1 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Health how is it that a shipment of the Sinovac vaccine arrives in Singapore before the vaccine has been approved for use by HSA.
2 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the progress of the vaccine evaluation by HSA for Sinovac; and (b) whether the advance purchase agreement for Sinovac is still valid.
3 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health in light of the new COVID-19 cluster announced on 14 April 2021 (a) whether a review will be done on the quarantine requirements and controlled itineraries for incoming business travellers; (b) whether there are special measures for workplaces to manage short-term visit pass holders to protect other employees; and (c) whether this incident will result in a review on allowing workers to return to offices, particularly those from overseas.
4 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health as Singapore continues to see instances of foreign arrivals and visitors infected with COVID-19 (a) what is the Ministry's position on arrivals from countries with high numbers of COVID-19 cases; and (b) how will the Ministry strengthen our upstream measures to prevent COVID-19 spread from imported cases.
5 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Health from the COVID-19 cases emanating from overseas arrivals in the past six months (a) which are the three countries that accounted for the most number of cases; (b) what recourse can Singapore take with their respective Governments to address this; (c) at what point will Singapore suspend travellers from these countries; and (d) what other enhanced measures can the Ministry take to ensure imported cases of COVID-19 variants do not emerge in Singapore.
6 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider a temporary travel ban from countries considered extremely high risk due to the emergence of highly virulent mutations of the COVID-19 virus.
7 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry is satisfied with the current rate of COVID-19 vaccination; (b) what more can be done to further encourage vaccination amongst those who have not registered; and (c) whether there are any concerns on the possible efficacy of the vaccines against the new variants of the COVID-19 virus.
8 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Government will more proactively tighten travel and arrivals from countries with sharp emergence of COVID-19 infected cases and more infectious variants; and (b) whether there is a need to step up Stay-Home Notice measures and testing regimes for visitors from these locations.
9 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Health (a) to date, how many Singapore citizens have completed the full COVID-19 vaccination; (b) how many suspected adverse reaction cases have been encountered when administering the vaccination regime compared with the performance of Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in other countries; and (c) whether there are plans to re-vaccinate all Singapore residents after a stipulated period after the full vaccination regime has been completed.
10 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Health (a) when did the Ministry detect the first cases for each of the seven reported COVID-19 variants; and (b) whether the eight local cases of COVID-19 variants are related to the imported cases.
11 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Health (a) how is the quota system for foreign arrivals by country determined; (b) what is the breakdown by profession of the imported COVID-19 cases; (c) why has there been no action taken throughout these months despite the thousands of imported cases that have come into Singapore; and (d) what is the possibility of Indian residents gaining entry via Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal.
12 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Health in the light of recent cases where migrant workers who have recovered from COVID-19 are subsequently found to have been re-infected, whether this has any implications for the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccination.
13 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health whether children under 16 years of age can be included in the COVID-19 vaccination programme.
14 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for Health in light of the recent infections of individuals who have been vaccinated, what are the key areas that the Ministry will be reviewing for its COVID-19 vaccination programme to ensure the vaccination remains effective for the population.
15 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Health (a) to date, how many claims have been made under the Vaccine Injury Financial Assistance Programme; (b) what is the nature of the injuries claimed for; and (c) how many claims have been allowed to date.
16 Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Minister for Health with the resurgence of COVID-19 infections and the appearance of the virus variants in various countries, whether our current measures are adequate to protect and keep Singapore and Singaporeans safe.
17 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Health (a) how many people have been tested positive for COVID-19 despite having taken two doses of the vaccine or have had prior COVID-19 infection; (b) how many people in Singapore have taken one and two doses of the vaccine respectively as of April 2021; (c) whether the Government is planning for the third dose of the vaccine; and (d) what is the progress on approving the use of other COVID-19 vaccines in Singapore besides the current two approved vaccines.
18 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Health whether there are current studies by the health authorities to ensure that the currently approved COVID-19 vaccines do not have the rare blood clot risk seen in other vaccines in use in other parts of the world.
19 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Health (a) what strategies has the Ministry put in place to address COVID-19 vaccination-related misinformation transmitted through online channels and closed-messaging platforms; and (b) whether the Ministry plans to put up information on adverse vaccination cases recorded in Singapore so as to address the inadvertent dissemination of misinformation.
\tThe Minister for Health (Mr Gan Kim Yong): Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your permission to address Oral Question Nos 1 to 19, as well as Written Question Nos 19 to 23 in today's Order Paper through the Ministerial Statements which will be delivered at tomorrow's Sitting, Sir.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, I give my consent. That leads us on to Question No 20, Mr Darryl David.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Sustainability of Local Print News Industry amidst Shift Towards Digital News","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"20 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Communications and Information whether the Government has any plans to ensure the sustainability of our local print news industry amidst the shift towards digital news and increased competition from international news brands.
21 Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) what has been the impact of changes in the overall media landscape on our local print news industry; and (b) what will the Government do to support our local print news industry.
The Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Communications and Information): Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of Minister Iswaran, can we seek your permission to address Question Nos 20 and 21 in a Ministerial Statement to be delivered by Minister Iswaran later today, please.
\t\tMr Deputy Speaker: I give my consent. That leads us on to Question No 22, Mr Murali Pillai.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Aggregate Dollar Value Dollar Value of Corruption Cases Investigated or Prosecuted in 2020","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"22 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Prime Minister (a) what is the aggregate dollar value of the subject matter of corruption cases investigated or prosecuted in 2020; (b) how much has been seized or forfeited as proceeds of corruption for the same year; (c) how do both figures compare with the preceding two years’ figures; and (d) what steps have CPIB identified to beef up its digital capabilities in the fight against corruption and to deal with operational issues during the COVID-19 pandemic.
\tThe Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Chan Chun Sing) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will address the Parliamentary Question (PQ) from Mr Murali Pillai to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), on behalf of the Prime Minister, please.
Corruption is not tolerated in any form in Singapore. It undermines public trust and erodes our social fabric. CPIB does not compute the aggregate dollar value of corruption cases prosecuted as corruption does not always involve money. It pursues all corruption cases regardless of the types of gratification, the quantum of the contracts or amount of bribes involved.
Singapore has a hard-won international reputation as a country committed to the rule of law and zero tolerance for corruption. The strong political will to take firm action against all forms of corruption and a society that abhors corruption have contributed to a clean and incorruptible Singapore. Businesses have the confidence that their investments can thrive here because our rules are transparent and applied fairly. Singaporeans can fulfil their potential through their own efforts and hard work in our meritocratic society.
Corrupt offenders bear the full brunt of the law and face severe punishments. In addition, CPIB spares no effort to disgorge criminal gains and unexplained assets of those convicted of corruption offences through its rigorous asset recovery efforts. In 2018, 2019 and 2020, the total value of forfeitures imposed by the Courts for CPIB cases were about $2.4 million, $3.8 million and $2.2 million respectively.
The pandemic underscored the importance of digital transformation as some of CPIB's initiatives on this front had minimised disruption to its operations and service delivery. Some examples include the Electronic Reporting of Corruption Complaints and the Electronic Bail platform which provides bailors and bailees with safe and convenient access to bail extension services virtually. CPIB also launched a Digital Investigation Paper project where documents can be digitally and securely prepared, transmitted and accessed.
CPIB will continue to take bold steps to transform itself and develop its operational readiness to meet emerging challenges in a post-COVID-19 future. To stay ahead of the curve, CPIB has invested in state-of-the-art digital infrastructure through collaboration with strategic partners such as the Home Team Science and Technology Agency and other agencies. Some examples include the setting up of a new Command Centre that enhances situational awareness and the upgrading of digital forensic analytics capabilities.
In the prevention and outreach arena, CPIB has co-created public education resources with students from Institutes of Higher Learning such as Nanyang Polytechnic, and schools such as St Joseph’s Institution. Some initiatives include an e-book on actual corruption cases and its consequences on the society and a Game Web Application incorporating anti-corruption materials for young adults.
Singapore's clean and corruption-free reputation should not be taken for granted as it is not immune to the virus of corruption. Singapore must keep fighting corruption wherever it exists and in whatever form it takes. There is no room for complacency and it requires the constant vigilance and resolute determination of the Government, the Public Service and the community to continue to keep corruption at bay.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
\tMr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Minister for his comprehensive answer to my PQ. Hon Members would have also read CPIB's annual report 2020, which was presented to Parliament on 21 April 2021. Sir, with your indulgence, please allow me to state that what CPIB has achieved last year and the preceding years with a lean team of just 200 people is commendable.
The work to detect and investigate cases of corruption is complex. In most crime cases, there will be an identifiable victim; for example, a person who has been cheated of his monies or whose valuables have been stolen. For corruption, the paradigm is different; not a win-lose situation but a win-win situation involving the giver and the acceptor of bribes.
As a result of its work and the support of Singaporeans, Singapore has established a strong brand and culture of being intolerant of corruption. Singapore, Singaporean businesses and Singaporeans enjoy a good reputation overseas for the same reason. For this, all of us in this House owe the men and women of CPIB, past and present, a debt of gratitude.
Sir, my supplemental question is two-fold: as CPIB nears its 70th anniversary next year, what steps will it take to entrench the anti-corruption culture in Singapore, especially amongst our younger generations of Singaporeans who may not be as familiar with our past problems with corruption? Next, may I seek an update, if any, on the hon Minister's announcement recently that the legislative levers the CPIB uses, in particular, the Prevention of Corruption Act, are being reviewed to keep them relevant in the fight against corruption?
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to thank Mr Murali for his trust in CPIB as a tenacious and effective agency against corruption. Indeed, for the past 69 years, CPIB has been unwavering and relentless in its efforts to fight corruption. Other than the political will to fight corruption, heavy punishments and effective anti-corruption laws, as well as public support are all very important factors contributing to the low corruption in Singapore.
While the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) has and continues to serve us well, CPIB will regularly and proactively review the provisions to make sure that the Act is able to keep pace with, if not, stay ahead of the evolving threats.
To the Member's question, I can share the following areas which CPIB is working on with respect to the PCA review. First is to ensure that the punishment for PCA offences are in line with those of other economic crimes. Second, to conduct comparative studies on international legislation to assess, amongst other things, if there is a need to have separate punishment for corporate bodies. Third, to review the need to expand the current extraterritorial provisions by examining past cases where CPIB is not able to take action on foreigners performing outsourced law enforcement functions where the corrupt transactions were undertaken overseas.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I mentioned in my reply earlier that Singapore's clean and corruption-free reputation should not be taken for granted. Indeed, we must not let our guard down. Low crime does not mean no crime. Likewise, low corruption does not mean no corruption.
Corruption if embedded and becomes endemic in our society will alter the fundamental DNA of our societal ethos that has been painstakingly built up over the past many decades. This threat will then diminish the trust and confidence that Singaporeans and others have in one another and in our system, eroding the work ethics and tearing our social fabric apart.
So, to Mr Murali's comment, yes, indeed, in some of these corruption cases, it is a win-win situation for the person providing the bribes and for the person receiving the bribes. But the victims are actually the whole society and our own ethos of what we stand for as a nation and as a people. The damage goes beyond what may be transacted between the two perpetrators.
This is why while CPIB has done well in its work all these years, as a society, we need to maintain our vigilance. The threat is always evolving, especially with technological advances and evolving corrupt practices. It is thus important to ensure that the DNA of incorruptibility is ingrained in every Singaporean, young and old. CPIB has been educating our youths and working with them to co-create public education resources for the youths, by the youths. Some of these initiatives were mentioned in my earlier response.
Ultimately, businesses must remain fully confident that they can plant their investments here in Singapore because our rules and processes are fair, coherent and transparent; thereby, creating quality jobs for fellow Singaporeans. Our people must always believe that they can succeed because of their honest and hard work. This brand of incorruptibility is also what allows Singapore and Singaporeans to stand tall amidst the global competition, even beyond our shores.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Engineering Measures to Reduce Flash Floods at Bukit Timah Canal and Ulu Pandan Canal Areas","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Mr Christopher de Souza –
23 To ask the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what caused the flash floods in and surrounding the Bukit Timah-Dunearn Canal and Ulu Pandan Canal on 17 April 2021; (b) whether the overflow of water from the canals onto the roads and the park connectors, respectively, can be prevented; and (c) what engineering measures will be put in place to mitigate against such overflows in the future such as to make the areas safe for residents, pedestrians and motorists during heavy downpours.
\tMr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Question No 23.
\tThe Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Deputy Speaker, Sir, on 17 April 2021, the Sumatra squall, coupled with convergence of surrounding winds arising from the influence of typhoon \"Surigae\" near the Philippines gave rise to intense and prolonged rainfall across Singapore. The highest rainfall that day was at Ulu Pandan with 170.6 millimetres of rain. This is the highest daily rainfall recorded in April since 1980 and is equivalent to 110% of Singapore’s average rainfall for the whole month of April, falling in a single day. This rainfall resulted in flash floods occurring at Bukit Timah and Dunearn Roads near Sime Darby Centre and a stretch of the Park Connectors along Ulu Pandan Canal.
With your permission, Deputy Speaker, may I display some slides on the LED screens.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Please do. [Slides were shown to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 1.]
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: This is a map of the stretch of roads that I mentioned in my reply. Just a bit of landmark, Sime Darby Centre is the block marked in black.
The water levels in Bukit Timah Canal were very high due to the intense and prolonged rain, impeding discharge from roadside drains along Dunearn Road and Bukit Timah Road into the canal. This resulted in floods of around 150-millimetre depth at Dunearn and Bukit Timah Roads, and around 50-millimetre depth on the pedestrian sidewalks adjacent to the roadside drains. All affected roads remained passable to traffic and the flash floods subsided within 30 minutes. PUB Quick Response Teams were on site directing traffic and assisting affected residents by issuing inflatable flood bags and portable flood barriers to prevent floodwaters from entering their homes.
The Public Utilities Board (PUB) had completed the upgrading of the Bukit Timah First Diversion Canal – this is the stretch marked in blue – between Bukit Timah Road and Clementi Road in September 2019 at a project cost of $300 million to alleviate flood risks along Bukit Timah Road and Dunearn Road. Members who have been on the Rail Corridor hike would not miss this impressive infrastructure. It is somewhere after you have crossed Bukit Timah Railway Station and another 500 metres or so, you will come to this stretch, which opens up to the area at Old Holland Road.
So, it is impressive because it is large and deep. And I think it has helped significantly on this day of 17 April, because the flood on this day is nowhere near the earlier floods that we had seen along the same stretch of roads when lesser rain fell.
\tWater level sensors on this stretch – the sensor is placed where the yellow triangle is located – installed along the upgraded stretch of Bukit Timah Canal from Jalan Kampong Chantek to Sixth Avenue, just upstream of the expanded Bukit Timah First Diversion Canal, showed the section of the canal was 50% full, 50% full, on 17 April with no flash floods along that stretch despite the heavy rainfall.
PUB started the upgrading work on the remaining section of Bukit Timah Canal between Rifle Range Road and Jalan Kampong Chantek – this is the stretch marked in red – where the localised flash flood occurred, and is expected to complete it in 2024. When completed, we expect the top water level in this section of the Canal to be lower by over one metre for the same rainfall intensity experienced on 17 April.
Another stretch, which is along Ulu Pandan Canal, a low-lying 300-metre stretch – as marked in red – of the Park Connector next to the Ulu Pandan Canal was also flooded on 17 April even though major roads – the major roads are Clementi Road in grey, Clementi Avenue 6, Commonwealth Avenue West and the Ayer Rajah Expressway – served by the Canal did not experience flooding. PUB will raise this low-lying section of the Park Connector when PUB reconstructs the Ulu Pandan Canal in tandem with future developments.
Since 2011, the Government has invested almost $2 billion in drainage works and will invest another $1.4 billion over the next five years to enhance our flood resilience. Drainage design standards were also raised in 2011 to cater for higher intensity rainfall, as part of PUB's broader efforts to address the impact of climate change.
It is, however, not practical to expand our drains to accommodate every extreme rainfall event as this would require massive land take and much higher costs. PUB will put in place cost-effective measures to minimise flood risks and better manage flood events. For instance, PUB is currently upgrading its rainfall forecasting radar technology, which will help improve prediction of locations where heavy rainfall might occur and enhance response time to potential flash floods.
PUB also works closely with LTA and Traffic Police during heavy storms to monitor road conditions and notify motorists of flooded roads to avoid through electronic road signages, online and social media platforms and radio broadcasts. Members of the public can be alerted on flash floods by subscribing to the National Environment Agency's and PUB's weather forecast and water level SMS alerts or access the mobile app, \"myENV\", for updates on impending heavy rain and the water level in drains at designated locations.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: No supplementary questions? Dr Lim Wee Kiak.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Criteria for Inclusion of Medical Specialists into Insurer's Panel for Integrated Shield Plans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"24 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry will look into the process of empanelling specialist doctors to the approved list of insurance companies; (b) what is the Ministry's stand on the violation of medical ethics in the scheme where insurance companies basically reward patients for choosing their panel of doctors; and (c) whether these insurers will be allowed to challenge the opinions of specialists after they had rendered treatment to their patients.
25 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for Health with regard to the Multilateral Healthcare Insurance Committee (a) whether it will be made transparent to the public, the criteria for inclusion of specialists into an insurer's panel for its Integrated Shield Plans; (b) whether there will be a more controlled rate of premium increase for such plans to safeguard the public's ability to sustain such plans as they age; and (c) what is the expected timeline for the Committee to complete its review and recommendations.
26 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) whether empanelling of specialist doctors for Integrated Shield Plans will result in anti-competition; and (b) whether the Ministry has considered the possible impact on patients having to switch doctors mid-treatment due to this practice of empanelling doctors.
27 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health (a) over the last five years how many Singaporeans relinquished an existing Integrated Shield Plan; and (b) what is their median age; and (c) of the above, how many did not later purchase a new Integrated Shield Plan and how many were subsequently admitted to public hospitals.
28 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health what measures are there to protect Integrated Shield Plan policyholders in the event of an Integrated Shield Plan insurer exiting the market.
29 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry has studied the regulation of private health insurance in overseas jurisdictions and the possible learning points for Singapore, in particular the feasibility and implications of requiring Integrated Shield Plan (IP) insurers to accept policyholders intending or forced to switch from another IP provider, such that existing covered conditions are not permanently excluded from future coverage.
30 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry actively tracks and compares the itemised bills of Integrated Shield Plan (IP) patients who use public and private healthcare institutions respectively; (b) what strategies has the Ministry embarked on over the last 10 years to address the problem of overtreatment by some doctors; and (c) what role does the Ministry envisage patients playing to address the problem of over-treatment.
31 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health what proportion of Singapore residents are current policyholders of an Integrated Shield Plan (IP) for (i) standard IP for public hospital Class B1 coverage (ii) Class B1 coverage (iii) Class A coverage and (iv) private hospital coverage.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for Health): Sir, all Singaporeans and Permanent Residents are covered under our national MediShield Life (MSHL) health insurance scheme. MediShield Life is universal, covers pre-existing conditions and provides basic protection against large healthcare bills.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Senior Minister of State, to confirm, are you taking Questions Nos 24 to 31?
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: I beg your pardon, Sir, yes. Can I take Questions Nos 24 to 31 together?
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Yes, please proceed.
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: If I may continue, Sir, MediShield Life can be used in both public and private healthcare institutions, and coverage is sized to be sufficient for subsidised care. The Government provides means-tested subsidies for MediShield Life premiums and MediSave can be used to pay for premiums to keep them affordable.
Individuals may choose to purchase an Integrated Shield Plan, or IP plan, which provides additional benefits beyond MediShield Life to provide more coverage for private healthcare services. MediSave can be used to pay for IP premiums, subject to withdrawal limits, to help defray the cost of private insurance. Currently, less than 1% of Singapore residents have a Standard IP plan, 10% have a class B1 IP, 20% have a class A IP and 40% have a private hospital IP.
In addition, some individuals may also purchase riders on top of their IP plans, if they prefer additional coverage and can afford the premiums. Riders commonly cover the deductible and co-payments portion of the bill. Riders are fully private insurance products that must be paid by cash and MediSave withdrawals are not allowed for rider premiums. Less than half of Singapore residents have riders.
Let me just summarise this part. In essence, MediShield Life is universal, it is sized to cover the bulk of the large hospital bills for subsidised care. IP plans stay right on top of this, to provide for private hospital bills. And riders go even further on top of the IP plans, to cover for the deductibles and the co-payments. So, you can see it as a three-tier thing.
MOH does track and monitor the bills from both public and private healthcare institutions. Private healthcare costs have been rising rapidly in Singapore. Between 2007 and 2019, private hospital bills among IP cases grew at 4%, twice as fast as unsubsidised bills in public healthcare institutions. In both private and public hospitals, investigations, surgeon fees, treatment services and operating theatre facility fees were key drivers of cost growth for private patients.
In 2016, the Health Insurance Task Force (HITF) comprising members from the Singapore Medical Association (SMA), Life Insurance Association (LIA) Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE), MOH and MAS had recommended various measures, such as panelling and Fee Benchmarks, to help contain claims and healthcare cost escalation. MOH has been working to implement the HITF recommendations. Fee Benchmarks have been rolled out since 2018, along with appropriate care guidelines.
One of the recommendations from the HITF was to introduce a minimum co-payment requirement, as IP riders that fully covered deductibles and co-payment had contributed to rising private healthcare cost. The co-payment ensures what we call \"skin in the game\", to encourage patients and their doctors to make careful and deliberate decisions on the choice of treatment and the type of care they need.
MOH, therefore, introduced a minimum 5% co-payment for all new private riders in 2018.
The IP insurers have also extended this requirement or alternative claims-based pricing from April 2021 to their existing policyholders with riders. While this is not a requirement imposed by MOH, the Ministry supports the move as it will help to encourage appropriate care. To provide some assurance to policyholders who were concerned with potentially large co-payments, MOH therefore allowed insurers to apply a $3,000 co-payment cap for treatment from panelled doctors with negotiated fee arrangements with insurers. This would mean that bills above $60,000 are capped at $3,000 co-payment. To put things in perspective, less than 3% of inpatient bills in private hospitals today exceed $60,000. So, the vast majority of inpatients bills do not actually hit the $3,000 co-payment cap.
This co-payment cap could not be applied to all claims, as it would negate the effect of co-payment once the $3,000 cap was reached. Let me explain.
Take for example, if the co-payment applies to all claims, policyholders may choose a treatment which costs $100,000 instead of another equally effective treatment at $70,000. This is because the policyholder would pay the same amount of $3,000 for either option once they breach the $60,000 limit, where the $3,000 co-payment cap has been reached. The additional costs would then be borne by the insurer and this eventually translates to higher premiums for other policyholders. Therefore, the cap was applied to panelled doctors, where there are established fee arrangements to ensure that appropriate and cost-effective treatment is provided.
Some have raised concerns with regard to the use of panels. Questions have been raised on whether limited panel sizes are in the best interest of the patients and whether such practices are anti-competitive in nature or if there are medical ethical concerns around such practices.
The use of panels was recommended by the HITF. Internationally, panels have been used by some countries to keep healthcare costs more predictable, to reduce variation in practices and charging. These practices do not contravene the Competition Act as any decision to empanel doctors is made by individual insurers independently with the doctors, on mutually acceptable terms. Such practices do not restrict insurers from competing with one another on their prices, insurance products, or choice of doctors. Nevertheless, MOH has encouraged insurers to make their panel selection criteria more transparent, a move which is also supported by LIA in its \"Panel Good Practices Guide\" to all insurers.
On the issue of medical ethics, the Singapore Medical Council's Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines stipulates that doctors should have the best interests of their patient at heart when treating them. This includes prescribing appropriate and cost-effective care that best meets the needs of their patients. Access to medical care and clinical judgement should therefore not be influenced by empanelment nor any other financial constraints or pressures inherent in any health system. Should doctors find that the conditions of being on a panel would impose constraints on their ability to care for patients, they may decide for medical ethical reasons to not participate in such panels.
We want to emphasise that patients can make claims for all treatments covered under their IP, regardless of whether the specialist is on the panel or not. Nonetheless, some doctors have expressed concerns that IP panels do not have an adequate number of specialists, restricting referrals to the appropriate specialist who may not be on the panel, and therefore, limiting the continuity of care. Patients have also raised concerns that the doctor they are comfortable with, or are familiar with, is not on the panel of their IP insurer and they may not enjoy the additional panel benefits such as the $3,000 co-payment cap.
To address this, MOH has encouraged all insurers to grow the size of their panels and some have already increased the number of specialists on their panels by more than 40% since August 2019. Today, more than 70% of private specialists are on at least one IP panel.
Some have asked insurance panels to be expanded to include all doctors, so long as they do not have a poor track record with the Singapore Medical Council, or SMC. However, some doctors may choose not to be empanelled as they may already have a sufficient pool of patients. So, the doctors do have a choice to not be on panels. This is especially the case for areas where there are very few specialists locally. Hence, MOH encourages IP insurers to enhance their pre-authorisation processes, to give approval for hospitalisation or treatments and their associated costs beforehand. With pre-authorisation, insurers are able to assess treatments for medical necessity and fee arrangements and appropriateness, including for doctors who are not on their panel. And patients can also have greater peace of mind knowing that at least a significant portion of their bill will be covered by their IP. With pre-authorisation, the risk of runaway bill sizes would then be minimised. Hence, some insurers have extended the co-payment cap to pre-authorised claims for treatment by non-panel doctors to provide policyholders with greater assurance, and we certainly encourage more to do so.
\tWhile policyholder benefits may differ, depending on whether they see a panel doctor or a non-panel doctor who is pre-authorised, these benefits should not differ to the extent of prohibiting patients from seeing non-panel doctors or influence patient choices in an undesirable way.
MOH recognises that some policyholders may wish to switch insurers, whether for more competitive premiums or for better benefits, such as access to more panel doctors, but are unable to do so because of pre-existing conditions. IPs are commercial products, and their features and pricing are, ultimately, determined by private insurers. MOH will study whether IP insurance can be made fully portable, including looking at examples abroad. However, insurers may potentially need to increase the premiums significantly for all policyholders to price in the increased risk they assume for portable IP that covers pre-existing conditions. This is why MediShield Life is designed as a scheme to cover all Singaporeans for life with no exclusions and covers all pre-existing conditions to give reassurance to all Singaporeans should they choose to relinquish their private IP plans, for whatever reasons.
