshold and where needed investigate into whether the mediation or mediator falls below the requisite standards. This in turn gives credibility to the profession and builds confidence in using mediation as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism.
Four justifications to support regulating mediators include: (1) protecting the public from problematic mediators, (2) providing information to the public about mediators, (3) improving mediator ability and capabilities, and (4) enhancing the credibility of the profession. This is bearing in mind the limited number of accredited mediators and also the areas or topics of mediation work which is availed to enhance the experience and currency of their mediation work.
The second suggestion − the grievance system to deal with complaints about Mediation and Mediators. With increased use of mediation, sooner or later, complaints against mediators may arise. Having a grievance system in place gives confidence to parties agreeing to resolve their dispute via mediation. The grievance system will also complement the accreditation and/or possible self-regulation efforts of professional bodies to raise standards.
Having a professional body implement a grievance system to deal with complaints about mediators also enables better addressing of issues concerning the role of the mediator in mediation proceedings.
Mdm Speaker, I hope Ministry of Law would consider these two suggestions and with that I support the Bill.
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): I welcome the changes to this Bill. I just have a few clarifications for the Minister. Firstly, pertaining to the Mediation Service Provider, can I ask the Minister for the details? How are these chosen? And how many service providers are we looking at appointing further and, especially, foreign ones as well? And how will they be accredited to carry out the mediation?
These service providers and their personnel will need to be familiar with Ministry's policies and agencies' guidelines in order to provide the best approach and advisories to the parties being mediated. What about the registration and training requirements of the mediators from the appointed service providers? And also, moving along, how about their continuing professional development? How are they going to be monitored and assessed as well?
Now, we are talking about commercial cases particularly with this Bill. For sales disputes, I know mediators and counsellors have the lemon law as a reference. How about for the service industry, which is really quite broad ranging and wide as well. So, mediators covering these cases may need to be informed and empowered in this aspect
Also, as we know in mediation, the choice of mediators plays a critical role. Experience and ability to engage people becomes important. Not forgetting their track records as well.
Therefore, will there also be some kind of consideration for specialist mediators? For example, if there is a related case, something pertaining to medical product or service and someone who is conversant and versatile in this area and discipline will be very useful to have as well. Will we be planning to have this more formalised and, perhaps, be made available or, perhaps, have a list of resource mediators who can be called upon for such relevant cases?
Finally, Madam, I would also like to find out if there will be any formal changes to the workings of the SMC, the CMC and the SIMC with the enactment of this Bill. I support the Bill.
Ms Indranee Rajah:Mdm Speaker, I thank all the Members who have spoken and for their strong support of the Bill − mediation is now an integral feature of our dispute resolution landscape.
Mr Murali Pillai sought clarification on whether the Bill is intended to promote mediation as a mainstream form of dispute resolution mechanism as opposed to being an \"alternative\" dispute resolution option. If so, he suggested that parties can be encouraged to turn to pre-action mediation to resolve their disputes, before resorting to litigation or arbitration, through: (i) allowing an extension of time limits on a claim, where this is being mediated; and (ii) extending legal aid to cover mediation, and requiring aided persons to comply with advice by their assigned solicitors to submit their cases for mediation.
First, on the question of what type of dispute resolution. Our position has always been to encourage parties to find the most \"appropriate\" dispute resolution mechanism − so it is still an \"a\", it is not \"alternative\", but \"appropriate\". If you think about it, what we have been doing is we offer different products. You can have arbitration, litigation and mediation complements the other two. So, there is a lot of flexibility there, and it is really what suits the parties' needs. So, in that context, mediation is complementary to litigation and arbitration and it is important to recognise that there are unique circumstances behind individual disputes, and having alternative dispute resolution mechanisms will enable the parties to find the right solution to address their issues.
We are committed to mediation as a means for parties to settle disputes amicably, and in a cost-effective way. Yet, as the Member has pointed out, it is important to balance a pro-mediation approach against party autonomy to choose for themselves which dispute resolution option best suits their needs, and not to unduly restrict individuals' rights of access to court, or where they have agreed to other dispute resolution options such as arbitration. So, in short, we offer an array of options and parties can pick and choose whatever suits them best.
On the issue of extension of limitation periods, this will require careful study. In the majority of cases, however, it is unlikely that an ongoing mediation would have any great impact on a limitation period, given that mediation typically is a quick process.
There are also existing incentives in the court process to encourage parties to settle. The Mediation Bill itself will introduce provisions to support an application to stay court proceedings, on the basis of a mediation agreement − a point noted by many of the Members who spoke.
The court may also take into account parties' attempts to settle for costs of court proceedings. And parties are also actively encouraged to consider mediation. For cases in the State Courts, disputes may be referred for mediation at the State Courts Centre for Dispute Resolution. New changes under the Supreme Court's Practice Directions also encourage lawyers and parties to consider if mediation is appropriate for their case.
If we were to extend limitation periods, where mediation takes place, this wider context would have to be considered.
The Member's second set of suggestions related to the provision of legal aid. I should clarify that legal aid does, in fact, cover mediations which are conducted as part of the process of resolving the dispute between parties. There are also existing incentives for aided litigants to consider mediation as a viable dispute resolution option. The Legal Aid Bureau encourages all legally aided applicants to settle their disputes amicably. That makes sense because it saves time, it saves cost. Only if mediation is not successful or not possible, for example, because the other party does not wish to mediate or does not turn up, would the applicant be advised to proceed with litigation. And this is particularly so for family related proceedings.
If an applicant unreasonably refuses to mediate the matter, and the Legal Aid Bureau is of the view that mediation would be a good way to resolve the dispute at hand, a recommendation can be made to the Legal Aid Board on whether to refuse or cancel aid in the matter.
Mr Patrick Tay and Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef both spoke on the importance of setting standards and professionalisation of the mediation industry. Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef also asked if we had considered the issue of specialist mediators.
The Bill does not itself regulate the provision of mediation services or accreditation of mediators. Flexibility is important in ensuring the industry can develop. What we have done is to put in place measures to improve training and standards for the mediation industry, in line with our aim to grow Singapore as an international commercial mediation centre.
To that end, we have established the Singapore International Mediation Institute (SIMI), as the premier independent professional standards body, to promote mediation and set high competency standards in mediation practice.
For mediation training and research, there is also the Singapore International Dispute Resolution Academy (SIDRA). SIDRA is the first regional institution dedicated to thought leadership, and training and educational excellence in negotiation and dispute resolution.
As for specialist mediators, both the Singapore Mediation Centre (SMC) and the Singapore International Mediation Centre (SIMC) have specialist lists of mediators available for parties to choose from. The specialist mediators span a wide range of industries and sectors such as banking, finance, family, probate and so on.
Mr Patrick Tay suggested putting in place a grievance system to deal with complaints about mediators, while Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan asked if we will in due course establish a form of disciplinary tribunal to govern professional ethics rules for mediators.
The mediation industry is a growing one and a heavy-handed approach may not be the best way to go forward at this point in time. With greater training and accreditation of mediators by the various mediation institutions, we hope that the mediation community will continue to develop its own approach through professional ethics guidance. But we will continue to monitor this, as the industry continues to professionalise, and we will fine-tune our framework as we learn from experience.
Ms Thanaletchmi and Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef both had questions on designated mediation service providers and certified mediators under the Bill, and who will be appointed.
The \"designated mediation service provider\" and \"certified mediator\" contained in the Bill serve a limited purpose. Specifically, in order for parties to make use of the provision to enable the enforcement of a mediated settlement agreement recorded as a court order in clause 12 of the Bill, it is a pre-requisite that the mediation in question is administered by either the designated mediation service provider, or conducted by a certified mediator. The reason for having this criteria is to ensure that the settlement agreements are of a quality that can be readily recorded by the courts.
For now, trusted institutions like SIMC and SMC will be considered for designation as mediation service providers. The mechanism will be reviewed and may be opened up to more institutions when it has been successfully implemented and becomes more established.
Ms Thanaletchmi asked if the Bill applies to tripartite mediations conducted under the Industrial Relations Act, or mediations conducted under other legislative frameworks, for example, the Family Justice Court under the Women's Charter, or mediations conducted by the Small Claims Tribunal.
The Bill will not apply to mediations conducted under the Industrial Relations Act, those conducted by the Family Justice Court under the Women's Charter, or those conducted under the Small Claims Tribunal framework. As explained earlier, this is to prevent inconsistency with existing legislative frameworks and rules guiding those mediations. So, our approach is really not a one-size-fits-all. We encourage mediation for all, but within each type of category of claim or type of action, there may be a more specialist approach. So, we have got existing frameworks for existing specialist areas like family law and industrial relations.
Ms Thanaletchmi also sought clarification on whether the Bill requires the presence of lawyers representing the interests of the parties involved in drafting the mediation agreement. The Bill does not require the presence of lawyers. It is up to the parties as to whether they wish to involve their lawyers in the mediation.
On observations made by Mr Louis Ng on the proposal to extend the existing Legal Profession Act exceptions applicable to arbitration to mediation, I would like to clarify that the exceptions are not broad-based, but will only apply in the circumstances set out in the Bill.
Mr Louis Ng also sought clarification on clause 12(4)(b) of the Bill, which states that the court may refuse to record a mediated settlement agreement as an order of court if \"the subject matter of the agreement is not capable of settlement\". Clause 12(4)(b) of the Bill provides that the court can refuse to record the mediated settlement agreements if the subject matter clearly cannot be resolved through mediation, for example, if the subject matter is illegal. So, if you have a dispute and let us say, for some reason, the two parties agree that the way to resolve that dispute is to go and cheat a third person. That will clearly be unenforceable − no court will condone that.
Mr Louis Ng had a question on whether the mediation process will be affected by the proposed changes from the Civil Law (Amendment) Bill. Third-party funding under the Civil Law (Amendment) Bill will only be extended to mediation proceedings arising out of or in any way connected with international arbitration proceedings, but not to standalone mediation proceedings.
Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan noted that some aspects of the Bill are a nod to the existing UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Conciliation 2002, the 2002 Model Law, and asked about our position on the ongoing work of the UNCITRAL Working Group II (Dispute Settlement) on the preparation of an instrument on the enforcement of international commercial settlement agreements resulting from conciliation.
We have taken the 2002 Model Law into account in the crafting of the Bill. As the Member has noted, parts of the Bill take reference from the model provisions contained in the 2002 Model Law, which addresses procedural aspects of a conciliation, or mediation. As for the ongoing work of UNCITRAL Working Group II, Singapore has actively participated in those discussions, and will continue to do so. The upcoming 66th Working Group II session will take place in February, where the Working Group will be discussing both the form and substance of the proposed instrument.
As regards whether the Bill's restrictions on confidentiality will affect Member of Parliament or agency referrals to community mediation, the Bill will exclude community mediations, that is, those conducted under the Community Mediation Centre (CMC) or the Community Dispute Resolution Tribunal (CDRT). These will continue to be regulated by the legislation and rules that apply to those mediations today.
For referrals to the CMC, Members of Parliament and agencies will be updated on the outcome of such referrals. In another words, the CMC will update them whether the referred parties have agreed to attempt mediation and if they do so, whether the mediation materialised in a settlement or otherwise. The terms of the agreement, however, remain confidential. For mediations which are governed by the Bill, as is the case today, confidentiality can be waived if all parties consent to disclosure.
As regards the \"recording\" of a mediated settlement agreement, under clause 12 of the Bill, it refers to recording of the mediated settlement agreement as a court order, that means, in a written format.
Madam, I believe that addresses the issues raised by the Members. I would like once again to thank them for their strong support for this Bill, which is yet another step forward in helping Singapore to grow as a dispute resolution centre. Madam, I beg to move.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Ms Indranee Rajah].
Bill considered in Committee.
[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]
The Chairman:The citation year \"2016\" will be changed to \"2017\", as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.
Clauses 1 to 19 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Civil Law (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Law (Ms Indranee Rajah):Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
As mentioned in my speech to introduce the Mediation Bill, Singapore is well poised to strengthen its position as a leading centre for cross-border dispute resolution. We will make a number of moves this year to grow dispute resolution work in Singapore to the next level, and these amendments for the Civil Law (Amendment) Bill are one of those moves.
Compared to international commercial mediation, international commercial arbitration in Singapore is more developed. Our International Arbitration Act was introduced in 1994 and has been updated from time to time, to be on the cutting-edge of international arbitration.
The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) is now amongst the top five most preferred arbitral institutions in the world. It set a record in 2015 for the number of new cases and dispute quantum. I am confident that in 2016, SIAC would have done even better. I look forward to a new record.
Singapore is now one of the top five most preferred seats in arbitration in the world, alongside London, Paris, Geneva and Hong Kong. But we are not resting on our laurels. We will need to stay responsive to business and constantly adapt what we do to better serve their needs.
One area where we can do so is in third-party funding in international commercial arbitration, where legal costs can be substantial and where there is today a growing body of reputable professional funders.
There are two main aspects to third-party funding. First, as the name suggests, third-party funding involves the funding of a claim by a party who is unconnected to the dispute. The party, usually the claimant, uses the funds to cover its legal costs in the dispute. Second, in return for the funds, the funder usually receives a share of the damages awarded if the claim succeeds. If the claim fails, the claimant does not have to repay the funder. This is the risk that the funder takes.
Currently, in Singapore, agreements for third-party funding of dispute resolution proceedings are generally unenforceable as they fall foul of the laws of maintenance and champerty. Maintenance is the provision of assistance to a party by a person or entity that has no interest in the proceedings. Champerty is maintenance of an action in return for a share in the proceeds of the action.
There are two aspects of champerty and maintenance. First, there is a common law tort of champerty and maintenance. Second, also, under contract law, agreements affected by maintenance or champerty are void as contrary to public policy.
These laws on champerty and maintenance were inherited from English common law. They were originally developed in medieval times to protect vulnerable litigants and to guard against potential abuse of court processes.
However, jurisdictions such as the UK and parts of Australia have decided that such protections are no longer necessary and have removed them. Third-party funding of dispute resolution has emerged, driven on the demand-side by business needs for such financing options and on the supply-side by well-capitalised professional third-party funders.
These third-party funders raise capital from investors and use the money to fund claims. Their objective is to make an attractive return for their investors out of the proceeds of the claims that are successful.
Today, third-party funding has become a feature in other leading arbitration centres, including London, Paris and Geneva. As a leading centre for international commercial arbitration, Singapore is cognisant of the practices and business requirements of commercial parties, many of whom choose to arbitrate in Singapore, despite their dispute having no connection to Singapore.
In this context, the Bill, which will introduce a framework for third-party funding in Singapore, will achieve the following:
(a) It will offer businesses an additional financing and risk management tool when engaged in the relevant categories of proceedings. This includes the financing of valid claims which they may otherwise not pursue, due to financial constraints.
(i) Businesses that seek to access third-party funding will typically have to undergo a rigorous process of claim assessment by the chosen funder.
(ii) Funders are known to be highly selective, given they need to provide attractive returns to their investors. Thus, their due diligence process is designed to provide them with a degree of confidence that the claims they fund will succeed.
(b) Offering third-party funding, which is already available in other international arbitration centres, will strengthen Singapore's position as a premier international commercial dispute resolution hub and a key arbitration seat in the world. This will benefit Singapore law firms and lawyers.
I will now take the House through the main features of the Bill.
The Bill provides a framework for third-party funding in Singapore. The Bill does the following in relation to the laws of champerty and maintenance.
The Bill clarifies that the common law tort of champerty and maintenance is abolished in Singapore, as had previously been stated by the High Court in Jane Rebecca Ong v Lim Lie Hoa.
The Bill makes clear that while the tort is abolished, contracts affected by maintenance and champerty will continue to be contrary to public policy or otherwise, illegal. Third-party funding contracts will therefore, still be unenforceable.
It is only for certain prescribed categories of proceedings that a third-party funding contract will not be contrary to public policy or illegal by reason that it is a contract for maintenance or champerty. These categories will be specified in subsidiary legislation after the Bill comes into force. At the outset, third-party funding will only be permitted for international arbitration proceedings, and related court and mediation proceedings.
This will allow the framework to be tested within a limited sphere by parties of commercial sophistication. The framework may be broadened in future after a period of assessment. Drawing from the experience of other jurisdictions which permit third-party funding, there will be limited but targeted regulation of third-party funders.
The Bill provides that third-party funding may only be provided by an entity which meets the criteria set out in subsidiary legislation. The criteria in the subsidiary legislation will ensure that only professional funders whose principal business is funding claims, will be allowed.
The Bill also allows requirements to be imposed on funders through subsidiary legislation. Entities that do not meet the criteria to fund, or funders who do not comply with requirements imposed on them, will not be able to enforce their rights under a third-party funding agreement. This would include their right to receive a share of damages, should the claim succeed.
The funder would, however, be required to continue performing its obligation under the third-party funding agreement, including its obligation to fund the claim as the Bill provides that the rights of any other party as against the funder under the third-party funding agreement are not affected. To ensure fairness to the funders, the Court or Arbitral Tribunal may grant relief to the funders on their application, if the non-compliance was due to inadvertence or some other sufficient cause, or if it is just and equitable to do so.
In addition, the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules will be amended to impose a duty on lawyers to disclose the existence of any third-party funding which their client is receiving. Disclosure of third-party funding is necessary to ensure there is no conflict of interest. It is anticipated that similar to other jurisdictions where third-party funding is prevalent, industry-promulgated guidelines or best practices will emerge. The Ministry of Law is working with arbitration institutions and practitioners to initiate the production of such \"soft laws\".
The Bill also makes a related amendment to the Legal Profession Act to clarify that lawyers are allowed to introduce or refer funders to their clients. Lawyers are also allowed to advise or act for their clients in relation to the third-party funding contract.
However, the Bill provides that lawyers are not allowed to receive direct financial benefit from the introduction or referral of the funder. Direct financial benefit does not include legal fees paid to the lawyers for the provision of legal services. Lawyers can be paid for the provision of legal services to the funded party. Such payment can be made by the funded party or by the funder on behalf of the funded party.
The framework will facilitate the use of third-party funding in appropriate cases, commencing with international arbitration proceedings. The amendments contemplated will level the playing field so that international businesses which arbitrate in Singapore are able to make use of the financing and risk management tools available to them in other major arbitration centres. At the same time, we will continue to monitor the third-party funding landscape here and abroad and will seek to ensure that best practices are adopted here. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.
Question proposed.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member):Madam, I would like to declare my interests as a lawyer who has a practice in the area of commercial arbitration.
Madam, this Bill essentially legalises and introduces third-party funding for legal costs in international arbitration proceedings in Singapore. Third-party funding is essentially financing provided by financing firms for claims in arbitration or litigation. These companies treat arbitration or litigation claims as assets. Like insurance, they distribute risks across their portfolio cases and in the process, they are able to also invest in claims which are otherwise regarded to have lesser merits, and may not otherwise see the light of day.
I recognise that third-party funding has been in existence in some jurisdictions for some time. Third-party funding may be growing, but it is not without controversy. In countries where third-party funding is allowed, the following problems have been raised.
One, third-party funders may transfer control of the cases from the claimants themselves, and take control of the strategy and decision-making for cases which they fund. If so, would this not be desirable because it would no longer be about the claimant's interests? For example, the claimant may wish to conduct the claim proceedings in a certain manner or may wish to settle the claim at some point, but the third-party funders may disagree, and the third-party funders' preference will prevail if the third-party funding agreement ceded control and decision-making for the claim to the third-party funders.
Two, there is also the issue of conflicts of interest for the lawyers who are acting on behalf of the claimants in a claim funded by third-party funders. Who are the lawyers answerable to? Can the same lawyers act for both the claimants and the third-party funders without being in a position of conflict?
In many cases, lawyers or even arbitrators have been routinely appointed by the same third-party funders in different cases. Clearly, in such cases, there is a huge question mark over whether the interests of the claimants are protected or compromised. The claimants are left with no one to protect their interests if their position defers from that of the third-party funders, and I do not think this is desirable.
In the context of international arbitration, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon said in 2013 that, \"International arbitration features the unique situation of counsel and arbitrators often being drawn from essentially the same pool\". The Chief Justice also said, \"A potential problem can arise when a funder finances multiple arbitral claims, and where an arbitrator in one of those claims is also the legal representative of the claimant in a separate claim that is being financed by the same funder\". The Chief Justice also raised questions about third-party funders having influence over the arbitration proceedings and appointing arbitrators who have prior commercial relationships with the third-party funders. He asked whether such relationships should be disclosable to the other party.
Three, third-party funding has resulted in prolong litigation. In some reported cases, third-party funders have entered into third-party funding agreements with claimants which encourage claimants to settle a claim for more money by increasing the claimants' share of the recovered amount, if it is beyond certain specified sum. Claimants may, in such cases, reject what may otherwise be a fair settlement sum with their opponents earlier on in the proceedings, in the hopes of getting a higher recovery later on, but which may not ultimately prevail.
Four, third-party funders effectively become the new additional party to any proceedings which has an interest in the proceedings, which is to effect maximum returns on its investment, which may run conflict to the interests of not just the claimants they are funding, but also to the prejudice of the defendants on the opposite side on how the claim should be conducted, and whether settlement should be entered int.
Madam, I would also like to seek clarification from the Senior Minister of State as to how the Government intends to deal with issues I have highlighted above. Will all these issues be addressed in the subsidiary legislations that the Senior Minister of State has mentioned?
Madam, I would also like to seek one other clarification from the Senior Minister of State. What is meant by the term direct financial benefit under clause 3 of the Bill where it proposed to include a clause 3A(a) and clause 3B? Will this mean that third-party funders will be allowed to fund the setting up of a law firm's litigation department, which I read that such funders do in some jurisdiction? If so, would there be a conflict of interest for lawyers vis-Ã-vis the third-party funders and the actual claimant?
Madam, while I am in principle, supportive of allowing third-party funding and this Bill, I am concerned that the issues which I have raised must be correctly addressed by the Government at the onset, so that we can avoid experiencing the same problems, which surfaced in other jurisdictions, and exclude the known negative aspects of third-party funding. Madam, I support the Bill.
Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan (Nominated Member):Madam, third-party funding refers to an agreement by an unconnected party to fund another's dispute in return for a share of any damages or settlement.
Traditionally, in the past, this amounted to the tort and crime of champerty and maintenance. The courts were also cautious in guarding against the abuse of the court's process, fearing that a third-party funder \"might be tempted, for his own personal gain, to inflame damages, to suppress evidence, or even to suborn witnesses\".
But this position changed in the UK and the other common law jurisdictions over the years. The UK, through the Criminal Law Act of 1967, abolished the tort and crime of champerty, though the champertous agreements remain unenforceable for being contrary to public policy, or otherwise illegal in contract law. Today, as the Senior Minister of State notes, third-party funding is increasingly used in international commercial arbitration, where costs are increasing and substantial.
It is utilised in arbitrations in major arbitration centres around the world including London, Paris and Geneva. What of Singapore then, which has been described as the fourth most preferred seat for arbitration?
I welcome this proposal of having of third-party funding. In Singapore, as the law currently stands, \"champerty and/or unlawful maintenance will be struck down as being against public policy\". In 2007, Singapore's highest court held that champerty applies to any procedure chosen for the resolution of a claim, including arbitration.
This Bill, therefore, that is before this House, is crucial. It abolishes the tort of maintenance and champerty; high time, some would say, given that the UK's abolition of the same, came 50 years ago.
More importantly, the Bill boldly carves out \"prescribed categories\" regarding the enforceability of funding contracts for arbitration and arbitration-related proceedings. These proceedings will not automatically deemed as being contrary to public policy or illegal. This amendment is important for Singapore to gain and maintain its competitive advantage over the other established and popular seats, namely Geneva, New York, Stockholm and most close to home, Hong Kong.
As I understand the Bill, our courts will continue to retain the discretion to inquire into the nature of third-party funding in order to determine whether the circumstances reveal an improper motive or a tendency to act in an unethical manner that would \"sully the purity of justice\". By allowing third-party assistance, this will promote legal representation and facilitated access to justice in commercial and investment arbitration, which would otherwise be sacrificed.
Permit me though to ask the following questions of the Senior Minister of State.
First, on the issue of balance. Could I ask the Senior Minister of State, will the Ministry tell us more about the balance it intends to strike between this need for regulation on one hand, and the parties' autonomy and flexibility in future amendments on the other? Particularly, what is the role that it sees arbitral tribunals and institutions play as check against abuse of process by third-party funders?
Two, will Singapore be following in the footsteps of the UK by having a regulatory or self-regulatory body, or perhaps Australia which seems to focus on the avoidance of a conflict of interest? How will we be calibrating our approach? Will there be a periodic review of this approach that we take in consultation importantly with the users of third-party arbitration funding procedures?
Three, on costs, what will the third-party funders' liability be for costs, if any? Does the Ministry envision that it could include not only security for cost but also adverse cost orders? Are there plans to provide further guidance as to the factors that ought to be taken into account in a cost order against a third-party funder?
Fourth, disclosure. Given the proposed disclosure requirements through possible amendments to the Legal Profession Act in due course, what does the Ministry have in mind to allay third-party funders' concerns that their identity and amount of funding, will be unduly exposed? I say this as in my research, I notice that seems to be a concern for third-party funders. While I personally support transparency, could this disclosure or over-disclosure have a \"chilling effect\" on their willingness of third-party funders to come forward?
Fifth, finally, on qualifications. The current criteria for qualifying as a third-party funder are focused on capital adequacy in the Bill. Will other criteria, in addition to capital adequacy such as having a minimum claim requirement to help to ensure that funders assess the merits of each case carefully before agreeing to provide funding be put in place so that claims are not \"farmed\"? Mdm Speaker, notwithstanding these questions, I support the Bill.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon):Madam, I commend this Bill for its recognition of third-party funding and the benefit it will generate for Singapore.
Recently, persuasive arguments have been raised in support of third-party funding, especially given the high costs of international commercial arbitration. It has been used in arbitration centres such as London, Paris and Geneva.
I support this Bill on two main points.
Firstly, third-party funding would benefit the vulnerable, providing them with access to justice. With this new option, parties to a dispute can now consider their commercial choices: how they might allocate risk, collateralise the claim or apply capital profitably, which may not otherwise have been available.
Secondly, recently Singapore has become a preferred venue for international arbitration. It is therefore necessary to be alive to the need to retain the momentum as an arbitration hub − a status that Singapore has worked tirelessly to achieve.
Madam, while I support the Bill's main purpose in legitimising third-party funding contracts, I would like to raise a few points.
Firstly, it seems that the Ministry is not proposing a blank cheque for third-party funding. There are a number of safeguards which will affect the funders, such as the Civil Law (Third-Party Funding) Regulations 2016, as well as the lawyers engaged by funders. It would be useful to consider if these current regulations sufficiently protect all stakeholders, and if they serve the intended purpose of permitting third-party funding.
Secondly, lawyers will be duty-bound to disclose a few matters to the court, including the existence of third-party funders, funding agreements, the identity of the third-party funders to a court or arbitral tribunal, as well as to all other parties to the proceedings. I would suggest for the Ministry to take steps to ensure that the process and mechanisms to all these are adequately clear.
Thirdly, given the complexities of the third-party funding market, it is critical that parties fully understand the details involved. For example, what are the various products available to them? What are the terms on which they are being offered? What is the impact on their control of the proceedings, and what are the consequences of recovery if there is a successful outcome? In this regard, I would also suggest taking steps to ensure that in practical terms, lawyers and parties are equipped with knowledge of funded actions.
Lastly, parties will also need to take appropriate measures to maintain legal privilege and confidentiality. This area of law is always subject to dispute. As such, I would like to clarify if there is sufficient guidance on the effect of third-party funding on legal privilege and confidentiality. Madam, these comments aside, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok):Mdm Speaker, I wish to first declare my interest as a litigation lawyer in private practice. The Civil Law (Amendment) Bill seeks to amend the Civil Law Act to abolish the common law tort of maintenance and champerty in Singapore, and to allow third-party funders to provide funding in certain categories of dispute resolution proceedings, namely international arbitration proceedings under the International Arbitration Act and related dispute resolution proceedings arising therefrom. The amendments aim to ensure that Singapore remains a premier international commercial dispute resolution hub. I support this economic objective.
There is equally another important objective that we should look at. Third-party funding allows commercial funders to enable a funded party to litigate what the funder perceives to be a legitimate case. In this manner, third-party funding facilitates access to justice by enabling parties who may not have sufficient financial means to prosecute their genuine dispute to do so. Whilst facilitation of access to justice may not be the main motivation of a commercial funder who is focused on making a return on his investment, as recently recognised by the UK Court of Appeal in November last year, it is nonetheless \"true that the facilitation of access to justice is an incidental by-product of commercial funding\".
I take this opportunity to comment on and seek clarification on the following areas of the Bill.
First, I note that the wording of the new section 5A appears to be adopted from the UK provisions which also abolished the tort of maintenance and champerty under English law. Also similar to the UK provision, section 5A(2) maintains the law on maintenance and champerty in the context of the enforceability of contracts as a matter of public policy.
However, I wish to highlight that in the UK, the UK courts have allowed third-party funding contracts for both litigation and arbitrations. In fact, the UK court in the same case that I had mentioned earlier recognised that third-party funding \"is a feature of modern litigation\". Yet, the proposed section 5B of the Act read with the proposed regulations appear to allow only third-party funding in Singapore in the context of international arbitration, at least for now.
Given that the proposed section 5A is similar to the UK provision which allows third-party funding for both litigation and arbitration, could the Senior Minister of State please clarify why it could not left to the Singapore courts to determine what contracts can be enforced or what contracts may be contrary to public policy. In this regard, I wish to further highlight the Singapore High Court in a 2015 case has already demonstrated a willingness to uphold third-party funding arrangements for litigation in the specific area of corporate insolvency.
Second, if the objective of section 5A is to specifically allow third-party funding contracts in the context of international arbitration, would it not be more appropriate for the International Arbitration Act to be amended instead of amending the Civil Law Act, which has a far wider scope? This is in fact the approach being contemplated in Hong Kong, where the Hong Kong Law Reform Commission is considering amendments to the Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance. I also note that in 2011, the Ministry of Law had in fact consulted the general public on whether third-party funding should be allowed in international arbitration in the context of proposed amendments to the International Arbitration Act.
More fundamentally, if the objective of section 5A is to allow third-party funding contracts in the context of international arbitration only, I would like to ask the honourable Senior Minister of State what is the basis for permitting third-party funding in the context of international arbitration, but not litigation and domestic arbitration?
This is especially where \"After the Event\" (ATE) insurance is already available for both arbitration and litigation. ATE insurance provides coverage for legal costs, subject to an agreed limit of indemnity. It is essentially a risk management tool that allows parties to limit their exposure to costs if they are unsuccessful.
Further, the policy considerations of third-party funding in the context of international arbitration to enhance Singapore as an international hub for commercial dispute resolution are also equally applicable to disputes litigated in the Singapore Courts, especially the Singapore International Commercial Court, which was designed to enable parties to avoid some of the problems often encountered in international arbitration and to encourage litigants to use Singapore as a hub to resolve transnational commercial disputes.
In respect of domestic arbitrations, I would like to highlight that the International Arbitration Act allows parties to a non-international arbitration to agree that the provisions of the International Arbitration Act to apply to arbitration, thereby turning it to an international arbitration. Therefore, parties to a domestic arbitration who wish to avail themselves of a third-party funding may circumvent this proposed section 5B restrictions against third-party funding for domestic arbitrations in this manner.
Additionally, allowing third-party funding in the context of litigation and domestic arbitration would also allow litigants to pursue their legitimate claims where they may not have been able to do so. In the preliminary report on the review of Civil Litigation costs in the UK in 2009 commissioned by the UK judiciary, also known as the Jackson Report, it was reported that there was a range of third-party funders in the UK, which provided funding in respect of claims of a minimum values ranging from £150,000 to £25 million. The same situation could also happen in Singapore where certain third-party funders may choose cater to a target group of litigants or a portfolio of small claims for commercial considerations.
The Jackson Report cited five reasons why third-party funding in civil litigation is beneficial and should be supported. I wish to highlight three of these.
First, third-party funding provides an additional means of funding litigation and, for some parties, the only means of funding litigation. Thus third-party funding promotes access to justice. Second, although a successful claimant with third-party funding foregoes a percentage of his damages, it is better for him to recover a substantial part of his damages than to recover nothing at all; and third, third-party funding tends to filter out unmeritorious cases, because funders will not take on risk of such cases. This benefits the opposing parties.
Therefore, if section 5A is intended to allow third-party funding only in the context of international arbitration, I urge a reconsideration of this position and to also allow the third-party funding for litigation and domestic arbitration. A key group of potential beneficiaries for third-party litigation funding are SMEs facing cash flow issues, but who may have legitimate claims. I accept that there could be reasons for excluding third-party litigation funding for certain types of claims where there may be greater potential for abuse, such as personal injury claims. I propose that, in lieu, we should consider providing better assistance for these \"sandwich class\" litigants who do not qualify for legal aid, for example, by enhancing the Litigants in Person programme or the Primary Justice Project.
Thirdly and finally, I note that there has been an increasing concern over the extent of control third-party funders may exert over the dispute resolution proceedings. In the UK, litigation funding contracts may still be struck down as being contrary to public policy if it confers disproportionate control of the claim to the funder. After all, the common law rules against champerty were developed to protect vulnerable litigants, and to guard against third-party interference in legal proceedings to protect the integrity of the judicial process. In the 2011 consultation on the International Arbitration Act, the Ministry had proposed safeguards to third-party funding to minimise potential abuse, such as restricting third-party funding by stipulating the permissible categories of practice areas, threshold claim value and minimum capital adequacy of third-party funders.
May I please ask, in broad policy terms, what we can expect to be covered in the regulations that will be issued if the Bill is passed? In light of the potential risks of third-party funding, does the Ministry intend to impose further requirements so as to safeguard against the potential abuse of third-party funding?
The extent to which regulatory requirements apply may also be adjusted, depending on the value of the claims. This may incentivise third-party funders to provide funding for smaller value claims, such as District Court claims, where they may not ordinarily do so.
Separately, I also note that the proposed new section 5B of the Bill provides that where a funder ceases to be a qualifying funder, the rights of the third-party funder under the funding contract are not enforceable but the court or arbitral tribunal may grant relief if it is satisfied that the disqualification or noncompliance was accidental or due to some other sufficient cause.
I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State why it is being left to the court or arbitral tribunal to \"police\" third-party funders in this manner, especially when the qualifying criteria are prescribed by the Minister in the proposed regulations. Would the relevant Ministry not be in a better position to determine if the qualifications and requirements have been met?
In the UK, third-party funders are regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority in connection with their asset management activities and supervised by the Association of Litigation Funders, which is an independent body that has been charged by the UK Ministry of Justice with delivering self-regulation of litigation funding. The Association also oversees and administers a complaints procedure in respect of third-party funders. In Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Law Reform Commission is considering whether the development and supervision of the applicable ethical and financial standards should be conducted by a statutory body or a self-regulatory body.
Given the potential risks of third-party funding highlighted earlier, it may be preferable for third-party funders to be subject to some level of supervision, something that the hon Member, Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan, raised in his speech. Would the Senior Minister of State consider whether there should be some form of regulation and supervision over third-party funders in Singapore, whether by the Ministry, Statutory Board, Government body, or by a self-regulatory body, to ensure and enforce compliance with statutory qualifications and regulations?
As a matter of parity, I note that the local insurance broker of ATE insurance is regulated by MAS. The insurers themselves are regulated at their place of business.
The Hong Kong Law Reform Commission has highlighted some risks with third-party funding, including the risk of money laundering. Would it not be better for a regulator to be vested with statutory oversight, with the degree and extent of regulatory control to be adjusted accordingly? Without providing for a regulator and simultaneously providing for a light-touch approach right from the word \"go\" would run the risk of not providing adequate safeguards to protect the public's interest.
To conclude, while further clarification and clarity on the ambit, extent of regulation and supervision of the activities of third-party funders in Singapore would be welcome, I support the Bill in principle.
Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang):Mdm Speaker, I declare my interest as a dispute resolution lawyer in private practice.
It had always been a part of the common law heritage that while litigation was necessary, it should not be encouraged. There were several rules that had developed over the ages in common law jurisdictions, including the tort of champerty, which says that a person with no interest in a law suit should not be funding that suit nor have a share in its returns, or the tort of maintenance, where a person interferes in a legal suit he has no interest in.
Along with these two rules, there was also an additional rule which the current legislation does not address, and that is a rule that prohibits lawyers from having a financial interest in the outcome of a suit. This is a rule against contingency fees.
All these rules were designed to prevent frivolous claims, abuse of vulnerable litigants and, in the case of lawyers, it was also to ensure that their primary duties as officers to the court would not be compromised by trying to advance their client's case at all costs.
These rules were developed at a time when there was a need and, obviously, would have served its purpose as it has lasted for hundreds of years. The reality though is that access to courts and legal advice is expensive and getting more so. In many situations, an individual or entity may have no ability to pay legal fees but may nonetheless have a valid claim.
A classic example that people can relate to is personal injury. A person who suffers a serious personal injury may have a valid claim but may have no financial means to advance that claim, either to pay lawyers or to the courts, and may end up recovering nothing.
So, it was in order to facilitate access to justice that many other jurisdictions started relaxing these rules. The US, interestingly, started by relaxing the rule on contingency fees, meaning that lawyers were allowed to have an interest in the outcome of the litigation. This meant that a party did not have to pay the lawyer's fees upfront but could give the lawyer a quantum of the proceeds from any claim they successfully get.
The UK was much slower to relax the rules on contingency fees but eventually did that. The UK, however, was one of the leaders in pioneering third-party litigation funding. What this meant is that someone else who has no interest in the litigation could help to fund that litigation in exchange for a return of the proceeds. In principle, this is what the current legislation is aiming to do. It allows third parties to fund litigation expenses. It appears to be focused currently on international arbitration.
Singapore has prided itself on being a leading financial and legal hub, and the strong rule of law in Singapore has helped to facilitate this reputation. I think the speakers before me, including the Senior Minister of State, have pointed out, we are one of the top hubs for international arbitration. However, unlike jurisdictions, such as the UK, Australia and even the US, we have, until now, not permitted more creative fee arrangements that allow financing of claims.
So, in our competition to be a hub for international arbitration, Singapore is sometimes at a disadvantage. In international arbitration, for example, where Singapore firms take on international firms from other jurisdictions, the international firms' clients may have more creative funding arrangements, which means that they may likely have a greater ability to prosecute the claim. Likewise, when a corporate client is deciding which lawyer or counsel to appoint, they may choose the jurisdiction of the lawyer based on their ability to fund their claim. So, for example, they may decide to go to a London law firm rather than a Singapore law firm if they were able to get third-party litigation funding in London. So, in that respect, I think this is an important change that helps to mitigate some of the disadvantages that Singapore lawyers may face when dealing with international competition in international arbitration.
This step is something to be welcomed. However, I would add this important caveat. One of the reasons the third-party funding was allowed in many other jurisdictions was to facilitate access to justice. However, if we look at the example of jurisdictions, such as the UK, in fact, the parties that use third-party litigation funding are mostly sophisticated corporates. And, typically, the corporates will choose external funding for litigation not because they cannot afford fees but because they want to share their risks. After all, litigation is a high-risk venture and you have to pay the lawyers' fees upfront. So, if someone else would share that risk, then the corporates may well make a business decision and they may also be happy to share some of the gains. So, there is a certain benefit in this certainly, and I think my colleague Mr Murali's analogy to insurance is actually quite apposite, because what this is really is a pooling of risks.
However, if we are still taking access to justice as being one of the important aims for these more creative fee arrangements, I would suggest that future legislation go even further and consider looking into allowing contingency fee arrangements. Contingency fees, as some of my colleagues mentioned, have also got a bad reputation. The US, while being a jurisdiction where parties are very proud of being able to access the court, also terrifies business owners because of the astronomical claims that sometimes come out, and its horrible reputation ‒ I guess Mr Murali mentioned ‒ for personal injury claims. However, I do not think this risk will be as great in Singapore for two reasons.
First of all, we do not have class action litigation as they do in the US. Class action means that you do not even need a named plaintiff to commence the action. You just need to define a group of people. So, this allows lawyers to actually take on claims on behalf of very large groups of unnamed people. Singapore does not have that.
Secondly, we also do not have jury trials. Jury trials are where a lot of the largest personal injury awards are made, and that does not exist here. So, my guess is that we will probably not have the US-style abuse of process. I still think this is a move that requires some consideration, and certainly consideration needs to go into how we can protect vulnerable litigants, particularly in relation to fee arrangements that may be unfair to them.
By and large, if you are talking about ensuring access to justice, particularly for impecunious litigants, chances are that contingency fee arrangements are more likely to achieve that objective.
At many of our Meet-the-People sessions, we meet litigants who may have either personal injury issues or, more likely, claims for divorce or other personal issues for which they may not qualify for financial assistance under the current Legal Aid schemes. They may have the means to pay, but I guess, like the bigger corporates, they, too, may, in fact, want someone to share their risks. Many have even asked me if there are any lawyers that would be prepared to work and then get a share of the outcome, and I have had to tell them that that is not the way the legal profession works in Singapore. A lawyer cannot peg his fees to what you get from your settlement. But the reality is that if you are talking about access to justice, this may be one of the workable solutions for the truly impecunious litigants.
In conclusion, while I think these changes play an important role in maintaining Singapore's position as a financial, corporate and legal hub, I would say that this is the first step in what, I hope, will be a bold journey forward. I agree with my friend Mr Murali's suggestion that they should also go towards domestic litigation and domestic arbitration because, in principle, they are the same thing. It is a sharing of risks. I would even go further and say it should even go towards contingency fees because, ultimately, the concept is the same. If you are allowing a third-party to have an interest in the outcome of the litigation, there is no harm in allowing a lawyer to do that. I think the abuses can be contained and the fundamental principle of access to justice will be enhanced if we allow these more creative fee arrangements.
Of course, rules can be developed around these, and there are many other jurisdictions that have these arrangements to which we can look to for guidance. The good news is we are not pioneers in that area and we can definitely learn from all those who have gone before us.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast):Mdm Speaker, I declare my interest as a Fellow of the Singapore Institute of Arbitrators. I rise to support this Bill which seeks to abolish the common law tort of maintenance and champerty in Singapore and allowing third-party funding contracts in certain prescribed categories of dispute resolution proceedings, as well as set out the regulations around this.
I agree with the ambit of the proposed Bill and objective to allow international businesses to use funding tools available in other jurisdictions and promote Singapore's growth as a leading venue for international arbitration. According to the SIAC Annual Report 2015, 84% of new cases filed with SIAC in 2015 were international in nature, and 42% had no connection with Singapore.
As third-party funding is becoming a feature in major arbitration centres around the world, allowing third-party funding in Singapore for international arbitration will offer international businesses an additional financing option for international commercial arbitration in Singapore.
However, I would like to highlight two suggestions for the Ministry's consideration.
First, to promulgate a set of guidelines on entering into third-party funding contracts. I submit that the Ministry of Law or relevant industry accepted organisations should promulgate a set of guidelines that would help parties to navigate potential areas of concern, for example, conflicts of interest arising from third-party funding arrangements in relation to the tripartite relationship of third-party funder, solicitor and client as parties should mitigate risks through formulation of a third-party funding contract which covers these areas of concern.
One example would be to emphasise that the solicitor-client relationship takes precedence in the tripartite relationship and, especially, as solicitors are allowed to introduce or refer a third-party funder to the client.
Some of these potential areas of conflict are addressed in the new sections 3(A)(b) and 3(A)(c) in the Legal Profession Act. However, they could be further expanded on in the guidelines to cover other situations where conflicts of interest may arise. For example, a major potential area of conflict is in relation to settlements. While both funders and funded litigants have broadly the same interest in maximising any settlement or damages award and they will share the proceeds of the litigation, they can find themselves in conflict over whether or not to settle. This conflict can best be dealt with by providing that any irreconcilable difference over settlement be referred to counsel in the proceedings for a binding expert opinion.
In the same vein, conflicts of interest which are thought to be inherent in funded proceedings can be avoided or resolved by ensuring that the lawyers' fiduciary and professional duties to the litigants are given precedence over any duties or contractual obligations the lawyer may owe to the funder. A properly drafted funding agreement will do just that.
One example would be that the disclosure of client's privileged information to third-party funder should be made on the agreement that the third-party funder is bound to maintain confidentiality of the privileged information shared.
Another example would be the disclosure of funding arrangements to parties in the arbitration and to the arbitrator. In the public consultation on this Bill, it was stated that amendments to the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 were envisaged. These related amendments were expected to draw reference from best practices and international standards reflected in the revised International Bar Association Guidelines on Conflict of Interest in International Arbitration (October 2014) which provides in General Standard 7 that funding arrangements ought to be disclosed to the arbitrator and parties to the arbitration.
My second suggestion is to promulgate a code of conduct for third-party funders. Allowing third-party funding in international arbitration in Singapore may lead to third-party funding organisations to set up and operate in Singapore. As the number of third-party funders increase in Singapore, it would be ideal to have the third-party funders come together to design a code of conduct to self-regulate their involvement in third-party funding arrangements. Self-regulation provides greater transparency and raises standards of funding arrangements whilst not being overly restrictive on funding arrangements.
For example, the Association of Litigation Funders (the ALF) in England and Wales is an independent body that has been charged by the Ministry of Justice, through the Civil Justice Council, with delivering self-regulation of litigation funding in England and Wales. The members of the Association are governed by a Code of Conduct which sets out standards of practice and behaviour to be observed by funders in respect of funding the resolution of disputes within England and Wales.
Mdm Speaker, I am hoping that Ministry of Law would take cognisance of these two suggestions. With that, I support the Bill.
Ms Indranee Rajah:Mdm Speaker, may I thank all the Members who have spoken in support of the Bill.
Mr Murali Pillai asked about the scope of the third-party funding framework. Specifically, he asked if the amendments should be in the International Arbitration Act, rather than the Civil Law Act.
As mentioned, we are first proceeding with third-party funding in the context of international arbitration and related proceedings. This is because we want to have the framework tested in a limited sphere, where those involved are typically well-advised, commercially sophisticated and better able to bear the reduction in damages. If the framework works well, as and when appropriate, the prescribed categories of proceedings may be expanded. The Ministry will consult closely with the profession and stakeholders on this, as we have been doing. So, that is why the amendments are to the Civil Law Act rather than to the International Arbitration Act.
As a side note, I should mention that \"after-the-Event\" (ATE) insurance is a different product from third-party funding. While it takes many forms with varying features, typically, for example in the UK, it is used where a party pays a premium to insure itself against the risk of having to pay the opposing counsel's fees. As such, the policy considerations may overlap but it differs from third-party funding.
Mr Vikram Nair also asked about the implications of the proposed third-party funding framework for contingency fees and whether this opens the way for contingency fees generally to enhance access to justice. As part of the review of the civil justice system, event-triggered fee arrangements, including contingency fee arrangements, will be studied. Until such time, lawyers and law firms will continue to be prohibited from entering into contingency fee arrangements.
The issue of regulation of third-party funding was also raised, in particular whether we should do more to regulate funders and how to balance between the need for regulation while preserving party autonomy and flexibility. Other points raised include the protection of stakeholders' interests and how we plan to deal with the bad practices associated with third-party funding.
Singapore is an international dispute resolution hub and as such, a large number of parties, counsel, arbitrators and funders are not and will not be within our jurisdiction. A heavy regulatory framework will therefore have little practical effect and our approach should be focused on what is practical and what is effective, taking into account the nature of international arbitration.
We also considered recent developments in the third-party funding market for international arbitration. The industry is gaining stability. Norms and industry practices are also emerging. There is now a high level of awareness and acceptance of third-party funding. Certain funders have established good reputations and have flourished. Bad practices have come to light and with greater awareness, advisers and reputable funders have developed measures to curtail such practices.
In the White & Case 2015 International Arbitration Survey conducted by Queen-Mary University, 71% of the respondents indicated that third-party funding is an area which requires regulation. The preference, however, was for soft-law regulation, for example, through the International Bar Association (IBA) guidelines or collective self-regulation through a code of conduct. The survey also indicated that regulation of third-party funding should mainly focus on disclosure rather than on the creation of a prescriptive, substantive regime. This would enable tribunals to handle potential issues on a more nuanced, case-by-case basis.
From the experience of other jurisdictions, abuses typically arise from lack of transparency and conflicts of interest. The proposed third-party funding framework therefore seeks to address these issues by making disclosure the central tenet, while giving precedence to party autonomy and flexibility. This approach will allow for the regulation to keep pace with the changes in the industry and this would address the point raised by Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan.
As mentioned earlier, amendments to the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules will be made to require legal practitioners to disclose if their client is receiving third-party funding, but not the commercial terms of the funding agreement. This will enhance transparency and allow the tribunal to avoid potential conflicts of interest. Also, with disclosure, parties are put on notice and can take steps to protect their own interests. The reason the obligation is placed on the lawyer instead of the funded party is to ensure that the disclosure requirement has practical and real effect since parties and funders are often outside our jurisdiction. That is the nature of international arbitration. The parties may be international so they may not be here but the lawyers when they come here will be present in our jurisdiction.
As for Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan's question about whether the disclosure requirement will affect the willingness of third-party funders to fund here, I am happy to share that disclosure received support from the majority of international professional funders who responded to our public consultation.
Legal practitioners and legal practices will also be prohibited from holding any share or having ownership interests in relevant third-party funders and from receiving referral fees and commissions. This will also help prevent situations of conflicts of interest.
The proposed approach to regulation would be in line with that in other jurisdictions. In Australia, the focus has been on avoiding conflicts of interest, coupled with reasonable transparency. In England, funders are regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority but only in connection with their asset management activities, and not their conduct in relation to funding of proceedings. Nonetheless, some funders choose to become voluntary members of the Association of Litigation Funders in England and Wales, and self-regulate by agreeing to abide by a voluntary code.
As mentioned, we expect similar self-regulation through the issuance of best practices or guidelines for arbitrators, lawyers and funders and the Ministry is already working with stakeholders to address this need. These \"soft-laws\" will cover issues including the solicitor-client relationship, costs, confidentiality, legal privilege, withdrawal of funding, essential terms to include in third-party funding agreements, as well as control of the dispute by funders, which a number of the Members have raised.
Lawyers must be mindful of their duty to act in the best interests of their clients and industry promulgated best practices or guidelines will help to bolster the legislative framework and ensure that all stakeholders, including arbitral tribunals and institutions, are fully apprised of best practices and standards.
This should address the very valid concerns and suggestions raised by Mr Louis Ng, Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Dennis Tan.
For completeness, I would highlight that the third-party funding framework will only allow entities which meet the \"qualifying third-party funder\" criteria to provide third-party funding. Such criteria will be set out in subsidiary legislation. The criteria will help to ensure that only reputable, professional funders may fund international arbitration proceedings in Singapore. Non-compliant entities will not be able to enforce their rights under the third-party funding agreement. In other words, they will not receive a share of the proceeds should the claim succeed. This would be a practical and effective deterrent against non-compliance.
Finally, I would like to touch on whether third-party funders will be liable for costs and whether this will include the making of adverse costs orders against third-party funders. These are matters best left to the parties and tribunals. In practice, costs orders against funders may be difficult as they are not party to the arbitration agreement. Feedback received during the public consultation process indicated that parties have sufficient levers, including seeking security for costs.
I will now address some of the queries raised by Mr Dennis Tan. His first concern was whether there would be a transfer of control of the proceedings to the funders from the claimant. The overall philosophy to this is party autonomy. So, that is something that should be dealt with in the funding agreement. The claimant and funder should both have their own representation. So, in that way you would have a lawyer who is acting in the best interest of the claimant and they can negotiate the commercial terms of the funding agreement in the same way as many other commercial agreements are negotiated. The nature of this kind of industry is that if one funder's terms are too onerous, there would be other funders available that the claimant can turn to. So, the market will find its own level.
With regard to conflict of interest, Mr Tan asked what would happen if the lawyer found himself in a position of a conflict between the claimant and the funder. Again, this is not different from other scenarios where you have different parties and the question of conflict arises. Let me explain it in this way. Ideally, the claimant and the funder should have their own lawyers. If, for whatever reason, they start off with the same lawyer, which is probably not a good idea, but if they do, and if an issue crops up where it is quite clear that the claimant and the funder have different interests, then the lawyer should − as all lawyers in this scenario should do − either discharge themselves from acting for one, or for both parties. It is no different from a scenario where, let us say, you are acting for two defendants and for some reason, the defendants' stories start to conflict. The lawyers know that in that scenario, they either have to discharge themselves or act only for one defendant.
I think Mr Tan had one more question which was on the meaning of \"direct financial benefit\" in new subsection 3A of section 107 of the Legal Profession Act. Subsection 3A says that to avoid doubt, the section does not prevent a solicitor from introducing or referring a third-party funder to the solicitor's client, so long as the solicitor does not receive any direct financial benefit and \"direct financial benefit\" is defined so that it does not include any fee, disbursement or expense payable by the solicitor's client for the provision of legal services by the solicitor's client.
In short, lawyers will continue to receive what they have always received which is their fees, their disbursements and their expenses. What they ought not to be getting is the financial benefit, for example, referral fees or a commission.
In the scenario which Mr Tan described, where a funder takes an interest in the lawyer's litigation department or acquires the department, first, you would have to get round all the provisions of the Legal Profession Act which will be very difficult. But even if you could get round that, I think the essential question would be, is the lawyer put in the position where he is beholden to the funder and cannot carry his duties to the claimant? This is the sort of test which lawyers have to face all the time when they are deciding conflicts of interest and the lawyers in third-party funding situations will have to apply those strict standards to themselves. Madam, I believe I have answered the various queries and I beg to move.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Ms Indranee Rajah].
Bill considered in Committee.
[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]
The Chairman:The citation year \"2016\" will be changed to \"2017\", as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.
Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"The Kwong-Wai-Shiu Free Hospital (Transfer of Undertaking and Dissolution) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister of State for Health (Dr Lam Pin Min):Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Mdm Speaker, before I begin, I would like to acknowledge Mr Patrick Lee, Chairman of Kwong Wai Shiu Hospital, Mr Leong Sin Yuen, Board member, and Dr Ow Chee Chung, CEO of Kwong Wai Shiu Hospital, who are here with us today to witness the deliberations on the Kwong-Wai-Shiu Free Hospital (Transfer of Undertaking and Dissolution) Bill.
Mdm Speaker, the Kwong-Wai-Shiu Free Hospital, or \"Kwong Wai Shiu\" for short, was established in 1910 under the Kwong-Wai-Shiu Hospital Ordinance (the Ordinance) to provide needy immigrants from the Kwong-Chau, Wai-Chau and Shiu-heng prefectures of the Canton Province of China with free healthcare. Since its establishment, Kwong Wai Shiu has played an important role in providing quality care to patients in Singapore. It has expanded the scope of its services significantly over the years, and currently operates a nursing home, a senior care centre, a Traditional Chinese Medicine Centre, and provides home care services.
Demand for healthcare services is expected to grow as a result of Singapore's rapidly ageing population. Not only do we need to add capacity, especially in the Intermediate and Long Term Care (ILTC) sector, we will need to also build up strong providers to deliver affordable, quality care.
Service providers like Kwong Wai Shiu will have an increasingly important role to play in serving needy patients and leading the way to innovative solutions. To better position itself to meet the future challenges, Kwong Wai Shiu is expanding its capacity and capability.
Kwong Wai Shiu is doubling its capacity at its current Nursing Home with the redevelopment and expansion of its facility at this site. The new Nursing Home, which will also house a Senior Care Centre, will be completed later this year. When fully opened, it will have more than 600 beds and will be the largest nursing home facility in Singapore.
Kwong Wai Shiu's upcoming Active Ageing Hubs in the vicinity of its current Nursing Home will also support our seniors to age in place. The Active Ageing Hub is a new concept we are trying out as part of the Action Plan for Successful Ageing. It is a one-stop centre for our seniors, where they can participate in active ageing programmes, and receive care services at the same place if needed. The centre can also provide assisted living services such as housekeeping and grocery shopping to seniors living nearby.
As Kwong Wai Shiu enhances its services and infrastructure to cater to the changing health needs of our population, it will also need to keep up with the times and ensure the hospital is well-positioned to support its mission to serve all Singaporeans. It is thus timely for Kwong Wai Shiu to review its organisational framework, which is currently set out in the Ordinance, and modernise its corporate and governance structure.
The Kwong Wai Shiu management therefore sought MOH's support to repeal the Ordinance, and establish the hospital as a Company Limited by Guarantee (CLG) similar to other Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs), for the following reasons.
First, the current Ordinance has not been substantively amended since its enactment. As a result, its provisions have become antiquated, and are impeding Kwong Wai Shiu's development and growth as a modern healthcare provider. For example, before Kwong Wai Shiu can dispose of any immovable property, it is currently required to first seek the leave of the High Court, and serve the application on the Attorney-General. This unduly hampers Kwong Wai Shiu's ability to efficiently manage and control its assets and property to respond to the changing needs of Singapore and ensure that the hospital's activities remain relevant and viable.
In comparison, assets of modern charities and IPCs are usually governed by their boards, and these charities and IPCs are not required to routinely obtain the leave of the High Court and to serve the application on the Attorney-General when disposing of their immoveable property.
Another example is the requirement for Kwong Wai Shiu to follow the Chinese Lunar Calendar for the submission of its accounts to the \"Secretary of Chinese Affairs\", a position which no longer exists today.
Second, the Kwong Wai Shiu management wanted to improve and strengthen Kwong Wai Shiu Hospital (KWSH)'s overall governance and corporate accountability framework. The Ordinance is not fully compatible with the guidelines recommended in the Code of Governance for Charities and IPCs. For example, the Ordinance does not include guidelines pertaining to board governance, as well as the avoidance of conflicts of interests.
As a CLG, Kwong Wai Shiu will be governed by a constitution which contains such guidelines. This will ensure that Kwong Wai Shiu will continue to operate in a sound manner, and assure its donors and members and the public that its funds and assets are responsibly managed.
Last, and most fundamentally, the Ordinance limits the scope of Kwong Wai Shiu's operations and beneficiaries. The Ordinance restricts Kwong Wai Shiu's role to provide hospital services for \"indigent persons connected with the Kwong-Chau, Wai-Chau and Shiu-heng prefectures of the Canton Province of China\", hence the name \"Kwong Wai Shiu Hospital\".
In reality, Kwong Wai Shiu has gone beyond this limited scope and has long been serving the general public, regardless of race, religion and dialect. The breadth of Kwong Wai Shiu's current activities is worthy and welcome, and it is opportune that the formal limitations imposed by the Ordinance are removed in support of its noble and beneficial activities.
Mdm Speaker, I shall now highlight the main features of The Kwong-Wai-Shiu Free Hospital (Transfer of Undertaking and Dissolution) Bill - hereby referred to as the Kwong Wai Shiu Bill. The Kwong Wai Shiu Bill will allow Kwong Wai Shiu to modernise and strengthen its corporate structure and provide flexibility in managing its assets and its operations. The CLG, named \"Kwong Wai Shiu Hospital\", was incorporated last year and has been registered as a Charity and obtained IPC status as of 18 July 2016. The Commissioner of Charities, and specifically, the Ministry of Health as the Sector Administrator for healthcare charities and IPCs, have been identified as the supervisory regulatory authority for Kwong Wai Shiu.
The Bill will transfer all the assets, rights, and liabilities of Kwong Wai Shiu to the new CLG. The new CLG will be governed by the Companies Act. A new constitution has been established for the CLG, under which there are clear guidelines for governance and the avoidance of conflicts of interest. A board of directors will oversee the management of the CLG. As a result of the modernisation, Kwong Wai Shiu will have greater flexibility to expand its charitable activities, thereby further benefiting the broader community and public.
The transfer will take place after the Kwong Wai Shiu Bill comes into force. Upon the transfer, all records, legal rights, and obligations of the former Kwong Wai Shiu will be transferred to, and assumed by, the CLG.
This includes staff employment − the continuity of the staff's employment, and the terms and conditions of their service, will not be affected by the transfer to the CLG. Likewise, Kwong Wai Shiu's rights, powers, duties, and liabilities as an employer will be transferred to the CLG. As such, the Kwong Wai Shiu Bill will not have any adverse impact on Kwong Wai Shiu's employees. Kwong Wai Shiu has also engaged its union − the Manual and Mercantile Workers' Union − and I understand that the union is supportive of the new corporate structure. Kwong Wai Shiu has also engaged its internal stakeholders including employees and board members.
I would also like to highlight that the hospital's operations will not be affected and patients are unlikely to experience any inconvenience or any adverse changes as a result of the transition.
Mdm Speaker, I will now conclude. The objective of the Kwong Wai Shiu Bill is to support Kwong Wai Shiu to modernise its corporate structure, and place the hospital in a stronger position with greater flexibility to provide healthcare services to Singaporeans, while ensuring transparency and accountability. I hope that Members will support the Bill. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.
Question proposed.
Mr Thomas Chua Kee Seng (Nominated Member):\tMadam, in Chinese.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, the Kwong Wai-Shiu Hospital was established in 1910 and already has 106 years of history. The Ministry of Health supports the hospital in moving in step with the times, to abolish those antiquated regulations, and to widen the scope of its charitable affairs, hence raising the Bill for the transfer of undertaking and dissolution. I support this move.
Kwong Wai-Shiu Hospital provides affordable healthcare services to those with chronic conditions regardless of race or religion, supplements the Government's healthcare policy, and is an important charitable organisation in the private sector. During the colonial times, a group of Cantonese businessmen founded Kwong Wai-Shiu Hospital. They provided free hospitalisation and clinical consultation for Cantonese immigrants, and looked after the poor and needy clansmen. Although 100 years have gone by, times have changed, and Singapore has already gained independence for more than 50 years, the content of this legislation had never been amended.
I met up with Mr Patrick Lee, Chairman of Kwong Wai Shiu Hospital and its senior management, to get a better understanding of the situation. After listening to them, I was deeply moved. Actually, from 1974 onwards, Kwong Wai Shiu Hospital has already provided healthcare services for Singaporeans of all races; the hospital has also established an inpatient centre, rehabilitation centre, and community hospitals, to look after the needs of low-income elderly patients. Being a large Institution of a Public Character (IPC), the hospital's operations have already fulfilled the conditions required of an IPC. After the expiry of Kwong Wai Shiu's land lease in 2010, the Urban Redevelopment Authority and the hospital authorities came together for an earnest discussion, and came to an amicable solution of letting it remain at the original location. It gave the board more confidence in making long-term development plans.
There are many other charitable hospitals of this kind. Motivated with passion, regardless of race or religion, they provide long-term nursing care for the elderly and more vulnerable groups of people, and demonstrate the merits of an inclusive society. I am really pleased to note the Government's support for Kwong Wai Shiu Hospital. With our rapidly ageing population, more and more elderly people require care. Kwong Wai Shiu Hospital is in the process of trying out something new, to help the elderly grow old amidst familiar surroundings. This is a worthwhile experience to promote.
With the joint effort of the government and the private sector, Kwong Wai Shiu Hospital will enter a new phase of development. The Ministry of Health gives great support to the hospital in terms of its policies and regulations, while the hospital's management team will be unified in dedicating financial resources and energy in the expansion. This spirit of moving ahead with the times is exemplary and should be emulated by many social groupings and charitable organisations. The operational capital of these charitable hospitals relies on donations from society, and I earnestly hope that every member of society could continue to support the hospital.
This successful experience could be replicated in other areas. Due to changed circumstances, the original objective behind establishing many civic organisations has changed significantly. In particular, for some trade associations, the entire industry has to undergo restructuring. I hope that more Government agencies and trade associations could be inspired by the example of Kwong Wai Shiu Hospital, and enable more moving stories to be written.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio):\tIn Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, just as my Parliament colleague has just mentioned, the Kwong-Wai Shiu Free Hospital (KWSH), has cared for many low-income families since its establishment in 1910. The hospital provided Singaporeans with good medical services and contributed much in terms of charitable and healthcare services. When it started, it provided both Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and Western Medicine services, a first for Singapore. In the early days, it also provided maternity services and treated communicable diseases.
I am glad to see that the hospital has evolved its services over time. Today, it operates a nursing home, a day rehabilitation centre, a TCM centre, and provides homecare services. I understand that it is even going out into the community to provide healthcare talks and mobile health screening for the elderly.
KWSH has always played an important role in caring for the indigent. Even today, nursing home residents who are unable to foot their bills can still receive funding from KWSH's charity funds.
Mdm Speaker, when I was young, I used to live at a rental block opposite the hospital and it has left a deep impression on me. Thinking about the hospital brings back many vivid memories. When I was young, like many other residents, I visited the clinics there for treatment. KWSH's the low fees have benefited me, my family and my neighbours. I am glad to see that the Government has decided to keep the hospital and allow it to continue to do charitable work and help the low-income families. I am very happy to see that and I am also very touched.
Although in the early days, the hospital's main purpose is to care for immigrants coming from Kwong-Chau, Wai-Chau and Shiu-heng prefectures of the Canton Province of China; in fact, it has also already been caring for people from other dialects or races. Even though I am not a Cantonese, I am a Hokkien, I have also benefitted from the hospital.
Whilst it serves all Singaporeans, KWSH has also had the special support of the Chinese community. The hospital has many volunteers helping them in their programmes. The volunteers add much warmth and friendship to the lives of the hospital's residents. These volunteers are called the \"Kopitiam kakis\". They chitchat with the residents, share stories and sing songs with them, just like in a Kopitiam.