Over the last five years, about 5% of IP policyholders relinquished their IP per year on average. This could be because they may have opted for different coverage, after considering the cost of the premiums, their financial resources and their different healthcare needs. Their average age was 34. Data on the number of policyholders who did not subsequently purchase a new IP or were later admitted to public hospitals is not available.
Consumers should understand their IP terms and conditions when choosing their IPs. Insurers offer policyholders enhanced policy benefits, such as the co-payment cap, lower deductibles or a longer period of pre- and post-hospitalisation coverage for panel treatments. All this must be made known to the policyholder prior to policy purchase and at least 30 days before any changes in policyholders' benefits. Policyholders must be properly advised at the point of purchase or renewal about their coverage, so they can make informed choices about their IP and choice of doctors and care setting.
Some have asked if insurers can simply use MOH's Fee Benchmarks to determine all insurance payouts. As Fee Benchmarks are designed to be reasonable ranges of fees for the large majority of cases, insurers can, generally, take reference from the benchmarks for most payouts. Doctors do charge below and above the benchmarks, depending on the nature and the complexity of the cases. However, insurers also need to take into account the medical complexity and specific clinical circumstances, and deviate from the benchmarks for justified and exceptional cases. According to LIA, between 5% and 15% of IP claims for surgeon fees were approved above the upper bound of the Fee Benchmarks, depending on the insurer.
Claims scrutiny by insurers may have been perceived as challenging a doctor's professional judgement. Insurers scrutinise claims to ascertain whether treatments were medically necessary and charged appropriately. This actually protects the interests of policyholders who may otherwise see their insurance premiums rise should claims be paid out indiscriminately. MOH recognises that this is an important process for the integrity of the healthcare system and is a common practice internationally. It is, nonetheless, important that the process be handled professionally and efficiently by each insurer. Insurers should not make the process onerous and ask for unnecessary information unrelated to the claims, imposing a heavy administrative burden on the doctors. The questions and information sought for common conditions can be standardised and streamlined so it will not be perceived as questioning the decisions and judgement of the doctors. If a particular claim is justified, insurers should pay according to the policy benefits. We will be looking more into this issue.
Dr Tan Wu Meng has raised concerns with the risk of IP insurers exiting the market. To ensure that insurers remain financially sound and are able to meet their obligations to policyholders, MAS exercises regulatory oversight over the insurers' financial standing, risk management and governance. This is accomplished through measures, such as establishing regulatory capital requirements and setting corporate governance and risk management requirements and guidance, which are, in turn, reinforced by regular onsite inspections and close engagement with the boards and senior management of insurers. MAS also takes action against insurers whose practices are found to be wanting or where there are breaches of MAS' regulations.
An insurer may decide to exit the IP market because of commercial reasons or due to insolvency. In the event that an insurer exits the IP market, the insurer or the liquidator will seek to arrange for the IP policies to be transferred to another insurer for continuity of coverage. MAS will ensure that the existing insurer and the insurer taking over the IP policies properly account for policyholders' interests.
The various initiatives covered above will take time to bear fruit. However, we are confident that these measures will help to keep healthcare costs more sustainable. Looking ahead, the refinement of various IP features will continue to be a multilateral effort between MOH, hospitals, doctors and the insurers. To support these efforts, MOH appointed a 12-member Multilateral Healthcare Insurance Committee (MHIC) in April this year to provide a platform for healthcare providers, payers, consumer representatives and the Government to work on these issues related to health insurance. The MHIC comprises representatives from the Academy of Medicine, Singapore (AMS), the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE), the Fee Benchmarks Advisory Committee (FBAC), the Life Insurance Association (LIA), the Singapore Medical Association (SMA), private hospital representatives and with MAS as an observer.
For a start, the Committee will prioritise four specific workstreams. First, panels and pre-authorisation, including streamlining the processes I spoke about earlier; second, issues pertaining to improving transparency across the board, including providing more detailed and itemised information about healthcare bills and publishing data on claims and premiums, so that insurers, providers and policyholders can make better informed decisions; third, establishing a claims complaints process supported by AMS and LIA so that stakeholders have an avenue for recourse should they feel unfairly treated, such as where insurers or patients may wish to raise concerns about over-servicing or over-charging, or if doctors have concerns about certain insurer practices; and, fourth, examining the issues from a patient and consumer-centric viewpoint to ensure that the patient and public interests are best safeguarded. On this particular last issue, CASE will be leading a sub-committee to the MHIC to deal with the matter comprehensively.
As these issues are complex, some time will be required for the Committee to develop and agree on practical solutions. Processes within the institutions, hospitals and clinics may also have to be adjusted to make it more seamless and streamlined. The Committee has already begun its work with the first meeting held on 27 April. MHIC will share its recommendations progressively as they are ready and is working towards a first round of recommendations in the next few months.
The issues surrounding IPs are multi-faceted and require thorough discussions as well as careful balancing of various considerations, to find solutions that best benefit policyholders and patients. With continued healthy dialogue through the MHIC, MOH will work together with all stakeholders towards developing sustainable solutions for policyholders, payers and providers alike.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the extended comments on this issue. The recent public exchange between the Singapore Medical Association and the Life Insurance Association of Singapore has put into focus the role of the regulator, namely, MOH. Even as I acknowledge the Senior Minister of State's establishment of the MHIC, which has been set up to look into some of these issues, I have, nonetheless, two supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State.
Firstly, would MOH, as the regulator, be amenable to setting up a database transparent to both doctors and insurers to allow parties to compare and assess their bill sizes with a view to better manage medical inflation in the public interest?
The second supplementary question is in conjunction with the first, which is, together with the establishment of the database, would MOH, as regulator, consider setting up an independent panel of assessors under its purview which would be accessible to patients, doctors and insurers to resolve disputes about fees and the necessity of medical procedures?
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I thank Mr Pritam Singh for his questions. In fact, these two items are already being done.
The first, on the database for bill sizes, when we have the Fee Benchmarks Advisory Committee, in fact, the database on fees that are charged across a diverse range of procedures across various institutions are already available for the Committee, which comprises practitioners and insurers, to collectively deliberate on what the kind of benchmarking ought to be. So, yes, the database is available and I think that will provide some scrutiny by the relative stakeholders to ensure that, whether it is payouts or benchmarking, they are considered fair to the policyholders and to the payers as well.
The second issue on independent assessment, as Members have heard from my reply earlier, we will be setting up a Claims Complaints Panel that comprises the insurers plus also the Academy of Medicine of Singapore who are specialists in the respective fields. So, that provides some degree of independence from the professional side or of both the stakeholders to really look at any areas, whether it is insurers or doctors, which have got some unhappiness over the way payments are done or the way a certain case is being assessed by either party. So, yes, there will be an independent panel that is going to be in the works.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Dr Lim Wee Kiak.
\tDr Lim Wee Kiak (Sembawang): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Let me thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. Limiting the choice of doctors for patients and insured individuals, personally, I feel that, definitely, this is to the disadvantage of the patient. I cannot understand how this is not anti-competitive. Limiting choice to the patient will limit the patient's ability in terms of choosing the right doctors, unless you are telling me that the panel itself comprises more than 50% of all doctors in Singapore, to make sure that each insurer must have a certain percentage of doctors on it.
Secondly, if the purpose of the empanelment is to control fees, do the Fee Benchmarks not do that already? With the Fee Benchmarks in place, can we then remove the panel completely? That is something that we have to consider.
Last of all, I also wish to echo the question by the Leader of the Opposition whether MOH will be coming up with a ranking of the insurers because MOH will be seen as a neutral party, that is, in order to protect the consumer.
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I thank Dr Lim Wee Kiak for his questions. The issue of whether the limited size of panels of certain insurers, as I have said in my reply, it will be very difficult to say that we make the panels include 100% of all doctors, because doctors have a choice not to be on panels as well.
I think the more important way to look at this is how can we make sure that care is accessible to our patients, whether the mechanism is empanelment or otherwise? I think the key is to make sure patients have access to any doctor they want to see, which is why I think the better way to go for is to look at pre-authorisation. With pre-authorisation, the doctor puts in his diagnosis, gives a certain quote on the treatment cost that is needed and the insurer has a chance to see whether this cost is fair and whether the type of treatment that is proposed is reasonable for the kind of diagnosis that is being put forth. In that sense, the patient can then have access to any doctor, subject to a pre-authorisation, if they are not on the panel.
This is a mechanism that is already available today. But, what we need to do is to make sure that the process is much more streamlined and seamless, so that there is not too much administrative burden on the clinics and the patient does not have to wait too long for this process to be completed before they can have access to care by a different doctor, by a different specialist.
In terms of ranking of insurers, I think what is important is to have information on how each insurer price its policies and what benefits it has transparently so that patients or policyholders themselves can make a comparison and take a look.
\tIt is very hard to say which insurer ranks number one or which is ranked at the bottom because they may have product differentiation that meets different persons' needs. And for a person where the product meets his needs, it could be number one, as an insurer, but if the other product meets the other person's needs better, that could be number one in the other person's eyes. I think it is very hard for MOH to decide from one person to the next which is the best product to suit the person's needs. What we should do is to put more information so that patients and policyholders can make the right informed choices.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his detailed answer. I would like to raise supplementary questions along two themes: patient voices and patients' ability to negotiate in the market.
On the issue of patient voices, Mr Deputy Speaker, can the Senior Minister of State assure us that MOH's proposed dispute resolution mechanism will actively involve the patient's perspective and the journey experienced by patients, whether as existing policyholders navigating the IP system or potential policyholders or former policyholders who may feel excluded.
My Clementi residents who are on Integrated Shield plans (IPs), some of them, they tell me of the challenges involved in making a claim, despite having been with the same firm for many years, despite the full support of the doctor looking after them, whether the doctor is in the private or public sector.
On the second question, Mr Deputy Speaker, that of the bargaining power of patients, policyholders and consumers. The Senior Minister of State earlier spoke about the scenario of what happens if an IP insurer exits the market. He said that there would be a negotiation or discussion between the agencies and the insurance provider about ensuring that patients are covered. But I ask the Ministry, in the event of an IP insurer exiting the market, is there a mechanism to ensure that patients who already have existing conditions will be appropriately covered and recognised in a way that does not disadvantage them if the insurer exits the market?
I furthermore would like to ask MOH, whether MOH would consider establishing some kind of regulatory backstop to protect patients? Because once you have a mechanism in policy to protect patients when an insurer exits the market, to allow these patients to transit in a way that is non-discriminatory, not unfavourable, to another insurer, I put it to the Ministry that that can be the beginning of a mechanism to allow patients to transition between insurers.
And I suggest to the Ministry that once patients have the option of transiting with the potential for having pre-existing conditions covered to some extent, as is the case in other regulatory jurisdictions like Australia, there is better bargaining power for the consumer and that leads to a better functioning market as well.
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I thank Dr Tan for his clarifications and questions.
His first question pertains to patient voices should there be a dispute by the policyholder against the insurer and what mechanisms are there today to address some of these grievances. Actually today, FIDReC, the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre already has a mechanism in place to address any policyholder's concerns pertaining to whether it is policy terms or unfair treatment by an insurer. So, FIDReC is a mechanism that is already available.
But we do feel that with better patient and public education, that will raise the awareness of consumers' rights and when they think that their rights, under the policy terms, have been violated. So better patient education, better policyholder education is another important thrust to get this done.
We welcome the fact that CASE will be forming a sub-committee under the MHIC to further study this issue, and also to look at how they can better represent the voices of consumers, policyholders and patients.
The second issue is about what would happen if the insurers were to exit the financial sector. If an insurer fails and undergoes winding up processes under the Insurance Act, the appointed liquidator is required to endeavour as far as possible, and reasonably practicable to sell, or transfer the whole or part of the insurance business to another insurer before considering other options.
The Policyowners' Protection Scheme, or PPF Scheme, is also in place which aims to provide coverage for policies which are commonly purchased by consumers, and/or cause significant impact of destruction to policyholders should the insurer fail. This would include accident and health policies such as IP plans, which will be fully covered under the PPF scheme, in an event that the insurer fails. The PPF Scheme does not merely provide compensation of crystallised claims when an insurer fails, but also seeks to ensure continuity where possible for the effective policyholders in the event of an insurance failure.
For example, you could also fund a transfer or run-off of the IP portfolio business to another IP insurer to ensure continuity of coverage for the affected policyholders, if necessary. In Singapore, what is useful for Singaporean citizens, is to always know at the back of their minds that they have a safety net called MediShield Life. Should all else fail, MediShield Life will be here to cover you universally with no exclusion on all your pre-existing conditions for life.
\t
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I just have one supplementary question, which is whether this method of empanelling doctors will impact patients, who may need to change doctors halfway during their treatment for whatever reasons?
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I think this is also in the same vein as expanding the panel of doctors. Which is why in one of the work streams that the MHIC endeavours to do, as one of their earliest priorities, is to look at how they can further expand and streamline the pre-authorisation process. Once we can get a more seamless and streamlined, pre-authorisation process, it effectively opens up access to care by all doctors. And the patient, then do not have to really worry so much about whether doctors are panelled or non-panelled.
The difference, of course, is in some of the benefits of panel and non-panel doctors. But today, any IP-insured patient can actually have access to non-panel doctors through pre-authorisation. So, at the moment, there is actually no restriction of care, but there is some friction in the process. With pre-authorisation, hopefully we can make this much more seamless and reduce a lot more anxiety for patients going for treatment, when they have to go beyond a panel to access a specialist outside the panel.
So, I hope that will help Members understand that the MHIC will prioritise this as one of the key streams they want to work at.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Sir, private hospitals house less than 17% of hospital beds in Singapore and the Senior Minister of State just replied to my question and said that 40% of Singaporeans hold an Integrated Shield Plan for private hospital coverage. This points to a rather high proportion of voluntary downgrading by patients, meaning that they are eligible to seek treatment in private hospitals but end up going to public hospitals.
Does the Senior Minister of State think that Singaporeans are over insured for private insurance, which they do not use? And secondly, other plans to better educate Singaporeans about their options of different Integrated Shield Plans, so they do not get all the information from insurance agents who are trying to sell them private hospital plans?
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I thank the Member for his questions. I think the second question is easier to answer. We will just put as much information as possible, whether it is on MOH website, whether it is on the LIA website. And of course, CASE can play a stronger role in patient and policyholder education as well.
But I think, for his first question, he is conflicting two different numbers together which do not quite necessarily gel. Just because there are only 17% of hospital beds, it does not mean 40% of people cannot buy insurance for private sector. It does not mean that everybody who buys a policy, gets sick and gets admitted to the hospital all at the same time.
So, it is a choice to buy, it does not necessarily mean that they will necessarily have to consume. It does not necessarily mean that the size of the number of beds we have should then limit the amount of policy coverage a particular segment of population goes for. I hope that helps him to understand why the numbers should not necessarily be conflicted together.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng, please make it a very short supplementary; then, we will move on to the next topic.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng: I thank the Senior Minister of State for his further clarifications. I want to put on record as a declaration that I am a medical doctor, looking after patients in the public sector, for avoidance of ambiguity. I thank the Senior Minister of State again and I very much support any further analysis of this issue by the Ministry and look forward to updates in due course.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Alex Yam, next question, please.\t
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulations to Ensure Safety for Migrant Workers Ferried in Lorries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"32 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for Transport (a) how many deaths and injuries have resulted from accidents involving migrant workers transported in lorries since the implementation of stricter measures on 1 August 2011; (b) whether the Ministry will impose additional measures to ensure the safety of migrant workers being transported to and from work on their employers' vehicles; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider requiring employers to transport their workers in mini-buses or buses with compulsory seat-belting.
33 Ms Janet Ang asked the Minister for Transport (a) how many accidents involving migrant workers transported in open lorries have occurred in the past five years; (b) how many of such accidents have been fatal; (c) whether it is legal to carry passengers in vehicles not intended for ferrying people and, if so, who takes responsibility when accidents happen; and (d) whether regulations can be improved to protect the safety of migrant workers during their daily commutes.
34 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Transport whether LTA will review the safety regulations to enhance the level of safety of migrant workers being ferried in mini-lorries or to require that they be transported via buses.
35 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport whether there are any plans to review the carriage of workers at the back of lorries or goods vehicles and, if not, whether LTA intends to introduce any new safety measures to enhance the safety of workers being carried at the back of such vehicles.
36 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether any study has been done to find out what are the estimated additional costs (as a percentage and in absolute quantum across the industry) as a result of regulations prohibiting the transport of workers in lorries and goods vehicles; (b) if yes, what are the findings of the study; and (c) what measures can be taken to assist with the increased costs associated with such a prohibition.
The Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 32 to 36 together, as well as Dr Wan Rizal's Parliamentary Question1 scheduled for a subsequent sitting?
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Please do.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Last month, there were two unfortunate accidents involving lorries that were transporting workers. The first occurred when the lorry ferrying 17 workers collided into a stationary truck along the Pan-Island Expressway (PIE) and resulted in two fatalities. The lorry driver has been arrested for careless driving causing death. The second incident involved a lorry ferrying nine workers but fortunately, there were no fatalities. Three days ago, there was an accident between a Police van and a lorry ferrying 11 workers. Seventeen people, including five Police officers, were conveyed to the hospital with minor injuries.
We are deeply saddened by the accidents and would like to offer our deepest condolences to the affected families. The accidents are currently being investigated by the Traffic Police (TP). The party or parties found responsible will be dealt with based on our laws.
Members have raised concerns on the use of lorries to ferry workers. Internationally, practices are varied. Countries such as Canada, Thailand and the United States of America allow for passengers to be ferried in the rear deck of goods vehicles travelling on roads, albeit with safety precautions and some restrictions.
From a road safety perspective, it will be ideal for lorries not to carry any passengers in their rear decks. But there are very significant practical and operational issues – on top of just cost considerations – which is probably why internationally, it is not an uncommon practice.
I want to assure Members that we take seriously the safety and well-being of all workers, including our foreign workers, without whose contributions, Singapore would not be what it is today.
As far back as 2008, a Workgroup co-chaired by MOM and LTA conducted a thorough review of the safety of workers being transported on lorries. The Workgroup included members from industry associations, the National Safety Council of Singapore, TP and other Government agencies. Over more than a year, the Workgroup studied the issue extensively and consulted widely, including industry groups, safety experts and transport operators. At that time, companies – especially small and medium enterprises in the construction industry – had strongly urged the Government to allow them to continue ferrying their workers in lorries. The industry associations also provided strong feedback that switching to dedicated bus transport would lead to significantly higher business costs. Other practical challenges were also highlighted. For instance, while lorries can have dual use for transporting workers and equipment, buses cannot and this will result in significant productivity loss. Other proposals such as using vans with smaller capacities or lowering the cap on deck capacity were also considered, but there were concerns about driver fatigue and therefore, safety, as more trips would have to be made to ferry workers from one site to another.
The Workgroup studied the various feedback carefully and laid out a set of recommendations to preserve workers' safety and livelihoods. As a result, the Government implemented enhanced safety measures for lorries ferrying passengers in 2009 and 2010. These include fitting higher protective side railings and canopy covers, and higher penalties for non-compliance – up to five times more.
\tThe Workgroup's recommendations aimed to protect not only the workers' safety, but also their livelihoods, which was a difficult challenge. Since then, we have continued to review and refine our regulations. For example, since 2015, all S Pass and Work Permit Holders are required to pass the necessary theory and practical driving tests before they can obtain a Singapore Class 3 licence that will allow them to drive light goods vehicles, including those which transport workers in the rear decks.
Over the last decade, the number of persons on-board lorries who were injured or killed in road traffic accidents has been on a downward trend. In 2019, the injury rate of persons on-board lorries is about 8.1 per 1,000 lorries, which is lower than the injury rate of persons on-board all motor vehicles at 8.4 per 1,000 motor vehicles. In 2020, traffic volumes were lower due to COVID-19 restrictions, and the injury rate of persons on-board lorries was about 4.5 per 1,000 lorries, compared to 5.6 persons on-board all motor vehicles per 1,000 motor vehicles. For this year up to March, the injury rate of persons on-board lorries is about 1.5 per 1,000 lorries, comparable with that for persons on-board all motor vehicles. Data for the full month of April 2021 is not yet available.
The number of persons on-board lorries who were killed in road traffic accidents has also been on a downward trend. From 2011 to 2015, an average of nine persons on-board per year were killed in road traffic accidents. This dropped to 2.6 per year from 2016 to 2020, or 2.5 if we exclude 2020.
That said, declining injuries and fatalities from such accidents should not make us complacent. One life lost is still one too many. Back in 2008, the Workgroup had thoroughly considered how to prevent this and many of the suggestions raised by the Members today were previously studied by the Workgroup. For example, the Workgroup found that retrofitting seat belts in the rear decks of lorries could result in other safety risks. This is because commercially available lorries are not designed for seatbelts to be installed in the rear deck and the floorboards in the rear deck might not be sufficiently strong to keep the seatbelts anchored in the event of an accident.
Compared to 10 years ago, regulatory changes at this time will cause even more acute pain to the industry, given that the industry is being severely affected by COVID-19. Worker supply has been disrupted leading to severe manpower shortages. Projects are already delayed and productivity has been affected because of safe management measures. Further regulations will likely have impact on the completion of various building projects, from BTOs to MRTs to nursing homes and hospitals, spell the demise of some companies and the loss of workers' livelihoods. We cannot simply ignore these considerations.
Notwithstanding the improvements made over the years, one fatality and, in fact, one injury, is still one too many. We appeal to all road users to drive safely and responsibly. The Government will continue to conduct public education so that lorry drivers and owners are reminded of the rules. LTA has also been stepping up enforcement to catch errant owners and drivers. The Government will continue to refine our policies and regulations to further minimise such situations involving our workers.
We have brought down the accident rates of lorries over the years and will continue to strive to do so. We note the concerns regarding this issue and understandably so. But this is an issue with multifaceted considerations and wider ramifications, including on workers' livelihoods. We will continue to review the safety rules, engaging the various stakeholders along the way, to see how to enhance these measures further.
Meanwhile, I urge all employers to do their part to ensure the welfare and safety of their staff. Members of the public can also call LTA's hotline to report any non-compliance with safety regulations.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Alex Yam.
\tMr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for her response. We often quote trade-offs and costs as part of our decision-making matrix, but for the families in the recent accident who have lost their sons in Singapore, that cost would surmount all other costs that we talked about.
The Senior Minister of State spoke earlier about the Workgroup from way back. It has been over 10 years already. Would the Ministry consider, therefore, reconvening another workgroup to re-study new proposals as well as improvements in vehicle designs over the last 11 years that could potentially have new solutions to improve safety on board lorries?
In terms of other safeguards, there have been substantial studies internationally on the constraint of speed and how that would impact results out of accidents. So, therefore, would the Ministry also consider safeguards such as constraining speeds of lorries for the time being, until new solutions can be found, to perhaps 40 kilometres per hour, so that it significantly improves survivability as well as safety at this speed?
In terms of seat belt, I hear what the Senior Minister of State has said, that the design of the lorries and so on and so forth, but we have done that for the SAF; we have introduced seat belts on our five-tonners. Over and above that, will the Ministry also consider requiring owners and operators to tie down the equipment that they transport together with the workers because it is often these free-flying projectiles in an accident that cause a significant amount of injuries?
\t
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I thank the Member for his questions. Let me reiterate again that passengers' safety is very important, we agree with that. As I have said earlier, every fatality and every injury is one too many. We do want to continue to strive to enhance and preserve the safety of our workers when they are using the roads or when they are being ferried. But as I have also noted in my answer earlier, this is a multifaceted issue with many ramifications. Indeed, even as we consider all these issues, we need to be also mindful that we need to find a balance and calibrated approach in order to preserve the safety of our workers as well as their livelihoods.
With regard to the further questions on the various measures that could be taken, firstly, about re-convening the workgroup, as I have said, we have been monitoring the situation since the last review, as well as refining the measures. In 2015, they actually introduced the requirement of not just getting the foreign workers to take a basic theory test but also to pass our Class 3 driving licence if they want to drive the Class 3 vehicles.
And we are currently undertaking a review of the measures with the view of looking at how we can enhance these measures further, in order to improve safety for workers. We will need some time to engage the various stakeholders and we will take into account all the suggestions and proposals put forth. We look forward to working with the tripartite partners, the industry and unions on this to find the way forward; a sensible and sustainable way forward.
Regarding speed limits, presently, such light goods vehicles already have a speed limit of either 60 kilometres per hour or the posted vehicle speed for that area, whichever is lower. This is already well below the speed limit of 90 kilometres per hour on the expressway. So further reducing this speed is not recommended by the experts because when you increase the speed differential between the lorries and all the other motor vehicles on the expressway, it can lead to other safety issues. For instance, the increased tendency for overtaking manoeuvres which can increase the risk of accidents.
With regard to the study that the Member talked about, it is a Swedish study, which talks about the impact of the vehicle on passengers if an accident were to occur and that it would be less likely to cause serious and fatal injuries, if vehicles were travelling at a speed of below 40 kilometres per hour. So, that is really about the impact on the passengers. But here, we also need to consider the increased potential of the risk of accident in the first instance if we were to increase the speed differential.
But having said that, as I have said, in the review that we are undertaking, we will consider all views and suggestions. As what the Member said, there may be other areas that we can look into.
With regard to tying down equipment, actually under the Act as well as guidelines issued by the Workplace Safety and Health Council, the employers are already required to safely tie down the equipment or goods, or load the equipment or goods safely, so that these will not be a danger to the passengers. That is already a requirement. In fact, there are actually guidelines about loading the goods safely. If, in fact, the lorries have goods or equipment, then the deck space allowable for ferrying the workers would be correspondingly reduced. I think I have covered the Member's queries.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
\tMs He Ting Ru (Sengkang): First, I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for her commitment towards safety for our migrant workers. The Senior Minister of State mentioned earlier that there will be a consultation with various stakeholders. I would like to know whether the question I asked, about studies to be done, about how much costs will be increased by increasing any safety measures, whether there are any studies done, whether such studies will be done, so that we can have a more informed discussion. Because every time we bring this topic up, we hear the counter-argument, saying there will be increased costs. So, we need to actually understand how much costs will be increased by, before we can have a meaningful conversation about whether or not there need to be further safety measures put in place.