Even though KWSH's Ordinance was outdated, it has been able to achieve all this. I note that the Ordinance is not fully compatible with the guidelines recommended in the Code of Governance for Charities and IPCs.
With the new Bill, KWSH will have more flexibility to help more low-income Singaporeans regardless of race or religion. This will remove the limitations imposed by the Ordinance regarding KWSH's beneficiaries and allow it to adopt a modern governance structure. While KWSH had earlier made the right decision to broaden its scope of services to patients regardless of race, language or religion, it is appropriate that the mandate of the hospital, as reflected in its governing document, be updated in line with our national values. Changes to its governance structure will also be in the interest of KWSH's donors and beneficiaries as the Hospital will have greater transparency and accountability in fulfilling its mandate. Moving forward, I hope KWSH will contribute even more to healthcare services in Singapore following the repeal of this Ordinance.
I am glad that the Government has supported the upgrading of the hospital though part of it is affected by the land acquisition for development. The upgraded hospital will help support our aging population and patients with chronic diseases. The hospital has an important role to play and I hope it will continue to receive support from public. .
I would like to thank the Ministry for connecting the Bendemeer MRT station to the hospital, which will provide much convenience for the public to gain access to the hospital. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank our seniors, the pioneer generation and the public for their support over the years, with which KWSH is able to make continual success in Singapore.
I support this Bill. Thank you.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon):Madam, the Kwong Wai Shiu Hospital has contributed its services for years, serving Singapore since 1910. As it transitions into the next phase of its development, I am heartened to see that it continues to serve the public in the spirit of charity.
As I learn about its makeover to be re-opened as Singapore's largest nursing home, I am assured of our Government's focus on our elderly, and to ensure that they are being well cared for. I was impressed with the amount of effort and planning put in to ensure that it is not just any nursing home, but one which bucks the trend, and sets higher standards for all new nursing homes in Singapore.
Madam, while I stand in support of this Bill, I would like to take this opportunity to seek a few clarifications. I understand the MOH has funded the expansion of the Kwong Wai Shiu Hospital, can I ask if it will also be providing the funding for the operations of this new entity?
Secondly, I was going to ask about the transfer of employees, which the Minister of State has clarified, but could he confirm that all existing employees will be directly re-employed by the new entity?
Thirdly, referring to clause 4(1) which states that the trustees and committee members have been involved in the hospital's operation for many years, building up valuable relationships with stakeholders. Will they still be able to contribute after leaving or will they be invited to serve in the new Board?
Finally, I refer to news reports announcing that the new 12-storey facility will be completed in 2017. Could the Minister of State provide an update on whether or not we are on track for the date of launch?
Madam, I also take this opportunity to share a few comments on Singapore's Action Plan to raise our capacity to provide for our ageing population.
I understand that the Kwong Wai Shiu Hospital is unique in its approach. For example, it will be a one-stop shop for services ranging from TCM to specialised wards to treat dementia. It is also not gated, and members of the public can enter freely to use its services.
There will be other innovative functions, such as a \"haze management zone\" and a \"memory street\" on every floor to help the elderly retain their memories. This is an excellent step forward in the design of nursing homes, and I hope that all new nursing homes will also model this approach.
I also understand from nurses on the ground that one of the key issues faced is the lack of available beds for patients with higher acuity of care in nursing homes. For example, this includes patients who require tracheostomy care. Such patients are often left to wait for available beds for up to a year while in the acute hospitals.
Another category of patients is those undergoing haemodialysis. Many have been rejected from nursing homes and families find it difficult to cope as there are few options available.
I hope this issue would be taken into consideration and new nursing homes will be able to accommodate those with acute conditions as well. Madam, the above comments notwithstanding, I stand in support of this Bill.
Dr Lam Pin Min:\tMdm Speaker, allow me to respond in Mandarin first.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, first, let me thank Mr Thomas Chua, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Mr Louis Ng who have expressed their appreciation to the Kwong Wai Shiu Hospital (KWSH) for its contribution to healthcare in Singapore and voiced their support of the Bill.
Indeed, KWSH has played an important role in developing our healthcare system. As one of Singapore's oldest charitable healthcare institutions, KWSH has cared for the sick and needy for more than 100 years since it was established. It has continuously developed and evolved its services to cater to Singaporeans' healthcare needs. In the early days, KWSH responded to national needs by providing maternity services and treating communicable diseases such as Tuberculosis, and even continued its operations during the Japanese occupation. To ensure that it could care for Singaporeans regardless of race, language or religion, KSWH also went beyond its Ordinance and opened its doors to all Singaporeans in 1974.
In recent years, KWSH started to provide additional services such as speech therapy, cancer rehabilitation, and home care. I understand that KWSH also actively engages the community through mobile health screening, public health talks, and active ageing programmes.
As mentioned by Mr Thomas Chua, KWSH has been innovating to help seniors age well in a familiar environment. The Active Ageing Hubs that I earlier mentioned, is a good example of KWSH's efforts. In addition, Kwong Wai Shiu is also collaborating with the Academy of Chinese Medicine (ACMS ) to provide better care services for the elderly. The ACMS will be part of Kwong Wai Shiu's new integrated hub concept to provide better Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) services, and to more Singaporeans. This platform pulls together several streams of services, including the TCM clinic, to support seniors with varying needs and help them to stay well within the community.
Kwong Wai Shiu and ACMS will also jointly work on research study and training programmes to benefit clients and the Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) industry.
As mentioned by Mr Gan Thiam Poh, it is to Kwong Wai Shiu's credit that they have managed to adapt over time despite being constrained by its antiquated Ordinance. I commend Kwong Wai Shiu leadership for having the foresight to look ahead, and push for these changes to their corporate structure so that they are able to move more quickly and confidently in future, to meet future challenges. MOH is happy to support them in these efforts.
The Members have also raised various comments and questions on the Bill. Let me address the various comments and questions addressed by them.
I was heartened to hear Mr Gan Thiam Poh's affirmation of Kwong Wai Shiu's efforts in helping patients in need over the years. Indeed, Kwong Wai Shiu has a team that evaluates cases submitted by Medical Social Workers. Those who are assessed to be in need will be assisted using Kwong Wai Shiu's charity funds. Apart from helping indigent patients, I understand that Kwong Wai Shiu also caps its nursing home inpatient fees to ensure that they remain affordable for Singaporeans. This is also why it is important for Singapore to have VWO care providers - they have a passion to serve, and can harness the joint resources of the community to help patients in need.
Kwong Wai Shiu has promised me that it will continue to fulfil its mission in providing healthcare services to the sick and poor in Singapore regardless of race, language, or religion, and continue serving the community with passion.
I am confident that they will be able to fulfil their objective of serving the community for the next 100 years.
(In English): Mdm Speaker, Mr Louis Ng queried as to how the new entity will be funded and operated. He also asked for clarifications as to how the transfer of employees from the existing Kwong Wai Shiu entity, to the new entity, will take place. I would like to reassure Mr Louis Ng that the transition to the new entity is purely a change in Kwong Wai Shiu's corporate structure and does not affect its operations. As mentioned earlier, under this Bill, all records, legal rights, and obligations of the former Kwong Wai Shiu will be transferred to, and assumed by, the new CLG, in a seamless manner. This means that the \"new\" Kwong Wai Shiu will continue to run its nursing home, and receive the same funding from MOH to care for its clients. In line with this, Kwong Wai Shiu's employees will simply become employees of the new entity, with their employment terms unchanged.
I am glad that Mr Louis Ng raised the question on whether Kwong Wai Shiu's trustees and committee members will still be able to contribute to Kwong Wai Shiu after the transfer to the new entity. Kwong Wai Shiu's trustees and committee members have been closely involved with its operations for many years, and contributed significantly to its strong track record in community service. I understand from Kwong Wai Shiu that the trustees and committee members have been invited to serve on the new Board and that most have agreed to do so.
I am confident that the Board members will continue to lead and guide Kwong Wai Shiu as it expands its mandate and infrastructure. I would also like to take this opportunity to update that the new 12-storey facility is on track for completion in end-2017.
Lastly, I would like to thank Mr Louis Ng for his suggestion to consider the possibility of nursing homes accommodating patients with higher care needs. MOH is currently looking into this, and we will share more details in future.
Mdm Speaker, let me conclude. The Kwong Wai Shiu Bill will modernise Kwong Wai Shiu's corporate structure and put Kwong Wai Shiu in a stronger position to respond to future challenges. At the same time, Kwong Wai Shiu will also have greater flexibility to continue providing quality healthcare services to Singaporeans.
Moving forward, MOH will continue to work closely with Kwong Wai Shiu, as well as other like-minded partners to continue improving the accessibility and quality of ILTC care for Singapore. Together, we will make Singapore an ideal place to age gracefully in. I call on Members of the House to give their support to the Kwong Wai Shiu Bill.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Dr Lam Pin Min:Mdm Speaker, as the Bill is, in your opinion, a hybrid Bill, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 68(1), the Bill will be referred to a Select Committee.
I beg to move, \"That the Select Committee on The Kwong-Wai-Shiu Free Hospital (Transfer of Undertaking and Dissolution) Bill consists of Mdm Speaker as Chairman and the following Members:
(1) Dr Chia Shi-Lu,
(2) Ms Chia Yong Yong,
(3) Miss Cheryl Chan,
(4) Mr Christopher de Souza,
(5) Mr Gan Kim Yong,
(6) Dr Lam Pin Min,
(7) Mr Low Thia Khiang.\"
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved, \"That the Select Committee on The Kwong-Wai-Shiu Free Hospital (Transfer of Undertaking and Dissolution) Bill consists of Mdm Speaker as Chairman and the following Members:
(1) Dr Chia Shi-Lu,
(2) Ms Chia Yong Yong,
(3) Miss Cheryl Chan,
(4) Mr Christopher de Souza,
(5) Mr Gan Kim Yong,
(6) Dr Lam Pin Min,
(7) Mr Low Thia Khiang.\" - [Dr Lam Pin Min]
Mdm Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.30 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.08 pm until 4.30 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.30 pm.
[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Active Mobility Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister of State for Transport (Mrs Josephine Teo):Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
I would first like to thank Parliamentary Secretary Assoc Prof Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim for chairing the Active Mobility Advisory Panel, and all panel members for their persistent contributions.
The Panel spent many months last year consulting the public on ways in which pedestrians, cyclists and users of personal mobility devices (PMDs) can safely share public paths. They proposed a set of rules and code of conduct that strike a good balance between the diverse needs. The Government had accepted the Panel's recommendations in full, and the Active Mobility Bill now seeks to grant the LTA the powers to implement them.
Cycling and PMDs have become more popular, not just with the young and active, but even among older Singaporeans as it improves their ability to get around. This is a positive development, as active mobility is a key pillar of our vision for transport in Singapore.
Cycling and the use of PMDs are convenient and efficient ways for covering short distances, including first and last mile connections to bus interchanges or MRT stations. They are essential to Singapore's transition to car-lite mobility, centred on public transport. Cycling is also emissions-free, and contributes to a cleaner and healthier living environment.
But with the increasing popularity of bicycles and PMDs, some members of the public have understandably expressed concerns about the safety of pedestrians. Over the past year, several Members of the House have also asked thoughtful questions and raised helpful suggestions on this issue.
There is not a shadow of doubt that pedestrian safety is paramount. The Panel made it clear that active mobility must be supported by a culture of graciousness and consideration for the safety of others. The experience of many cities, such as Copenhagen, Amsterdam and Tokyo, attests to this; and our aspiration must be to develop a similar culture of graciousness and consideration for everyone who shares the use of public paths.
We are still some distance away from attaining the desirable level of graciousness and consideration. More regularly than we would like, we hear feedback about recklessness by cyclists and PMD users. As it stands today, I am afraid the burden lies more with cyclists and PMD users to demonstrate that the vast majority of them can be relied upon to be safety-conscious and responsible users of public paths. I am glad that there is a growing fraternity within this group that is determined to do so.
However, as with all cultural norms, I am realistic that it may take several years before we get to a new balance, where the different users of public paths can happily co-exist with one another. Our approach must therefore take this into account.
We should not ban bicycles and PMDs on footpaths because of the benefits they bring, but we must also act to reduce friction between the different users. Therefore, we will continue to build more dedicated cycling paths where possible, and at the same time, establish a set of rules and norms for cyclists and PMD users when sharing footpaths with pedestrians. At the same time, to shape a new culture of graciousness, we will need to educate and enforce actively.
With this context, let me elaborate on the key provisions in the Bill.
First, the Bill will set out clearly where bicycles, PMDs and power-assisted bicycles (PABs) can be used. Clauses 6 to 8 empower LTA to define and declare what constitutes a public path where the provisions of this Bill will apply. In general, all paths in Singapore will be covered by the Bill, except private land, restricted areas such as military camps and Jurong Island, and areas where access is ticketed, such as the Singapore Zoo and Sentosa. The use of bicycles, PMDs and PABs in these areas will continue to be regulated by their respective land-owners or managers.
Clauses 15 to 18 outline the types of devices that are permitted on public paths. The first category of public paths are \"footpaths\". The regulations will specify that bicycles and PMDs, which are allowed on footpaths, must travel below 15km/h, similar to an average person's running speed. PABs will, however, not be allowed on footpaths, as they pose a greater danger to pedestrians.
The second category of public paths includes today's dedicated and shared cycling paths, and park connectors. These are collectively defined as \"shared paths\" under the Bill. We will allow bicycles, PMDs and PABs on these shared paths. We will also permit a slightly higher speed limit of 25km/h. These shared paths will be clearly demarcated by signs and markings.
The third category of paths are \"pedestrian-only paths\". This refers to paths which are not suitable for cycling nor the use of PMDs and PABs. Examples include elevated bridges with low railing heights or steep ramps, such as pedestrian overhead bridges. This will be made clear through \"No Riding\" signs.
These are the key rules to regulate the types of devices allowed on public paths. A person who flouts these rules will be liable upon conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000, or to imprisonment not exceeding three months, or both.
In addition, the regulations will specify the criteria for bicycles and PMDs that are permitted for use on public paths. They must not weigh more than 20kg, be wider than 70cm, or have a maximum device speed exceeding 25km/h, to be considered compliant. PABs are already required to satisfy a more detailed set of requirements under the Road Traffic Act. Clause 19 of the Bill prohibits the use of non-compliant devices on public paths. Those who contravene this rule will be liable upon conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000, or to imprisonment not exceeding three months, or both.
Next, the Active Mobility Bill will allow LTA to apply more stringent penalties for cyclists and users of PMDs and PABs who are caught riding in an unsafe or reckless manner. Clauses 21 and 22 impose steep penalties upon conviction, which include a fine not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both.
In addition, clause 23 makes it an offence if a cyclist, PMD user or PAB rider does not stop to render assistance in an accident. Those found contravening this rule will be liable upon conviction to a fine not exceeding $3,000 or to imprisonment not exceeding 12 months, or both. These penalties will be in addition to the existing penalty under the Penal Code for causing hurt to others by a rash act.
We will also regulate the sale of devices and take stronger enforcement action against sellers of non-compliant devices. Clauses 30 and 32, together with related amendments to the Road Traffic Act, ban the display and advertisement of non-compliant devices. Clause 34 prohibits the sale of non-compliant devices for use on public paths, while clause 35 makes it an offence to modify devices in a manner that makes them non-compliant. These offences come with hefty penalties. Sellers found displaying or advertising a non-compliant PMD will be liable upon conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000, or to imprisonment not exceeding three months, or both. Those found selling non-compliant devices or illegally modifying PMDs will be liable upon conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000, or to imprisonment not exceeding three months, or both.
The Bill will grant LTA stronger and more expansive enforcement powers, for better deterrence and enforcement against errant users and sellers of non-compliant devices.
LTA has already been deploying Active Mobility Enforcement Officers to educate the public on the rules and norms in the Bill. When the Bill is passed, LTA officers will be able to also issue notices of offence to, and prosecute offenders.
To improve the effectiveness of enforcement, Clause 44 will allow LTA enforcement officers to enter and inspect businesses suspected of committing offences, such as illegally modifying devices and selling non-compliant devices. Clauses 50 and 51 empower LTA to seize and forfeit non-compliant devices.
Clauses 45 to 49 will grant LTA enforcement officers other powers to allow them to carry out their duties effectively. These include, but are not limited to powers to remove obstructions from public paths; to examine bicycles, PMDs and PABs; to demand information for identification of suspected offenders; and to arrest persons who refuse to cooperate.
LTA's enforcement efforts will be supported by NParks and Traffic Police. Clause 39 empowers LTA to appoint employees of other public authorities, such as NParks, as public path wardens, who will then have the same powers to carry out enforcement in parks and along park connectors.
Education is equally important if we are to build up a culture of safety and graciousness. LTA has enlisted the help of Active Mobility Patrol Volunteers from the community and grassroots in this regard. The volunteers can also serve as useful \"eyes\" to detect errant behaviour. Hence, clause 41 grants limited powers to the volunteers, to allow them to obtain personal particulars from suspected offenders, to advise them to stop engaging in offending conduct, and to document evidence. The volunteers will, however, not be given more intrusive powers, such as to inspect, seize and forfeit devices, nor powers of arrest.
Clause 55(2)(b) will empower LTA, with the approval of the Public Prosecutor, to require offenders of compoundable offences to attend LTA's Safe Cycling Programme before they are allowed to compound the offences. Offenders who fail to complete the Programme will be charged in court.
We will make a few amendments to related Acts. The Road Traffic Act will be amended to prohibit the use of PMDs on public roads, for the safety of the riders and other motorists.
We will also be making amendments to the subsidiary legislation under the Road Traffic Act to mandate the registration of PABs, which are more prone to illegal modification and have a greater potential to cause serious injury. Every PAB used on public roads and public paths will henceforth be required to carry a registration plate and be registered to an owner.
In summary, Mdm Speaker, this Bill empowers LTA to regulate the sale and use of bicycles, PMDs and PABs on public paths. It will allow us to safeguard the safety of pedestrians even as we encourage active mobility.
Our aim is to shape a culture where there is gracious and considerate sharing of public paths. While cultural norms take time to develop, we can support their formation through appropriate rules and enforcement. We will continue to monitor the situation on the ground and evolve these rules as necessary to promote active mobility in support of a car-lite Singapore. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.
Question proposed.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin (Potong Pasir):Mdm Speaker, the Active Mobility Bill is an important piece of legislation that will allow us to take another positive step towards achieving the vision of a car-lite Singapore.
Our Government has worked hard to achieve a sustainable public transportation system that is affordable, convenient and efficient for Singaporeans. Active Mobility, which includes walking, cycling and the use of Personal Mobility Devices (PMDs) will support this system.
The Active Mobility Bill seeks to regulate the use of PMDs and it is imperative that this is done. There are however, two questions which I wish to raise.
One, is the regulation contained in the Active Mobility Bill sufficient to protect the safety and well-being of other pathway users? Secondly, can we do more for unwitting victims of accidents involving PMDs who suffer personal injury as a result?
Mdm Speaker, the Active Mobility Bill is a comprehensive one. It includes regulation which prohibits modifications of PMDs beyond what is allowed by law, speeding offences, dangerous and/or reckless riding offences and also mandates that users of PMDs do not leave the scene in the case of an accident and render assistance. To a large degree, these mirror those regulations for motor vehicles codified under the Road Traffic Act.
The question, as I alluded to earlier, is whether more can and should be done to protect the safety and well-being of other pathway users. I would respectfully argue in the affirmative.
First, unlike drivers of motor vehicles, PMD users will not be licensed. There is no minimum age requirement for PMD users and they are not required to attain any minimum level of competency before being allowed to operate PMDs. This means that PMD users in Singapore are likely to vary greatly in terms of maturity and competency levels when operating PMDs.
Second, Singapore is ranked as one of the densest cities in the world. Our residential towns or suburban areas, which centre around high-rise public housing, accentuates this. This is unlike other cities who may have dense city centres but less dense suburban residential areas. It is also important to note that our dense residential towns are also where more vulnerable classes of Singaporeans, such as the less mobile elderly and young children, are likely to share pathways with PMD users.
Third, the aim of the Active Mobility Bill is to encourage more Singaporeans to consider the use of PMDs as an alternative to driving. If this vision succeeds, we would expect a significant increase in PMD users on our pathways from the numbers we see now.
Such increased numbers, coupled with varying competency levels of PMD users raises the risk factors and the likelihood of unfortunate accidents involving PMDs.
Senior Minister of State Mrs Josephine Teo had said in her reply to various Parliamentary Questions raised by Members on 10 October 2016 that \"the careless behaviour of a small minority of users has caused accidents and led to some members of the public to oppose their (the PMDs) proliferation. It would be unfortunate if we allowed the careless behaviour of this small minority to prevent the larger majority of responsible and considerate cyclists and PMD users from enjoying the benefits of such travel modes\".
I agree with the Senior Minister of State. I do not suggest that PMDs be banned.
However, as the situational context is likely to cause the number of unfortunate accidents involving PMDs to rise, I ask if we can do more. Can we consider imposing a mandatory minimum age for the use of PMDs? Or at least vary the age limits for different types of PMDs depending on the technical requirements of operation?
Can penalties for recalcitrant or repeat offenders be increased to serve as a deterrent to irresponsible PMD users? Is it feasible to impose a ban on such recalcitrant or repeat offenders from using PMDs in the future?
These suggestions are not meant as a criticism of the Active Mobility Bill but an illustration on the possibility of doing more.
As the Bill stands, the proposed regulation is robust and sufficiently addresses our current situational needs. However, as the use of PMDs proliferate and our situational needs change, we must ensure that we do more to protect the safety and well-being of responsible and considerate PMD users and pedestrians alike.
Mdm Speaker, perhaps the most controversial aspect of allowing PMDs on our pathways is the lack of a mandatory compensatory scheme for innocent victims involving PMDs who suffer personal injury.
Mdm Ang Liu Kiow is an unfortunate example of this, as reported in The Straits Times. Mdm Ang was allegedly hit by a 17-year-old e-scooter rider and sustained serious head injuries in September last year. Fortunately for Mdm Ang and her family, she has since recovered well enough to return home. This is extremely heart-warming news and I am sure this House will join me in wishing Mdm Ang a full and complete recovery from her injuries.
But Mdm Ang's gradual recovery from her injuries comes with significant financial and medical costs. In this case, Mdm Ang is a housewife while her husband is the breadwinner for the family. What if the accident victim was the sole breadwinner of his or her family? Financial aid and social welfare can only go so far.
Keeping this in mind, our injury compensation scheme must therefore be a robust one. One that can adequately and fairly compensate accident victims who suffer personal injuries. This is true for Motor Vehicles. For Motor Vehicles, we have the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks and Compensation) Act. The Act makes it mandatory for all Motor Vehicles to have compulsory third-party insurance. In cases where it is a hit and run or if there is no insurer concerned, where there is no identifiable insurer, the Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB) steps in by arrangement to bridge the gap.
In other words, motor accident victims who suffer personal injury are fully assured of receiving some form of compensation for their personal injuries. This offers consolation and financial protection to families, especially when it is the breadwinners who are involved in an unfortunate and tragic motor accident.
We do not have similar protection for accident victims involving PMDs. On this issue, several Members of this House, myself included, have asked if a similar form of third-party insurance could be mandated for PMD users.
Senior Minister of State Mrs Josephine Teo had in her oral reply in Parliament on 10 October 2016 replied that it will be \"too onerous and costly for the vast majority of cyclists and PMD users who behave responsibly and safely\". She further added that \"pedestrians in Singapore who are injured in accidents can obtain compensation by initiating civil lawsuits or through private settlements\".
Madam, on this issue, I will have to respectfully disagree with the Senor Minister of State. If the intention is to proliferate the use of PMDs in conjunction with the Public Transportation System to reduce our reliance on cars, this will mean that the use of PMDs is likely to increase significantly as more Singaporeans learn and accept the use of PMDs as an alternative mode of transport. If this happens, our pathways are likely to get more crowded with PMD users and more accidents involving PMDs may happen.
Commencing a civil suit costs money. This is not something that every individual or family can afford. Even if a civil suit is won, there are instances where a plaintiff could only obtain a paper judgement when the defendant has no means to pay the sum awarded by the court.
Further, it is not unforeseeable to surmise that \"hit and run\" cases involving PMD users could potentially be higher than motor vehicles. Motor vehicles are large and carry licence plates which can be identified by witnesses of motor accidents. Irresponsible and reckless PMD users could hit other PMD users or pedestrians and run off before anyone can react.
This could potentially leave us with many unwitting accident victims involving PMDs with no recourse to seek compensation for any personal injury suffered.
Madam, the factors that led us to conceive the compensation regime for Motor Vehicles do not differ when applied to PMDs. As such, I am of the humble and respectful view that effort and cost should not be the impediments for the provision of a compensation scheme for PMD accident victims.
If indeed, that the provision of third-party insurance is too onerous and costly on PMD users, perhaps a fund, not unlike how MIB deals with Motor Vehicles, could be set up to compensate victims who have no recourse to seek the compensation they need.
This will need further in depth discussions and consideration, but it is definitely an issue that needs to be urgently addressed as the use of PMDs become more and more prevalent in Singapore. Mdm Speaker, I support this Bill.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar):Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. A Bill dedicated to ensuring active mobility through the increased use of bicycles, e-scooters and other personal mobility devices is indeed timely. Setting out the regulations on the speed and weight of the vehicles as well as where they can be used have all been addressed quite thoroughly.
At the heart of this Bill is the safety of the users and just as importantly, the pedestrians. Let us bear in mind that walking and running to a destination are also part of our national drive to promote active mobility while reducing our carbon footprint.
The Bill also addresses the conditions for the future development of dedicated travel paths on public and private land, in tandem with the Ministry's intention to create a more conducive landscape for multiple modes of travel and transportation, where walking, jogging, cycling, driving and various forms of public transport complement one another, providing a wide range of alternatives for reaching destinations; all the while encouraging healthy active lifestyles.
Mdm Speaker, allow me to speak in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Unfortunately, accidents do happen and more can and should be done to make it easier for victims to report and also allow the police to apprehend and punish the culprits.
Unlike cars, personal mobility devices (PMDs) do not have identifiable numbers or tags and if the culprits are determined to evade responsibilities, it would be very difficult to identify them.
I hope that the Ministry will continue to think of ways to ensure that such devices are easily identified and visibly tagged. Currently, the idea of licensing and even tagging them with mini-In-Vehicle-Units, like for cars, have been rejected based on the reasons that it is costly and not practical. However, without doing so, in reality, it would be very difficult to apprehend the culprits.
Some are afraid that there could be fraud such as the use of fake licensing tags. However in fact, vehicles also face the same problem. It is not so difficult to change the licencing plate of a vehicle.
(In English): Mdm Speaker, back to English.
Secondly, I hope that the Ministry would re-consider requiring such equipment to be sold with packaged personal accident insurance, and require such insurance to be tagged to the equipment and kept updated as long as they are in use. This will ensure that victims can at least be assured of compensation in the event of injury or death, encouraging the users to report the accidents as well.
With increased usage, the number of accidents will increase. Currently, the Ministry does not compile the number and nature of accidents involving such equipment which occur on pavements and elsewhere, except those that occur on the roads. We should educate the public that with this Bill, such reports can and should be made at police stations, as users of PMDs are legally bound to assist victims and report any accidents. Such data will allow the Government to keep track of accident patterns and provide useful information on how to improve upon regulations and road designs.
Next, I urge the Ministry to consider improving road and pathways designs to protect all users better, separating riders from pedestrians wherever possible, as we go forward to ensure greater safety for all. This has already been done in certain segments of New York City. The design can be done in such a way that discourages mobility devices from encroaching upon the space for pedestrians. Walkways could be slightly raised and made a little uneven, such that it poses little difference to pedestrians but is bumpy for those on riding devices.
Last, I hope the Ministry would consider providing community volunteers with light, wearable video equipment to make it easier for them to carry out their jobs. This would be helpful for them as they are on the ground daily and can nip any problem in the bud earlier and faster. I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar):Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Active Mobility Bill. With the recent fatal accidents involving motor vehicles and users of e-scooters and power-assisted bicycles, it is crucial to put in place legislative guidelines to better govern the usage of these new transportation devices. As more favour the use of such PMDs and PABs to get to their destinations, there is a pressing need for authorities to adopt a firm approach to create a safe and responsible active mobility culture in Singapore. Even with legislation, other road users will also need to be more vigilant to safeguard their personal safety, and to look out for others.
Like many members of the public, I am concerned about the safety of pedestrians who share their paths with PMD users. How will the Land Transport Authority (LTA) continue to monitor and enforce the proper use of shared paths by PMD users, after the Bill is officially enacted? Will there be an increase in the number of enforcement officers deployed island-wide and over a sustained period?
There is a current ban on PABs on park connectors. With the speed limit of e-bikes capped at 25km/h, I would like to seek clarification from the Minister if this would mean that these LTA-compliant e-bikes will be allowed on park connectors, so that it is easier for riders to get from point A to point B, as compared to riding on the roads? If this is so, I would like to suggest then for NParks and LTA to explore ways to better monitor the park connectors, such as through the installation of CCTV cameras. Footages from these CCTVs can help facilitate investigations in the event of an accident. This would also serve to safeguard the interests of all park users.
Faced with land constraints, particularly in mature estates, it would be a challenge to carve out shared paths to accommodate both pedestrians and users of PMDs. Existing pavements are relatively narrow. It is essential that shared paths are neither too narrow nor too steep to ensure safety and ample space for every user. Would the LTA stipulate guidelines on the minimum width and maximum gradient of shared paths?
I have spoken about the need to protect pedestrians. There is also a need to educate PMD and PAB users on how to keep themselves safe. This is especially important for PAB users who are allowed to ride on public roads. Other road users, such as car drivers and motorcyclists, need to pass theory and practical tests to gain the necessary safety knowledge before they are allowed on the roads. For their personal safety, would the LTA consider mandating for PAB users to undergo a basic safety course as a prerequisite to registering their PABs?
We can also do more to ensure the physical safety of PMD and PAB users. Currently, only cyclists and PAB users are encouraged to wear helmets. I would like to urge the Ministry to consider making it compulsory for all cyclists, PAB and PMD users to wear helmets. This is especially in view of the recent death of 23-year-old Mr Sam Koh who died of a serious head injury after falling off his electric scooter in March last year. Proper use of a helmet could help mitigate serious head injuries in the event of an accident.
Residents have told me of near misses involving fast moving PMDs on shared paths. It would be helpful if these PMDs can be made more visible to other path users, particularly in low light conditions. Would the LTA consider mandatory installation of front and rear lights for all motorised PMDs?
My colleague Mr Sitoh had brought up the same case: in September last year, 53-year-old housewife Madam Ang Liu Kiow was hit by an electric scooter. She had to undergo two major operations, a lengthy hospital stay and hefty medical bills. I would like to echo what Mr Sitoh had elaborated in detail. I think besides the option of launching into a civil suit against the PMD user, which can pose an additional financial strain on the injured party, will the Ministry look into mandatory insurance coverage for PMD/PAB users or establishing a structured compensation framework for such accident victims?
Mdm Speaker, strict enforcement must go hand in hand with education. I would like to call for strict enforcement to be taken against errant users, retailers and modifiers who modify the devices to make them non-compliant. I would also like to propose that the Bill expands its legislative powers to make it an offence for an online retailer to sell non-compliant devices. Currently, the Bill makes it an offence for a retailer to sell or display non-compliant personal mobility devices within a shop's premises. However, the Bill makes no specific mention of online retailers, which are a popular point-of-sale for such non-compliant devices.
I would also like to urge the Ministry to consider mandating the installation of registration plates on all PABs as this can act as a prominent identifier to help enforcement officers identify the PAB and facilitate tracing of the PAB owner in the event of an accident.
Finally, I would like to commend the volunteers under the Active Mobility Patrol Scheme, who volunteer their time to educate others on how they can share paths in a gracious and responsible manner. I would like to ask the Minister to elaborate on what enforcement powers, if any, would these volunteers have. Also, are there any lessons from NEA's Community Volunteer Programme which can be useful to improve the Active Mobility Patrol Scheme?
In conclusion, I concur with the views of many that there is a limit to what legislation can achieve in creating a safer environment for all users. What matters most is how an individual behaves when using their PMD or PAB. Legislation is only a first step towards creating public awareness on what is right and wrong, with legal penalties serving to deter reckless behaviour. The responsibility of creating safer roads and pathways lies with every individual. With that, Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member):Madam, the Active Mobility Bill provides for a new legal regime for use of public paths by bicycles and other personal mobility devices. Today, I would like to touch on three issues relating to cycling and mobility issues in Singapore. They are cycling culture, political will and public education.
Cycling culture. Cycling has been one of my favourite past times since I was in school. Having lived near the East Coast Park for years, I spent many happy moments on the cycling paths of East Coast Park. As the park became more and more crowded in the weekends over the years, I have been avoiding cycling in the park itself.
Why do I avoid cycling in East Coast Park? I think it has become unsafe over the years. Many cyclists do not obey the direction signs or keep a proper lookout for pedestrians or other cyclists. Many pedestrians walk on or across the cycling paths without caring for the safety of cyclists. Many cyclists cycle on the footpaths. I have seen accidents in the park over the years, accidents that can be avoided if we had the right cycling culture.
Madam, the cycling culture in East Coast Park reflects the cycling culture nationally. We should improve our cycling culture. Although most cyclists comply with the law and have good cycling habits, some of the following acts are still carried out by a minority of cyclists on an everyday basis. When I say cyclists, I also include electric bikes and PMD users. And the examples are when on roads beating red lights or cycling against the traffic, and on public paths and park connectors, cycling at high speed, not keeping left and not giving way, thus creating risk of accident with pedestrians or other users.
When I was at university in England, my second hand road bike was my main form of transport. Even in those years in early 1990s, the law required everyone to cycle on the roads, not on footpaths or pavements, and to keep left when cycling. When it was dark, everyone had to use a standard set of white front lights and red rear lights. Everyone seemed to follow the law and practice. In the first few weeks at university, I learnt a very important lesson about cycling culture. I mistakenly got onto a footpath and was roundly told off by an elderly lady.
What is positive about such an environment? Everybody knows what to expect about cycling and cyclists. A pedestrian will not expect to meet a cyclist coming his way except when dismounted. A motorist will not expect to see a cyclist cycling against the traffic. There is certainty and importantly, this breeds mutual respect between all users and I believe that, in turn, promotes a better and safer environment for cyclists and cycling and road users. This is important for Singapore because cycling is not going to go away or bicycles be banned from the roads and e-scooters, PMDs and e-bikes are all here to stay. The Government has talked about bicycles being an important element for the final mile connectivity. Having a safe and good cycling culture will definitely promote that.
Political will. Madam, to improve our cycling culture, the Government must have the political will to do so. Around 10 years ago, I remember there was at one time a flurry of complaints in the newspapers about non enforcement against errant cyclists. Cyclists cycling on the wrong side of the road or beating red lights were already common occurrences then. I remember once the authorities replied to say that they had inadequate resources to address the problem. Lack of resources might well be the given reason but it looked to me that this issue was not a priority then and there was no will to deal with the problems at that time. So, the effect is that the can is kicked down the road.
We missed a great opportunity to solve the problem back then in the mid-2000s. In those days, the only people who seemed to have broken the law were elderly cyclists. But after that, there was a huge influx of foreign workers and this meant a huge increase in the number of people using bicycles and many also followed the cycling culture: ignored the road safety rules because of lax enforcement.
And then from the late 2000s, with the increase in white collar foreign labour, we also saw many of them taking up recreational road cycling at the same time as many Singaporeans. So, the number of bicycles on the road have continued to increase in the last 10 over years. Then came e-bikes. Many people who use them regard them as a cheap and unlicensed substitute for scooters and motorcycles. And finally, we have e-scooters or PMDs in the last two to three years. In November 2016, the Straits Times reported monthly sale of e-scooters hit 400. We have been hearing of accidents involving power assisted bikes for a while and lately accidents involving e-scooters. I think it is now harder to improve our cycling culture.
I know the LTA is now trying harder to carry out enforcement actions and put out regular advisories or publicity about their actions on their Facebook. LTA also have volunteers to do the messaging for the new cycling rules. We will have public path wardens. I really appreciate all that and hope that we are finally moving in the right direction. I can imagine the authorities will need a lot of resources. But when will the day come when we do not see the acts that I talked about on a daily or regular basis? It will depend on the resolve of the Government.
Madam, I support the provisions in this Bill. This Bill signifies an intention on the part of the Government to reset the safety parameters and promote safe cycling culture, in light of new mobility devices. I note the severe punishments imposed for various breaches and I am in support as I feel that people have to understand the importance of riding safely and being considerate to other road users. It will be down to the consistent enforcement efforts of LTA to make the new regulations work.
I understand that the Government is going to create different regimes for different footpaths, some can be used by bicycles and e-scooters, some only for pedestrians, and e-bikes will not be allowed on footpaths but will now be allowed on park connectors, although I have seen e-bikes on footpaths and park connectors for many years! What are the Government's plans to ensure that members of the public will be able to adapt to the new signages without any confusion? I can imagine that there will be much public education required.
On this note, let me talk about public education. For many years, the Government has been talking about having public education on safety in cycling. This Bill may still be inadequate without regular and strict enforcement together with effective public education. May I call on the Government to go beyond the existing efforts in public education? This is particularly important if we are not going to be able to require compulsory third-party insurance for bicycles, e-bikes and PMD users.
Madam, recently when I visited an early education school, I was amused to see a whole row of skate scooters and bicycles lined up by the entrance. Go to any public parks during the weekends, and we can see many children using bicycles and skate scooters. It is important that we engender in our young children the culture of safe and considerate riding when they start riding.
The Government should consider having appropriate lessons on cycling culture and road safety. Will the Government consider upgrading the syllabus of the Road Safety Park to include lessons incorporating new mobility devices covered in this Bill, particularly e-scooters, PMDs and e-bikes? Will our Safe Cycling Programme, which is being introduced, be incorporated into our school syllabus like in New South Wales, Australia, where they have incorporated road safety programme into their primary and secondary school syllabus?
Clarifications. Madam, section 20 of the Bill allows for excepted use of non-compliant PMDs. May I ask the Senior Minister of State to clarify what is the intent of section 20 and give us examples of when excepted use of non-compliant PMDs are allowed?
Madam, during the Committee of Supply debates last year, I asked whether owners of existing unauthorised e-bikes, which may technically be able to comply with the new proposed rules, be given the chance, at least on a one-off basis, to apply for authorisation and registration. I would like to know whether the Government will allow this.
I also mentioned that throttle may be more suitable for some users as they do not need some strength to pedal and \"kick in\" the electric power required in current authorised models. I have said that control of speed by throttle is more precise and as long as the maximum speed of the bike is limited, the throttle does not make the bike unsafe.
So, is the Government going to allow the use of throttle? And if throttle is a no-no for e-bikes because of safety issues, how does the Government reconcile that with its position on e-scooters? We have seen many e-scooters going at high speeds on the roads and get into accidents on the road or on footpaths. I have read from media reports that some had a speed as high as 80km/h.
In conclusion, I support this Bill and hope that it will enhance our cycling culture and promote safe and considerate use of public paths for all users.
Mr Ang Hin Kee (Ang Mo Kio):\tMdm Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, I support this Bill. The Government encourages more people to use bicycles and other PMDs in order to build a car-lite society and offer Singaporeans more mobility choices.
If this were to be successful, we need legislation to list down what are the appropriate behaviours of PMD users and the rules by which retailers must abide when selling or modifying PMDs .
Next, we need to create a good environment for walking and suitable facilities. For example, the designated bicycle lanes in Ang Mo Kio, the redesigned wider lanes along Bencoolen Road, and additional bicycle parking facilities, will make things easier and safer for pedestrians and PMD users.
More importantly, pedestrians, PMD users and drivers need to have the right mindset in terms of sharing the road with one another. This cannot be done by legislation alone. I have four suggestions for MOT's consideration.
First, the operators need to be more responsible. The importers should not only import up-to-standard PMDs, but also introduce PMDs with more safety features.
The retailers should also proactively teach the customers how to use PMDs properly. They can consider collaborating with certain groups to teach buyers how to use their PMDs safely.
How about repair service providers? They can consider recording, or taking photos of the repair work details. The MOT can also recommend repair companies that uphold a high safety standard to people who require repair services.
Second, the scope of enforcement should also be more comprehensive. The Bill has listed down unlawful behaviours of PMD users, such as using Power Assisted Bicycle (PAB) as an e-scooter and illegal modifications, which could jeopardize the safety of others.
The design and speed limits of some roads in industrial zones and highways may not be suitable for co-use by bicycles or PABs. Can we tighten rules with regard to the usage of these roads? Perhaps we can put up more noticeable signs or ban bicycles or PABs from using these roads?
I have seen a mother taking her child to school on a PMD. Although it is convenient, we should not allow it because of safety reasons. If possible, we should have rules such as only one passenger is allowed and that both should also wear appropriate protective gear, like a helmet.
Third, we should have appropriate facilities for PMDs. To encourage more people to use public transport and the PMDs, we must improve our road design, display appropriate signs or create designated lanes for PMDs.
Earlier, some Members mentioned that, when it comes to road design, we can have traffic calming measures such as narrowing the road and creating roundabouts to limit car speed and improve road safety.
Starting from last month, foldable bikes and other PMDs can be taken into the MRT and buses. This is a very good news. Perhaps for the next stage, we can consider setting up designated MRT cars for people to board and alight the train. This way, they will not affect other passengers.
I have seen some coffee-shops providing charging facilities for customers to charge their devices. I am also glad to see new MRT stations have more bicycles and PAB parking facilities. The LTA is also gradually expanding the parking facilities at existing MRT stations.
Now, there are more people who go out on bicycles or PMDs, to work, school or shopping malls. Some of my residents use their PMD to go to the CC to exercise or attend class. However, it is not convenient for them to bring these devices into their classroom and they cannot leave their PMDs outside with peace of mind. I will have some transparent storage cabinets installed at Cheng Shan Community Centre and increase bicycle parking spaces. This will make it more convenient for my residents.
In order to have more such facilities, we need facilitation from MOT. If MOT can help shopping malls and other places to convert some parking spaces into parking storage facilities for bicycles, PABs and PMDs, it will make things more convenient for their users.
The fourth and the last suggestion is to increase safety awareness. We are all very familiar with the Highway Code. The Code is akin to a road usage guideline, listing down the proper behaviour of a road user to prevent accidents from happening.
As PMD users increase, we not only need to educate drivers of the importance of safe-driving, we must also pay attention to PMD users. Although currently, the latter do not need to pass any driving test, it will be beneficial for them if they could attend online learning and test. Similarly, the government can also consider amending the teaching materials and include important information with regard to PMDs into the Highway Code, thus improving drivers' safety awareness of PMD users. This can increase our overall sense of safety.
Ultimately, I hope to see that every pedestrian, every PMD user and every driver is willing to share our limited space by being considerate and courteous to others, as well as abiding by the rules. On top of that, if we also have appropriate facilities, then our travelling speed may become slower, but accidents will become less, and everyone's journey will be more pleasant and convenient.
Assoc Prof Randolph Tan (Nominated Member):Thank you, Mdm Speaker, for allowing me to participate in this debate.
Madam, there is little to disagree with the spirit of the proposed Act. By embracing the needs of a whole range of road users, and its vision of promoting healthy and environmentally-friendly alternatives for road usage, allowing connectivity to the public transport network and gradually reducing our heavy dependence on motor vehicles, I strongly support this Bill, although I feel that there are certain aspects of it that require a clearer thought about.
Clause 3 of the Bill clearly identifies the aims of the new Act. These are all laudable aims. Supporting developments that promote cycling, walking and the use of public transport will be a major push in Singapore's growth as a liveable city. However, in order to ensure that the aims set out in the Act are met, I think it would also be important to consider whether the various purposes are compatible, whether they are realistic in a land-scarce city-state like ours and also whether they are achievable in practice without a major revamp of our public transport infrastructure in terms of the design, as well as of our sidewalks and pathways.