The second point that I want to ask a supplementary question on is, the Senior Minister of State mentioned earlier as well that ferrying workers at the back of lorries is actually something that is done in other countries. But I note that this is not the case in all other countries. So, I would like to know whether a study can also be done into those countries that outlaw this sort of practices and to find out how, what sort of ways they use to overcome some of the costs and practical and operational issues that the Senior Minister of State mentioned earlier.
Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I thank the Member for her two supplementary questions. Indeed, as I have noted, when we did the last study there was strong feedback from the industry regarding the significant business costs. But, actually, in addition to that, I also mentioned that this, really, is not just about costs, it goes beyond costs. Because on the ground, there are significant real practical and operational challenges on top of just cost considerations.
But having said that, if we were to estimate the additional costs as a result of prohibiting the transport of workers in lorries and goods vehicles, then we will need to have an understanding of the options that the industry will pivot to, whether it is buses, minivans, goods-cum-passenger vehicles or even other options. And we will need to, really, undertake the detailed study and consultation with the industry. So, it is something that we can consider as part of the review.
With regard to international practices, as I have also said in my reply, international practices are varied. Indeed, some of these countries that do allow, we think that our challenges are not unique and they probably have similar challenges. But I agree that even as we undertake a review, we will consult the stakeholders and industries and we will also look at various practices as well as technologies like the Member Mr Alex Yam said earlier.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
\tMr Murali Pillai: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am glad to note from the hon Senior Minister of State's speech that the Government is looking at the safety of migrant workers being transported in lorries very seriously. The hon Senior Minister of State mentioned about projects being delayed in the course of this pandemic. There is a sense out there in the public, whether rightly or wrongly, that construction projects are being hurried to catch up with lost time. May I ask the hon Senior Minister of State what can be done in partnership with MOM to emphasise the safety message with the construction companies as well as the drivers?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I thank the Member for his question and for highlighting the fact that we need to continue to step up our outreach and engagement to the companies as well as to the drivers. TP, for instance, actually have regular safety talks to the drivers to raise road safety awareness as well as to adopt safe driving habits and we will need to continue to work together – LTA, together with TP and MOM – to reach out, step up public education, sustain public education and to remind them to comply. For instance, for the companies to comply with the rules and the safety rules and requirements that have already been put in place for workers' safety and to remind drivers of their obligations and responsibilities when ferrying workers.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Dr Lim Wee Kiak, next question, please.\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Transport whether there are plans to increase the safety of workers who use lorry transport."],"footNoteQuestions":["32","33","34","35","36"],"questionNo":"32-36"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Implementation of Disposable Carrier Bag Charge and Impact on Lower-income Groups ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"37 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked \tthe Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Ministry has done any study to ascertain the impact of a disposable carrier bag charge on vulnerable households, especially the elderly; (b) how will such a charge impact residents who use such bags to dispose of their daily household waste in HDB flats; (c) how will the charge apply to home deliveries from supermarkets; and (d) whether supermarket employees, including those who pack groceries for deliveries, receive training to use minimal packaging.
38 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in view of the current global economic crisis, whether the Ministry will (i) consider deferring the implementation of the charging model for disposable carrier bags and (ii) assess the potential impact of such additional charges on the lower income groups.
39 Mr Gan Thiam Poh\tasked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Ministry plans to allow only the use of biodegradable plastic bags to replace the current plastic bags; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider incentivising the use of such biodegradable bags to balance the need of residents to bag their trash before they are disposed into common rubbish chutes in our high-rise environment.
40 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) when will the Ministry complete the public consultation on developing an appropriate disposable carrier bag charge at supermarkets; (b) what measures is the Ministry considering to take to lower the impact of this charge on lower income families; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider charging per bag from the third bag and providing lower income families with a reusable shopping bag each.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 37 to 40 together?
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Please do.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Thank you. In 2020, about 200,000 tonnes of disposables such as carrier bags and takeaway containers were thrown away in Singapore, sufficient to fill 400 Olympic-sized swimming pools. Excessive consumption of disposables is unsustainable and can be avoided if all stakeholders work together to change mindsets, habits and behaviour. Implementing a charge for single-use carrier bags at supermarkets is one of the recommendations submitted by the Citizens' Workgroup on Reducing the Excessive Consumption of Disposables to change social behaviour. Many jurisdictions overseas have already implemented disposable carrier bag charges with positive results.
For example, bag charges in jurisdictions such as Hong Kong, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Taiwan and the Netherlands have reduced consumption of disposable bags by about 60% to 90%.
A disposable carrier bag charge is not new to Singapore. As part of the Plastic ACTion business initiative started by World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Singapore, retailers such as Uniqlo, Watsons, H&M and The Body Shop have committed to a bag charge and collectively achieved over 60% reduction in single-use bags. NTUC FairPrice has also piloted bag charges and received positive response. Last year, their year-long \"No Plastic Bag\" initiative at 25 supermarkets and convenience stores resulted in more than 15 million plastic bags saved.
In developing an appropriate model for a disposable carrier bag charge at supermarkets, the National Environment Agency (NEA) will study overseas examples and consult key stakeholders and members of the public. For example, the amount to be charged; whether the charge will apply per transaction, or per bag from the first or third bag; implementation timeline; and how the charge proceeds will be used. We will take into account our local context, such as the current practice of reusing disposable carrier bags to bag rubbish for disposal. We will also look into any possible impact of a charge, especially on the more vulnerable groups such as low-income households, and will consult MSF and social service agencies on the possible mitigation measures to address the impact.
We will also consult supermarket operators on other details, such as how the charge could apply to home deliveries and training supermarket employees, including those who pack groceries for deliveries, to minimise packaging use. We aim to complete our consultations by the end of the year.
Plastic waste generated in Singapore is either recycled or sent to our waste-to-energy plants for incineration and not landfilled directly. As the environmental benefits of using biodegradable plastic bags do not apply in Singapore, we have no plans to encourage their use over conventional plastic bags. Every type of packaging material results in different environmental impacts such as carbon emissions and water consumption. Rather than substituting plastic disposables with disposables made of other materials such as biodegradable plastics, the more sustainable approach is to reduce the excessive use of disposables altogether.
The disposable carrier bag charge is intended to discourage the excessive use of disposable bags and to promote the use of reusables. However, this measure alone is not a silver bullet. We must address this issue on multiple fronts, from enhancing public education and awareness, to behavioural nudges, to working with producers and retailers to use less packaging upstream. All of us must play our part to catalyse a mindset and behavioural shift towards a greener and zero-waste Singapore.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng, may I ask for your clarification to be kept short. Thank you.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Thank you, Sir. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the good news. Could I just ask whether while limiting the current disposable charge only to supermarkets, can we also explore other retail outlets, including the e-commerce platforms as well?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: We will only be looking into requiring a disposable bag charge in supermarkets to start with because we need to, first of all, develop a model that is workable and then, to look into the impact and any unintended consequences before we consider if this could be expanded further. In fact, in jurisdictions like Hong Kong and Taiwan, they do take a phased approach too.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Dr Lim Wee Kiak.
\tDr Lim Wee Kiak (Sembawang): Thank you. I would like to ask whether any studies have been done to show that our households, on average, how many plastic bags do they use per month or per year? What is going to be the impact on the average household?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: There was an SEC study in 2018, regarding the number of plastic bags that is taken out from the supermarkets; most people frequent supermarkets. I think in 2018, it was about 820 million, which is about 146 bags per person per year.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.
\tMs Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I just have one clarification. Instead of charging for plastic bag usage, whether the Ministry has considered and explored incentivising \"Bring Your Own Bag\" initiative instead.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I thank the Member for her supplementary question. As I have noted, charging for disposable carrier bags in supermarkets is not a silver bullet. We need to do this on multiple fronts. Actually, NEA has supported, say, Zero Waste SG, for instance, in their initiative to reach out to F&B and other retailers to incentivise people to bring their own reusable containers and bags. This is one way to also shift mindsets and behavioural change. But I think we need to approach this from multiple fronts and we have seen other countries implementing disposable carrier bag charge as well as some of our retailers with positive response; and so we are actually working on this front now.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Next question. Dr Tan Yia Swam.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Media Coverage and Protection of Identity for Persons Undergoing Trials for Sex Crimes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"41 Dr Tan Yia Swam asked the Minister for Law (a) in what ways are press reports of on-going trials of sex crimes regulated; and (b) what protection is there for medical professionals whose reputations are affected by media coverage of on-going trials of sex crimes.
\tThe Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) has previously assessed whether the names of accused persons should not be published until they are convicted. In this, we look at the practice in other jurisdictions. Broadly speaking, there are two possible approaches.
The first approach leans in favour of protecting the identity of accused persons if and until they are convicted, and some rules to grant anonymity to accused persons in specific types of cases.
If you look at examples, you have the Republic of Ireland, where accused persons charged with rape offences are granted anonymity until they are convicted, unless a judge orders otherwise. In Switzerland, accused persons may be granted anonymity if the court is satisfied that they could be exposed to serious danger to life and limb, or other serious prejudice. In New Zealand and Australia, where for jury trials, the court may prohibit the disclosure of an accused person's identity if it is satisfied that such a disclosure would create a serious risk of prejudicing a fair trial. That is one approach.
The second approach is to lean in favour of just having open court proceedings and all matters are out immediately. There is no general power to the courts to grant accused persons any sort of anonymity to protect their reputations. For example, in the United Kingdom, the general position is that legal proceedings should be held in public and there are some rules, exceptions which restrict media reporting of some criminal cases, which prohibit the disclosure of identity of accused persons. But the primary aim of those provisions is to protect vulnerable witnesses and victims, and to avoid substantial risk of prejudicing proceedings, if such a risk exists.
The downside in this second approach is that, of course, the reputation of accused persons is often irreparably damaged by the publicity from media coverage of an on-going criminal trial, even if they are acquitted at the end of the day. I think Dr Tan's question probably arises from the trials of doctors for sex crimes, but it applies to all accused in a variety of cases.
\tOur approach has been to lean towards the United Kingdom example but both approaches have their merits and downsides. After assessments, we decided to keep our approach, which means that in general, accused persons are publicly tried and the verdict is publicly announced. That also allows unidentified victims of serial offenders, for example, to come forward and seek help.
But I emphasise that our position on this issue is not set in concrete. We can also see the merits of shifting to some version of the first approach. So, we will keep reviewing this while we are maintaining the status quo.
I would say that even in the current situation, in certain circumstances, there is anonymity given if it is required for public interest. For example, to sensitive information relating to national security or if the release of information on the accused may lead to identification of, say, children, young persons and alleged victims of sexual or child abuse offences. The reason for doing that is to protect those vulnerable victims and children from being identified and give them a better life. With that focus, the Courts have some power to prohibit publication of the identity of the accused and impose some conditions on how the trial can be reported and the media have got to comply with those requirements.
There are, as I said, pros and cons with both approaches – whether to allow or to prohibit the publication of names of accused persons until they are convicted. And as I said earlier, we will keep our position under view.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Ministerial Statement, Minister for Communications and Information.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 45-48, 50, 52-58, 61-63, 66-68, 71-82, 84, 86-94, 96-101, 103-108, 110, 112-114, 117-123, 125-126, 129-137, 139-142 and 144 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question Nos 42-44, 49, 51, 59-60, 64-65, 69-70, 83, 85, 95, 102, 109, 111, 115-116, 124, 127-128, 138 and 143 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 11 May 2021.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Restructuring in the Local News Media","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Minister for Communications and Information (Mr S Iswaran): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Sir, last Thursday, Singapore Press Holdings Limited (SPH) announced its proposal to restructure and transfer its media business to a Company Limited by Guarantee (CLG) to secure its long-term viability. My Ministry has voiced the Government's support for SPH's proposal and committed to support the media business as it builds capabilities and adapts for a digital future.
Today, I will bring Members through the key considerations behind these decisions: first, the importance of local news media to our nation and how we have upheld it through our history; second, the Government's reasons for supporting SPH's proposal; and third, our commitment to help our local news media adapt and thrive in the digital era.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, a high-quality, professional and respected media reporting news by Singaporeans for Singaporeans is essential to the fabric of our nation. Our local media is keenly attuned to our unique circumstances as a small city-state, an open economy and a multi-racial society. They help interpret global events through a distinctively Singaporean lens, analysing their impact on our lives. This is ever more crucial in an era of heightened geopolitical contestation. The local media also express our identity, values and priorities so that the world gets a perspective from Singapore itself and not through the filter of others.
Domestically, the local media not only report on events and developments but also publish a balanced range of views to inform the national debate and help foster a national consensus, not allowing disagreements to deepen into divisions in our society. They help to sustain the common ground in our multi-racial and multi-religious society whilst preserving the voice of each of our communities through the vernacular media and they write \"the first draft of our history\", as Mr Goh Chok Tong put it in 1995, serving as an authoritative record of our collective experience as a people, giving future generations of Singaporeans a sense of how we saw the world, what was important to us and how we built tomorrow's Singapore.
The local news media fulfil this role while upholding high standards of accuracy, objectivity and balance. These are traits that are ever more scarce in the raucous global information landscape, especially online. The local media help to distinguish fact from falsehood, substance from posture, \"what is high from what is low\", as Mr Lee Kuan Yew put it in 1998.
As our nation faces increasingly complex challenges and trade-offs, our local media provide a highly credible flow of information and analysis upon which we form collective decisions.
COVID-19 vividly exemplified this. In the pandemic, Singaporeans looked to our local newspapers and channels as their trusted sources of critical information. In a 2020 survey by the British pollster YouGov, seven in 10 Singaporeans said they trusted the local media's reporting on COVID-19. In the UK, by comparison, YouGov found that only three in 10 trusted the information on COVID-19 in British newspapers.
In 2021, the Edelman trust barometer reported Singaporeans' trust in local media at 62% – above the global average of 51% and above the US, which is 45%; and UK and France, which were both at 37%.
It is critical to maintain this trust. Our local media industry has strived to do so while adapting to changing industry trends and commercial imperatives. Because of its importance to the national interest, the Government has been an active steward in this evolutionary process to ensure the vitality and viability of our local media industry. Let me cite two examples.
In 1984, SPH was formed through a merger of the English, Chinese and Malay language papers, with the Tamil press brought under its umbrella later in 1995. The primary aim of this merger nearly four decades ago was to preserve the vernacular media. The Government could see that the vernacular papers would come under greater financial pressure over the years with the gradual shift towards English.
As Mr Lee Kuan Yew explained at Lianhe Zaobao's 80th anniversary in 2003, \"My worry as Prime Minister was how to preserve at least one quality Chinese newspaper and sustain it over the long term when the trend in education was towards English.\"
The merger reduced duplication of overheads and costs of competition, and enabled the SPH newspapers to achieve economies of scale and greater commercial viability.
Between 2000 and 2005, the print and broadcast industries launched into more direct competition but subsequently re-consolidated. Initially, SPH and Mediacorp were allowed to enter each other's main businesses, with the trend towards convergence between print and broadcast. The hope was that greater competition between them would spur both to develop better local content and retain local audiences against rising foreign competition.
The competition was fierce but ultimately the model did not prove to be viable. Against the backdrop of the dotcom crash and SARS, the industry was rationalised in 2004 to preserve the viability of the two companies; one a core broadcaster and the other a core newspaper group.
Sir, today, yet again, our local news media is at a watershed. Sweeping structural changes in the media and advertising industries caused by technological advances and the Internet have severely disrupted the traditional business model that relied on print advertising revenue. The competition for eyeballs has intensified. In the borderless online space, our local news media must now compete not just with international news organisations but also entertainment providers and user-generated content.
The cost of producing quality news content remains high but revenues have plummeted. Global print advertising revenue is decreasing by 7% year on year. Meanwhile, news aggregators and other news providers are now able to provide so-called \"free news services\" without the cost of maintaining a high-quality newsroom.
Though digital ads are growing, it is the digital platforms like social media and search engines that capture the lion's share of the revenue.
Though the demand for quality news has not diminished, monetising digital initiatives is challenging and the revenues of quality news platforms all over the world are falling sharply with little prospect of relief.
Just last week on World Press Freedom Day, the executive director of the World Association of News Publishers, Andrew Heslop, published an article quite aptly titled \"Media across the globe fighting immediate and existential threats\". He warned, \"Many of the difficult questions facing the news industry are underpinned by an inability to predict a general economic model that will guarantee a future for quality, professional journalism... The harsh reality: public interest reporting simply does not convert to advertising dollars.\"
For many media companies, the economic fall-out of COVID-19 was the final straw. An article in the Columbia Journalism Review described it as \"The Journalism Crisis Across the World\". Most publications are now running deficits and many newsrooms are shrinking, even closing. More than a quarter of American newspapers have disappeared in the last 15 years, reducing the number of newsroom jobs by half. In the UK, more than half the country is no longer served by their own local newspapers. Southeast Asia has seen well-known newspapers change hands, restructure or shut down in recent years. The Jakarta Globe ceased printing and went fully online in 2015 and the Philippine Star had a majority stake acquired by the telecommunications group, PLDT.
Ours is a small local market with just two main local news media organisations, SPH and Mediacorp. While there are potential synergies and opportunities for collaboration between them, we can ill afford the convulsions and closures we have seen elsewhere, with a consequential loss of diversity and choice in our media landscape.
The response of media companies across the world has been varied, reflecting their own social and political contexts.
Many have resorted to cost cutting to survive. News Corp, one of the largest media groups in the world, recorded a US$1.5 billion loss in 2020. It is now embarking on a consolidation exercise which will likely entail major cost cuts and job losses.
Even digital news sites which have ridden the wave of Internet media have not been spared. Popular site, Buzzfeed, which claimed a greater online audience than the print circulation of any single newspaper, has never made a profit and was compelled to abort its global expansion plans last year.
Some publications have received life support from wealthy financial backers or funds. Billionaires have acquired established newspapers for philanthropic or other motivations.
The Washington Post was bought by Jeff Bezos of Amazon in 2013, after 80 years of ownership by the Graham family, which had sustained the paper partly on the proceeds of its Kaplan education business. In the six years before the sale, the paper's operating revenue fell by 44%.
The South China Morning Post (SCMP) was owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp until 1993, when it was acquired by Malaysian real estate tycoon Robert Kuok. In 2016, it was acquired by the Alibaba Group.
With the largesse of Alibaba, SCMP lifted the paywall on its articles and was reported to have increased its international reach more than fourfold within three years. Yet, it remained loss-making.
In 2020, SCMP restored the paywall and subscription model, acknowledging that the \"advertising model is no longer enough to sustain high-quality news\".
Other major newspapers now owned by billionaires include the Los Angeles Times. Even hedge funds have got into the act. Alden Global Capital acquired over 200 US newspapers, with extensive lay-offs and cost-cutting measures.
Some newspapers have received funding from non-profit organisations. The Guardian in the UK has been owned by the Scott Trust since 1936. It has done well against global competition – nearly two-thirds of its readers come from outside the UK. But in 2020, after making a £25 million pound loss even after drawing from the Trust, The Guardian announced plans to cut 12% of its workforce saying that \"we face unsustainable annual losses in future years unless we take decisive action.\"
Even the rare papers that are profitable are under continuing pressure. The Wall Street Journal has had to make numerous changes to its operating model to keep afloat. While investing in a special innovation team of 150 employees, it has also had to thin out its print edition and lay off staff as recently as 2016. The New York Times has done especially well in making the digital pivot, recently reaching 7.5 million subscribers in 2020, though it too saw ad revenue plunge by 26% the same year.
The New York Times' success is not easy to replicate. Beyond digital transformation, it commands a global attention that is difficult for our media, writing from the perspective of a small country, to emulate.
It is also noteworthy that the New York Times and Washington Post tripled their digital subscriptions during the period of the Trump administration. Meanwhile, US metropolitan dailies of comparable size, like the LA Times, Chicago Tribune and San Francisco Chronicle, have seen significant falls in circulation, in part because of \"subscription fatigue\" among readers.
The Financial Times (FT), which enjoys the advantage of being a specialist newspaper, employs rigorous data analysis to tailor its coverage and subscription offers at its target segments. It has a small but affluent readership, exemplified by FT's weekly lifestyle magazine called \"How to Spend It\", with strong advertising appeal. Still, in 2015, the Japanese media group Nikkei bought FT from Britain's Pearson. So, even a successful newspaper is susceptible to takeover.
Governments around the world have recognised the news media as a public good that merits direct public funding. Public funding of broadcast media is well-known. Less well-known is public funding of print media, but it has a long tradition in European countries.
The French government spends hundreds of millions of euros annually to support the press, including prominent papers like Le Monde and Le Figaro. It has done so for over half a century, with annual subsidies at times exceeding a billion euros.
Scandinavian governments too have supported their newspapers for decades, both through direct subsidies and tax breaks. In 2020 alone, the Norwegian Media Authority gave press subsidies of 43 million euros, while Sweden rendered a 65-million euro aid package to buffer the impact of the pandemic.
In Singapore, we provide annual funding for public service broadcasting to Mediacorp. Last year, we also provided SPH Media with over $30 million through the national Jobs Support Scheme (JSS) and we were prepared to do more if the need arose.
So, in sum, the global news media industry is under severe structural pressure and there is no universal solution. A few have succeeded; some are struggling; many have failed. The sources of support – be it public, private, philanthropic or others – have varied widely. And at this critical juncture, SPH Media must similarly chart its own course to revise and, if necessary, re-invent its business model for the digital age.
Against these industry headwinds, SPH has held out longer than most.
In fact, SPH's overall reach and readership has never been higher. SPH's papers' circulation has grown by 5% from 2017 to 2020. In fact, within this period, The Straits Times' print and digital circulation has grown by about 20%.
SPH has also made significant investments of about $50 million a year for the last five years to build digital capabilities and grow its readership. It has augmented newsrooms with a wider range of tech capabilities, such as product development, digital content production, data analytics and audience development. It has modified its operations to generate content round the clock and deployed it on a wider variety of social media platforms, including Instagram and Telegram. SPH has launched new platforms for readers to engage its correspondents and experts and has been recognised internationally for its excellent data visualisation and interactive graphics, multimedia and photojournalism.
Last year, it emerged as the biggest winner at the Asian Media Awards, with The Straits Times and the Chinese Media Group picking up accolades in breaking news, infographics, feature photography and newspaper design, to name a few.
So, in short, these are not news platforms that are declining in quality or readership. On the contrary, like Mediacorp in broadcasting, SPH papers continue to be trusted and valued sources of news that are well read which is a tribute to the professionalism of our journalists.
Their challenge today stems from an inability to monetise their gains in attracting and retaining readers on digital platforms.
Despite rising readership, SPH's media business has been steadily losing revenue. SPH announced last week that its media business had lost half its operating revenue in the past five years and posted its first ever loss of $11.4 million in 2020. And that loss would have been deeper without the Government's JSS grant.
Looking ahead, SPH expects these trends to persist and widen. Print advertising revenue will continue falling as media consumption progressively shifts online. Rising digital advertising revenue will not compensate for the fall in print advertising revenue. And there is limited scope to grow digital subscriptions given our small domestic market and the global competition.
These secular trends are undeniable. They affect SPH, Mediacorp and the global media industry. And the adverse effects will be compounded by the lingering economic impact of COVID-19, with businesses cutting ad spending and consumers reluctant to pay for content.
SPH has been under persistent pressure to account to shareholders for the anaemic financial performance of its media business. Hence, the company has implemented several cost-cutting and retrenchment exercises in recent years. But SPH has assessed that any further cuts would impair its ability to maintain quality journalism.
SPH has also spoken of its constraints as a listed company to make significant and sustained investments in their digital and newsroom capabilities, which may not yield near-term payoffs.
Hence, under the current structure, there is a serious risk that SPH's media capabilities will be hollowed out.
Without sustained investment in capacity building and a digital pivot, its quality and circulation will fall. This, in turn, will worsen financials and cause further disinvestment. And the immediate pressure will inevitably be on our vernacular papers, some with relatively small circulations, which would have a profound detrimental impact on the multi-racial fabric of our society.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is the sobering picture of what lies ahead if we fail to act now and take proactive steps. Without a responsible and high quality local media, the quality of our public debate and discourse will be compromised and we will slowly but inexorably become less cohesive as a society.
Given what is at stake, the Government must take a long-term view and adopt measures to secure the sustainability of our local media.
The Government therefore carefully studied the proposal from SPH.
SPH proposes to restructure and transfer the ownership of its media business to a Company Limited by Guarantee (CLG). It will first form a new subsidiary, transfer the media-related businesses and properties to the subsidiary and capitalise the subsidiary with $80 million of cash and $30 million worth of SPH shares and REITs. Subsequently, if SPH shareholders give their approval, the subsidiary will be transferred to the CLG.
The CLG will be separate from the listed company, no longer run by the SPH management. It will operate as a revenue-seeking business, subject to the usual commercial disciplines. However, any operating surplus will be ploughed back into the media business, rather than distributed to shareholders as dividends. In that sense, it will be \"not-for-profit\" to the members of the CLG.
This concept of a CLG run with commercial discipline is not new for us. There are several examples, including our Universities, The Esplanade and Gardens by the Bay.
SPH's proposal is not a panacea for the challenges faced by its news media business. But it is an essential first step if the media business is to adapt to the digital and commercial realities of the industry. The Government therefore supports SPH's restructuring proposal and is willing to provide funding support to the CLG. Let me summarise our thinking.
Sir, a high quality and trusted national media, with an instinctive understanding of our national interests and constraints, is essential to Singapore. Throughout our history, the Government has aimed to develop and sustain such a media industry in Singapore.
However, the current SPH model of a news media business within a listed company is no longer viable. While the media business' traditional revenues streams are declining sharply, significant investments are needed to build digital and other capabilities for the longer term.
A Company Limited by Guarantee (CLG) is one model to remove the news media business from the constraints of a listed company, while the news business under the CLG invests in strategic imperatives.
But the CLG will still have to find new sources of funding to meet the expected financial shortfalls in the news business.
The Government is willing to help fund the proposed CLG – while ensuring fiscal discipline and accountability – in areas like digital innovation and capability development, as part of a long-term sustainable business plan.
We already have a similar financing model with Mediacorp, our core national broadcaster, which has been working well.
Having such national broadcasters, newspaper publishers and online news platforms is a public good that benefits the whole of society. Although the business and financing model will change, the Government does not intend nor expect this to affect the relationship between MCI and the SPH newsroom.
The Government is mindful that our local news media must remain credible institutions that are trusted by Singaporeans and that it remains the responsibility of the editors and journalists in SPH Media to report news and diverse opinions objectively, and from a Singaporean point of view.
Sir, looking ahead, the CLG’s success will be determined by three key factors. First, strong leadership, with the support of its stakeholders, to set the strategic vision and execute the organisational transformation. Second, a robust business strategy that can be sustained under the new structure with the requisite resources. Third, a strong and capable team of professionals in the newsrooms, who will maintain the high standards that we have come to expect of this cherished national news organisation.
In this regard, the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (NPPA) is a key regulatory instrument that will apply to the news entities under the CLG. The NPPA was introduced in 1974. It places restrictions on the ownership and control of local newspaper companies. Among other requirements, newspaper companies like SPH are required to issue two classes of shares: ordinary shares and management shares.
Ordinary shareholders can each hold no more than 5% of the company’s shares except with the approval of the Minister. This prevents excessive influence over local newspapers from any single source, local or foreign.
Management shareholders have special voting rights on resolutions relating to the appointment of directors and staff of the newspaper company. The issuance of management shares and the appointment of directors must be approved by the Minister.
The intent has always been for these management shares to be held by reputable and established institutions, so that the stewardship of the newspaper is entrusted to entities with an abiding interest in and commitment to Singapore’s stability and success.
Currently, the management shareholders of SPH are OCBC, Great Eastern, UOB, DBS, Singtel, NTUC Income, Temasek via Fullerton Pte Ltd, NUS and NTU. As SPH restructures its media operations, we want to ensure that its management shareholders continue serving as custodians of the CLG.
I have therefore met and consulted the representatives of the management shareholders. They have all agreed to form the CLG and to be its founding members. This will ensure that our local news media will remain in the hands of trusted institutions with a long-term stake in Singapore. In due course, the membership will be expanded to include newer and more diverse institutions as stakeholders of the CLG.
One important and immediate decision for the CLG is the appointment of the Chairman of its Board. I also discussed this with the management shareholders. They have all agreed that, given the national importance of this undertaking and the scale of the challenge, the Chairman should be Mr Khaw Boon Wan. With his high standing and more than 25 years of public service experience in various senior appointments, Mr Khaw will be able to provide strong strategic leadership for the CLG. I am pleased to inform Members that Mr Khaw has agreed to be the Chairman of the CLG, and he will be sharing his thoughts on its way forward in due course.
To ensure the long-term viability of the enterprise, the Government also stands ready to provide the CLG with funding in areas like digital innovation and capability development. We want to ensure the CLG has the wherewithal to innovate, build digital and other essential capabilities, and confidently take on new challenges.
The new media company must have a long-term, sustainable business model with different revenue sources, including traditional advertising and subscription revenues, complemented by Government funding and contributions from its management shareholders and benefactors as other components.
We expect that after the transfer of the media business, the CLG will formulate detailed proposals on its strategic plan to build the business. This will form the basis for Government funding and support.
On the regulatory front, the Government will maintain the safeguards hitherto placed on the media business under the NPPA.
Subject to shareholder approval, after the restructuring is completed and the media business is transferred to the CLG, MCI will lift the shareholding controls imposed on the listed SPH entity. The NPPA will then apply to the new media company, under the CLG’s charge. The NPPA will not apply to the CLG, but appropriate safeguards will be incorporated in the constitution of the CLG to ensure that the CLG structure achieves its purpose and fosters the objectives of the NPPA framework; and that its members and directors will remain committed to Singapore’s stability and success.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we want the news media business to succeed in this critical transition while continuing to fulfil its vital role in our society.
As I said at the beginning of this Statement, a high-quality, professional and trusted media, with news reported by Singaporeans for Singaporeans, is essential to the fabric of our nation.
That mission statement remains unchanged. Within the framework of the NPPA, the local media operate independently of the Government. They report and analyse the news fully and objectively, not holding back bad news, nor advancing any singular ideological view or agenda, but focused on Singapore’s interest. The Government and the media will not see eye-to-eye on every issue and incident, but that is to be expected.
That is how SPH and Mediacorp, have operated hitherto, and that is how the Government expects the CLG to continue to operate after the proposed restructuring. The CLG must maintain the reputation and high level of trust that SPH has built with generations of readers, domestically and internationally.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the restructuring of SPH is a watershed in the evolution of our local news media. But we are convinced that it is essential if our news media are to survive as high-quality news outlets. And the Government will do our part to sustain a trusted news media in Singapore.
Sir, our news media are not just economic entities. They are cherished institutions that reflect our values; whose \"past, present and future are intrinsically tied to this nation\", as Prime Minister Lee put it at The Straits Times’ 170th anniversary.
The newsrooms are, and must continue to be, home to talented editors and journalists, whose professionalism and diligence have built credibility and trust in our newspapers.
As 19-year-old \"A\" level graduate Keng Xin Yi said in today's Straits Times and, I quote, \"It is important to keep SPH Media alive and motivated to produce quality newspapers every day. ST has been serving Singaporeans with diligence and high standards, educating us from the time when we knew little about the world. I hope we can express our gratitude by supporting and respecting these dedicated journalists. Together we can keep our source of knowledge going and keep our ST alive. I want ST to be a part of the lives of my future children and grandchildren too.\"
Sir, the success of this restructuring and the future of our local news media, turn ultimately on our journalists' commitment to this mission and the support of our citizens like Xin Yi. I would like to conclude by assuring our journalists, and all Singaporeans, of this Government's abiding support for this critical national endeavour.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have a few clarifications for the Minister. Before that, I thank him for his Statement, which contained a lot of information or some information at least, that the public has heard for the first time today and here in the House.
I have a few questions.
First, when did the Government first inform SPH that it was prepared to extend grants to support its media business?
Secondly, what is the size of the funding that Government has pencilled yearly to support the SPH CLG? Does the Government aim to cap the grants it extends, with the expectation that CLG will also secure other sources of funding from the private sector, for example?
The third question is with respect to some public documents that were released by SPH last week. It was decided that the SPH contribution towards the CLG would be, I quote, \"arrived at after considering various factors, including the potential funding requirements of the media business for a few years\". Does the Ministry consider this contribution to be a reasonable one and how did it come to this conclusion?
My final two questions: what structures will the Government insist on to ensure the independence of the SPH CLG from possible Government's interference and to foster a culture of editorial independence across its titles? And, finally, in view of the significant change in the sector, would the Government consider the formation of a Select Committee to allow members of the public and Singaporeans in particular to: (a) express what editorial standards they expect from the CLG, taxpayer-funded mainstream media; and (b) to express their views on how best the SPH CLG can ensure editorial independence from any government of the day?
Mr S Iswaran: Sir, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his series of questions. They span a wide range of issues. I will attempt to give him a comprehensive response. But I imagine this is going to be further developed in subsequent clarifications.
First, on the issue of timing – when did we inform SPH that we were willing to fund SPH? As I said in my Statement, the Government has always taken the position that we are willing to support investments in capability development. And then, it is up to the respective organisations to develop their plan and to put forward their proposals to us. In the case of SPH, specifically, as I mentioned, last year, they received the JSS, which was part of the national scheme. In addition, we were prepared to offer extra help if it was required, but the restructuring proposal was put to us; which then, leads to the next question about other sources of funding and whether Government funding to the CLG will be capped.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I would say that it is premature to specify the exact numbers that will go in, with regard to the Government funding. The reason for this is not because we are reluctant to talk about them, but it is simply because, first, this is still a matter before the shareholders of SPH. They have to decide whether they want to approve this. It is only after that that we can really get into a more detailed discussion.
But it is not just about the shareholders' approval. We also need the new CLG to then formulate its plans and put on the table what it sees as its strategic business direction, going forward; and in that matrix, the different sources of revenues that it expects or anticipates, and what role will the Government funding play in that matrix.
So, the question of whether other sources of funding would be required, if the Leader of the Opposition heard in my speech \tearlier, not-for-profit does not mean that the entity does not pursue its business on a commercial basis. We fully expect the entity to seek out advertising revenue, circulation or subscription revenue and other sources of funding. But we fully expect that Government funding will be a component of that funding matrix for the CLG.
He asked if the SPH contribution which has been spelt out – which includes the transfer of two property assets which are related to the media business and also some other operating businesses which are linked to the media, in addition to the $80 million of cash and $30 million of SPH shares and REITs – he asked whether this is reasonable and why. Again, Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to stress that because this is a matter that has to be put to the shareholders at an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM), I do not want to pre-empt any case that the management and the Board will make.
But I can say that our focus, the Government's focus, has been very clearly on the news media business and its viability, going forward. Whilst I am unable to say specifics about what the numbers look like in the near term – SPH has said some about how they think it will continue to widen in terms of its deficit – I can say that the medium- to long-term outlook remains challenging. And that is why we need to be clear that the Government will be prepared to come in to give support. But how much, how – I think these are the things that will need to be worked out in due course after the CLG has had the chance, subject to shareholders' approval, to then develop a business plan and put the proposal to us.
The Member asked about structures for editorial independence or ensuring a culture of editorial independence. I would venture that that culture already exists in Singapore in the news media. I think we do a disservice to our journalists and editors to suggest anything to the contrary. In fact, if you look at the overall outcome that we have achieved over the years, it speaks to, not just from external sources that validate by recognising the accomplishments of our local news media but, importantly, and this has a bearing on the Leader of the Opposition's last point on the Select Committee, because if I understand it correctly, it is about enabling people to express their views.
I would say Singaporeans have already expressed their views because, first, when it comes to trust surveys, Singapore scores highly. Singaporeans have been quick to point out that they trust our news media, both print and broadcast, and they have shared this. I cited the YouGov survey and also the Edelman Trust Report. I would add that even our local surveys, for example, by the IPS, validate this, saying that about 70% of Singaporeans, or seven out of 10, trust our local media. And that is at a higher level than the trust they accord to international media, I would add.
So, it is not just what they say though, it is also what they are doing. What are their habits, what are their preferences. In other words, how are they voting with, in this case, their eyeballs? The fact is, as I said, and I want to re-emphasise, the SPH news organisations, in aggregate, have not just maintained but they have grown their reach and readership, when you combine the digital and the physical. That would not be the case if Singaporeans did not feel that they could trust a news organisation.
So, I think the people have spoken and it is our job now to make sure that object of their trust continues to succeed.
Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): I have a couple of supplementary questions for the Minister. First of all, the Government will provide funding to the new entity, the new CLG called SPH Media. It is reasonable, if you provide the funding, to have some expectations, to have some accountability, even to have some conditions. Can the Minister, perhaps, develop on what are some of the accountabilities or even the KPIs that the Government would expect from the new CLG in return for the funding?
And, of course, with that accountability, with that expectation, there could also be the criticism that, therefore, that is the way also of exerting control over the CLG. Could the Minister, perhaps, also expound on some measures that could be put in place to balance off between expecting accountability but yet, at the same time, having a hands-off approach and not necessarily shaping or influencing how the CLG would then do its business?
Mr S Iswaran: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for his questions. First, on accountability and conditions or KPIs tied to the funding. Again, I want to start by saying this is still a matter that has to be approved by the shareholders of SPH before we can start talking about these matters in greater detail. But I can talk about it in terms of broad principles.
Clearly, and as I said in my Ministerial Statement, we want to do this – and by this, I mean the funding of the CLG – with financial discipline and accountability in areas like digital innovation and capability development. What does that mean? It means that if the funding is given for a specific purpose, then the expectation, and in this case is for building capabilities, for example. And the expectation must be that those capabilities are indeed developed. But it goes beyond that because the development of capabilities in the end is a means to a more important end. And that end is sustaining, if not growing, the attention, the readership and the following from Singaporeans. It is something that both Mediacorp and the SPH news groups have been doing with significant success over the years.
But, clearly, it is something that we would want them to continue to strive to achieve. Because at the end of the day, if you do not have the eyeballs, the attention of people, then, the effort, in a sense, will ring hollow. And our objective, when we talk about a trusted, professional, high quality news organisation, the ultimate measure of it, as I said in my response to the Leader of the Opposition, is in how our citizens respond to it and how much attention they give it – whether it is in terms of readership, dwell time; and this is especially so in the moment of crisis, which is when the truth and reliability of information becomes even more critical.
On the point about control, I think I had said some of this in my earlier response. First, let me acknowledge that it is inevitable that whenever you have a change, in this case, a structural change in the organisation, such concerns will naturally arise. It is inevitable and it is quite understandable. But as we deliberate on this and we discuss this in this Chamber, we also need to keep in mind where are we starting from when thinking about the future. We are starting from a position where we have two news organisations, media organisations: one a core newspaper group with radio and online presence; another, a core broadcaster with radio and online presence. So, some overlap but distinct core competencies.
These organisations have developed under our existing model. And what I mean by that is SPH is subject to the NPPA and the restrictions that go with it. Mediacorp gets funding from the Government in the form of public service broadcasting. In both cases, they have been able to pursue their editorial policy in a manner that has allowed them to win the trust of Singaporeans, as evinced by the various studies and surveys, and so on, and also the reading habits of Singaporeans.
So, if I may put it another way, \"If it ain't broke, don't fix it\". So, we have something that is working. The part that is challenging is the financial model, in particular. The business must be given enough time to be able to transition to a more sustainable business model. And that is something that we are now committed to do by rendering support to the CLG but without changing the nature of the relationship that we have today between these news organisations and the Government and MCI.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Jessica Tan.
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have two clarifications for the Minister. The Minister spoke about the impact of digital disruptions on the news media industry. While digital investments and funding are important to maintain quality local news media, this clearly is not enough. In fact, SPH has actually grown its digital footprint as well as its viewership. The challenge has been viability.
So, what will be different for the CLG to achieve the digital pivot, that the Minister has said is required? A clear strategy to transform and to drive digital innovation is required and so, how will this new entity achieve that?
My second question is a different one but an important one to maintaining the quality of local journalism, and that is really its people. In this case, it is the journalists themselves as well as the experienced team that produces the content. So, what is being done to ensure that that this retention of talent is there, as well as, more importantly, the ability for the new entity to attract new talent required for it to do the pivots it requires?
Mr S Iswaran: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for her questions which are both, I think, very important.
Perhaps, I will start with the people question first. One cannot talk about quality journalism without talking about quality journalists. It is indivisible. And indeed, when we talk about investing in the capability of our news media, this is one of the key attributes – the ability to attract, retain and develop journalistic talent which take our news media industry forward, both for the quality of its news reporting and also for its analysis of global and local events; and to be able to offer that distinctly Singapore perspective, which we need for all the reasons that I have outlined.
So, we are very clear that when it comes to the people element, it is something that must continue to be supported. How that is done is a matter that the company itself must take forward. And what I mean by this is, for example, if we think back to the Jobs Support Scheme (JSS), the objective was very simple – to prevent attrition of capabilities that have been developed and that are needed for the future.
But what we need in the context of SPH now is not just the prevention of attrition but actually, the ability to build on that capability which I think is the point that the Member makes as well. And so, I think this is an area the new CLG Chairman, the Board and the management will be seized with. And I would imagine that as part of their strategic business review that human dimension is going to be key because ultimately, that is what sustains the news media.
Having said that, the earlier point about what will be different, and I agree with the Member, financial support or money alone is not enough. I think really, it is about what you are using these resources for and therefore, what will be different.
As I pointed out, I think the current structure, whilst there has been a considerable effort on the part of SPH to pivot to digital and they have made the investments I have mentioned, about $50 million a year over five years, but really, they need to do more and they need to do it in a more purposeful and quick way. I think that is something that if you talk to the editors and the journalists, they would say and that is also the experience that we see around the world.
Therefore, I think, first, the fact that you are now moving out of a listed company structure into a CLG model will give that company the opportunity to dedicate the resources it needs for this purpose. And that is where I think the support from Government will also be important.
I would say that the other thing is, again, I think the point that the Member makes – and the Member will be very familiar with this – is that it is not just about technology. It is how that technology is applied in the context of this vertical and how it is used to deliver a product that is valued by the customers, the readers and whether there are different ways to find new revenue sources arising from that. So, this is a very important area of work.
I know that within the current SPH system, they have put some degree of effort into it. But going forward, the CLG and the management will have to bring in talent – in addition to what they already have within – to address this in a very direct way and start making the decisive strategic moves in that regard. I think the ability to make such moves and then back them with the resources and then find the talent to back it up, these are all going to be important differentiating factors in the change that has been proposed under the restructuring.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. Sir, we understand the severe commercial challenges faced by SPH Media as a standalone entity as a listed company and would require Government funding to put them on a more sustainable path.
I have two clarifications for the Minister. Firstly, how did the Government arrive at the decision that the CLG structure is the best option. The second clarification is, has the Government consider other options such as privatising SPH so that the media unit is not subject to the market returns pressure, very much like SMRT, or even like the Mediacorp approach where the Government support the company with annual public service broadcasting grants?
Mr S Iswaran: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for his questions. How did we arrive at the CLG structure and were alternatives considered?
First, we have to be very clear how the proposal came about. This is the result of SPH management and Board assessing their business, in particular, the media business and its prospects going forward; and then, putting forward a proposal which, in their assessment, achieves best the objective of ensuring the viability and success of the media business going forward, freed from the constraints of a listed company and its reporting structures and so on. So, that is how it came about.
And this, I want to emphasise again, is a proposal that awaits shareholders' approval. So, I do not want to go into a detailed discussion on its merits. But as I have said quite clearly, the Government supports it. We are supporting it not because of the shareholder value proposition. That is for SPH and its management and its directors and independent financial advisers and independent directors to explain to their shareholders. We support it from the perspective of what needs to be done to secure the long-term sustainability of a quality, trusted news media in Singapore. That is the focus.
So, other ideas, whether it is privatisation and other formulations, I think these are questions that I am sure the Board and management would have considered. But I also want to point out that from the Government's point of view, the regulatory levellers are quite specific. They only pertain to decisions that affect the news media business in the way I have explained. So, I think the larger issues around the business, its viability, its decisions on what can be done for shareholder value, ultimately, is something that the Board and management have to decide on and propose to shareholders to agree.
I think the Member asked the question: is it possible for us to support the company in its present form, I assume, with something like public service broadcasting funding and so on.
Can it be considered? I think the answer is obviously yes. But is that a good model? I think it is debatable. Why is that debatable? Because I understand the intent of the Member. In other words, the business is within the listed company. It is having some challenges. Can we just direct the funding to that operation in that business for it to succeed?
The problem is, if we channel a certain amount of funding to the listed company and the listed company then makes profits and then it distributes dividends to its shareholders, the question that can be asked is: is this a case of taxpayers subsidising returns to shareholders? So, there is an issue there. And so, then it means, do we need to find other constructs to do with it. And I do not want to belabour the point but other than to say that I do not think it is a straightforward solution. I think it is fraught in its own way.
What we have before us is the proposal that the Board and management of SPH put to us after their own deliberations of various possibilities. Our lens is purely from the point of view of how do we ensure a quality, professional trusted news media continues to succeed in Singapore. And that is the basis on which we have expressed our approval for the restructuring.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
First, I would like to say that I welcome the Minister's statement in his speech that the Government and SPH Media will not see eye-to-eye on matters and it is as it should be if the newspapers are to be credible to readers. I welcome that statement strongly.
At the same time, he has acknowledged that due to the proposed change in the funding, there are some concerns about the implications of Government funding on the editorial direction of the newspaper. And in the same breath, he just announced to us today that the Government and the management shareholders of SPH have agreed on the choice of the Chairman of the CLG to be Mr Khaw Boon Wan. I have some clarifications on this choice.
First, let me clarify that I am not questioning the personal integrity of Mr Khaw but the fact is that he is the former chairman of the People's Action Party and former Coordinating Minister for Infrastructure. So, I would like to ask Minister: first of all, the choice of Mr Khaw, although he said it was by agreement between the Government and the management shareholders, am I to assume that it was the Government's suggestion that Mr Khaw takes on this role and the management shareholders agreed to that suggestion?
The second question, does Minister not see this as a missed opportunity in the light of the major restructure that is coming up and some concerns about what this will mean for newspaper content? Is this not a missed opportunity where someone else who is not so closely linked to the Government could have been chosen to be the Chairman? Were any other candidates considered?
Mr S Iswaran: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for her clarifications.
Let me just be very clear. I said in my Statement that the news media and the Government will not always see eye-to-eye. I will think the definition of a good news media or a credible news media is that it must always not see eye-to-eye, but it has the occasion when it is necessary to be able to do so. So, I want to be clear about that.
Second, I think the nub of her question really is that, with Mr Khaw Boon Wan being asked by the management shareholders to chair the CLG, whether this creates problems from the point of view of editorial independence. I presume that is the Member's main point.
Let us start where we are today. SPH, its current chairman is Dr Lee Boon Yang and he is a former Cabinet Minister. In SPH's history, they have had other Chairpersons who have either been ex-senior civil servants or ex-Cabinet Ministers. Mediacorp's Chairman today is an ex-senior civil servant. Yet, we are where we are today – and I do not wish to canvass arguments all over again – but we are where we are today in terms of the credibility of our media, the trust that Singaporeans have in our media, through this array of leadership. I think we should therefore be very clear that what matters is not a perceived political hue in the appointments, but rather in the substance of the character and capability of the people who are involved.
I think, in that regard, Mr Khaw Boon Wan is held in high standing in Singapore and also by many beyond Singapore. He has a proven track record of taking on difficult issues and working on them. This is one such issue. What you need is someone at the leadership level who has the gravitas, has the strategic vision and the experience in undertaking these sort of major tasks. Make no mistake about it – this is a major undertaking and it is one that is of national importance.
I think the choice of Mr Khaw Boon Wan is something that not just the Government but in fact the management shareholders were very keen on. As I said, it was a discussion that we had. This is not the kind of position for which we have a very long shortlist or that we would do a global search. In the end, you have to decide on the basis of what is needed, what are the attributes we seek and how do we go forward. That is what happened here.
And therefore, is this a missed opportunity? I think what would be a missed opportunity is, if we allow political considerations to prevent us from making the right decision, in terms of the right person for the job, to get it done. I think that is what we have sought to do.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Mariam Jaafar.
Ms Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): Mr Deputy Speaker, as a consultant in the area of technology, media and telecommunications, I want to say that the proposed transfer to a non-profit structure for SPH away from the glare of investors' expectations seems to make sense and will give SPH more time to fundamentally transform. But, as said by the Minister, it is no panacea. I have two clarifications to ask of the Minister, building on some of the questions earlier raised by the Member Jessica Tan.
First, how will SPH maximise this opportunity for a fresh start? Which means, essentially, answering the question: what can you sell that is insightful, relevant and distinctive and provides an engaging audience experience, to whom and at what price? This will likely have to be consumer paid because advertising is not going to cut it. The fundamental source of competitive advantage here has become distribution and it has moved to the digital giants. And with what technology to support all this? How can you operate at a drastically lower level of cost in order to make money, including, for example, by moving to much more green-field tech platforms?
I recognise these are questions for the CLG, but I think what I would like to know is: is there an ambition within the CLG to think of SPH now more as a start-up to benefit from this fresh start, rather than incremental thinking?
How will the new entity be able to attract a visionary CEO in addition to talented journalists and editors but also tech people who see the noble mission of providing quality, independent journalism? In particular, can a bigger voice or a greater role be accorded to the internal staff, some of whom I know, have been pushing for change for a long time and love their jobs as SPH journalists in spite of the business uncertainty and in spite of all the accusations that they have partisan motives? They could have really good ideas under bold and inspiring leadership.
My second clarification is regarding vernacular newspapers. I would like to know if the preservation of Berita Harian and other vernacular newspapers will be an explicit condition for Government funding? Or if funding is given by other sources, will there be a mechanism to ensure that these vernacular newspapers, so important to our nation building, are explicitly retained?
Finally, I just want to say that journalism has always and will continue to benefit from various forms of subsidy, support and benevolence from various actors. Why? Because as Joseph Pulitzer once said, \"Our republic and its press will rise or fall together.\" So, we do need solutions that enable high quality, independent journalism, not least local news and vernacular news, informing the communities about the events and people affecting their lives.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister, would you like to reply to those clarifications?
Mr S Iswaran: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I thank the Member for, firstly, the note of optimism that she has raised. Because in discussing this – the merits, the challenges, the concerns and so on – I think we must not lose sight of the fact that this is an opportunity for the organisation and the people within to embark on the journey that they have travelled on up to now, but with a new beginning. I think that is the key thing.
In considering that, I do want to make the point because the Member said, \"Will this CLG behave like a start-up or will there be just incremental change?\" I think the best way I would put it is this. You want the zest, the energy, the drive, the invention of a start-up, but you do not want to lose the credibility, the trust, the quality, the people that we have nurtured all through these years. So, we want to have our cake and eat it. We want to be able to do both.
And I think it is very important that we recognise that because it is not about jettisoning everything and starting from scratch. But neither is it about being so hidebound that we are not prepared to discard some of the older or long-held propositions from a business point of view in order to pursue new ideas. So, I think we need a bit of both, or rather we need a lot of both.