The basic reason why this issue arises at all is because we are a space-constrained country. Limited space must be shared, but the rules for sharing cannot be assumed to always be known. Unlike motor vehicle usage on roadways, sharing of active mobility devices is not as natural as it appears because it depends on factors about a range of usage patterns and pathway conditions that are actually much more varied and on roads.
One key issue in this matter is user behaviour. As a result of the exceptions contained in clauses such as clause 15(2)(a), would there be an increase in PMD users going onto roads meant for motor vehicles, such as flyovers, especially when these offer a convenient means of crossing expressways? Would this not endanger both the users of PMDs, bicycles and PABs who do this, as well as motor vehicles who unexpectedly encounter them?
Another clause that I want to ask about is clause 16(2), which refers explicitly to footpaths. What I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State is: whether she could clarify if it applies to the following related situations.
When cyclists and PMD users switch between pedestrian walkways and roadways, their actions become unpredictable to other users. This lack of predictability ends up increasing the danger to everyone. Cyclists and PMD users also stray into bus lanes during restricted hours. What are the rules in such cases?
The speeds of various users vary greatly on our roads and our pathways, and are much less subject to regulation when they are on shared pathways. A young child riding a bicycle is very different from an adult speeding and expecting others to give way to him. Older pedestrians who experience issues with mobility, often feel a need to get out into the open and move around, but those of us who have older dependents, know that we worry more about them. Do we have to worry now about their safety in the face of the increasingly intense usage by new classes of PMDs?
What I would like to urge is more in-depth study into the consequences of having a new class of users on our roads and pathways, whose usage habits are different yet overlap with those of existing classes of users.
Madam, while PMDs, bicycles and PABs may be slower than heavier motorised vehicles, it is also true that they are also slower to stop, and may require an entirely new set of rules for other road users to react to them, if they demand their right of way.
If incidents increase and arguments about right of way become more prevalent, will we be seeing a call for more directional signs on pedestrian pathways, such as those used on roads for heavier vehicles? A proliferation of signages will only spawn a new set of challenges.
Right of way where pathways intersect with driveways could lead to increased chances of dispute and accidents.
The proposed Act allows for the appointment of public path wardens, as set out in clause 39. A public path warden's role would involve determining whether violations of clauses 15(2)(a), 15(2)(b), 18(1)(b) have occurred. Is this realistic? We should already be familiar with the challenges that are likely to be involved in such cases, especially because of the experiences of parking and road traffic wardens.
In fact, judging by the types of situations that traffic wardens could be required to react to, it would not be unreasonable to predict that their roles could be much more challenging, and therefore that they should require more training.
In addition to making quick decisions about whether the technical specifications of PMBs and PABs are prescribed or banned, a public path warden would also need to have skills in dealing with the public in situations where argumentation is much more likely to arise.
Given the expectations of such enforcers, where are we going to get a supply of such skilled personnel? Will public path wardens also be required to deal with problems arising from inappropriate design of PMDs, such as the effect their headlights have on drivers of other motor vehicles? The headlights on PMDs could affect the vision of other drivers at night, especially when they travel in opposite directions.
Madam, in conclusion, I would like to return to the point I made at the beginning of this speech, which is really how to ensure that the various purposes set out in the Act are compatible and not at odds with one another.
If PMDs end up taking over footpaths, pedestrians will end up getting crowded out. Will pedestrians, therefore, ultimately, be the ones suffering as a result? If there is a conflict between the two, which one should we prioritise ‒ pedestrian comfort or the habits of PMD users?
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied):Mdm Speaker, this Bill aims to regulate the use of public paths in response to the popularity of PMDs like e-scooters and unicycles, hoverboards and power-assisted bicycles.
While the evolution and the use of such devices have been rapid, there is no doubt that a set of easily understandable rules needs to be implemented to govern the use of such devices for the safety of all. While I am supportive of this Bill and its objectives, I seek a few clarifications with regard to some of the clauses of the Bill and will raise them in chronological order.
On clause 2, the intention of using the noun \"pedestrian\" in the Bill appears to separate fast-moving individuals from those who are slower so that the pedestrian-only path is in some ways protected from bicycles or other vehicles. But in day-to-day life, this may cause confusion, especially when skateboards are classified as PMDs while people on inline or roller-skates are classified as pedestrians. People on inline or roller-skates can move fairly quickly, and potentially cause harm to other pedestrians as well. How did the Ministry settle on the definition of who is a pedestrian and who is not?
Under clause 15, a potential jail term for riding on pedestrian-only paths appears excessive, especially if reasonable judgment has been exercised to ensure that the path is clear of pedestrians and the rider is not speeding or riding recklessly, for example, late at night or in places where there is less human traffic. While this may be a matter of judgment and the Ministry wishes to be unambiguous about the seriousness of such violations or to facilitate uncomplicated interpretation, would not a more incremental legislative approach, starting with fines only, represent a more communicative and educative policy-making exercise so as to allow people to understand the rules more and to allow a passage of time to pass before Parliament determines whether or not to review the sentences, based on ground feedback? Such an incremental approach could also assist to reinforce a safety culture involving PABs and PMDs over time.
Clauses 26 and 27 state that the proprietor or occupier of any land can be required to install and maintain signages at their cost and they will be guilty of an offence if they are not compliant. Would it not be administratively more efficient for the relevant authorities, specifically LTA and NParks, for example, to bear the cost of erecting and maintaining signages? This would also be administratively convenient as there would be a clear standardisation of such signs. If proprietors or occupiers have to purchase signages from officially-approved agents, would it not be better to have the relevant authorities just take charge instead?
Clause 30 states that any person or business selling non-compliant PMDs \"must ensure that no customer or member of the public can see any non-compliant PMD from inside or outside of the premises\" or they could be jailed, for example. Would it not be enough for businesses to remind customers about which models are compliant or not before the purchase, which is provided for in the warning notices specified in clause 30? Anecdotally, the legality of models is a big concern for people looking to buy PMDs. It would appear excessive to potentially jail sellers for failing to keep non-compliant PMDs out of the sight of customers. The same concerns are relevant for clause 31, which calls for a fine and/or jail term for advertising non-compliant PMDs. If this is indeed a serious concern, can the Minister share why it would not be a better idea to just restrict the import of non-compliant PMDs altogether, tackling the problem upstream, rather than having to deal with the problem at the retail level?
Clause 33 states that a person shall be guilty of an offence if, at the time of sale, \"the person knows that or is reckless as to whether or not the buyer intends to ride the PMD on a public road\". This clause sounds practically unwieldy. If the clause would cover sales at any premises or place, so it can be assumed that it would cover private individuals selling their used PMDs on Carousell, for example. How would the Ministry determine whether or not a seller is \"reckless\" as to the buyer's intentions to ride the PMD on a public road? Is failure to ask the buyer specifically if he or she intends to ride it on a public road considered an offence? If the buyer says no but rides on the road anyway, is the seller guilty of an offence because he or she did not question the buyer further?
Clause 33 also states that it is not a defence for the accused to prove that warning notices were displayed in accordance with clause 31. If so, what would constitute a defence, short of a written agreement or an agreement that is captured on video? How many buyers or sellers would do this? Is the implementation realistic or practicable?
To conclude, Mdm Speaker, this Bill seeks to govern the behaviour of individuals who use PMDs and PABs. Members would be aware that not just Singaporeans but many foreigners, especially those who live and work near industrial estates, also use such devices. One key challenge would be to educate a large and transient foreign worker community of these norms. As with any transient group, the effort would have to be a continuous one.
The effectiveness of this legislation on the ground will be directly correlated to the amount of effort that is put in to educate all users, Singaporeans and foreigners alike, of the codes of conduct that can be issued by the Minister under clause 24 of this Bill. This is not just the Government's role or the Government's job, but, of course, it is the job of all users.
Mdm Speaker, my request for clarifications notwithstanding, I support the Bill.
Mr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol):Mdm Speaker, in September last year, I visited the family involved in the e-scooter accident at Pasir Ris which left the victim unconscious for two months. It was heart-wrenching to witness the family's trauma from nearly losing a loved one to an accident which could have been avoided. I believe, if you could see the family, then you could understand the rationale and intent of introducing what we are introducing in this Bill. Sadly, that was not the last accident involving users of PMD, despite all the public education that was mounted. The following month, three electric bicycle riders were involved in an accident with a container truck, resulting in two deaths and leaving one injured. I could not imagine the trauma the family must have faced. More recently, in November last year, a 62-year-old e-biker died after an accident with a tipper truck at Cecil Street.
Despite these accidents, the reality now is that we will see increasing users of these PMDs. Modernisation in technology has expanded transport options for commuters and usage of PMDs. These modes are also rapidly picking up in popularity. I believe that it is high time that this Bill was introduced for these commuters who choose to adopt alternative modes of transport, be it for cost-savings, physical disability, convenience or even environmental considerations, to ensure that we create a living space safe for all to use.
Several other countries have successfully implemented active mobility initiatives and there are several good models available for us to adopt, and even improve upon. That said, there are two areas that I would like to address, namely, safety and administration.
Mdm Speaker, to promote safety, this Bill has made it clear the penalties for errant and irresponsible users and sellers of PMDs. While some may prefer the education route to promote mutual understanding between different road users, penalties to errant and irresponsible parties are necessary to enforce the right behaviour.
First, for the personal safety of PMD users, I would like to call for the mandatory donning of basic protective gear while using PMDs.
Second, I also suggest to expand the law to ban the use of bicycles, including electric bicycles, on the main road, to those under 18 years of age. Younger PMD users must use the shared footpaths or dedicated cycling tracks, and must refrain from using the main roads.
Third, while motorists are required to pass their Highway Code, such a requirement does not exist for PMD users who ride on the main road. Unfamiliarity with road signs among PMD users may increase the risk of them being involved in accidents. Hence, the Government may want to consider making it compulsory for PMD users to have basic Highway Code knowledge.
Fourth, I would also like the Government to consider raising the penalties for PMD users for riding under the influence of alcohol. Riding under the influence of alcohol is extremely dangerous not just for the rider, but for fellow motorists and pedestrians as well.
Finally, in terms of enhancing a safe environment for all, I would like the Government to consider enforcing a compulsory road etiquette course for PMD users with repeated offences. This is practised in Japan where PMD users with repeated offences are required to attend a road etiquette course or risk stiff fines. Madam, may I continue in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, I believe it is timely to introduce the Active Mobility Bill. Despite campaigns and education efforts to promote responsible behaviour among users of Personal Mobility Devices (PMDs), we are still seeing families losing their loved ones in tragic accidents involving PMD users, especially e-scooters and electric bicycles.
I give my strong support for the provisions in this Bill to impose penalties on irresponsible PMD users and sellers.
Mdm Speaker, I foresee that with the increasing feasibility of power-assisted mobility devices, there is a higher likelihood of accidents that may involve users for Personal Mobility Devices and pedestrians.
Therefore, once again, I lobby for the Government to make insurance mandatory for users of Personal Mobility Devices. By having insurance coverage available, it will help ensure that due compensations can be made without significant financial strains to all the parties involved.
(In English): Mdm Speaker, the Active Mobility Bill is a big undertaking, and I am positive that it holds great merit in making Singapore a much more liveable city for everyone. With proper attitudes and complementary infrastructure, active mobility will be a great boon for our residents who wish to take up these alternative modes of transport to ease them in their daily lives. I support the Bill.
Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (Fengshan):Mdm Speaker, Active Mobility is an area of critical importance, not just from the definition of public paths and regulation of its use; it represents essential links that affect people's daily lives and tends to be one where moral grounds and empathy dictate more emotive responses should any incidents arise.
Recently, there had been more news and reported cases as awareness was raised about such mobility devices and the easy access to recording tools have helped some victims gain their much needed justice. Noting the stiffer penalty meted on some earlier cases, some people may be cautious, but it does not allay the fears many would have, especially those who once were the underserved victims.
As the Ministry continues to fine-tune the Act, I support for three areas to be constantly reviewed: (a) education strategies; (b) enforcement; and (c) planning and design of shared spaces.
On education strategies, studies have shown that human behaviours can be influenced by repeating certain actions and many of the behavioural traits can be changed through mind share and more effectively captured at a young age. I recalled in my growing years, we were exposed to many campaigns, from Singa Lion − the Singapore Kindness Movement, Teamy Bee − efficient, productive workforce to Sharity elephant and so on and so forth. In each campaign, it was not simply the mascot or the songs that we remembered. It was the inculcating of the key messages and the actions that we undertook in and out of the classes that remained with us as useful values in life.
As part of raising awareness in the education campaign, I support those aspects concerning the road safety and use of public shared spaces to be widely broadcasted. The campaign must be done at multiple fronts, not only in schools, and to be continued for a period of time, especially when there are new rulings in place. Everyone in the community must eventually have a sense of responsibility in using all the shared spaces and know the right from wrong without being told or trolled on social media. Thus, over time, our behaviours and unwritten rules should reflect the way we can co-exist harmoniously and safely with considerate thoughts for others.
In line with educating the users, I would like to ask the Minister whether the users of bicycles and PABs − as also mentioned by my fellow colleague Mr Zainal Sapari − who do not already possess a valid vehicle driving licence, should they be asked to take theory tests to understand the Road Traffic Codes in order for them to use the public roads safely? This is a fundamental question when we look at the necessity for more enforcement and also the safety of the road users.
Typically, users of these PMDs or bicycles do not have the appropriate protective gears and alarms for signalling or even notifying others when in danger. Chances of them appearing at risky positions to the vehicles and with little room to manoeuvre are high. They will unintentionally end up endangering themselves and the nearby vehicles if they do not know who has the right of way on public roads.
Since clause 3 sets out the purpose of the Bill, one of which is to enhance connectivity by supporting development that promotes walking and cycling and patronage of our public transport, then I would say understanding the road conditions, when not to take risks, and how to be a better road user are important knowledge for these users to acquire.
Second, on enforcement. Regulations and enforcements are necessary measures for rules to be upheld and in cases where disputes are most likely to occur between independent parties. However, there can never be sufficient ground enforcement if the penalties are not steep to deter the act of an offence or the location and number of offences is widespread, thus making it hard to capture these offences.
On this note, I would like to seek a few clarifications from the Minister.
One, under clause 23, if an accident occurs and there is no party present as it is a hit-and-run incident, what type of supporting evidence is the victim supposed to provide when lodging or making a police report? If the police investigations do not reveal any new findings or is unable to identify the offender, how can the victims be compensated?
Two, under clause 33, if the sale of PMDs is performed online and one-off transaction, not wholesale, would the seller be liable as he or she would not know if the buyer intends to ride the PMD on public road? Also, to what extent is the seller required to put up warning notices for the online sale that is in accordance to clause 31.
Three, for the volunteer public path wardens, what level of training will be given to them to assist them on their job and how can they be protected when they are handling the cases on the ground?
Four, apart from fines and imprisonment for repeat offenders, would the Ministry consider having the offender contribute certain number of hours to community service similar to the Corrective Work Order for those who litter?
Five, I understand that some PMDs are designed with speed limit detectors, and as a safety measure, its maximum limit would be capped within the specified range as set out by LTA. My question is how can we ensure that the safety limit trigger continues to be functional over time and would LTA consider reducing the speed for paths when the users are travelling in downhill motions?
On the last area, planning and design of shared spaces. In many estates and public spaces, we have increasingly seen many bollards and boards being put up to prevent all these fast-moving bicycles and PMDs from knocking into pedestrians. Not only are they unsightly, they are not completely effective at some junctions and it also pose a challenge for those users that are on wheelchairs or those with baby strollers as they have to move around all these obstacles. As such, I would urge LTA to consider defining some specific areas as pedestrian-only paths where it may have larger impact on safety of users at shared public spaces. Some of the areas are, namely, overhead bridges, pathway immediately leading to lift landings, paths directly beside the HDB void deck, vicinity near children's playground and childcare facilities.
Moving forward, there are more cycling networks planned to be added to connect our housing estates to major traffic nodes. This will undoubtedly provide relief to both cyclists and pedestrians. However, widening of footpaths brings along its joy and also sorrows. For those older, mature estates, the existence of trees make it difficult for any potential widening thus resulting in some of the cycling routes being shorter than others. Where it is possible to widen, the challenge comes on enforcement as bicycles and motorbikes begin to encroach on some of the open spaces for short-term parking. So, what more can be done in this area?
I am happy that just now the Senior Minister of State has mentioned that there will be clear demarcation to indicate the separation between the pedestrian and cyclist path. This would be most welcome, especially when it needs to do strict enforcement.
Mdm Speaker, I welcome the Bill as it is essential for the safety of everyone as we move towards better connectivity around Singapore. Thus, I hope that some of the suggestions could be looked into and I seek feedback on the clarifications that I put across.
Dr Teo Ho Pin (Bukit Panjang):Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. Madam, the 15 PAP Town Councils support this Bill to promote walking, cycling and connectivity of our public transport system. We also support the various measures proposed to promote and ensure the safety of users of public paths.
This Bill will set out the legal framework and code of conduct for all users of public paths to minimise conflicts among the users, and support our nation's drive to have a car- lite society.
Madam, the 15 PAP Town Councils manage thousands of footpaths in our respective HDB towns. These footpaths including covered footpaths are mainly common property of the Town Councils. The Town Councils are responsible to maintain these footpaths, and enforce by-laws to ensure the safe use of these footpaths.
Every year, the 15 Town Councils receive about 200 complaints from our residents related to bicycles, power-assisted bikes and Personal Mobility Devices. These complaints include: (a) speeding and reckless riding, (b) illegal parking of bicycles, and (c) disputes among users of footpaths.
Madam, I wish to highlight three concerns regarding the implementation of the Active Mobility Act.
First, classification of public paths. Clause 6 of the Bill declares and classifies public paths into three types, namely, pedestrian-only path, footpath, and shared path for different types of users. The definitions of pedestrians, riders and various types of footpaths are quite confusing.
It may be easier for the public to understand if we just classify public paths into walking path, cycling path and walk-and-cycle path. Walking path shall allow users to walk, move on motorised and non-motorised wheelchairs, ride mobility scooters or PMDs, pull trolleys or skates. While cycling paths are for riders using bicycles or power-assisted bicycles.
To avoid confusion, we need to clearly mark walking and cycling paths with footprints or bicycle prints respectively at regular intervals. Signages must also be clearly displayed at the beginning, ending and cross junctions of public paths.
I wish to clarify with the Senior Minister of State regarding the ownership and responsibility of those declared public paths within a town. Are the Town Councils supposed to transfer ownership of those paths which are declared as public paths to LTA for management?
If not, who will be responsible to maintain and enforce the use of these declared public paths in the town? Who will take up the public liability insurance for the public paths? Madam, the maintenance and enforcement of public paths will entail additional expenditure if undertaken by the Town Councils.
Second, enforcement. Madam, to ensure the safety of all users of public paths, we must adopt a comprehensive approach to educate the users and conduct regular enforcement to reduce accidents and injuries. CCTVs can be installed at high-risk locations to regulate the use of all public paths. Mobile CCTVs can also be deployed to facilitate enforcement efforts on reckless riders.
I would propose that LTA set up a 24-hour hotline to follow up on feedback from the users. In addition, LTA should deploy enforcement teams in every constituency to educate and instil discipline among users of public paths. To facilitate enforcement, LTA should consider registering all riders, bicycles and PABs.
Third, disputes resolution. Madam, with more people walking and cycling on public paths, there will be more cases of conflict among the users. To avoid disputes among users, I would propose that LTA build more dedicated and separate cycling paths connecting to MRT stations, town centres and various amenities in the town.
By separating walking and cycling paths, both pedestrians and cyclists will enjoy safer use of public paths.
Madam, I propose that LTA be the lead agency to resolve disputes among different users of public paths. This will enable LTA to gather feedback and understand the concerns of the users. In this way, more effective measures can be taken to fine-tune the Act in future to promote walking and cycling in Singapore.
Mr Kok Heng Leun (Nominated Member):Thank you, Mdm Speaker. As I was preparing for this speech, I was reminded of a production that I did years ago. I looked at the effect of high-speed motor cars on human and social psychology. To borrow the words of an English novelist, JG Ballard, \"I think the 20th century reaches its highest expression on the highway. Everything is there: the speed and violence of our age; the strange love affair with the machine, with its own death.\"
My apologies to start a new year and my speech with such a grim image, but I do think that both walking and cycling would really provide a good antidote to a society that is driven by speed to a point where civility, a lot of times, is ignored and lost.
Hence, I think this Bill is a good step towards a cultural shift in our mobility choices by protecting the safety of all users of pathways.
However, I would like to express my concern on the structural and spatial design of existing and future pathways that might frustrate some of the purposes of this Bill.
First, under clauses 15 and 16 of the Bill, an individual may ride on a pedestrian-only path or footpath under limited circumstances. My concern is that existing pedestrian-only paths and footpaths might not be wide enough to accommodate such usage, thereby leading to accidents.
Furthermore, even though various vehicles are generally banned from such paths, accidents might also occur when narrow paths are utilised both by pedestrians as well as users pushing prams, strollers, trolleys or users who are in wheelchairs.
I hope the Ministry would consider widening existing paths and ensure that future paths in new estates are wide enough to accommodate users with various needs.
Second, it is worthwhile to invest in smart, protective and functional design for future pedestrian, foot and shared paths and to enhance existing pathways with safety conditions.
Mdm Speaker, it appears that most of the shared paths, especially those in the more mature estates are not segregated by physical barriers. These shared paths are usually demarcated by a visual line between the pedestrian path and the path for cyclists.
We should also not forget that the existing shared paths are bi-directional. Yet existing shared paths are only segregated between different users, that is, pedestrians and cyclists. Not only does that mean that there is a narrower pathway for cyclists and riders of mobility vehicles, moving bi-directionally, they must also be mindful of other pedestrians also moving bi-directionally, using the same path.