This is where I think, as the Member has mentioned, the staff, the people who are within, are just as important as the people who are without to be brought in, in due course, to complement the capability of the organisation. The people who have been with the organisation – the journalists, the editors, the other staff – they bring a very valuable perspective. I think that has to be a part of the equation going forward, just as we need to bring in, whether it is technology-oriented people but also others who will be able to contribute and complement. Therefore, I think the most important thing here is having a team; a team that brings together the best capabilities in order to maximise the chance of success for this new CLG venture.
I think this is something Mr Khaw Boon Wan and I am sure the team, would be very seized with, including the process of finding not just an appropriate CEO but filling other talent requirements within the organisation.
The Member raised another very important point which pertains to the vernacular media. As I said, the stresses that the industry is under today, in particular, SPH Media, means that if nothing were done, then the capacity within the newsrooms would diminish because cost cutting would be inevitable. I think amongst the first and most at-risk will be the vernacular media because they have got a smaller circulation. If you take a purely business logic to this, then I think the outcomes can be quite detrimental from a national cohesion point of view.
So, certainly, as I have said, we want to preserve the voice of our vernacular media. This is an important part of what my colleague Mr Edwin Tong has called the tapestry of Singapore society. We have to make sure that we pull that and ensure that that remains an important part of the overall entity that is the CLG and all its news media operations.
So, we would want to be very clear about this aspect. But how they achieve it is a different matter. If I can put it another way, the Member's questions revolved around: what are they going to do? How are they going to do it? Whom are they going to do it for? What price are they going to impose and the financial model?
All of these are very important questions but they are not questions that the Government should be answering. Because ultimately, we have to put it to the Board and management, and for them to come back and tell us exactly what they have in mind, what are the pivots and changes, maybe even the reinvention they envisage. And, in that context, what we need to do or what we can do – from the Government – to support.
Mr Deputy Speaker: I see many hands. It looks like many Members want to be part of this narrative, this important narrative. I ask for the Members to keep their clarifications short so that I can call on both sides of the House and give each Member who wants to speak a chance to speak. So, clarifications very short, please. Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. So, very briefly, as we have been enjoined to do, I think with this latest move, the Government seems to acknowledge that commercially, it is very challenging to run a media operation, hence, the transition to the CLG structure. Given this context and given the NPPA regime where broadsheet newspapers need to obtain NPPA licences, going forward, will the Government consider practising a light touch in awarding licences to Singaporean-owned companies who feel that they might want to enter this space and give it a go? Because, they feel that they can innovate and somehow overcome these commercial hurdles as some media organisations in other parts of the world, like The Guardian in the UK, for example, have done.
Secondly, I welcome the Minister's emphasis that the new entity must be seen to be non-partisan, objective and independent. To that end, would the Minister consider – either the CLG doing this or the Government doing this – to set KPIs that are regularly measured to ensure that the public actually believes in the independence of the new CLG, in its editorial independence, and to measure that regularly, given that taxpayer monies will be pumped in?
And lastly, I would just like to ask a question about how senior editorial appointments in the new CLG will be made. In his memoirs, the former chief of SPH, Mr Cheong Yip Seng wrote on page 432, and I quote, \"the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act gives the Government veto powers over who gets to edit newspapers\". He is referring to his experience some time ago. I asked a Parliamentary Question more recently about whether the Government plays a role in newspaper editorial —
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Perera, could you just ask your clarification?
Mr Leon Perera: Yes. So, it appears that the Government does not. My question would be: would the Minister consider creating a structure within the CLG to ensure that senior editorial appointments are seen to be independent and safeguarded from any kind of influence whatsoever, and that is seen to be the case?
Mr S Iswaran: I thank the Member for his questions. The first is NPPA and whether we would have a light touch and allow more entries into the market. First of all, I think when we are addressing this, let us diagnose the situation correctly. As I said, the issue is not around NPPA or no NPPA restrictions. It is not around Government funding or not Government funding. It is actually a circumstance that is the result of technological trends which have now made the financial model of this business of the news media a much more challenging one. So, we need to address that squarely, first.
But can we allow more entries into the market? I think we have a fairly vibrant news media. I am not sure that they are all going to be in the traditional mode. Members would know, for example, that we have some newer players, like Mothership, Rice Media and so on. And I think what we are essentially saying is that, you have to look at it as an overall eco-system and it is an eco-system where we will have new entrants coming in. You will also have some of our traditional mainstream media – in this case, Mediacorp as well as SPH Media. And we also have the international media who have a very strong presence here in Singapore. So, we have to look at it from an eco-system perspective. It is not about singularly pursuing one aspect, but it is trying to ensure the overall local media grows and is able to hold its own vis-a-vis some of the broader competition it faces and the challenges we have talked about. So, that is the context in which I think we will look at it.
Secondly, KPIs. Will there be KPIs? I understand what the Member is saying. If I could refer the Member back to what I have said in my earlier comments not just in my Ministerial Statement but subsequently. In fact, that has been one of the key things we look at. So, as I have said, it is not just what Singaporeans say – which is important – in surveys and so on. It is also what they do in terms of which sites do they go to, how many page views are they getting, what is the dwell time and so on? These are all metrics and I think the Member would be very aware that there are various metrics that can be used in order to measure this, the engagement of the audience. And this is certainly something that we would want to ensure is achieved. And if people do not trust our local media as a credible source of information, then I think these metrics will suffer.
I wanted to just make one clarification on senior editorial appointments. The Government does not exercise a veto on those appointments. The decisions on those are made by management; shareholders have a say in that matter. So, just to be very clear. The Government has a say on some other matters. But when it comes to the senior editorial appointments, it is all subject to the management, shareholders' approval.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Nadia Samdin.
Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. I have got two clarifications, please.
First, we know that journalists play a critical role in society and nation-building. I would like to ask what impact will the restructured model have on the lives and livelihoods of existing SPH media employees. In addition, is there likely to be any further downsizing as part of the transfer of SPH's media business to the CLG and, if so, will the Government ensure that any employees in transition are supported?
My second clarification in Malay, please, Sir, adding on to my hon colleague Ms Mariam Jaafar's question earlier.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Local papers like Berita Harian play an important role as a source of news and information for our community, especially for our senior citizens and they highlight stories of pride, interest and concern to the community.
I would like to ask whether the Government funding will include support for the mother tongue newsrooms to embrace digital transformation and ensure that readers continue to have diversity and the highest quality in our mother tongue newspapers.
(In English): Thank you.
Mr S Iswaran: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member. I share – and I think we all do – the desire to ensure that our journalists continue to be able to pursue rewarding, fulfilling careers in this very important profession. Indeed, we want to ensure that that continues to be the case even after this restructuring.
Specifically, are there any retrenchment rationalisation? The terms of the proposal, as I understand it as of now, are to have the entire team move over and, therefore, no attritions are intended. I also believe that the desire is more to build on the capabilities that we have and to see how we can attract new talent to augment what is already in there. So, I think the first order of business for the Chairman and the CLG Board and management would really be, amongst other things, as I have said in response earlier to Ms Jessica Tan, that it is not just about the business aspects and the financial aspects, but it is also about the people aspects and this must be given importance. And this is something that, from the Government's perspective, we think is critical because, to reiterate a point I made earlier, it does not make sense to talk about quality journalism if you do not have the quality journalists and editors in the newsrooms. And that is key.
On the vernacular media – and I think the Member's point was specifically about the Malay media – I, again, want to reiterate the response that I gave earlier to Ms Mariam Jaafar. Essentially, the vernacular media are a key part of our news media in Singapore because of the voice it gives to the different communities, no matter their size, and, through that, giving them a say and a visible participation in the common space. So, I think it is something that is treasured, something that we have nurtured through the years and it is not something that we want to lose. So, certainly, in the course of this transition, we would want to ensure that that commitment to our vernacular media remains.
Now, how the vernacular media evolves, what path they take, that, I think, is something we should have a more open mind about because, in the end, they have to adapt to the needs of the community, the needs of their readers, and work out a model that sustains the interest and earns the trust of the communities they serve.
Mr Deputy Speaker: I will allow two more clarifications: Mr Pritam Singh and then closing with Ms Tin Pei Ling.
Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just following up from my first list of clarifications.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes.
Mr Pritam Singh: I asked about the time when the Government first informed SPH that it was prepared to extend grants to support its media business and I also asked about the size of that grant. I would be surprised if the Government had not considered what would be the extent of the grant that it would extend to the CLG. So, can the Minister share with us if there is any ballpark figure as to what is the amount of taxpayer dollars that will be going to the CLG?
The Minister made a point about the standards of journalism. It is not a simple issue to address in the course of a Ministerial Statement. But my generation, at least, remember this headline, this cover page in the New Paper, which was in 1997, at a very sensitive time just during the elections. It contained a checklist to help you decide how to vote. The Minister spoke earlier about objectivity and balance. The only thing objective about this cover page is the EPL scores – no-win for Liverpool and also for Manchester United.
The checklist, essentially, told the voters what you are voting for. If you vote for the PAP, you are voting for upgrading, Edusave and Members of Parliament of acceptable character.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh, if I could ask you to ask your clarification rather than expound in a speech. Thank you.
Mr Pritam Singh: I will come to that, Deputy Speaker. Thank you. I will be brief.
But I would agree with the Minister to the extent that one has to be fair to the journalists because there are good journalists. And a good example can be found in a piece published on 1 May this year. The Chinese Media Group head of Zaobao, Lee Huay Leng asked some very serious questions about the leadership transition to the 4G leadership and, she said, \"internal competition is intense; there is no consensus to pick any one\". On the other hand, the English papers, \"a major Cabinet reshuffle but now is not the time to read the tea leaves\". So, there can be different views on the quality and the standards of journalism and it is for that reason that I put my earlier question to the Minister about a Select Committee and to try and get some understanding from the public what they expect of a taxpayer-funded CLG.
I note the comment the Minister made about the surveys. But I think this is an opportunity to hear from the public and I hope the Government can consider this favourably.
Mr S Iswaran: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition has decided to make political capital out of something that I think is quite fundamentally important to us. Even in the examples that he cites, in a way, he has already illustrated the point that I am making. He went back to 1997 to bring out an example and then he says, just this year, the Chinese media put one point of view and the English media put another point of view. Is this not the diversity that we want? Is it not the diversity that the Leader of the Opposition has been talking about?
So, I am not very clear why he thinks the current model is not succeeding. Is it perfect? No. I would challenge him to show me a model that works and that is perfect. But is it one that works in our context? I think it does. With some areas for improvement? Certainly. But it is an evolutionary process. And even in the examples that the Leader of the Opposition cites, I think it is quite clear. And I would add that what we want at the end of the day is not posturing, but substance. So, if we can achieve that, not just in the news media, but also in this Chamber, I think we would have gone a long way to building a stronger country and nation.
As for the funding, the Leader of the Opposition asked for ballpark numbers. But that is precisely the problem, is it not? I think we should be talking about these sorts of matters when we have greater clarity because, to throw a ballpark number, and if I give Members a range, then the question would be, \"Oh, it is a very big range. Can you narrow it down?\" And if I say, \"No, I cannot\", then we go back to square one.
So, the point is we are doing the responsible thing here, from the Government's point of view. Not just to say that we support the restructuring – because we could have stopped there – but we went a step further to say that we would be prepared to fund the CLG. That is a significant point which should not be overlooked. And, clearly, when the funding is finally decided upon, it will have to come back to this Chamber because it will be part of the budget of MCI and the Member and his party would have ample opportunity to ask all the specific questions.
But let us not miss the wood for the trees. It is not about the details right now. It is about the overall thrust of what we are trying to do. Is it the right thing to do? Is our news media an important public good that we should be supporting? And, if so, has it done a good job up to now in the models that we have used? And, if yes, then let us work with that and build on it rather than talk about a complete wholesale overhaul.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Tin Pei Ling.
Ms Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Two clarifications, the first one in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Bilingualism is an important characteristic of our education system. Being bilingual helps us to stay connected with our mother tongue cultures and it strengthens Singapore's global role as a cultural and economic bridge. I think this is important. Hence, it is crucial to ensure that the high standards of our vernacular newspapers are maintained.
Just now, Minister said that they would ask vernacular newspapers to be preserved after restructuring. I would like to ask further, since the Government will provide funding for the CLG, can we expect them to maintain the high standards of their content, including the reporting of international events and providing insightful analyses on current affairs? Lianhe Zaobao has won a hard-earned international award, let us continue to support them. I hope that the Minister can give us more information on this.
(In English): The second point is about establishing Singapore's thought leadership and mindshare internationally. I think this is very important. Helping our papers to be able to be circulated internationally is a very critical part, in addition to the national cohesion, national public good in Singapore. So, again, I would like to ask Minister, whether this is something that is on the agenda or one of the parameters that we may require the new CLG to look into in the move ahead. And whether there will be resources or funding set aside to build such capabilities?
Mr S Iswaran: Can you clarify about the international query?
Ms Tin Pei Ling: Establishing Singapore's thought leadership and mindshare internationally is important. So, how can we build up that ability to ensure that we can be circulated internationally?
Mr S Iswaran: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for her points. I think it is very important that we take this opportunity to once again, reiterate the commitment to the vernacular media, as part of this and any future restructuring or other changes that may occur. They are important pillars in our multi-ethnic fabric.
I think I have made the point about the important role that they play, and in particular, by giving voice to the particular community. For that reason alone, we should be focused on how we can give them not just resources, but really the motivation and ambition to be more.
I think that is the other point that the Member has raised, which is from an international point of view. For example, and I think specifically in the context of say, the Chinese media, I am sure it will not be lost on many within the SPH organisation but also those who are going to be involved later, that our Chinese media has significant potential to not just cater to the needs of Singaporeans, but also to be able to present a perspective on international affairs. I think it will be a very valued one because it will represent the Singapore point of view, which would be seen as being objective. And it will also be one that would be valuable to Singaporeans because there will be a chance to understand some of these international developments through the lens of Singaporeans and how they assess this in terms of its impact on us and our long-term interests.
So, for all those reasons, I think we will want to make sure that the vernacular media do not just pivot to digital, but actually develop additional important capabilities to meet this broader need that we have. I think this is something that I would have to defer to the CLG Chairman and the members of the Board and the management, who will then have to take this forward. But I think from a Government point of view, certainly there should be no doubt as to where we stand on the issue. I thank the Member for bringing it up.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. End of Ministerial Statement. Introduction of Government Bills. Second Minister for Home Affairs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Registration of Births and Deaths Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to provide for registration of births, deaths and stillbirths, to repeal the Registration of Births and Deaths Act (Chapter 267 of the 1985 Revised Edition) and to make consequential amendments to certain other Acts\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Mental Capacity Act and to make a related amendment to the Electronic Transactions Act\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Eric Chua) on behalf of the Minister for Social and Family Development; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Amendment No 3) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) First Reading. (proc text)]
The Minister for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Sir, I have a Certificate of Urgency signed by the President in respect of the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Amendment No 3) Bill, to be laid upon the Table.
[(proc text) Certificate of Urgency signed by the President in respect of the Bill, laid upon the Table by the Minister for National Development. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: The Certificate is in order. Minister, please proceed.
Mr Desmond Lee: Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled \"An Act to amend the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act 2020.\"
[(proc text) Bill read the First time. (proc text)]
Mr Desmond Lee: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, copies of the Bill have been provided to the Clerk, who will distribute it to Members now. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members.]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister, Second Reading when?
Mr Desmond Lee: With regard to Second Reading, tomorrow, Sir.
Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it. Order. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Significant Infrastructure Government Loan Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"Mr Deputy Speaker: Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance.
The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Heng Swee Keat): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
Sir, first, let me set the context behind this Bill. To do so, may I ask the Clerk to distribute the handout, please?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Please do. [A handout was distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 2.]
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Members may also access this handout through the SG PARL MP mobile app. Mr Deputy Speaker, over the next 15 years, Singapore will be making bold investments in major infrastructure that will benefit both the current and future generations. This generational upgrade in our infrastructure will greatly enhance the connectivity, liveability and sustainability of our home. Taken together, we expect an upcoming hump in development expenditure of around 5% of GDP annually, higher than our baseline or average development expenditure of 3.7%.
This expenditure is over and above other infrastructural investments that we will continue to make, in areas like building more healthcare and education facilities.
We plan to build new MRT lines such as the Cross Island Line and Jurong Region Line. MRT is the most efficient and greenest mode of transport. We want to raise the mass public transport modal share during peak hours from 64% now to 75% by 2030. New MRT lines will move us closer to the vision of a 45-minute city with 20-minute towns by 2040 and bring greener transport options closer to more Singaporeans.
Another example is the Deep Tunnel Sewerage System, or DTSS. The DTSS will meet our long-term needs for used water collection, treatment, reclamation and disposal. As part of the second phase of DTSS, the Tuas Water Reclamation Plant will be able to treat up to 800,000 cubic metres of used water per day. This is equivalent to 320 Olympic-sized swimming pools. This will enhance our water resilience, in the face of larger fluctuations in rainfall.
Other examples of major, long-term infrastructure that we are building or expecting to build include major highways, such as the North-South Corridor which will alleviate congestion on the CTE, as well as coastal protection infrastructure to protect us against rising sea levels caused by climate change. Agencies are already embarking on site-specific studies at our coastlines, to examine potential measures like sea walls and polders. We expect more expenditure on climate change beyond 2030.
This Bill before the House today will permit the Government to borrow for these major, long-term infrastructures, subject to strict safeguards, under the new Significant Infrastructure Government Loan Act, or SINGA for short.
Given this upcoming hump in development expenditure that I just described, borrowing is a fair approach, because it allows each generation that benefits from the infrastructure to pay for its share. Otherwise, taxpayers in the next decade will need to finance much of this lumpy infrastructure that has a useful life of 50 years or more.
Borrowing in this context is also efficient. First, with Singapore's AAA rating, we are likely able to tap the debt market at favourable interest rates.
Second, by borrowing instead of drawing on investments, our reserves can remain invested to earn returns. We can tap on these returns to supplement our Budget through the Net Investment Returns Contribution, or NIRC. Other alternatives to borrowing include raising taxes temporarily, diverting resources from other spending needs such as social spending, or delaying significant infrastructure investments; however, all these options would be less efficient and more costly to the nation.
Borrowing for infrastructure is not new. As a fledgling state with no natural resources, we had borrowed to finance large infrastructure investments to help build Singapore in the past.
Singapore launched our first Development Plan in 1961, an ambitious $871 million plan to kickstart industrialisation and economic development. We borrowed from the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, and paid these debts back steadily and on time.
In the 1980s, we borrowed to finance a wave of major infrastructure projects that we continue to benefit from today. These projects include Changi Airport Terminals 1 and 2, and our first MRT lines, the North-South and East-West lines.
By the early 1990s, our economy was growing rapidly, aided by our young demographic. This led to buoyant revenues, which allowed the Government to meet all its expenditure needs and pay down the earlier debts. In addition, with prudent management of our finances, we were able to run healthy Budget surpluses and build up our reserves. There was no need for us to borrow to pay for major infrastructure expenditure.
While we must continue to build for our future, including significant infrastructure, such as MRT lines and coastal protection infrastructure, our economy and demographic are now more mature. Given our ageing demographic and less scope for catch-up productivity growth, we cannot expect our economy to grow rapidly in the future.
Hence, we will not have the same buoyant revenues as before to pay for large infrastructure expenditure upfront. Instead, we will reactivate Government borrowing.
Our approach on borrowing should remain prudent and disciplined.
First, we will not borrow for just any kind of development expenditure. We will set a high bar for qualifying projects that can be financed by borrowing.
Second, we must ensure that we do not overly burden future governments with high debt servicing costs, which will reduce the resources available for spending on worthwhile services and subsidies for our people. Hence, we will impose both strict borrowing and interest limits.
We have benefited from the prudence of previous generations, who set aside surpluses then, when our economy was growing rapidly. This is why we have our reserves and a Reserves Protection Framework. Let us not forget that the opposite of reserves is debt. Today, the NIRC adds about 3% of our GDP to our total revenue. For most advanced economies, 1%-3% of GDP is spent on debt servicing costs.
We must be careful not to slide from a position of having net assets to one of having net debt. Otherwise, instead of having assets that earn a stream of earnings to add to our revenue for future spending, we will be committing resources to servicing debts incurred by earlier generations.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now explain how we have included these safeguards in the Bill, which will apply in addition to the Reserves Protection Framework.
The earlier Development Loan Acts in the 1960s to 1980s that permitted Government borrowing for spending on development did not set out criteria for the type of development that qualifies. However, given that our economy is maturing and we are no longer expecting the same high growth and high fiscal surpluses as before, we have set out a prudent and disciplined approach.
Today, all Government development projects go through a rigorous multi-stage evaluation process to ensure project worthiness and cost effectiveness. All infrastructure projects will also need to obtain Ministers' approval before they can be built. SINGA projects will undergo the same scrutiny.
In addition, under the SINGA Bill, nationally significant infrastructure projects must satisfy four requirements.
One, it must be major in size. Two, it must be important to Singapore's national interests and benefit the general public. Three, it must last multiple generations. And four, it must be owned by the Government.
First, nationally significant projects will have to cost at least $4 billion. This is set out in clause 11(5a).
Nationally significant infrastructure projects tend to be big-ticket items as they are major and complex in nature. The $4 billion threshold will capture major, lumpy development needs that form the upcoming \"hump\" above our baseline development expenditure.
It will also exclude smaller-scale infrastructure, such as schools and polyclinics. Such smaller scale infrastructure makes up the base of our annual development expenditure and should continue to be funded from taxes and other revenues.
Clause 11 of the Bill sets out the criteria for determining the costs of the project.
First, recurrent expenditure related to the nationally significant infrastructure, such as costs of repair and maintenance and purchase of vehicles, is excluded.
Second, the cost of acquiring land is excluded as well.
Third, the Bill permits projects to be built in phases, such as our MRT lines. Where these phases have been planned for right from the start, the costs of all phases of the infrastructure project can count towards the $4 billion threshold, if the different phases or components of the project are linked either physically or operationally. In short, we can view such a project as one system of integrated and inter-connected components.
For example, the cost of the entire Cross Island Line will count towards the same project value threshold because all its stations and rail tracks are physically connected to each other. The entire Cross Island Line is also expected to operate in its entirety, interchanging with all other MRT lines, existing and planned.
In the case of the different infrastructure components that are required to protect us against rising sea levels, they are linked operationally but not physically. They may not be physically connected to each other because they may be triggered at certain locations. However, the costs of these components will also count towards the same project value threshold because the components need to work in tandem to protect our coastlines.
For separate infrastructure projects that are not linked physically and can operate independently, the SINGA does not permit these projects to be bundled together in order to meet the $4 billion threshold. For example, the costs of individual hospitals will not count towards the same project value threshold, as each hospital can function as a standalone. When one hospital is down, other hospitals can continue to run and they may even pick up some of the slack in providing healthcare capacity. In contrast, if a component of an MRT line or coastal protection infrastructure is not built, the whole system would not be able to function as intended.
I turn to the second requirement, which requires the infrastructure project to be important to our national interests and benefit the general public in Singapore. This is set out in clause 2, under the definition of \"nationally significant infrastructure\", as being one that is \"likely to materially improve national productivity or Singapore's economic, social or environmental sustainability\" and in clause 2 as being \"intended principally for use by or for the benefit of the present and future generations of the general public\".
New MRT lines will qualify, because these enhance liveability, promote economic activity by improving connectivity and are the greenest mode of transport in the long run.
The Bill provides a list of examples that meet these objectives, such as transport infrastructure, climate change-related infrastructure, as well as utility network infrastructure. This list is non-exhaustive. This is because we can never know today, what we may need in the future. What is important is that we are targeting those projects with benefits that accrue widely to Singapore as a whole, or to a large majority of our people.
In order to adhere to the spirit of this thinking without trying to predict too far into the future, we have safeguards that I have mentioned earlier, to ensure that the Government will use this carefully.
The third requirement, as set out in clause 11(2), is for the resulting nationally significant infrastructure to have a useful life of at least 50 years. This ensures that the infrastructure project will benefit more than one generation of citizens.
To be clear, the useful life of an infrastructure is not necessarily the same as its physical life. The physical life can be shorter, if we expect that the infrastructure may no longer serve its intended function sometime in the future, for example, if it is likely to be rendered obsolete by technological advances after a period of time.
We will use the useful life of the infrastructure to determine the depreciation period of the capitalised assets. This is fair as it ensures that depreciation costs are spread only across generations who will benefit from the infrastructure.
Lastly, all nationally significant infrastructure financed by borrowings must be legally owned by the Government. This ensures that the qualifying infrastructure assets can be capitalised on the Government's accounts.
In addition, the asset must be controlled either by the Government or another entity on behalf of the Government. This ensures that the Government retains ultimate oversight over the infrastructure assets, to incentivise proper upkeep and maintenance, so generations of Singaporeans can benefit.
To give an example, the North-South Corridor will qualify under SINGA, because it is an asset owned by the Government and is controlled by another entity, namely LTA, on behalf of the Government.
The four qualifying requirements that I have touched on set out the projects that can qualify as nationally significant infrastructure. In addition, the Bill sets out limits to ensure that the amount the Government borrow is equitable and sustainable. This is to ensure that future generations are not saddled with a high debt burden.
Clause 5 imposes two restrictions: a gross borrowing limit and an annual effective interest cost threshold.
Together, these restrictions ensure that future Governments will be able to afford the principal and interest costs, while having sufficient fiscal space to fund their priorities of the day.
The gross borrowing limit is set at $90 billion under the Bill. This sum reflects the projected pipeline of nationally significant infrastructure over the next 15 years, after adjusting for inflation.
Ninety billion dollars is approximately 20% of today's annual GDP at current market prices. This is lower than the borrowing limits of Development Loan Acts which previously allowed the Government to borrow for development expenditure in the 1960s to 1980s. Previous borrowing limits averaged 40% of GDP in the year the Acts were introduced. It is thus a reasonable figure given our more mature economy.
I should emphasise that the borrowing limit is a gross limit and not a rolling limit. Once the Government has raised a borrowing under SINGA, that amount will be counted towards the total borrowing limit, even after the loan has been repaid.
After the $90 billion limit is reached, the Government will have to amend the borrowing limit by passing a new Bill in Parliament in order to borrow further sums under SINGA. In doing so, it will need to justify such further borrowings to finance infrastructure projects that are of national importance.
In other words, this Bill that we are legislating is limited to enable the Government of the day to borrow to meet the significant infrastructure needs in the coming years up to a maximum of $90 billion, as we undertake this generational upgrade.
If there are further needs beyond the $90 billion, future terms of Parliament will have to debate and approve further measures to meet these needs.
As set out in clause 5(2), refinanced borrowings will not count towards this $90 billion limit. This is because there is no corresponding spending on and capitalisation of nationally significant infrastructure. Allowing for refinancing, gives the Government of-the-day the flexibility to manage borrowing costs efficiently across interest rate cycles. For instance, the Government may issue bonds across a range of tenors and refinance when the bonds mature.
Hence, the Bill provides for borrowings for the purpose of refinancing, even after the $90 billion borrowing limit is reached.
The second restriction is an effective interest cost threshold of $5 billion per annum. Five billion dollars interest against the $90 billion cap works out to be an effective interest rate of about 5.5%. This threshold ensures we limit our borrowings when interest rates are very high, as interest costs will have to be borne by future generations.
The annual effective interest cost will be calculated based on the effective interest costs paid in the preceding financial year. If the effective interest paid exceeds $5 billon, the Government will not be allowed to borrow more in the next financial year.
Allow me to illustrate how the threshold will work. The recent 30-year SGS that was auctioned in January 2021 had a cut-off yield of 1.4%. If we borrow the full $90 billion based on this rate, the annual interest costs will be $1.3 billion, which is below the $5 billion threshold. But we cannot expect interest rates to remain at low levels forever. Historically, the longest period where SGS yields remained low did not last for more than two years, and this was in the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis from 2011 to 2012.
So, interest rates may continue to stay low or may increase in the future and we have to be prepared for that. In fact, the cut-off yield of a 30-year SGS went up to 2.94% in February 2018, which is not too long ago.
We have also examined the interest rate trends for SGS over the past 25 years. Cut-off yields of SGS with tenors of more than 10 years have ranged from a low of 0.93% as recently as July 2020, and to a high of 5.87% in 1998 when global interest rates were higher. The $5 billion threshold thus provides some buffer for us to cater to such scenarios.
We will, however, limit the maximum amount that can be borrowed if interest rates are overly high and the interest cost threshold achieves this objective. For example, if interest rates averaged around 10%, then the interest cost threshold will constrain the amount of borrowings under SINGA to $50 billion, notwithstanding the gross borrowing limit of $90 billion.
Setting the threshold at $5 billion therefore helps us to balance between fiscal sustainability and flexibility to accommodate market fluctuations.
A $5 billion threshold caps the interest costs at around 1% of our GDP in 2020 at current market prices. This is a fiscally sustainable level and would not excessively impinge on future Government's ability to fund other priorities of the day. It also provides a buffer to account for interest rates rising and falling through the cycle, as the Government borrows at different points in time to finance infrastructure as and when we need to build them. Let me elaborate.
The cost of borrowing is fixed at the prevailing yield during each bond issuance. As the Government issues bonds over several years, it will lock in interest rates at different points in the interest rate cycle. This means that even if some borrowings needed to be made during periods of high interest rates, there would have been borrowings that were made, or will be made, during periods of low interest rates, so the costs of borrowing will be averaged out over time. Further, the $5 billion threshold translates to borrowing cost of 5.5%, for $90 billion borrowing, which is high relative to historical borrowing rates. The last time when 10-year borrowing costs exceeded this level was in 1998.
With all its fiscal expenditure, the Government will be transparent in reporting the use of borrowings to finance nationally significant infrastructure. When borrowings are used to meet progress payments for nationally significant infrastructure, such spending will be reported in the annual Budget Statement and the Government Financial Statements (GFS), together with annual depreciation expenses and interest costs. Additionally, we will submit a statement of assets financed under SINGA to the President annually to ensure accountability.
Sir, let me now explain how this Bill will impact our Current Reserves and annual Budget balance.
Presently, the development costs of infrastructure are financed using revenues accruing to the Current Reserves and fully expensed upfront in the annual Budget. In other words, Government's annual Budget balance is reduced by the full development costs of any infrastructure that is paid in that year.
With borrowing, the Government will be able to raise cash to meet the outlays for these major, long-term infrastructure projects. But borrowing is not revenue and does not increase the Current Reserves that we can allocate in the annual Budget. This is why the Bill also provides for the capitalisation of infrastructure projects that are financed under SINGA. In other words, the development cost of major, long-term infrastructure will be financed using borrowings raised under SINGA, capitalised as assets and depreciated over the useful life of the infrastructure. Depreciation of SINGA assets, as well as borrowing costs, will be expensed against the annual Budget balance and will reduce Current Reserves of each term of Government over the assets' useful life.
As such, development expenditure financed by SINGA will affect the Current Reserves differently, compared to regular development expenditure. The Budget presentation will reflect this treatment. This better matches the timing of benefits with the timing of spending. Present and future generations of Singaporeans will both contribute to and benefit from such infrastructure. Put together, this approach will smoothen the upcoming hump in development expenditure and lower our average development expenditure over the next decade from around 5% of GDP to 4.2% of GDP, after taking into account depreciation and borrowing costs.
Let me explain using an example. Assume an MRT line that costs $14 billion and has a useful life of 70 years. Currently, we would expense the full $14 billion upfront, which reduce our annual Budget balance by the full $14 billion over the construction period, which may be over a period of say, 10 years. Assuming equal progress in every year, this would mean expenditure of $1.4 billion per year.
Under SINGA, the $1.4 billion cash payment for each year will still form part of the development estimates in our annual Budget, which are subject to Parliament's approval and President's assent. However, we will add back this $1.4 billion in computing our annual Budget balance as this $1.4 billion will be capitalised as an asset.
Upon completion of the construction, we will spread the total development costs of $14 billion over the MRT line's useful life of 70 years, by expensing annual depreciation costs of about $200 million instead. This means that our annual Budget balance will be reduced by $200 million over 70 years, before borrowing costs.
Clause 29 of the Bill will amend the Financial Procedure Act to allow for nationally significant infrastructure financed by borrowings to be capitalised as assets and depreciated over the useful life of the infrastructure.
The Reserves Protection Framework will continue to apply as well. If the Government runs a deficit, including depreciation and borrowing cost of SINGA assets, and do not have sufficient Current Reserves, there will be a draw on Past Reserves. Each term of Government will need to run a balanced Budget over its term, maintaining the fiscal discipline to ensure that we do not spend beyond our means. This fundamental principle remains unchanged with SINGA.
We had sought the President's in-principle support in February this year for the Government to borrow for and capitalise nationally significant infrastructure under SINGA. And as with the case for all Bills to become law, we will also seek the President's assent to this Bill. Under Article 144 of our Constitution, the President has the discretion to withhold assent to any Bill providing for the borrowing of money by the Government, if she is of the opinion that the Bill is likely to draw on Past Reserves. Only after Parliament has passed and the President assented to the Bill, will the Government be able to borrow for nationally significant infrastructure, up to a gross limit of $90 billion.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to make it clear that this Bill introduces a new form of Government borrowing to finance spending on nationally significant infrastructure.
This is distinct from existing borrowings under the Local Treasury Bills Act or LTBA and Government Securities Act or GSA, which are for specific non-spending purposes, such as for market development, meeting the investment needs of CPF and liquidity. All borrowing under the LTBA and GSA are invested and cannot be spent. Even if we were to borrow up to the $90 billion limit under SINGA to finance nationally significant infrastructure, the majority of our borrowings will continue to be under the LTBA and GSA, which are for non-spending purposes. Some commentators have incorrectly interpreted our high gross debt-to-GDP ratio as a sign of fiscal imprudence, when in fact, our assets are well in excess of our liabilities.
To address these misperceptions, we intend to clearly delineate the two types of borrowing in legislation. First, borrowings to finance spending on nationally significant infrastructure under the SINGA; and two, borrowings which are invested and cannot be spent under the LTBA and GSA. We intend to merge the LTBA and GSA into a single Act, as both are for non-spending purposes. The merger Bill will be tabled in Parliament in the coming months.
In addition, this Bill repeals the Development Loan Acts (DLAs) which previously allowed the Government to borrow for development expenditure in the 1960s to 1980s. This makes it clear that borrowing for developmental purposes going forward, can only take place under the new safeguards that are imposed under SINGA.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me now conclude.
In 1965, shortly after Singapore became an independent nation, Mr Lee Kuan Yew said, and I quote, \"Over 100 years ago, this was a mudflat, swamp. Today, this is a modern city. Ten years from now, this will be a metropolis. Never fear\". Since Independence, infrastructure has played a major role in Singapore's remarkable physical transformation from mudflat to metropolis.
We built a world-class airport that has made us the open, globally connected city we are today. We created our first reservoir in the city and the largest reservoir in Singapore, the Marina Reservoir, by building a dam to keep out seawater. This innovative method provides us with an additional source of water supply and helps alleviate flooding in low-lying areas of the city.
The Downtown Line, which opened in end 2015, reaches out to residential areas such as Bukit Panjang, MacPherson and Bedok Reservoir that were previously not served by the MRT, cutting travel times for Singaporeans living in these areas and connecting people to the city centre.
Moving forward, infrastructure will remain important as our country enters into its next phase of development. We will turn our metropolis into a green, global city that is robust in addressing future challenges. We are building a sewerage system that helps us recycle every drop of water in a never-ending loop. We will bring green and efficient transport options closer to more Singaporeans. We will build coastal protection infrastructure to protect our coasts from rising sea levels caused by climate change.
And in so doing, we will build a Singapore where we and our children can live our best lives in a safe, green and liveable environment, for all time and seasons to come.
This Bill will allow the Government to borrow so that we can make bold and necessary infrastructure investments that are critical to Singapore's long-term development – just as our forefathers did.
It provides an additional fiscal tool to continue to build Singapore for the future. It adheres to our prudent fiscal approach by ensuring that we do not risk borrowing beyond our means.
After all, all debt has to be paid for. If we do not borrow responsibly and sustainably, we would risk being unable to meet our debt obligations. This would jeopardise our credit rating as well as investor confidence and this will hurt us and our children in the future.
This Bill ensures that we borrow to spend only on nationally significant infrastructure investments which will benefit many generations of Singaporeans to come – in line with our values of taking a long-term view and staying prudent and responsible.
We are not borrowing to spend on expenditures that will be consumed quickly. Current generations should continue to pay for their own recurrent needs like healthcare expenditure through recurrent revenues such as taxes. This is the right and responsible thing to do.
Let us share the effort to build our nation together. Most importantly, let us never stop thinking about our future.
In the long journey of nation-building, each generation of Singaporeans are relay runners. Let us always take good care of what we have inherited, run our best race and pass on a better Singapore to those who come after us.
This Significant Infrastructure Government Loan Bill is but one step in this long journey. It seeks to do right by Singaporeans, both present and future, through the financial plans and provisions that we make today. Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will speak on two aspects related to this Bill: firstly, on fiscal prudence and financial discipline, whether that has been undermined with the SINGA Bill; and secondly, on intergenerational equity, a somewhat new perspective that increasingly deserves our attention.
I will also briefly touch on the other tactical considerations with regards to the Government's long-term borrowing strategy, namely interest rate levels and credit costs, servicing and repayments of the Government's borrowings as well as the development of the Singapore debt capital market.
First, on fiscal prudence and financial discipline. Since Independence, the overarching guiding values of our fiscal management have been to spend within our means and to maintain a balanced Budget. We saved whenever we could for rainy days and refrained from borrowing to pay for our expenditures. Whenever we had surpluses at the end of the term of government, we would either redistribute or endow it for specific uses such as the Pioneer Generation Fund, the Rail Infrastructure Fund, the Special Employment Credit Fund and so on. Otherwise, we would convert the surpluses to reserves so as to grow the base, to invest and to a generate larger returns contribution in the future.
These values of prudence and discipline are also enshrined in our Constitution.
The Government of the day must balance the Budget during the term of government. The President holds the second key in the use of reserves and only up to 50% of the NIRC can be used to fund the current annual Budget spending. There are also gross borrowing caps set by the Parliament on the issuance of Government debt securities where the proceeds can only be used for investments.
Besides these institutional safeguards, it is also vital to have alignment at the political stewardship level. We are fortunate to have successive Ministers for Finance who are committed to the values of prudence and discipline. Some would say that our Ministers for Finance tended to be conservative in managing the Budget. Well, they should be. For a small island state like Singapore, a higher safety buffer is always wise and will always serve us well. We must always expect a major storm around the corner that could hit us and when it does, we can take comfort that we have the resources to decisively tackle and overcome the crisis.
Our prudent and disciplined management over the years has allowed Singapore to build a strong balance sheet with net zero debt and attain the highest international sovereign ratings of AAA by global rating agencies. As a result, whenever the Government taps the debt market, it is able to borrow at a risk-free rate or at zero credit costs. This opens another avenue of inexpensive funding for the Government.
Sir, the basic question then is whether this differentiated financing strategy where we can now borrow over a long term to fund large-scale capital expenditures signals an increasingly less prudent management of our finances?
In all fairness, the Government did borrow in the 1970s and 1980s to pay for the construction of Changi Airport and our MRT lines. However, since the 1990s, we have used the annual budget and the accumulated surpluses to pay for major infrastructure projects.
Under this SINGA framework, lumpy infrastructure costs greater than $4 billion can be financed using long-term debt.
I have been pondering this topic since it was first raised in 2018; should we be concerned with this new approach and where it could lead us to? Will these borrowings burden our future generations with high interest costs and large bullet repayments? Or is it indeed timely to now be open to long-term debt financing so that we can achieve the optimal outcome for Singapore given the current circumstance?
Let us first look at the realities before us.
First reality: we do have significant infrastructure expenditures in the immediate future and these are not small spending items. Projects like the Cross Island Line, Jurong Rail Line as well as the Deep Tunnel Sewerage System are not only super big-ticket outlays, their constructions may stretch more than a decade with benefits accruing across generations.
Second reality: even if we were not in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis, financing such huge expenditures using current revenue or accumulated surpluses would still pose a significant strain to the annual Budget allocation.
Our recurrent expenditures are already growing each year while our revenue outlook looks increasingly uncertain. The massive pandemic-related relief spending has also exacerbated the strain on our books. To fund such mega long-term projects under current Budget cycles, we may have to either cut other spending or raise tax revenues – neither of which are suitable under the current environment.
So, we are indeed facing a situation of tighter fiscal headroom going forward. Should we delay these critical projects because of current budget constraints? Well, these infrastructures are necessary to enhance our capabilities and to improve our quality of life. We should get these projects going soonest.
Should we then just draw on our reserves to pay for these projects? If this is indeed the instinctive mindset, then we would really be going down a slippery slope. We should not see the reserves as an ATM to be drawn on whenever we need money. Reserves should only be used as a last resort such as during a devastating crisis like the one we are in today. They are our last line of defence and we really want a solid defence.
Each draw on our reserves also means divesting a part of our financial investments and so we will lose out on the returns from these investments and their contribution to NIRC.
Given these considerations and the current budgetary constraints, I would agree that the next best option would be to borrow for such expenditures – but with strict conditions.
I note the list of qualifying criteria to borrow under SINGA such as the minimal useful life of 50 years and that the projects should support national productivity and achieve economic, environmental and social sustainability goals.
Similar to the Government Securities Act (GSA) and the Local Treasury Bills Act (LTBA), we need to also hardcode the necessary prudential safeguards so that borrowings are indeed selective and controlled. The overall gross borrowing limit of $90 billion ensures that the Government will not run into an excessive debt situation and that we will have the ability to service and repay the debt.
It is also important to impose an annual interest threshold to avoid overly onerous financing costs on future generations, although, in my view, the $5 billion threshold in the Bill appears to be on the high side. And the reason is because besides the interest cost, there is also the depreciation charge. Under the SINGA framework, we need to capitalise the expenditure and these items – both the interest cost as well as the depreciation charge – will henceforth be an additional recurring expense item in our annual Budget. This is a significantly large expense item and will make the overall balancing of the Budget more challenging going forward.
Hence, this option of tapping the debt market to finance very large infrastructure projects can only be palatable if interest rates and costs remain low.
Indeed, interest rates are at historical lows today, presenting an opportune window for the Government to seek funding. It also makes good sense to take advantage of our very solid credit ratings to enjoy zero credit cost borrowing in the market. From a capital market development standpoint, having such a high quality issuance will also deepen our bond market and attract a bigger pool of institutional investors to Singapore.
Sir, we are far from those countries with high public debt-to-GDP ratio, which transfers heavy tax burden of today onto future generations. This brings me to the next point on intergeneration equity.
Perhaps the more enduring argument as to why we should introduce the SINGA Bill is that it helps better manage intergenerational equity when we fund very large and very long-term infrastructural projects.
During the early years of Independence, where survivability as a nation was our foremost concern, our pioneering generations saw the need to tightened belts and save for a better tomorrow. The savings built up provided security and benefited subsequent generations who also saw as their obligation to build on past savings so as to provide a better and more secured life for the next generation.
The is the self-sacrificing spirit of the Pioneer Generation as well as Merdeka Generation. They supported the Government's prudent fiscal policy and worked hand in hand with the Government to grow the reserves and strengthen our fiscal foundation.
As we built up our nest eggs over the decades, the Government would regularly share and distribute the fruits of our past successes. At the same time, we also accumulated where we could so as to provide for higher spending needs in the future.
In 2009, the Government tweaked the reserves framework and also introduced the NIRC as another contribution to the budget to help pay for our growing current expenditures. In a way, the 50-50 sharing of the NIR represents an intergenerational balance that we want to achieve between current and future generations.
In 2015 and 2018, to thank our Pioneer and Merdeka Generations for their sacrifices, the Government set aside a total of $15 billion from the accumulated surplus or current reserves to set up the Pioneer Generation Package (PGP) and Merdeka Generation Package (MGP) to provide healthcare support for our seniors. The Government also increased the share of Budget spending in senior facilities and major healthcare infrastructures, amongst others, to care for this generation of seniors.
On the other hand, in order not to pass the buck of current spending to future generations, we strive to use current revenue to pay for these recurring expenditures, thereby ensuring sound and sustainable operating finances.
The financing of our large-scale long-term infrastructure with long-term borrowing is a further manifestation of that spirit of equity. As this infrastructure benefits multiple generations, it is more equitable to share the costs across generations by way of a long-term financing structure.
Although I support the Government's greater emphasis on intergeneration equity in our fiscal management, we know it is always difficult to find that balance that everyone agrees with. So, while we can depend on frameworks like SINGA and NIRC to seek better equity, we should never discard our long-held values and ethos of always leaving something behind for our next generation and to strengthen our future. Sir, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the SINGA Bill introduces a very important topic on intergenerational equity, that is, how to distribute fiscal resources and burdens in a more balanced way between generations?
In the past, our Pioneers scrimped and saved so that future generations can have a better and more stable life, as well as more financial resources to rely on during rainy days. It was the spirit and values of the Pioneer Generation to be thrift and to toil before enjoying. Because of their sacrifices, Singaporeans today enjoy sizeable reserves. It is exactly because of our reserves that we can have the resources and confidence to fight the current COVID-19 crisis.
As the economy matures and demography changes, our fiscal policies and practices must change accordingly, especially in terms of the intergenerational distribution of financial resources and fiscal burdens.
Let me give two examples.
First, of course, we want to strengthen our financial foundation. We should not change this principle and practice. But when each term of Government ponders upon what to do with the Budget surpluses and NIR, the idea of intergenerational distribution of fiscal resources should be considered.
Over the years, as our fiscal position improves, we have been able to allow this generation of Singaporeans, including our Pioneers, to enjoy the fruits of economic growth and improve their lives. That is why we introduced the Pioneer Generation Package and the Merdeka Generation Package and allocated more funds in each Budget to build more healthcare facilities to better look after the seniors.
With regard to NIR, we amended the Constitution in 2009 to allow 50% of the NIR to be used to fund the current annual Budget spending, to help balance each year's Budget. The other half of the NIR must be reinvested in our reserves so that it can continue to grow. We can then continue to have more returns to be injected into each year’s fiscal revenues to cope with the fast-growing expenditures of the future.
I think this is an acceptable and balanced intergenerational approach. As the saying goes, \"50-50, feelings will not be dissipated\". This will promote intergenerational harmony and allow each generation of Singaporeans to enjoy the fruits of our success
Second, we also need to ensure that there is a balance between recurrent expenditures and revenues for each term, and that there is no deficit, so that we can sustain it for the long term. For each generation of Singaporeans, the recurrent expenditures must be borne by the current generation and not through loans and other forms to spend the revenues of the future. They should not pass the fiscal burden to the future generations.
This is being responsible and is in line with the principle of equity.
Now that the Government is introducing this new Bill, I think this is a good opportunity to adjust the intergenerational distribution of fiscal resources within an appropriate scope.
In the past, we used our current Budget surplus to fund lumpy, large-scale projects. That is to say that, we are using the current generation's money to pay for infrastructures that will benefit future generations. But we know that as the economy matures and the population ages, our expenses will continue to increase, and our Budget will tighten. Worse still, with the pandemic and not knowing how long it will last, our overall fiscal outlays and revenues will definitely be subjected to greater pressure. If we continue to use the annual Budget surplus to pay for these mega infrastructure projects, we will have to face the choice between reducing expenditures in other areas or tax hikes. Both options, given the current economic situation, are not palatable.
With this new Bill, we can fund lumpy, long-term infrastructure projects by issuing long-term debts. This is the next best thing at this stage. I would like to give two reasons to support it.
First, the long-term interest is at a historic low so we can use this window of opportunity to reduce the borrowing cost to the lowest.
Second, by issuing long-term debt, we can achieve intergeneration equity by spreading the burden to future generations as well.
Projects like the Cross Island Line, Jurong Rail Line as well as the Deep Tunnel Sewerage System are all long-term, cross-generation endeavours which will benefit many generation onwards. Through long-term loans, we can more appropriately spread the burden across several generations. This is fair and can also avoid major budgetary fluctuations from year-to-year. Of course, we have the duty to ensure that we do not leave a huge debt to our future generations.
This Bill has also set certain key principles that we must abide by, such as the $90 billion borrowing limit and the $5 billion annual interest payment threshold. These two ceilings will help ensure that Government will not have too much debts and that it will have the ability to repay.
I believe this Bill will give the Government another fiscal management tool, so that the Government can respond more nimbly amidst the current uncertainties and have more policy space to address the issue of intergeneration equity.
(In English): Sir, I have two further clarifications.
First, during the debate on the 2021 Budget Statement earlier this year, I had suggested that if the fiscal condition remains tight, the Government could consider special purpose borrowing to finance time-critical and worthy investments to avoid having to divest our financial investments in the past reserves.
In his round-up speech, the Deputy Prime Minister replied that the Government would study the possibility of a one-off, special purpose borrowing to finance economic investments to help Singapore emerge stronger from COVID-19. So, can I clarify whether the Government envisages that the considerations behind such one-off borrowings would be different from those of SINGA?
My own thinking is that, when I made the suggestion during the Budget debate, it should be different. SINGA is meant to finance major, long-term infrastructure benefiting multiple generations.
I would suggest that the one-off special purpose borrowing be to finance economic investments to emerge stronger and should only be done in the context of the exceptional circumstances presented by COVID-19. For example, we may need to invest in capabilities that take advantage of the new opportunities in the global economy arising out of COVID-19. So, if our revenues are insufficient to fund these investments due to the economic situation being subdued, then we can deploy such special purpose borrowings. And such special purpose borrowings can also be distinguished from the normal borrowing in that it is one-off, it has a clear nexus with strategies for post-COVID-19 recovery and investment and also help us keep our assets invested. Could the Deputy Prime Minister provide an update on this?
My second clarification is, as mentioned in my speech, one of the most invaluable international accolades that we received is —
Mr Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Mr Liang, you have to wrap up quite shortly, please.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa: — our AAA rating by all three major global rating agencies. I believe we are amongst the remaining nine countries in world left that continue to enjoy this highest rating. So, being a AAA-rated sovereign enables us to borrow from the international market at a risk-free rate. It also has implications on the borrowing cost of Singapore corporates, as bonds issued by corporates/companies are often benchmarked to the Singapore Government yield curve.
So, can I ask the Deputy Prime Minister if our AAA rating status could be affected with this SINGA Bill and how have the rating agencies and international market responded to this new move? Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Foo Mee Har.
Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, the proposed Significant Infrastructure Government Loan Bill, SINGA, represents a significant shift in the Government's position on borrowings for the purpose of Government spending. I support the Bill.
It is coming at a time when the country is facing another hump in its development spending needs, with plans for new rail lines, water and sewerage infrastructure as well as coastal protection measures against rising sea levels. These important projects come amidst a tighter fiscal situation, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The proposed SINGA will enable the Government to continue investing in nationally significant infrastructure which incur heavy upfront costs but provide long-term benefits.
With the low interest rate environment and Singapore's AAA credit rating, the borrowing cost associated with SINGA is expected to be low. SINGA will make related amendments to the Financial Procedure Act to provide for capitalisation of the expenditures of these nationally significant infrastructure over the long term. This is in contrast to the current approach of fully expensing off upfront in the annual Budget of the Government.
Sir, the ability to capitalise expenditure under SINGA will enable lumpy upfront costs to be spread out across current and future generations who will enjoy these benefits. It will help free up cash for other needs, lessen pressure for tax increases and trade-offs on competing important investments.
Sir, I have three questions for the Minister to clarify relating to capitalisation.
One, for the Minister to provide details on how far out capitalisation of projects under SINGA will be allowed. Two, quantify the fiscal space created from this new accounting treatment. Three, estimate the amount of taxes that would have had to be raised to fund such long-term expenditures, if these were made under the current annual expense approach.
Sir, even as I support this Bill, we must exercise utmost discipline in what we borrow for and the extent of our borrowing. I would like to call out the need to guard against going down the slippery slope of other countries, where public debt has been accumulated to higher than that of their GDP, thereby transferring immense tax burdens from today onto future generations.