Further, without a physical barrier that segregates pedestrians from other cyclists and riders of mobility vehicles, there is a tendency to stray into each other's lane, either because of personal convenience or in situations where the shared path is particularly crowded or when visibility is low at night. I am sure many of us have encountered such situations, or have ourselves been guilty of walking or cycling along paths not meant for such purposes.
Without physical segregated paths ways for different kinds of users as well as segregation of pathways per direction, it is surely a receipe for accidents to occur. There are clearly safety risks we take when we try to shoehorn different and sometimes competing needs into the same design solution. It is largely for such reasons that countries like the Netherlands builds separate pathways for cyclists and pedestrians.
Mdm Speaker, a segregated path not only would mitigate the risk of such accidents from occurring but also serves as a signal to pedestrians or cyclists that should they utilise paths not meant for their traveling purpose, they bear the risk of an accident occurring. Moreover, such segregated pathways might be able to accommodate higher volumes of users and as such, it is a more efficient use of space than non-segregated shared paths.
The Government has signalled its intention to move towards a car-lite society, with an on-going effort to transform Ang Mo Kio into a model for walking and cycling town. So, this Bill is a good opportunity for us to rethink our urban and estate and planning and redesign our existing paths so that we can achieve a culture shift in our mobility choice with the assurance of safety and transport efficacy.
Just one last point on the issue of design. I hope that the Ministry is looking at reinforcing existing pathways to ensure that the surfaces of such pathways would better cushion against the impact of a fall.
I also hope that the Minister can shed some light on what is being done to enhance existing pedestrian, foot and shared paths to ensure the path is safe for all users, as well as how the Government ensures regular maintenance, proper illuminations and repairs works of these paths.
I now turn to the issue of conflict management. Conflicts are but a natural consequence of human interaction. Mdm Speaker, I must imagine that when so many different users moving at vastly different speeds are sharing the same spaces, disputes, especially arising from accidents, are bound to occur. What I am concerned about is how we seek to resolve such disputes that arises from the shared use of these paths which affects people from all walks of life.
Mdm Speaker, in a reply by the Senior Minister of State for Transport Josephine Teo to a Parliamentary Question on Measures to Promote Safe Sharing of Paths, I quote, \"pedestrians in Singapore who are injured in accident can obtain compensation by initiating civil lawsuits or through private settlements. If the offender is prosecuted and convicted in criminal court, the court will consider if compensation to the victim should be paid.\"
With respect, it is cold comfort and unfair to the victim to have to spend considerable amounts to be compensated for his or her medical bills and have to wait for a significant period before he or she can obtain such compensation. Similarly, there are disputes that might be better resolved out-of-court.
I note that this Bill does not contemplate alternative forms of dispute resolution, but hope that the Ministry might look into providing a cost-efficient mode of dispute resolution, such as through mandated mediation or third-party negotiations for dispute arising out of the use of shared paths.
Similarly, I hope that the Ministry can look into making insurance for personal devices more affordable so that more users can sign up for such insurance. I take the point which the Senior Minister of State has made about it being too onerous to make it mandatory for users of Personal Mobility Devices or cyclists to purchase insurance.
However, having such insurance not only protects the user but the third party who have been injured by the act of the user as such parties may receive compensation from the insurer of the user. It would reduce the need for victims to go to court to obtain compensation. I would advocate that a culture of mediating dispute arising from the use of shared paths will be better than depending on the courts.
I have a few points of clarifications before I end.
First of all, I see some practical difficulties with clauses 23(1) of the Bill, which imposes a series of duties on the driver of the vehicle to comply with as far as circumstances permit, in the event that an accident occurs.
As we all know, when an accident occurs, it might cause the involved party to be in a state of panic and shock such that he or she might not be able to react or properly respond to what has just occurred. It is not clear from the Bill whether such drivers in such state of shock should face prosecution under this clause should he or she not comply with the series of duties provided under this clause.
Further, clause 23(1)(b) provides that the driver must, as far as circumstances permit immediately render such assistance as he or she can. I am worried that there might be situations where the driver's assistance puts the injured party in a worse situation or further exacerbate his or her injuries. For the safety of those involved in the event of an accident, I hope that the Ministry can re-consider the necessity of this clause.
Second, under clause 6 of the Bill, a public path may be declared over any private land that is subject to an access agreement in favour of the Authority for the purposes of this Act. Can the Senior Minister of State clarify what liabilities and responsibilities would such owners owe to involved parties when an accident occurs after such private land have been declared as a public path? Who would be responsible for maintaining such private land that has been declared as a public path thereafter?
Also under clause 26 of the Bill, the Authority may give an order to any proprietor or occupier of any land requiring them to install, erect or relocate way-finding signs at the proprietor or occupier's own costs. I think this was also reflected by our colleague Dr Teo. Similarly, under clause 27, such proprietor or occupier has a duty to maintain such way-finding signs at their own cost. I am puzzled as to why the cost of doing so is not borne by the Authority when such signs are for the benefit of the public at large?
The final point that I seek some clarification on is as to what constitutes an act that \"obstructs the use of public path\". Given that it is a criminal offence, clarity on what conduct constitutes obstructions would be necessary so that users are aware what and avoid acting in a manner that would run afoul of the law.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon):Madam, as there appears to be an increasing conflict between pedestrians and users of bicycles, Personal Mobility Devices (PMDs) and Power-assisted Bicycles (PADs), it is timely that we start to regulate the use of public paths. While I stand in support of the Bill, I have several concerns to raise.
Can the Senior Minister of State clarify the criteria used for classifying public paths? Will members of the public be able to appeal for the re-classification of public paths? Will the Ministry be monitoring the amount of conflicts on a public path and reviewing the classification? And if so, how often will such reviews be conducted?
I note that bicycles will be allowed on footpaths, shared paths and the road. I remain concerned about allowing bicycles on public paths as I have no doubt that accidents will occur and of course, have already occurred numerous times.
At my last Meet-the-People session, I met a resident who was knocked down from the back by a bicycle. The cyclist did stop and said sorry but immediately rode off, leaving her with a fractured wrist.
I am especially concerned about children using the public paths. They would be more difficult to spot by the cyclists, and accidents will probably result in more serious injuries and they would be more difficult to avoid as their movements are more erratic as they are often playing on the paths. Of course, we can say that parents have to control their children but we know that in reality, this might not be possible at all times.
I do appreciate that we have set speed limits but how will a user of a conventional bicycle know what speed he or she is travelling at? I also appreciate that we have a new team to enforce these new regulations but with a vast amount of public paths, we all know that enforcement will be limited as we simply cannot be everywhere at all times. Can the Senior Minister of State provide further details on how we will keep the public path safe for pedestrians beyond setting a maximum speed limit, unladen weight and width? For example, will it be possible to make it mandatory for all riders to install and switch on their headlights at night on their bicycles, PMDs and PABs especially since the probability of an accident increases when it is dark?
Can we also consider making it compulsory for riders of bicycles, PMDs and PABs to dismount and push their bicycles, PMDs and PABs at crowded areas, for example, near bus stops? Even if the riders keep to the speed limits at these areas, it is unlikely to prevent accidents. It would be much safer for all users if they dismount and push.
Can the Senior Minister of State also clarify if the rules will or can apply to walkways in front of shops and along HDB void decks, lift lobbies and staircases? A resident wrote to me recently; allow me to read out her concerns:
\"I would like to highlight that there have been increasing number of people using bicycles, e-scooters and hover-boards at the walkway along the shops opposite my place. Is there any way to put up signs to advise these riders to dismount front their mobile vehicles when they are at the walkway.
Despite the walk way getting very crowded, there are riders who disregard the safety of pedestrians walking along the shops. They continue to ride on their mobile vehicles to squeeze through the crowd instead of dismounting and pushing their vehicles. I am sure many pedestrians including me have to keep watching our backs as we walk.\"
Next, can the Senior Minister of State clarify, with regards to clause 30, why we are not criminalising one-off sale of non-complaint PMDs and also by wholesale? It would seem like we are creating a loophole in this piece of legislation.
Lastly, I note that the Government had accepted in full the recommendations submitted by the Active Mobility Advisory Panel in March 2016. I welcome the Government's move to include stakeholders in policy-making − in this case, 14 representatives from seniors and grassroots leaders to PMD users and cyclists. This is reminiscent of the Animal Welfare Legislation Review Committee, which I was a part of. I look forward to more of such review and advisory committees being set up to ensure that the policies we enact are by the people and for the people. Madam, the above comments notwithstanding, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Nee Soon):Mdm Speaker, alternative modes of transport benefit Singapore. They help reduce our carbon footprint and shift Singapore towards a car-lite society. They also empower many Singaporeans to go about their chores and carry out their jobs and they also connect us better with nature.
While we want to encourage the use of such devices, more structure has to be in place for their usage. As such, I would like to make three suggestions.
First, it will be great if we can put in place more infrastructure for our mobility devices. LTA aims to transform all HDB estates into cycling towns by 2030. However, funding limitations prevent a more shared paths beyond the key roads. If there is budget room for it, could MOF provide LTA with more funding, especially for HDB towns which have a higher traffic density? I am asking this for all towns but just towns which have higher density.
Second, in private estates with many seniors, public paths need to be adapted to the usage of Personal Mobility Devices and Power-assisted Bicycles. This helps our seniors reach out to key amenities. I hope LTA can allocate a small dedicated budget for such purposes.
In my constituency, Kebun Baru, there is a landed precinct called Teachers Estates. Many retired teachers and residents are giving up their cars as they grow older. Yet, they have difficulty accessing key amenities, especially given the hilly terrain that they live in. They will be deeply appreciative if LTA can adapt footpaths to overcome the hilly terrains, and perhaps create one or two small rain-shelters on their way to key amenities. Again, I am not asking for a large sum but just small sums to examine the link between specific estates with ageing population and key locations.
Secondly, we can do more to raise awareness in the community. The new devices are fairly new to Singapore, and it is necessary for the public to understand how to use them to their own benefit and not to endanger themselves or pedestrians.
To achieve that, we can do a few things. One, include the Active Mobility framework to driver's education because I think the drivers should know how mobility devices and users work as well. Two, work with the Road Safety Council, and cover this topic during excursions to our Road Safety Park for younger riders. Three, advertise in cinemas which will reach out to more younger people. And fourth, engage in merging social media platforms such as Mothership or even SGAG.
Third of all, I think we should also ensure affordable devices are available while we push for stronger safety standards. For example, LTA recently tightened the device standards to exclude PABs with throttles so as to improve public safety. But for a period of time, there was difficulty in finding affordable alternatives that fit the tightened standards.
So, I strongly urge LTA to prioritise identifying and approving affordable PABs and PMDs that meets our device criteria, so that they can quickly benefit our people and our seniors. It would also be good if LTA can publish the entire approved list of devices online.
While LTA moves from throttle to throttle-less, what happens is that the ones available on the market are largely China-made ones. And now, they are excluded. For a brief moment of time, they were being excluded from being purchased. The consumers were suddenly left with buying much more expensive PABs. I know LTA is working hard to identify and approve the lower cost ones from other parts of the world, but I hope that LTA can do more and move quickly to approve those.
Finally, we want to encourage users of mobility devices, but certain penalties include a fine and or imprisonment which appears very serious. Can LTA elaborate on the circumstances that will usually entail a jail sentence?
In conclusion, the Active Mobility Bill will benefit riders and pedestrians. To allow us to tap on the Bill's full potential, we will need to create more infrastructure, raise awareness, and ensure safe but affordable options. I stand in support of the Bill.
Mrs Josephine Teo:Mdm Speaker, I thank Members for their helpful suggestions and support of the Bill. There has been more than a dozen Members who have spoken and it will take me a bit of time to respond to as many of the questions that had been raised as possible. So, I hope that Members will bear with me.
A common concern voiced by Members is the need to protect users of public paths against dangerous conduct by a minority of reckless users. At the same time, Members acknowledge the many benefits when bicycles and PMDs are used responsibly. We should therefore aim to strike a balance with rules which offer good protection and yet enable the vast majority of responsible cyclists and PMD users to continue riding on public paths.
This Bill gives legal effect to an initial set of rules that aims to do just that. I stress that it is an initial set of rules. As they are implemented and with the benefit of experience, they can be refined in the future. In that spirit, I would like to share our present views on Members' suggestions.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin and other Members asked if we can do more to ensure that victims involved in accidents are assured of compensation. Mr Sitoh, together with Mr Zainal Sapari, Mr Melvin Yong and Ms Joan Pereira suggested mandating third-party insurance.
I understand Members' concerns. Let me say that every accident is one too many and our hearts really go out to the victims when they meet with such unfortunate circumstances. Mr Zainal Sapari shared with us the heart-wrenching circumstances of his resident.
In accidents involving serious injuries and damages, like Mdm Ang's case, the Police will investigate. That is a commitment. If a cyclist or PMD user is found to be at fault, he may be prosecuted and the court will consider if compensation should be paid, in addition to all the other penalties that the perpetrator will be liable for. By laying down the rules and code of conduct for cyclists and PMD users, this Bill will facilitate the court process.
In addition, we encourage frequent cyclists and PMD users to buy third-party insurance which is already available in the market. For now, such insurance will not be mandatory. This recognises the fact that there is a broad range of cyclists and PMD users − from those who cycle long distances daily, to those who use it occasionally for short errands; from very young children and working people, to seniors; and from the more affluent, to the less well-off who see cycling as an affordable means of getting around.
Insurance comes at some cost − not an insignificant amount − and it is not clear right now who should be targeted for mandatory insurance. Cities with a strong culture of active mobility, such as Amsterdam and Copenhagen, likewise do not mandate insurance, but instead focus on cultivating safe and responsible behaviours.
Miss Cheryl Chan asked what pedestrians can do in hit-and-run accidents, if there are no witnesses present. Pedestrians should note down the description of the device and the user and make a Police report as soon as possible, so that the Police can investigate. To deter hit-and-run accidents, we have also made it an offence if a cyclist, PMD user or PAB user fails to stop and render assistance and report the accident to the Police. It is a serious offence. Convicted offenders are liable to a fine of up to $3,000, or imprisonment up to 12 months, or both. It is a serious offence; that is why there is a possibility of a jail term.
Let me turn now to infrastructure. Mr Melvin Yong asked whether we will stipulate guidelines on the minimum width of public paths. New footpaths will be at least 1.8m wide, an increase from today's 1.5m. The network of dedicated cycling paths, which we all acknowledge is really the ideal, will nearly double to 700km. These will be around 2m wide for intra-town paths and 2.5m for inter-town paths.
It will take time, but we will certainly look into expanding the network of cycling paths and widened footpaths, and also the options available in private or mature estates, which Mr Henry Kwek and Mr Kok Heng Leun recommended, together with \"ride-calming\" measures which Mr Ang Hin Kee suggested. The Bill will also give LTA the necessary powers to remove obstructions from our public paths to make sure that pedestrians, cyclists and users of PABs and PMDs are able to use the widened paths fully, an issue which Miss Cheryl Chan raised.
Mr Kok had asked what is meant by obstructions. Basically, things that are left there that would cause users of the paths to have to try and, in Hokkien, we say \"siam\" (get out of the way). If you make people \"siam\", you are causing an obstruction; I think we can understand that.
Dr Teo Ho Pin asked how the Bill will affect Town Councils, since public paths include common property managed by Town Councils. Town Councils will continue to maintain these paths; there is no change to this. As the lead agency for active mobility, LTA will enforce against offences on public paths including those within Town Councils' common property, to ensure that the application of the rules is consistent and minimise confusion. We accept that this will be our responsibility. Dr Teo will appreciate that this is not an easy task; LTA will engage Town Councils to see how their by-laws can be aligned with this Bill, and also how Town Councils and LTA can work together to strengthen enforcement.
In the same way, LTA cannot compel private land owners to allow paths of their land to become public paths, unless they agree to do so. This was a clarification sought by Mr Kok Heng Leun. If however the private land owners enter into an access agreement with LTA and allow part of their private land to be converted into public paths, they like Town Councils, still retain the responsibility for maintenance and liability. It is dependent on whether they agree with this arrangement. They have a say in this matter.
Mr Louis Ng, Mr Ang Hin Kee and Dr Teo Ho Pin commented on the classification of public paths. We have categorised the various types of paths based on their design. Cycling paths, park connectors and shared paths are wider. The use of bicycles, PMDs and PABs will therefore be allowed, and these will be marked clearly at regular intervals and at cross junctions. As Mr Melvin Yong noted, this will enhance safety for the riders.
All other paths will be considered footpaths, where bicycles and PMDs are allowed but not PABs, and the speed limit is lower at 15 km/h. Which I had mentioned earlier. It is roughly how fast you can run. That is quite a useful gauge.
There will also be certain locations where cycling and the use of PMDs and PABs are unsafe and banned, and riders must dismount, such as pedestrian overhead bridges and elevated bridges with low railing heights or steep ramps. These will be marked by signs at the entrances and exits of the bridges.
To address Assoc Prof Randolph Tan's query, these rules must be followed strictly and exceptions are only allowed when it is unsafe or impossible to do so, for example, if there are obstructions on the paths which riders are supposed to use but you have to \"siam\".
Miss Cheryl Chan will be pleased to know that pedestrians, wheelchairs and mobility scooters will be allowed on all types of public paths, to ensure that they have the maximum freedom and connectivity. To avoid confusing the public, we do not expect to make significant changes to the way paths are classified, but we will closely monitor accident statistics and public feedback, and adjust the classification of certain locations if necessary.
Let me turn now to a clarification sought by Mr Pritam Singh. Skates are relatively small and unlike skate scooters which are larger. They have less potential to cause injury. Therefore, pedestrians wearing skates can use pedestrian-only paths.
Members have also suggested how some of the regulations can be further tightened. Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked if there could be a minimum age limit for users of PMDs or have varying age limits for different types of PMDs, while Mr Zainal Sapari suggested an age criteria for riding PABs on roads.
During patrols conducted in the last few months, LTA has stopped several hundred errant cyclists and PMD users. The offenders come from all age groups and it is now clear that safety-consciousness is not a matter of age. It is therefore important to focus on education and enforcement, to ensure that all PMD users, regardless of age, are aware of the rules and use PMDs in a safe manner. In this regard, I agree that we should start teaching safe cycling and good riding habits from a young age. We must start when they are young and they are just learning for the first time. Which is why students are one of our key target groups for LTA's Safe Cycling Programme.
Mr Zainal Sapari and Mr Melvin Yong suggested that the Bill require active mobility users to wear protective gear. The law already requires PAB users to wear helmets when riding on roads, because of the speed at which these motorised devices can travel and the higher level of danger when interacting with cars and heavy transport. PMDs are not allowed on roads, and so the same consideration does not apply. When cycling or riding on paths where it is relatively safer, the use of helmets is not mandatory but certainly recommended in the code of conduct.
Mdm Speaker, with your permission, I would like to get the Clerks to help distribute a set of infographics that we have prepared that show what the code of conduct looks like.
Mdm Speaker :\tYes, please. [\tCopies of the document were handed out to hon Members\t]
Mrs Josephine Teo:What I am distributing an infographic that shows the regulations as well as the Code of Conduct when reading on paths as well as on roads. Mr Louis Ng and Mr Melvin Yong asked whether cyclists, PMD users and PAB users must be equipped with lights during hours of darkness. This is already a requirement under the law for bicycles and PABs, and will be extended to PMDs. So, if I could refer Members to the second page where the title says \"When riding on paths (proposed regulations)\". If you look at the top right picture, it says \"switch on front white lights and rear red lights in the dark\". Now, when is it dark? We have to apply our judgement.
Mr Ang Hin Kee suggested that we ban the use of bicycles and PABs on certain roads with high speed limits and heavy vehicular traffic. This is a sensible suggestion. We already prohibit cycling on expressways and on certain roads where there are safety concerns, such as the Fort Canning Road tunnel. Naturally, this rule should be extended to PABs as well. To address Assoc Prof Randolph Tan's concern, the existing regulations also require cyclists and PAB users riding on the roads to signal their intentions in time to give other road users enough time to react. This is already a requirement.
Ms Joan Pereira and Dr Teo Ho Pin asked if we could extend mandatory registration to more types of devices, to facilitate investigations. We will be requiring all PABs to be registered and carry registration plates, as they are more prone to illegal modification to achieve high speeds on roads. We will monitor the situation, and if justified, consider extending registration to all motorised devices.
Mr Henry Kwek and Miss Cheryl Chan as well as Mr Pritam Singh sought clarifications regarding the regulations for sellers of non-compliant devices. I should first point out that clause 34 clearly bans the sale of non-compliant devices for use on public paths, and this provision applies to all commercial sales, which Mr Ang Hin Kee supports.
As Mr Ang correctly points out, sellers have a duty to educate buyers. Clauses 33 and 34 therefore require sellers to prove they have advised buyers accordingly. This is part of their duty to educate the public.
The objective of clause 30, which makes it an offence to openly display non-compliant PMDs, is to target those who attempt to retail such devices directly to consumers. It does not apply to one-off sales, such as the sale of a second-hand device from one individual to another, or wholesale trade, as devices sold through these channels may not be intended for use on our public paths.
Clause 20, which Mr Dennis Tan sought clarification on, gives the Government flexibility to accept certain devices from the roads if they merit exception as new models emerge. We have no plans to do so but the flexibility is there.
There was a question: why do we not simply ban the importation of non-compliant devices? I can understand that our instinct is to say, just ban it; make it easier, straightforward. But firstly, there is no reason to ban the use of such non-compliant devices on private property on private land. It is not likely that many people will do so but if indeed, there are people who want to do that, there is no reason to ban it. Furthermore, it would impede international trade. It may be excessive, it may be hard to even pass muster with the trade agreements that we are a part of.