High levels of Government debt can have adverse effects on the economy, including crowding out of private sector investment, creating the expectation of future tax increases and injecting overall uncertainty into the economy.
It is critical that SINGA does not represent a material shift from the Government's long-held policy stance of maintaining fiscal prudence. We must ensure that our net asset position remains strong to absorb the borrowings under SINGA. The debt we accumulate must not put unfair pressure on future generations.
So, to avoid the temptation of a \"spend, spend, spend\" mentality that access to \"easy\" money can engender, it is critical that the Government puts in place the necessary safeguards. It is important that we establish a set of robust parameters at the starting line now. Borrowings must be carefully calibrated and we must draw a red line that should never be crossed.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am, therefore, comforted that clear provisions are provided in the Bill to separate major infrastructure from routine infrastructure and recurrent spending. Projects under SINGA need to be at least $4 billion, with the infrastructure available for use for at least 50 years, owned by the Government and important to national interests.
I call on the Government to put in place a SINGA Evaluation Panel, to include independent expert panels, to ensure all projects funded under SINGA are highly selective, robustly assessed against the qualifying criteria provided under the Bill. There should also be cost-benefit analyses to justify the expenditure.
It is important that our borrowings are sustainable and prudent. The Bill includes safeguards that cap the overall gross borrowing at $90 billion. However, Statutory Boards such as HDB, LTA and PUB have also issued bonds on financial markets to finance infrastructure projects. How do we ensure that cumulative bond issuance, whether for SINGA or non-SINGA projects, by all Government agencies as well as contingent liabilities, remain within an acceptable range? Borrowings under SINGA are capped at $90 billion, about 20% of GDP. I would like to ask the Minister, if this limit will be adjusted as GDP grows? How will the Government ensure Singapore's AAA credit rating be preserved amidst increase borrowings?
Sir, the Bill provides for an annual interest threshold of $5 billion to avoid imposing burdensome financial costs on future generations. Nevertheless, the potential interest costs of $5 billion on our annual Budget is still very significant. To put things into perspective, the impending GST hike of two percentage points is expected to raise $3 billion in revenue, but GST would have to be raised 3.3% to cover interest costs of $5 billion. This does not include the additional revenue needed to also fund annual depreciation of the capital expenditure borrowed under SINGA.
Of course, having said this, given the current low interest rate environment in the foreseeable future, I do agree with hon Member Liang Eng Hwa that it makes sense to tap the debt market now but we must remember interest rate can rise. So, this Bill does provide some buffer for interest rate cycles' yields and the potential for issuances of longer tenure bonds.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the Government's intention to issue green bonds under SINGA is a great move. For a start, up to $19 billion in public sector green projects have been identified to be financed by green bonds, including the waste and water treatment facility at Tuas Nexus.
SINGA has the potential to catalyse the flow of capital towards sustainable development, not just in Singapore, but in Asia. I have seen a strong momentum amongst investors around the world towards environmental, social and governance (ESG) causes, with increasing numbers of asset owners making commitments to prioritise sustainability and investing for good in their investment portfolio. The green bonds under SINGA are, therefore, likely to be well supported by market demand, attract more favourable pricing and have potential to deepen market liquidity for green bonds.
Last but not least, I would like to end by seeking a number of clarifications from the Minister in relation to the assets under SINGA.
With the expectation that the infrastructure should be available for use for least 50 years, does the $90 billion limit take into account upgrading and maintenance cost over the lifespan of the infrastructure? If not, where in the Budget does it provide for this cost?
Two, if interest rates rise and the cost of debt servicing hits the threshold, does the Government have the right to divest the Government-owned assets in part or fully to keep within the interest rate threshold?
The Government can raise money outside of Singapore and in a currency other than the Singapore dollars. How does the Government intend to manage the foreign exchange risk related to this borrowing?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Deputy Speaker, during the Budget 2021 and subsequent Committee of Supply debates, I suggested that our notion of infrastructure should not be limited to traditional understandings of physical structures and facilities. I explained how if we wish to be a leader in the modern knowledge-driven economy of the future, we can and should direct our development expenditures ever more towards investments that are essentially weightless in nature and scale back on the lumbering, massive capital projects of yesteryear.
Today, I wish to flesh out these arguments in greater detail. I will explain how investments in human capital are not only distinct from investments in labour, but also more akin to our usual definitions of infrastructure. I will also share how returns to human capital often significantly exceed those of hard infrastructure even as we are looking purely at the boost to macro-economic growth. I then offer a simple checklist of how we can distinguish between human capital investments from recurring expenditures.
For starters, allow me again to applaud the Ministry for its willingness to relax its traditional reticence towards borrowing, to recognise that this really is an opportune time to exploit historically low interest rates to finance important, long-term investment opportunities. I sincerely believe that there is a pearl of wisdom in this oyster of insight.
I do have a number of concerns specific to the Bill itself.
My first concern has to do with both the total borrowing limits of $90 billion, as well as the interest threshold amount of $5 billion stated in clause 5 of the Bill. Well, I understand that it is ultimately necessary to impose specific thresholds. I think it is worth asking how these values were arrived at. I also wonder why the interest threshold of $5 billion was chosen which would imply an interest rate of 5.6%, as Minister Heng alluded to. Because this strikes me as rather high given the current interest rate environment. And since rates are locked in at the time of issuance, it also raises the hurdle rate for infrastructure investments that may be considered.
Second, I note that clause 5 of the Bill also allows for monies to be raised in foreign currency, as Member Foo Mee Har has mentioned. This suggests that if our inherent liabilities are long-term and denominated in Singapore dollars, this exposure if undertaken in foreign currency subjects the debt to a non-trivial amount of currency risk. What mitigation mechanisms does the Ministry or MAS plan to deploy to limit such risks?
Third, clause 11(2) of the Bill defines nationally significant infrastructure to be one that has a useful life of at least 50 years upon completion of the project. Again, while I appreciate that a duration for what constitutes significant will ultimately have to be chosen, I would note that many existing infrastructure projects would not have qualified under this rather long timespan.
The Tanjong Pagar Container Terminal, for instance, began operations in 1972 and moved to Pasir Panjang in 2017, amounting to 46 years. The Brani Terminal dates back to 1992 and is set to be decommissioned in 2027, by which it will have operated for 36 years. Kallang Airport lasted for 19 years and Paya Lebar Air Base, while it operated as Singapore International Airport, lasted 28 years.
A lower useful life threshold of say, 35 years, strikes me as more reasonable.
Finally, I will add that clause 11(4) requires that the qualifying capital expenditure for every project participant must amount to at least $4 billion. For public-private partnership projects, then, this would either rule out those where the Government is either unable to secure sufficient private sector buy-in which may in or of itself be a signal of the project's potential viability, or when buy-in is sufficiently large, it would preclude the Government from being able to take a minority stake. I understand that this is the purpose. But nevertheless, it should be clear what our trade-offs are.
Having said all that, what is infrastructure? The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as the basic systems and facilities needed for the operation of a society or enterprise. Such systems and facilities could and typically do refer to roads, bridges, power ports or what I will refer to as hard infrastructure. Roads get us to work, power keeps us working in ports, allows us to sell the fruits of our work to markets, far and wide. There is no dispute that when designed and implemented well, hard infrastructure accumulated over the span of many years or decades can yield valuable payoffs to an economy and society, and, hence, is an endeavour worthy of Government investment.
But it is not difficult to conceive of other systems that are critical for the successful functioning of any modern economy. We sit in the House operating under the auspices of a particularly successful realisation of the Westminster system of government, without which our contracts might not be honoured, our policies not delivered or our peace not guaranteed. Our healthcare system has kept us safe from the ravages of COVID-19 and our educational system has allowed our emergence, in the words of Founding Father Lee Kuan Yew \"from Third World to First\". These latter two aspects – health and education – and arguably constitute systems that enable the operation of not just our, but any 21st century economy. We often refer to the accumulation of knowledge and wellness which makes us productive as human capital, and the systems that deliver human capital are essentially soft infrastructure.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not alone in insisting that infrastructure can be more broadly and meaningfully defined. The recently announced American jobs plan, while billed as a US$2 trillion infrastructure stimulus, nevertheless, construes a much wider scope for what constitutes infrastructure, including the soft infrastructure components I am suggesting here.
If one is willing to apply a charitable interpretation, clause 2 of the Bill actually already allows for SINGA to encompass soft infrastructure. Part B(7) states that investments are to support or materially improve productivity and Part C requires that they benefit present and future generations of Singaporeans.
Human capital investments are entirely consistent with both of these sub-clauses. The only limitation being that it constrains infrastructure to any structure or building, whereas I would instead allow for structure, building or projects instead.
The standard concern that this Government has historically raised is that we should not be financing routine spending – payment of our education and healthcare professionals or funding allocated to subsidise such efforts – with long-term borrowing. But these are only recurring expenditures when viewed from the perspective of the service delivery providers. In this sense, paying our teachers, our trainers, our doctors and nurses, our scientists and researchers are certainly a variable cost. But when viewed from the perspective of the recipients – our students, our temporarily sick, our potential inventors – we can see how we are ultimately vesting value into the future. Moreover, we already systematically embed development expenditures, which by definition are deigned to be long lasting, into our annual fiscal Budgets, a recognition that what is spent on a year-to-year basis cannot be easily disentangled from multi-year projects.
By the same token, funds devoted to soft infrastructure can and should be regarded as non-recurrent development financing, especially when returns are expected to accrue over the very long run. My Sengkang colleague, Louis Chua, will elaborate on why this distinction between development expenditures and long-term assets may well turn out to be an artificial construct.
Another objection to Government's investment in human capital or soft infrastructure more generally is that being embedded in private individuals, investing the greatest benefits to them directly, could mean that it is difficult to justify paying for skill and experience acquisition out of the public purse. However, there are means by which such private returns may be recovered. One approach is to offer scholarships that are contingent on incomes finally earned. I will return to this example in a bit.
When we think about investments, the standard approach is to compare observed returns. This is bread-and-butter work for the professional fund management industry, of which I have been a part. As an asset class, the expected long-term returns from global infrastructure, net of inflation, is only 2.6%. In contrast, the real returns to an additional year of schooling is often in the order of 10.2%, almost 10 times as large.
One could argue, of course, that such returns are private returns and do not capture the contribution of each of these factors in macroeconomic performance. That is fair enough. So, let us go ahead and compare their respective contributions to economic growth. While estimates may differ, one recent study suggests that a 1% increase in infrastructure capital can elevate output by 7% to 10%, not a number to be sniffed at. But the comparable increase in Secondary education alone could induce gains of 10% to 12%. Other credible estimates suggest even higher gains as much as 16%.
Sir, the bottom line is straightforward: whether we focus on public or private returns, investments in soft infrastructure, such as human capital, generally offer a higher payoff compared to hard infrastructure, and my belief is that we should invest more in the type of infrastructure assets that offer a greater bang for the buck.
While a comprehensive checklist for evaluating the merits of any human capital project falls well beyond the scope of this speech, I will sketch out some assessment criteria that I believe are worth considering as to whether a project should be classified as soft infrastructure.
First, as a basic principle, the assessed returns from the project should more than pay for its original outlays. This is a remarkably low hurdle. Schooling projects that permanently raise an individual's income, say, a full-ride scholarship to university, could translate into as much as 70% higher lifetime earnings. Such higher incomes would mean higher tax returns over the course of the person's working life, which could easily pay for the original costs of the scholarship.
Second, most capital projects often impose static criteria, involving cash flow analysis. The most common among these are payback period computations, which is the time needed for the project to return the original investment, in terms of cash flows generated. For hard infrastructure, these may be measured in terms of tolls or user fees; for soft infrastructure, these would be evaluated by enhanced tax revenue. Since changes in taxable incomes are not generally large, we can conceivably entertain payback periods of between 10 and 12 years.
Third, capital projects also allow for dynamic criteria, such as the net present value of a project or its internal rate of return. Such criteria are easily adjusted to accommodate human capital projects. The main adaptation is to substitute the useful working life of a project with the average duration of a working life. In advanced economies, this duration averages 36 years. This itself would exceed the useful life threshold of 35 years that I outlined earlier for hard infrastructure projects.
Finally, as is the case for hard infrastructure, all borrowing should roll in the full amount of the project's expenditure, including interest costs and regardless of whether the disbursement is over time, into the initial borrowing issuance. This protects against unexpected changes in interest rates and the need to roll over borrowing.
What might some examples of soft infrastructure projects, which broadly meet the conditions I set out above, be? In my earlier speeches, I spoke about how we could finance smaller class sizes, even if on a limited basis, for languages and math, or to provide additional funding for teaching aides. This will allow us to avoid closing or merging schools and instead direct SINGA funds towards keeping schools open, albeit with trimmed-down class sizes. Similarly, we could use SINGA to seed an initial insurance risk pool, so as to enable us to roll out redundancy insurance without delay and without drawing down on our reserves.
The Workers' Party manifesto has also suggested raising the target percentage of university graduates per cohort, expanding additional baseline funding for less popular schools and expanding the number of infant care centres, especially in demographically-consistent neighbourhoods. All these examples could conceivably qualify as long-term human capital accumulation projects.
Two more ideas may be considered. First, we could use SINGA to seed a fund for income-contingent scholarships, as I mentioned earlier. The Government pays for all the costs of University or the continuing education programme, perhaps subject to a very modest co-payment as collateral. The recipient would then pay off that acquired debt only in the event that they secure a job, following graduation. Of course, some details, such as the specific major that is allowed to be undertaken, may need to be finessed. But the overall idea strikes me as eminently implementable.
Second, we could direct SINGA funds towards vouchers that would be applied by parents to send their children to both non-KiFAS-eligible pre-schools as well as charter schools, which are schools allowed to develop non-traditional syllabi that de-emphasise academic testing but, nevertheless, set rigorous, assessable markers for inquiry, innovation, imagination and invention. The key difference here is that these schools would be funded indirectly by the vouchers, instead of direct MOE-approved funding. The upshot of such schools is that they may even generate excellent test scores, even if this objective does not feature in their original mandates.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I have, thus far, emphasised all the economic payoffs to investing in soft infrastructure. In closing, allow me to also touch on why the benefits of human capital accumulation go far beyond simply improving the productive capacity of our economy.
A nation rich in human capital is often one that is simultaneously rich in ideas and experiences, happiness and well-being, wisdom and understanding. These contribute far beyond the narrow scope of economics. An educated and informed populace will be engaged, creative participants in our political process, enhancing our democratic credibility. Creative and curious individuals also bring out diversity and novelty to our social environment, enriching our cultural and artistic landscape. Indeed, Gary Becker, the Nobel Prize-winning economist who pioneered much of the early work on human capital, deeply understood the importance of habits, culture and social interactions and the role they played in the long-run success of a nation.
It is in this spirit, extending beyond only dollars and cents, that I am making the case for us to expand our conceptualisation of SINGA infrastructure beyond structures and buildings, to encompass investment in our children, in our people, in the one resource that we truly have as a country. On that note, Mr Deputy Speaker, I offer my support for the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 5.15 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.53 pm until 5.15 pm.
Sitting resumed at 5.15 pm.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Prof Hoon Hian Teck (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, although the Singapore Government has borrowed from international lenders previously to fund public infrastructure projects, such as the loans it took in the 1980s to build the first MRT lines, this Bill is significant in the scale of borrowing and the types of infrastructure that qualify.
It has been remarked that it is efficient to issue new bonds under the proposed Significant Infrastructure Government Loan Act (SINGA) as it allows the country to benefit from the current low interest rate environment. To place this remark in perspective, it is helpful to recognise that for a small, open economy like Singapore that is well integrated with the international capital market, the interest rate charged on a sovereign loan is roughly speaking the sum of a safe rate of interest such as the interest on the US Treasury Bill and a credit risk.
While the Singapore economy largely takes a safe rate of interest as given, the currently low credit risk is the result of past fiscal prudence. Our capacity in the future to generate tax revenue to meet our future spending needs will be necessary to enable the country to maintain this low credit risk. In other words, the credit risk can move up or down even when the safe interest rate stays constant.
What factors led to the creation of fiscal space in the past and what factors might affect Singapore's credit rating in the future?
Before answering these two questions, it is good to quickly review the justification for SINGA Bill that we are talking about in Parliament.
The purpose of the Act is to enable the Government to borrow and to finance nationally significant infrastructure to support or improve national productivity or Singapore's economic, environmental or social sustainability.
As I read it, there are two dimensions to the infrastructural investment.
The first is public investment, such as in roads and major highways, which serves to raise the productivity of firms. There is evidence that the stock of public capital – highways, roads and so on – complements private capital so that the public capital raises the returns to private business investments. Consequently, workers' productivity is also raised.
The second is infrastructural investment which serves to mitigate the adverse effects of climate change, such as seawalls and dykes. In the absence of this second type of investment, not only would national productivity fall, lives could be at risk with coastal hazards.
Since the benefits derived can be enjoyed by as yet unborn generations, the Government of the day must act on their behalf. They are not around to vote.
It is also justifiable to issue new bonds to finance such infrastructural investments so that future generations can share in bearing the tax burden. This is intergenerational distributive justice.
To the question of what factors led to the currently low credit risk.
No doubt, Singapore's remarkable economic catch-ups since Independence effectively expanded the tax base at given tax rates. With economic growth, real income steadily increased decade after decade. Income inequality was not a serious problem in the first couple of decades after Independence as industrialisation increased the demand for relatively unskilled to semi-skilled workers, thus pulling up their wage earnings.
With a relatively young population then, healthcare spending was a smaller share of the Budget. Thus, the demand for fiscal resources to support social spending was less pressing. Budgetary surpluses added to our national reserves. Unlike unfunded social security systems, a pay-as-you-go system where current taxes on the working young are used to pay for the benefits of retirees, Singapore's fully funded social security system, the Central Provident Fund, also added to national saving.
These factors altogether contributed to Singapore's good credit rating. That was how we achieved our low credit risk.
Looking to the future, what factors might affect Singapore's credit rating?
With health expenditure rising as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) in tandem with an ageing population, having the capacity to raise tax revenue to fund such spending will become important.
The concept of fiscal sustainability is useful as a way to think about how to maintain a low credit risk. The Government Budget at any point in time is fiscally sustainable if the expected present value of primary surpluses, which do not include interest payments, is at least as large as the size of the public debt. Although a country can still run into Budget deficits – when it is hit by a recession, for example – it must ultimately plan to generate tax revenue that is in excess of current spending in other years if it is to be able to service an outstanding stock of public debt.
To use an analogy, suppose that at the start of your career, you take out a loan. Then, although in future periods, you might still occasionally borrow, there must be sufficiently many periods during which you spend less than your income for you to be credit worthy.
In anticipation of increased social spending, in particular on health, with an ageing population, it would be necessary to raise taxes in order to remain fiscally sustainable.
The Government has announced in Budget 2021 that it plans to raise the GST rate from 7% to 9% any time from 2020 to 2025. From the perspective of the analysis just provided, one benefit to the country of raising tax revenue in anticipation of higher social spending is that the credit risk or risk premium can be kept low.
In other words, whatever the safe interest rate is, the borrowing costs incurred to service the loan undertaken in this Act can be kept relatively low by maintaining good credit worthiness.
Returning to the analogy, suppose that in the course of your working life, the interest rate unexpectedly rises. Then, in order for you not to default, you would have to tighten your belt and cut spending unless you discover that your income is also going to increase.
While the safe interest rate is currently low and expected to be low for some time, unexpected events that raise the safe interest rate can affect fiscal sustainability.
Data showed that in the early 1980s – the first half of the decade of the 1980s – the safe interest rate experienced a sharp spike that caused a fiscal crisis in many emerging economies and posed budgetary challenges for some advanced economies as well since the cost of servicing public debt sharply increased.
In order to re-establish fiscal sustainability in the event that the safe interest rate rises, it is necessary to either raise taxes or to cut spending.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is indeed justification for the Government to issue new bonds to finance significant infrastructure projects that would raise national productivity or mitigate the adverse effects of climate change. We must maintain the reputation that we have built up over the years for good financial management of our fiscal affairs. In this context, I support the Bill.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill and the parameters set out for major infrastructure projects to be financed by borrowing, especially since these are long-term infrastructure that will benefit future generations. However, I am concerned about how we can do more to guard against burdening our future generations. After all, such borrowing needs to be serviced and repaid.
We need to be mindful as we do not have natural resources for sources of revenue, unlike other nations. Therefore, our manpower capabilities and earning capacity are important. We must be able to weather economic ups and downs and future political and social developments. Such uncertainties could potentially derail projects – just as we are experiencing the disruptions to our construction sector caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
In other countries, in addition to borrowing money, some governments had resorted to printing money, commercialising public services and levying taxes in order to afford development works.
We are fortunate that Singapore's AAA rating enables us to borrow at favourable interest rates, particularly in the current economic environment. I am confident that using these funds to invest in our infrastructure development will stimulate future economic growth, which will enable us to service and return the borrowed money.
The other options are out of the question. Printing money leads to hyperinflation. Commercialising public services will impose hardship on the lower income groups. How can we levy taxes for infrastructure projects when we are already trying so hard to minimise taxes?
It is possible to partly service the loans through revenue collected from services provided by the infrastructure such as via tolls and fees. A portion of the repayment will come from users of the projects who can be both local and foreign. It would be less of a burden on our future generations if more of the revenue could be generated from foreign or external parties while ensuring that the services provided fulfil all demands without conflict or competition. The Government may still need to step in to render assistance and subsidies for the less privileged users.
Finally, we must consider operational and maintenance costs of infrastructure projects. It remains important that they can be self-sustaining and operationally viable. I support the Bill.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Significant Infrastructure Government Loan Bill, or SINGA, in short, because it can improve the financial efficiency and fiscal accountability of our public finances. However, the SINGA Bill is no indication that the Government is short of funds for national development.
Today, the total financial assets owned by our country has reached $1.35 trillion by end of March 2020. Despite the drawdown for the five COVID-19 Supplementary Budgets, our total financial assets are probably still growing because large capital inflows should have allowed MAS to accumulate more foreign currency assets in order to keep the Singapore dollar within its policy band.
Even without touching the principal of the reserves, the Net Investment Income of about $40 billion a year from the reserves is enough to fund the infrastructural projects and social spending increases, especially those in the healthcare area, into the foreseeable future. Hence, SINGA is just an additional financing scheme and not an absolutely necessary funding source.
The Government's narrative about intergenerational equity is also not an accurate description of the SINGA scheme. Since there is no lack of fiscal resources, intergenerational equity can be achieved as long as the Government allocates the resources accordingly. There is no need to borrow to achieve intergenerational equity.
However, the Government's mention of intergenerational equity for the first time is heartening and I hope it will use it as a guiding principle from now on.
Up till now, the Government has always frontloaded all the infrastructural costs to the current generation of Singaporeans and, at the same time, parked a disproportionate amount of current fiscal resources into the national reserves.
In addition, the social security costs, namely, retirement and healthcare costs of Singaporeans, are all self-funded by themselves, without burdening the future generations. This is unlike the social systems in many developed countries like Japan where a major part of the taxes collected from the current working population is used to support the retirement and healthcare spending of the older retiree generation.
As a result, the current generation in Singapore has to shoulder a disproportionate amount of the infrastructure and social security costs and has to struggle with a lower level of disposable income, giving rise to the phenomenon popularised by Jack Neo's movie, \"Money No Enough\".
So, there is an urgent need to address this intergenerational inequity. However, SINGA is not necessarily the best way to achieve that. Rather, as I have said at the start, I support the SINGA scheme for better financial efficiency and fiscal accountability in the public finances.
For better financial efficiency, I would expect GIC/MAS to generate a higher return of at least 2% more than the borrowing cost of the SINGA loans.
Unless GIC/MAS can consistently earn a positive spread over the borrowing costs of the SINGA loans, there is no reason to borrow the SINGA loans and not make use of our current resources to fund our infrastructure projects.
The SINGA loans should also be issued as Singapore dollar-denominated securities to reduce foreign exchange exposure and to broaden and deepen our bond markets. It will be a big step forward for our local bond markets if the Government can issue Singapore Government Securities or bonds with longer maturities like 20 years and 30 years.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
For better fiscal accountability, I would expect to see the pre-investment feasibility studies for the SINGA projects to be subject to public consultation so that we can tap the collective wisdom of Singaporeans and not be guided only by the experts engaged by the Government. Regular progress reports of SINGA projects should also be submitted to Parliament for scrutiny. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The SINGA Bill is no indication that the Government is short of funds for national development. Today, the total financial assets owned by our country have reached $1.35 trillion by end March 2020. And despite the drawdown for the five COVID-19 Supplementary Budgets, our total financial assets are probably still growing because large capital inflows should have allowed MAS to accumulate more foreign currency assets in order to keep the Singapore dollar within its policy band.
Even without touching the principal of the reserves, the Net Investment Return of about $40 billion a year from the reserves is enough to fund the infrastructural projects and social spending increases especially those in the healthcare area into the foreseeable future. Hence SINGA is just an additional financing scheme and not an absolutely necessary funding source.
Because we have the sufficient resources, we do not need to use SINGA to achieve intergenerational equity, that is, allocate national resources between generations fairly. As long as the Government recognises the huge size of our national reserves and that it continues to grow, we are already providing a strong safety net for our future generations. It is time that we do more for this present generation.
I support the SINGA Bill more because it can increase our financial efficiency and fiscal accountability. Financial efficiency means that, when the returns from the reserves are higher than the borrowing interest of international market, we should not tap on our current resources to fund significant infrastructure projects; instead, it is more worthwhile to borrow from the international financial market. SINGA therefore, provides an additional option for the Government.
We have issued more than S$700 billion Singapore-dollar bonds and treasury bills. But strictly speaking, these are not debts because this S$700 billion is reinvested in the financial assets of foreign countries through the GIC. It is only the SINGA loans that will be our real debts because these loans will be used for significant infrastructure projects. I therefore hope that the Government will increase the accountability for SINGA loans and report to Parliament regularly on the progress of these projects.