Miss Cheryl Chan and Mr Melvin Yong asked whether our regulations apply to online sellers. Let me be very clear that online retailers are subject to the same rules, but also acknowledge that there are practical challenges in enforcing against them, especially those that are not based in Singapore. Nevertheless, we will enforce strictly against the users of non-compliant devices on public paths. Those found using non-compliant devices on public paths are liable upon conviction to a fine of up to $5,000, or three months of imprisonment, or both. Non-compliant devices are also liable to seizure and forfeiture. The harsh penalties serve as a deterrence against buying these devices, whether from online or brick-and-mortar shops. For consistency and protection of all path users, we cannot offer a one-off amnesty to existing non-compliant devices. I hope Mr Dennis Tan can support such a stand.
Clauses 26 and 27, the intention is really not to impose cost but to share responsibility and ensure that private developers as well as building owners take ownership of the signages and the way-finding. In addition, they are quite similar to existing requirements that BCA and URA imposes. So, there is nothing very new about it.
Many Members, including Mr Dennis Tan, have called for strong enforcement, and asked how LTA plans to step it up. LTA's enforcement officers target hotspot areas, such as near crowded bus-stops and traffic junctions, where there is high interaction between pedestrians, cyclists and PMD users. LTA officers are also deployed in response to public feedback about problem areas.
Currently, we have a team of 16 Active Mobility Enforcement Officers and this will be increased progressively. To complement their efforts, LTA will examine how best to deploy technologies such as speed guns and CCTV cameras. Our officers will also be supported by more than 600 volunteers from the grassroots, whose enforcement powers include documenting photo and video evidence and obtaining personal particulars from suspected offenders. These volunteers will be trained on the scope of their enforcement powers, how to record evidence, as well as key communication skills, which Assoc Prof Randolph Tan spoke about, such as how to engage errant cyclists and PMD users and educate the public about safe behaviour while riding on public paths.
Mr Zainal Sapari suggested imposing harsh penalties for active mobility users riding under the influence of alcohol. Let me be absolutely clear − we have zero tolerance towards such irresponsible behaviour. Users found cycling or using PMDs and PABs under the influence of alcohol on public paths will be charged for reckless riding, and are liable upon conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment up to six months, or both.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin suggested imposing higher penalties for recalcitrant offenders for deterrence. We agree and the Bill stipulates significantly higher penalties for repeat offenders. For example, those caught repeatedly for speeding on public paths are liable to a fine not exceeding $2,000 or imprisonment of up to six months, or both. This is twice the penalty for first-time offenders.
While Mr Henry Kwek commented that imprisonment may be a harsh punishment, in some cases, this may be justified, as the offences could lead to injury or even death. The courts will decide on the sentencing based on the facts of the case. In addition to on-road accidents, we will also keep track of off-road accidents, to better study trends and make adjustments to the rules and penalties as necessary.
Mr Louis Ng asked how cyclists, PMD users and PAB users would know their speeds. They can purchase a speedometer for their devices, or download free or low-cost mobile apps that function speedometers. Some devices also come pre-installed with speedometers. But I should add that if in the first place they did not buy a non-compliant device, the risk of violating the speed limits is low. Notwithstanding the speed limits, cyclists, PMD users and PAB users should always put safety first; they should make it a habit to be cautious especially in crowded areas, and dismount whenever and wherever necessary. They will do well to remember Mr Kok reminded us earlier − his comments about civility.
Several Members asked whether we should require users of motorised devices to attend compulsory road safety courses and to educate active mobility users on basic road safety. This is a good suggestion. We will introduce the Safe Cycling Programme this year to educate cyclists and PMD users on safe practices, proper use of active mobility infrastructure, and the new rules and code of conduct. Offenders of compoundable offences, such as reckless riding, may also be required to attend the Safe Cycling Programme as one of the conditions of composition.
Miss Cheryl Chan and Mr Dennis Tan suggested that the Government steps up and sustain our education efforts. We agree and we have introduced many initiatives to educate the public about safety. For example, LTA launched the Safe Riders Campaign in April 2016 to raise awareness about safe and gracious sharing of paths. It has conducted engagement sessions with community leaders, retailers and interest groups, so that they can help spread the safe riding message.
Following the passing of the Bill, the rules will be publicised widely through easy-to-understand infographics, which I distributed earlier, and disseminated through newspaper advertisements, social media, as well as pamphlets and posters. LTA is also working closely with major PMD retailers to educate consumers. Mr Henry Kwek helpfully suggested a number of mass media and social media platforms to publicise our messages. We will explore these options.
We have also enlisted the help of volunteers under our Active Mobility Patrol scheme, who have been patrolling neighbourhoods to spread the message of safety. We already have the support of 37 constituencies and one NGO who together have rallied some 600 volunteers. I hope to count on your support to expand these efforts.
Before closing, I will briefly respond in Mandarin to comments made by Mr Ang Hin Kee.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Ang Hin Kee has raised several valuable suggestions. We should indeed regulate importers and retailers of PABs and PMDs strictly; and we should punish those retailers that sell non-compliant devices and workshops that illegally modify devices to ensure that motorised devices used in Singapore meet our safety standards. We treat all sellers equally; however, it is more challenging to enforce against overseas online retailers. Nevertheless, we will mete out stiff penalties to those who buy non-compliant devices and use them on public paths in Singapore, as deterrence.
We should also step up on our plans to build more public infrastructure so that it will be more convenient for users to park, use and store their devices. In the next few years, LTA will build more bicycle parking lots island-wide. At present, we do not have storage facilities specifically designed for PMDs. However, PMDs tend to be small and light, and most users carry them around. With the number of PMD users increasing and more varieties of PMDs becoming available, we will consider adding appropriate storage facilities for them.
Besides this, Mr Ang Hin Kee also stressed the importance of increasing safety awareness among the public. I fully agree with this and I urge all Members to help spread the message of our new rules and regulations, and encourage more residents to join our team of active mobility volunteers.
I thank all Members for supporting this Bill. In the next few years, MOT and LTA will closely monitor the increasing usage of active mobility devices, and continuously refine our rules and regulations based on public feedback.
(In English): This Bill seeks to ensure that safety on our public paths is not compromised, even as we encourage active mobility. I would like to thank Members for their constructive feedback and valuable suggestions. We will keep an open mind and continue to review our rules.
As I noted earlier, this is unlikely to be the final set of regulations for active mobility. Parliamentary Secretary Assoc Prof Faishal Ibrahim has kindly agreed to continue to lead the Active Mobility Advisory Panel. He has told me that he is keen for the Panel to look further into the many thoughtful suggestions raised by Members today and other members of the public. I wish to thank him and the Panel members in advance, and look forward to hearing their recommendations for improvement in good time.
Over time, I believe we can build a stronger culture of safety and graciousness. It will not happen overnight but with determination and a willingness to adjust the rules, the benefits of active mobility can become widely available for all Singaporeans to enjoy. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mrs Josephine Teo].
Bill considered in Committee.
[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]
The Chairman:The citation year \"2016\" will be changed to \"2017\", as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.
Clauses 1 to 52 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 53 −
The Chairman\t:\tClause 53. There are two amendments standing on the Order Paper Supplement. Senior Minister of State.
Mrs Josephine Teo:Mdm Speaker, I beg to move the amendments* standing in my name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.
*The amendments read as follows:
\"In page 57, line 31: to leave out '(2)', and insert '(3)'.
\"In page 58, line 6: to leave out '(2)', and insert '(3)'.\"
Amendments agreed to.
Clause 53, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 54 to 60 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 61 −
The Chairman :\tClause 61. Senior Minister of State.
Mrs Josephine Teo:Mdm Speaker, I beg to move the amendment* standing in my name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.
*The amendment reads as follows:
\"In page 64, line 30: to leave out 'of' where it secondly occurs, and insert 'or'\".
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 61, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 62 to 72 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed.\" — [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien].
Adjourned accordingly at 6.53 pm
to a date to be fixed.
20 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport in respect of the recent signalling problems with the Circle Line caused by signal interference, what measures will be taken to ensure that commuters are not inconvenienced by the same signalling problems again.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The signalling problem experienced on the Circle Line was caused by a hardware malfunction on one of the trains. The faulty component has been replaced and the train has since been returned to service under close supervision. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) is working with the signalling equipment manufacturer ALSTOM to determine why the component failed, and whether the problem extends to the entire batch of components manufactured. If so, LTA will require ALSTOM to replace all of them.
Based on the findings, LTA will also develop targeted measures to prevent an occurrence of similar problems on both the Circle Line and North-East Line, which use older signalling systems. LTA is also exploring ways to improve the general resilience of these systems. This includes shielding the signalling antenna against spurious signals, incorporating a feature for a backup antenna if the primary one encounters interference, and improving the signal transmission protocol.
The newer signalling systems used for the Downtown Line, and to be installed for the North-South and East-West Lines and the Thomson-East Coast Line, would not be affected by the signalling problem experienced by the Circle Line as they have enhanced redundancy features to guard against signal interference.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Feedback from Implementation of Courtesy Crossing under Silver Zone Initiative","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"21 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the positive and negative experience and feedback gathered on the implementation of the \"Courtesy Crossing\" under the Silver Zone initiative; and (b) what is the number of Silver Zones with public bus stops but with no bus lay-by.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The feedback on the courtesy crossing has been mostly positive. We have also received some feedback from users who are unsure about how to use these crossings. We will continue to publicise and educate pedestrians and motorists on how to use these crossings.
Eight of our nine Silver Zones today contain public bus stops with no bus lay-by. The majority of these bus stops are on two-lane roads. For those that are on one lane roads, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has assessed that the impediment to traffic is only momentary, even with the Silver Zone measures.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Simpler Language in Skills Training Course Materials to Cater to Older Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"22 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) whether skills training course materials are vetted for plain and simple language so as to keep courses as open as possible to older workers with limited language skills.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: SSG has a quality assurance system in place to ensure that the development and delivery of WSQ courses and the assessment of trainees meet required standards. SSG also conducts regular audits to ensure that the accredited training providers continue to have robust systems in place to deliver quality training.
Having said that, while SSG regulates the skills standards, how the lessons are conducted and what training materials to use, are the responsibility of training providers. Such an approach allows more scope for innovation and differentiation in training products, and more market competition. Some methods that training providers have employed include the use of simple phrases in the course materials, oral assessments, pictures, videos and/or demonstrations to illustrate certain concepts. Training providers are also encouraged to contextualise their courses to meet their learners’ needs.
In addition, given that basic literacy and numeracy skills are critical for employability, SSG has worked with training providers to develop the Workplace Literacy and Workplace Numeracy programmes under the WSQ system. Workers who face language barriers can better equip themselves through such training to undertake the wider range of training opportunities, and better apply their skills in the workplace.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Duration of Government Contracts for Clean, Green and Safe Sectors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"24 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Finance (a) what is the average length of Government agencies' contracts for procurement services in the three traditionally outsourced clean, green and safe sectors; (b) what has been the shortest and longest contracts that have been given out by the Government; and (c) how does the Government determine the appropriate length for each of the contracts.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Contract periods vary depending on factors such as the needs of the buyer agency, the scale or complexity of the contract and industry acceptance.
Among the three sectors, the shortest contract in the past three years was a transitional cleaning contract. It was for a period of six months and is an exception as the agency was to be relocated after that. The longest contract awarded was for seven years, as the Government agency had assessed that a longer contract was needed to enable the service provider to recoup the high capital investments needed for the contract.
While longer contracts allow service providers more time to get familiar with the contractual requirements, and justify investments in equipment or technology, contracts that are too long can introduce business risks for service providers and can be unattractive to them. So a balance needs to be struck. The vast majority of contracts in the cleaning, security and landscaping sectors have a base period of between two to five years, with an average duration of about 2.7 years. In addition, many contracts also come with options to extend for a pre-determined duration if the service provider has done well, and the needs of the agency have not changed. For instance, a cleaning contract can have a base period of three years, with an option to extend for another two years.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Age Limit for Clinical Trial for Pre-implantation Genetic Screening","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the reasons for setting the criteria disallowing women below the age of 35 to take part in the three-year clinical trial for Pre-Implantation Genetic Screening (PGS); (b) whether the Ministry will consider lowering this age limit for women; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider allowing women below the age of 35 to take part on a case-by-case basis.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Pre-Implantation Genetic Screening (PGS) is a test for chromosomal abnormalities in embryos created through in vitro fertilisation (IVF), before the embryos are implanted into the uterus. MOH recently approved a three-year pilot for PGS. This will commence at the National University Hospital (NUH) in 2017.
Under the pilot programme, patients who fulfil at least one of the following clinical criteria will be eligible
a. Age 35 years old and above, regardless of prognosis
b. Two or more recurrent implantation failures, regardless of age
c. Two or more recurrent pregnancy losses, regardless of age
In other words, women of any age can participate in the pilot if they have had two or more recurrent implantation failures or pregnancy losses. For those without recurrent implantation failures or pregnancy losses, the minimum age is set at 35 years. This is because literature evidence and overseas experience have shown that the chance of a baby born with chromosomal abnormalities for mothers aged 35 and above is significantly higher. Countries such as the UK and Canada have similarly recommended that PGS be made available to women aged 35 years and above, regardless of prognosis.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Foreign Domestic Workers who have Undergone Basic Eldercare Course","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"26 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Health (a) how many foreign domestic workers (FDWs) have undergone the Agency for Integrated Care's Basic Eldercare Course; (b) what percentage of FDWs subsidised by the FDW grant and who are caring for elderly Singaporeans have undergone the course; and (c) how many FDWs have been trained under the eldercarer training scheme and have been deployed.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Government has several schemes to support households with seniors with caregiving needs. For example, the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) administers the Caregiver’s Training Grant (CTG), which has been in place since 2007. This provides caregivers, including Foreign Domestic Workers (FDW), with up to $200 each year to attend suitable training courses on useful caregiving skills. To date, about 37,000 caregivers, including around 20,000 FDWs, have benefited from the CTG.
The FDW Grant (FDWG), which was introduced in 2012, supports lower and middle income families who need to hire a FDW to care for frail seniors and persons with moderate disabilities with a monthly grant of $120. 6,800 households caring for seniors are currently receiving the FDWG and all of them have either attended a CTG-approved course, or have received training at the hospitals. Of these, 4,400 tapped on the CTG for the training.
The Basic Eldercare Course is one of the courses supported under the CTG. It is a relatively new course that was started in late 2015. Since then, 167 FDWs have attended the course. Of these, 52 were employed by households also receiving the FDWG.
Leveraging on the Basic Eldercare Course, MOH and AIC started the Eldercarer FDW Scheme in November 2016. This enables households to employ FDWs who have been pre-trained in eldercare prior to placements with the families. Over two months, about 30 FDWs have been trained under the scheme, of which 25 have been placed with families. MOH and AIC are working with employment agencies, and healthcare and social service organisations to raise awareness of this new scheme so that we can serve more families with eldercare needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Government Measures to Support Building and Construction Industry Slowdown","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"29 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development what measures will the Government take to support the building and construction industry which is facing challenging times in the face of an economic slowdown.
Mr Lawrence Wong: We understand the concerns about the slowdown in construction demand in 2016. At $26 billion, the quantum of building and civil engineering contracts in 2016 was $1 billion less than 2015. The contraction came from reduced private sector demand. But this was partially offset by strong public sector demand.
Total construction demand this year is projected to be between $28 to $35 billion. This is more than 2016. However, private sector demand is expected to remain subdued. The Government will help offset this shortfall by pushing out a pipeline of public sector projects. In doing so, public sector demand may increase to almost 70% of total construction demand this year. Significant public sector projects that we will roll out include phase 2 of the Deep Tunnel Sewerage System, the North-South Corridor, Changi Airport Terminal 5, and new MRT lines.
In tandem, we will continue to assist firms through various funding support schemes to help them adopt productive technologies and upgrade their workforce capabilities. Almost $800 million has been made available to firms through the Construction Productivity and Capability Fund (CPCF). As of November 2016, more than $420 million has been committed to fund projects by more than 8,600 firms in the built environment sector. Around 90% of these companies are small and medium-sized firms.
We will also do more to help our firms venture overseas. In the past three years, Singapore contractors managed to clinch an average of $1.7 billion per year in overseas projects. This is very encouraging but there is potential for even more growth given the increasing regional demand for quality housing and infrastructure. Internationalisation will be one of the focus areas for the Industry Transformation Map (ITM) for the construction sector that MND and BCA are currently developing with our industry.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review Width of Footpaths Given Shared Usage by Pedestrians, Cyclists and Users of Personal Mobility Devices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"31 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport given that bicycles and personal mobility devices (PMDs) will share the use of footpaths together with pedestrians (a) what are the criteria used to determine whether an existing footpath will be widened; (b) what is the recommended minimum width for footpaths to ensure safe shared usage between cyclists and pedestrians; and (c) whether Ministry will conduct an islandwide review to ensure that existing footpaths which are often used by cyclists and PMD users are widened in accordance with this minimum width.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Today, most of our footpaths are at least 1.5 metres wide. Footpaths near town centres and MRT stations are generally wider, between 2.4 metres and 3.6 metres, to accommodate more pedestrians and cyclists. It is not always possible to widen footpaths, due to site constraints like existing trees and utilities. LTA also builds dedicated cycling lanes, which are generally 2 metres wide. More of such lanes will be built as part of our plans to have a cycling path network in every HDB town by 2030.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Payment for Failed ERP Deductions without Incurring Administrative Fee","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Transport whether he will consider allowing motorists to make payments for failed ERP deductions electronically within a reasonable period of time after the failed deduction without incurring the administrative fee or incurring a less punitive fee.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Motorists who make good their failed ERP deductions within two weeks of the date of the letter from LTA are required to pay an administrative fee to cover the cost of processing the ERP violation, notification and payment. This fee is $10 if they make their payment through cash or cheque, and $8 if they make the payment electronically as the administrative cost incurred is lower. It will not be fair for taxpayers to bear these costs on the motorists’ behalf.
To avoid incurring such costs for failed ERP deductions, motorists should sign up to payment services such as Motorpay, vCashCard or EZ-Pay. Using such services, motorists do not need to insert a cash-card into their car’s in-vehicle unit before they pass under an ERP gantry. ERP charges are automatically charged to their credit card based on the ERP system’s identification of the in-vehicle unit.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Source of Distributed Denial of Service Attack on StarHub in October 2016","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Leon Perera asked the Prime Minister (a) whether the Cyber Security Agency (CSA) has identified the possible source responsible for the Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack on StarHub in October 2016; (b) what response the CSA and the Government intend to take against the person or entities responsible; and (c) what steps the CSA and the Government intend to take to prevent and mitigate similar attacks in future.
Mr Lee Hsien Loong: The Infocommunications Media Development Authority (IMDA) takes a serious view of the disruptions to StarHub’s residential broadband services on 22 and 24 October 2016. Joint investigations by IMDA and the Cyber Security Agency (CSA) are nearing completion, and findings will be released soon.
Cybersecurity is increasingly important, given Singapore’s reliance on digital technologies and the interconnectedness of digital systems. Collective effort from the Government, industry and the public is needed to build a resilient and trusted cyber environment.
As the regulatory authority for the telecommunications sector, IMDA places stringent standards and requirements on our Internet Service Providers to ensure that their networks are resilient against cyber disruptions. Companies too, must ensure that they have robust and resilient systems, and measures to quickly detect and respond to any disruptions, to minimise the inconvenience to their customers. Users of Internet-connected devices should also adopt good cyber hygiene practices to secure their devices. While there is no fool-proof solution, we must all work together to strengthen our cyber resilience.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Employment Eligibility in Police, Auxiliary Police and Private Security Industry","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Government has changed its policy on restricting eligibility for employment in the police, auxiliary police and private security industry to Singaporeans, permanent residents and Malaysians; (b) if so, which additional source countries have been approved for each of the three sectors respectively, and from which effective dates; and (c) what is the prevailing quota or dependency ratio ceiling set by the Government, if any, for the employment of foreigners to Singaporeans for each sector respectively.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Singapore Police Force’s current practice has been to recruit Singaporeans and Permanent Residents (PRs) as police officers. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) requires the majority of Auxiliary Police Officers (APOs) in the Auxiliary Police Forces (APFs) and security officers in the private security industry to be Singaporeans. The APFs and security companies are also required to adhere to the dependency ratio ceiling set by MOM. For APOs, Malaysia had been the only approved foreign source country.
Demand for APOs is growing due to new infrastructure such as Changi Airport Terminal 4 and Tuas Terminal, and heightened security threats. It is estimated that another 600 APOs will be required over the next few years. The APFs have indicated that they will not be able to recruit sufficient suitable Singaporeans to meet this projected demand. In the last five years, despite their best efforts the APFs have only been able to expand the pool of Singaporean APOs by 250 officers.
To meet the growing demand, APFs are exploring Taiwan as a possible source for APOs. MHA has decided to allow the APFs to recruit Taiwanese APOs to supplement the current pool of Singaporean and Malaysian APOs.
These Taiwanese APOs are required to meet the same training, education and physical fitness criteria as imposed on Singaporean and Malaysian APOs. In addition, the Taiwanese APOs must be able to communicate in English and pass an English proficiency test. Their specific deployment will be determined based on our risk assessment and operational requirements.
MHA will assess and review the performance of the Taiwanese APOs after they have been deployed for a period of time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":1377,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular by Mr Thomas Chua Kee Seng","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20170110/vernacular-Thomas Chu(1).pdf","fileName":"Thomas Chu(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":1378,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular by Mr Gan Thiam Poh","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20170110/vernacular-Gan Thiam Poh(1).pdf","fileName":"Gan Thiam Poh(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":1379,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular by Dr Lam Pin Min","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20170110/vernacular-Lam Pin Min(1).pdf","fileName":"Lam Pin Min(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":578,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular by Ms Joan Pereira","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20170110/vernacular-Joan Pereira(1).pdf","fileName":"Joan Pereira(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":579,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular by Mr Ang Hin Kee","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20170110/vernacular-Ang Hin Kee(1).pdf","fileName":"Ang Hin Kee(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":580,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular by Mr Zainal Sapari","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20170110/vernacular-Zainal Sapari(1).pdf","fileName":"Zainal Sapari(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":581,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular by Mrs Josephine Teo","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20170110/vernacular-Josephine Teo(1).pdf","fileName":"Josephine Teo(1).pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}