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, with no real lack of fiscal resources and SINGA as an additional funding source, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) calls on the Government to review our long-term fiscal plan and allocate more funds to alleviate the financial pressures of our middle class Singaporeans and help them improve their quality of life.
This is necessary because the future of our country depends on a resilient Singaporean Core of skilled workers and motivated entrepreneurs. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Edward Chia.
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore has to continue to invest in competitive economic and efficient public services infrastructure. We need to do this with robust financial approaches that provide differentiated expenditure support. As such, I find the overall principles laid out for the SINGA bonds to be sound for our long-term infrastructure investments.
Having said that, the principle of equitable sharing of expenditure holds up best if the proposed infrastructure provides clear \"net\" benefits to the economy and society. This requires us to be prudent on our assessment of the infrastructure project investments' cost and benefits. If the cost outweighs the benefits, we could burden future generations with a potential growing net debt load and this is an outcome we must avoid.
It is also important to stress that SINGA, like any other forms of borrowings, needs to be repaid. We need to ensure that future revenue growths can accommodate the repayments and maintain Singapore's strong balance sheet and credit ratings.
I have met some residents who expressed concerns on whether we are passing on debt to future generations. Residents have expressed that we need to be cautious and ensure we pass on assets and not liabilities to our children. With their concerns included, I would like to make five clarifications.
One, the $90 billion limit is about 20% of current Gross Domestic Product (GDP) which is lower than the past six Development Loan Acts, which was near 40% of GDP. Having said that, our GDP in the past had higher year-on-year growth rates. Hence, may I ask to what extent the limit took into account future growth trends in the coming years, especially when we are expecting a slower recovery due to both the COVID-19 context and ourselves a maturing economy?
Two, how did the setting of a minimum project qualification sum at $4 billion come about and what would be the considerations in the future for adjustments of this minimum sum qualification criterion?
Three, could the risk and benefit assessment matrix that the Government intends to use for deciding on projects be shared with Parliament, please?
Four, will the duration of the issued bonds dovetail with the payback period of the project to prevent a scenario where a bond needs to be extended with higher interest rates and, thereby, adding more expenditure to recurrent Government Budgets?
Five, as a key principle of SINGA bonds is the equitable sharing of cost across generations, will capitalisation and depreciation be linear throughout or frontloaded to take into account higher maintenance cost in later years?
Lastly, I would suggest to include initiatives to ensure that infrastructures are built to cater for larger capacity and with better materials, methodologies and technologies. These may translate into higher capital cost today, but can lower downstream cost expenditure for an ageing asset, adding to my previous point on avoiding putting burden on maintenance cost on future generations of Singaporeans.
Mr Speaker, Sir, investment in public infrastructure is certainly beneficial for Singapore and Singaporeans. We, however, must continue to be prudent on the deployment of these funds as the effects will ripple and reverberate into multiple generations of Singaporeans. Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the considerations and clarifications I have raised, I support the SINGA Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.
The logic behind it is compelling. The current proposal presents an opportunity to arbitrage – we can make more with our capital in our reserves, generating returns to fund our social programmes, as compared to the cost of borrowing. So, it makes sense to borrow under these prevailing circumstances where there is low interest rate and we enjoy a good credit rating.
Notwithstanding that, circumstances can change. And in that regard, I am happy to note the Government's safeguards built into this Bill.
One safeguard is that the infrastructure developments must last for at least 50 years. I listened intently to the speech of the hon Member Assoc Prof Jamus Lim when he argued that infrastructure should be extended to not just hard infrastructure, but also soft infrastructure. And by that, he meant an investment in health, education, accumulation of knowledge and human capital. While I listened to him, I think there is a lot of agreement, as opposed to disagreement, on the need to invest in these areas. In fact, if we were to reflect back on how the Government has been investing in these areas – things like SkillsFuture, building more hospitals, schools – we can see that that is also part of what the governing party is doing, investing in soft infrastructure.
The focus of this Bill, however, is financing infrastructure. And this is where we need to be careful because we are talking about sending a bill to our children, our children's children to settle. And I thought what the hon Member Prof Hoon Hian Teck said was quite compelling because he cautioned that the situation can change. There could be a situation whereby the safe interest rate, in his words, can increase. And this is where I think the rub lies. What are the infrastructure developments we should send to be settled by our children and our children's children? Here, I would respectfully submit that it is safer and more prudent for us to invest in soft infrastructure as much as we can and settle the bill ourselves. But when it comes to infrastructure developments which lasts for generations, to achieve – in the words of Prof Hoon Hian Teck – intergenerational distributive justice, then it makes sense to consider the format that we have in the SINGA Bill.
There are two other safeguards which I thought was laudatory: the gross borrowing limit of $90 billion, which is about 20% of our Singapore's GDP, as well as the interest threshold of $5 billion per year and this limits the Government's ability to borrow if interest rates go up. I have two points to make. First on the nature and the structure of the bonds and, second, on the realities of implementation.
First, on the nature and structure of the bonds. In this regard, I have two points to make. First, the interplay between the constitutional safeguards – and the hon Deputy Prime Minister mentioned the Reserves Protection Framework – and SINGA. As mentioned by the hon Deputy Prime Minister, Article 144 of the Constitution is engaged, and he highlighted that the in-principle approval of the President has been obtained for the passing of this Bill. And it was specifically mentioned that Her Excellency agreed to a borrowing limit of $90 billion. My question relates to the workings of the procedure. Say, for example, the Bill is passed and the Government intends to issue bonds. Would the Government come back to Parliament for a resolution to be passed and would it still be subject to the discretionary approval of the President? I respectfully seek a clarification from the Deputy Prime Minister on this matter.
The second point I wish to make is in relation to our commitment to green bonds. The hon Deputy Prime Minister Heng mentioned in February 2021 that Singapore will issue green bonds on select public infrastructure projects, with up to $19 billion of public sector green projects already identified. Today, he mentioned that one of the objectives of SINGA is to build a safe, green, liveable environment.
To further encourage sustainability efforts, would the Government be minded to stipulate at least a minimum percentage of SINGA bonds that will be green? This will have a salutatory effect of ensuring the high percentage of infrastructural projects being undertaken in Singapore with sustainable measures in place.
On to my second point about the realities of implementation. What about projects that may, for one reason or another, be aborted? For instance, when there is a change in government. We cannot predict the future, but we have seen examples all over the world. One government may come in and say it wishes to build a wall. Another government may say no. Closer to home, one government may say \"build a high-speed railway system\"; another government may decide not to do it. Would it not be prudent to work in a requirement that the government of the day which wishes to abandon infrastructural projects funded by SINGA bonds must ensure that it is able to finance the abortive costs from its current revenue?
Sir, I conclude. The logic behind this Bill is compelling, but I sense nervousness in the speeches of the hon Members, such as Mr Edward Chia, Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Ms Foo Mee Har. And it is understandable, because borrowing always entails a risk, just as the fruits of spending are always alluring. But I am satisfied that the safeguards that the hon Deputy Prime Minister highlighted are safeguards that will stand us in good stead. So, notwithstanding my comments, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, I would like to start by declaring my interest as an employee of a financial institution here in Singapore.
Mr Speaker, I would like to begin by extending my support for the Significant Infrastructure Government Loan Act, or SINGA in short. In October last year, I shared that there is scope to rethink Singapore's position on debt, instead of funding our expenditures solely with higher cost equity funding or funding from our reserves. This is especially if the funds are being used for quality investment projects that will benefit current and future generations of Singaporeans.
Today’s Bill represents an important milestone for us as a country and, while it may have been a little later than some had hoped, it is, indeed, better late than never. In finance, we often speak of an optimal capital structure for a firm – the ability to have a proportion of debt and equity that results in the lowest Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) when making the capital management decision. While certain commentators may liken Government finances to a household budget, unlike a household, firms and countries can be assumed to last into perpetuity.
Debt is not inherently bad per se and, if it can be employed effectively to increase returns or result in a lower WACC on an overall basis, then it should always be considered as a viable option. Moreover, while we can have a different philosophical view of what the ideal structure should be on the national level, we must be keenly aware that equity funding or funding from our reserves is not free.
I would now like to take the time to seek some clarifications on several points in this Bill.
The first is on the capitalisation of expenditure on nationally significant infrastructure. Again, this is another welcome change from an alignment of accounting practices point of view. After all, the long useful lives of infrastructure projects do suggest that they clearly fall under the accounting definition of an asset, as it is a present economic resource that has the potential to produce economic benefits. This change is in contrast to the current practice of charging off development expenditure annually. As an example, a $1 billion project today with a useful life of 50 years is charged to the financial statements at 2% annually, which represents a $20 million annual depreciation charge. This is a fraction of what it would have been had we stuck to the current accounting treatment.
In FY2018 and FY2019, actual total development expenditure was $20.3 billion and $16.7 billion respectively, while the revised development expenditure in 2020 was $16.4 billion and the estimated expenditure in 2021 will be $19.9 billion.
Mr Speaker, I would like to ask, based on the adoption of capitalising long-term assets as an accounting treatment, how much of our development expenditure in dollar terms would be freed up annually?
The second point I would like to talk about is the type of projects which have been identified for the purpose of SINGA. These include infrastructure intended for a list of specific purposes as listed in section 2, such as transport, water treatment, alleviation of floods and so on.
The new MRT lines, such as the next phases of the Thomson-East Coast Line, the Jurong Regional Line and Cross Island Line, as well as the extension of current lines, such as the North-East Line, Downtown Line and projects, such as the Deep Tunnel Sewage System as mentioned by Deputy Prime Minister Heng, are projects that would fall under the scope of SINGA. I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister how was the final list of use categories identified and chosen?
My colleague Assoc Prof Jamus Lim has built a strong case for human capital as a form of soft infrastructure investment. Indeed, when we look at US President Biden's $2 trillion infrastructure plan, we see that it includes a planned funding of the care economy, which includes $400 billion towards expanding access to quality, affordable home- or community-based care for the elderly and people with disabilities. It will also cover investments in schools, childcare facilities and workforce development programmes, among others.
In a knowledge-based economy, intellectual and human capital are just as important, if not more important than physical hard assets. We should not solely be focusing on conventional property, plants and equipment as possible infrastructure projects to finance with borrowing. As it is, intellectual property and other intangible assets can already be capitalised under a firm’s balance sheet under accounting rules, given the recognition of the economic benefits that they generate. As a Government, we should seriously consider this as an extension of the SINGA Bill, as compared to only that of traditional infrastructure assets.
Third, I note that these projects need to have a useful life of at least 50 years. As shared by my colleague Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, many existing infrastructure projects would not have qualified under this rather long timespan. I am concerned about how practical that might be in an era where technological and environmental needs are changing so rapidly. If climate change were, indeed, a motivating factor for the need for infrastructure changes, it would be far from accurate to assume that any infrastructure planning now will be useful for the next 50 years.
Rapid technological changes have shaped the tech infrastructure needed to keep our economy competitive. Over the past 20 years, we have moved from an era of 3G cellular networks in the 2000s, to 4G in 2010s and, finally, the rolling out of 5G networks from 2020. That is roughly a 10-year gap between each generation of cellular networks. It would be extremely difficult for anyone to predict with utmost confidence if the infrastructure we are building for 5G today, for example, will continue to be relevant 10 or even 20 years down the line, let alone 50 years at a minimum.
Our MRT systems are yet another example. First constructed more than 30 years ago, the replacement of sleepers, signalling equipment, track upgrading and power supply systems over the last couple of years have meant that it is as good as replacing the entire system with a brand-new set. Even power plants, such as one of the newer CCGT plants in Singapore, only have a useful life of around 25 years.
My fourth point covers that of green financing. We aspire to be a green hub and we have laid out grand plans in our current Singapore Green Plan 2030. From my understanding, some of these projects, such as Tuas Nexus, have been identified. In trying to keep in line with these aims, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, out of the $90 billion set aside for SINGA, how much of this would be set aside for green infrastructure? As a Government, we should aspire to lead by example and set a laudable target for how much we plan to spend on green infrastructure itself.
Further, I believe that the financing of nationally significant infrastructure should be tied to the mandatory completion of rigorous environmental, heritage and social impact assessments done using the best available science at reasonable cost. Such studies should be made fully available to the public for feedback and for the public to take any private mitigation measures if necessary. This would then allow the full buy-in from society at large on the benefits of such infrastructure projects.
I recognise that advisory services, such as the associated design, investigative and engineering studies, surveys or, say, research, are already deemed as qualifying capital expenditure. The key caveat here, of course, is that such advisory services have to be reasonable, relative to the total project cost. Even though I am sure there are many considerations and technical challenges to work through, it would be unwise if consultancy fees end up being 90% of the cost of the actual project, for example. So, I wonder if the Government would also include limits on how much should be spent on advisory fees, as compared to the overall construction cost of the project.
The fifth point I would like to cover looks at some of the numbers as specified within the SINGA Bill.
The first question is on the $90 billion loan limit which has been put in place. Debt levels, in themselves, cannot be seen in isolation and we need to assuage Singaporeans that the level of borrowing is not unsustainable. Credit rating agencies often compare debt levels to net worth or net assets or, in the case of sovereign credit ratings, usable reserves, for example. My question for the Deputy Prime Minister, therefore, is how much does this $90 billion represent, relative to Singapore's current account receipts and reserves?
Further, Minister Ong Ye Kung has mentioned that we would need to spend more than $60 billion over this decade to expand and renew our rail networks while Prime Minister Lee has mentioned that Singapore is probably going to spend $100 billion, possibly more, to protect our country against rising sea levels.
I would thus like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to put into context how is this sum of $90 billion of debt financing determined? And if there are any quantifiable targets such as the total expected infrastructure spending in dollar terms over the next one to two decades? And how much of the funds are already earmarked for specific projects?
On the total effective interest paid or payable of $5 billion, that would imply a total yield to maturity of 5.6% on the loan limit of $90 billion. How does this compare to the current and future expected Singapore Government Securities yields that the Ministry is projecting?
Singapore's 10-year bond yields stand about 1.5% today while 30-year bond yields are about 1.9%. Based on my checks, historical average bond yields of varying bond durations are only at about 2.5% to 2.8%, notwithstanding a wide range of less than 1% to almost 5%, 6%. But yet this is significantly lower. The average is significantly lower than the implied yield to maturity of 5.6%.
Lastly, with regards to the qualifying amount of capital expenditure being at least $4 billion or more, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister how this number was derived as well?
In 2008, the KPE was built at a cost of $1.8 billion. Inflation, notwithstanding, the value that the project has brought to Singaporeans has been immense, especially residents staying in the Northeast, such as that of our Sengkang residents. In 2014, the 800-megawatt state-of-the-art power plant by PacificLight was built at a cost of $1.2 billion. Despite the size and value that these projects bring, they hardly come close to the qualifying amount of $4 billion or more.
There is also a question of whether the definition of \"nationally significant infrastructure\" being defined under Part I as being geographically located \"in Singapore\" may restrict the spending needs for infrastructure that crosses borders. A nationally significant infrastructure, the Linggiu Reservoir, which Singapore built at a cost of more than $300 million in Malaysia comes to mind.
Further, should the Government decide to set a much more ambitious, renewable energy target, the infrastructure costs for the import of electricity, especially solar electricity from overseas, would also not fall within the purview of this SINGA Bill.
Mr Speaker, I like to conclude with two parting thoughts.
The first is that, I agree with Deputy Prime Minister Heng that there should be various strict safeguards on the projects that can qualify for borrowing and the amounts that can be borrowed. Similarly, when it comes the use of our reserves via the NIRC, it too has strict safeguards in place. Ultimately, any sound policy decision should have safeguards built in and, hence, if we decide to tap on Singapore's ample fiscal space to fund our investments into our people, we should not fear the slippery slope of there not being any safeguards that can be put in place.
The second is that, again, I agree with Deputy Prime Minister Heng that borrowing for nationally significant infrastructure will spread these lumpy expenditures across the generations who will benefit. If we want to be a progressive society that firmly believes in the principles of fairness, we should also be acutely aware that the converse is also true. Besides Changi Airport Terminals 1 and 2 and the first MRT project, the Government has not borrowed to fund other infrastructure projects since the 1990s.
In essence, the generation that came before us has borne a significant cost of infrastructure development upfront for our benefit without having the cost spread equitably across generations. Despite a lifetime of hard work and contributions to our nation, sadly more than half of our seniors do not appear to have sufficient funds to retire comfortably. We should never forget the sacrifices the earlier generations of Singaporeans have made in building this nation and must always keep this in mind. Needless to say, we should never contemplate taking any future decision that could potentially add to their tax burden. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, any clarifications?
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the recognition. If I may just quickly respond to Member Mr Murali who raised two points actually. The first, he talked about financing versus investment and he stressed the point that the Government, indeed, has invested quite a bit in soft infrastructure and human capital projects. I agree with that. And then, he said that the purpose of this Bill is actually for financing.
We must remember the context. The context is that the interest rates are currently low. So, when we say that we want to invest in infrastructure, hard infrastructure, but not soft infrastructure, it seems like we are only willing to offer the terms of favourable interest rates for physical capital and not human capital. For me, that is like saying that we think it is equally important to educate both our son and our daughter, but sure, we will finance Ah Boy's schooling but Ah Girl, you go work so that you can pay for your school fees.
And the other point which is worth pointing out is something that other Members, including Prof Hoon, mentioned, which is that we always need to think about the returns when we invest in a project. I agree with this and this is why in my speech, I demonstrated that returns on soft infrastructure actually dominate those of hard, which is yet another reason why we want to invest in soft infrastructure in this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Xie Yao Quan.
Mr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will make three observations and raise three suggestions on the proposed SINGA Bill.
First, my three observations, which all relate to the larger point about long-term planning. Fundamentally, SINGA reflects this Government's commitment and orientation to plan for the long term and govern in the long-term interest of Singapore. So, my first observation is about this Government's long-term plan for our national infrastructure.
There are very bold, ambitious plans, for Changi Airport Terminal 5 and a third runway, for a mega seaport in Tuas, for a massive expansion in our MRT rail network, and much more, all in turn to anchor Singapore's next phase of development, well into SG100.
At the same time, SINGA has an eye on the Government's 100-year plan for our coastal defence infrastructure, to secure Singapore against the very long-term threat of rising sea levels posed by climate change. These long-term infrastructural plans are essential to our mission of continuing to improve the lives of Singaporeans, present and future.
Indeed, our history clearly shows how we are the current beneficiaries of long-term plans and big bets in strategic infrastructure that previous Governments had made.
For example, plans for the first container terminal in Singapore – and the region – located at Tanjong Pagar were made way back in the 1960s, when containerisation was not yet the norm, in fact far from it. The Government then had to borrow $45 million from the World Bank, a very handsome sum back then, and the container terminal was completed in 1972.
The first vessel the Terminal received had 300 containers on board; compared to the more than 1,000 people gathered on shore to receive it. So, 300 containers, 1,000 people receiving that.
And in fact, container volumes did not really take off, until the next decade, in the 1980s.
But finally, the long-term bet paid off, and since then, more long-term plans had been made and implemented for the Brani Terminal in the 1990s, Pasir Panjang Phase 1 and 2 in the 2000s, and Phase 3 and 4 in the last decade, such that we have the Port of Singapore that we have of today, after almost 60 years since the first plan for a container port was laid.
In short, it was a decisive bet, a far-sighted decision and a constant focus on what is next and what is on the horizon that had allowed Singapore to move ahead and stay ahead of the competition.
It was a similar story with Changi Airport. Plans were made in the 1970s, with the aim then already to be Asia's largest airport at that time of opening. A significant amount of land had to be reclaimed, and Terminal 1 opened in 1981. Plans were made in 1970s, Terminal 1 opened in 1981. Terminal 2 then opened in the next decade, in 1991. Followed by Terminal 3 in the decade after that, in 2008. And of course, Terminal 4, in the following decade, in 2016.
So, decade after decade, a quantum leap each time, anchored on robust long-term planning and execution.
Looking ahead, therefore, SINGA, I think, underlies this Government's continued commitment to a long-term, ambitious strategy for our national infrastructure, to secure our future and success well into SG100.
My second observation about long-term planning is about this Government's commitment to a long-term fiscal strategy, to sustain and properly steward our strategic fiscal resources and to take full advantage of our strong fiscal standing, in the best long-term interest of Singapore.
Crucially, the Government is not looking to borrow for significant infrastructure because it lacks money. Quite the contrary, it is looking to borrow, so as to take full advantage of our fiscal strength and the expected low cost of debt capital going forward, instead of expending our existing financial resources for lumpy infrastructural outlays, when these resources could be deployed and invested to generate good returns for Singapore and Singaporeans.
In other words, the Government's strategy of borrowing for infrastructure on the one hand and investing on the other is an astute, long-term strategy to fully leverage relatively low interest rates and avoid the opportunity cost of dipping into our own resources.
The third observation I would make is this: beyond SINGA, beyond physical infrastructure, I think successive Governments have always made long-term plans and investment in our soft infrastructure, in human capital development, to ultimately improve the lives of Singaporeans.
And it will continue be a constant work in progress but let us look at their track records.
Through the decades, successive Governments had invested steadily and decisively in education, in skilling Singaporeans, because ultimately, that is our surest way to better opportunities and better lives. From $6.5 billion in the 2003 Budget, to $12 billion, $13 billion in recent years. And from a focus on 15, 16 years of formal schooling, to now learning for life. I think it is clear to see how much successive Governments had invested in education for Singaporeans.
Successive Governments had also invested steadily in Singaporeans' health. From $2 billion in 2003, to $6 billion in 2013, to $12 billion in 2019. And of course, this Government has said that it would do even more going forward.
Successive Governments had invested billions in defence, which is in turn absolutely vital to create the basic conditions for Singapore to thrive. They have invested significantly in research and the building up of our base economic capabilities and they have invested significantly in our social capital to strengthen our social safety nets.
And so, we need to look beyond SINGA, beyond physical infrastructure, about successive Governments', including this Government's approach to long-term planning and development in general which has always been about the whole of society, the whole of nation.
Sir, I have three suggestions on the proposed provisions of SINGA.
My first suggestion is to lower the cap on total borrowings. The proposed cap of $90 billion in the Bill represents roughly 18% of GDP. This is quite significant, especially if a profligate government were to take over and on this, I echo Member Murali Pillai's point about us not knowing what will happen in the future.
Ninety billion dollars is not quite enough to run the country to the ground, but certainly enough to cause a rather bad bout of indigestion.
And so, to maintain public confidence, I suggest that the initial cap be lowered to $50 billion, which would represent roughly 10% of GDP. This lower cap would nonetheless give the Minister sufficient space to operate within the Act initially, and the Government can always come back to Parliament when there is a need for the borrowing cap to be raised beyond that.
My second suggestion is to lower the cap for total interest payments. The proposed cap of $5 billion in interest payments alone represents almost a quarter of our entire development outlay per year in recent years. To signal prudence, I suggest that the initial cap be limited to $2.5 billion, or roughly 10% of recent annual development outlays. Given our credit rating and trends in long-term interest rates, I think this lower cap should be quite practicable.
My third and final suggestion is to reconsider the qualifying limit of $4 billion for a nationally significant infrastructure project. I would like to ask the Ministry how narrow a range of projects it expects to qualify under the Act given the proposed limit of $4 billion. Would major healthcare infrastructure projects, for example, which usually cost around $1 billion to $2 billion each, make the cut? If not, why not, if we agree that the value of healthcare infrastructure, in terms of its social value, is certainly of national significance?
Since we have the safeguards on total borrowing and total interests, I suggest we lower the qualifying limit for projects so that the scope of qualifying projects of national significance can be made more inclusive and more flexible. Mr Speaker, Sir, the above suggestions notwithstanding, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, the concept of borrowing, taking on debt, may have a negative connotation. This is especially so in Singapore where our Government is known for its long-running commitment to prudence.
But the fact that the Government has tabled the SINGA Bill is testament to a sustained commitment for fair intergenerational equity, prudent spending and an enhancement to our differentiated financing strategy beyond. This is a necessary response to an expected spike in development expenditure in the next decade to address infrastructural needs and existential threats like climate change and rising sea levels but also taking into consideration the low interest rate environment we are in for now.
This is a bit different from what the hon Member from Sengkang GRC mentioned, about spending further on human capital. It would be useful to find out from him how much more he would like to borrow on human capital, given that Singapore is already the highest ranked in the World Bank's Human Capital Index report. Just to explain, the Human Capital Index by the World Bank measures countries best in mobilising economic and potential of its citizens. We are already ranked highest and I think the Government has put in quite a bit already in terms of human capital. After all, Singapore's best resource or most important resource is our people. I would just want to probably seek a clarification from the Member from Sengkang GRC on that point – how much does he plan to borrow for human capital.
Mr Speaker, I support this Bill as it is fair and efficient. It is fair because it supports intergenerational equity. Without borrowing, the expenses for the infrastructure would have to be shouldered by the current Government for projects that may only demonstrate their potential in decades to come. With SINGA, the upfront development expenditure is converted into a stream of annual depreciation over the useful life of the project. As the infrastructure is improved over the years, future generations pay directly for the enhanced benefits enjoyed. So, there is capital efficiency as we will benefit from low interest rates, given our AAA credit rating.
In addition, the SINGA bonds could potentially extend the Singapore Government Securities (SGS) yield curve beyond its current 30-year maturity depending on investor demand and primary dealers' market making obligations. This helps in deepening the bond market domestically too.
But, Mr Speaker, for the man on the street, beyond the technical terms, there may emerge concerns that with the formation of SINGA, we will be tapping on bond markets and see more foreign exchange exposure for our long-term infrastructure spending. These are valid concerns, especially if there are some level of market exposure and liabilities that may be created.
Firstly, is there a plausible worst-case scenario in tapping the bond markets for the first time over the long term for infrastructure spending?
Mr Speaker, Sir, I am confident of our Government's fiscal discipline and our cash management ability. Our finances are strong, with assets well in excess of liabilities. This is being demonstrated in the COVID-19 crisis, where the Government could purchase vaccines for the whole population while introducing various financial assistance schemes to help citizens and keep the economy and job market abreast.
But complacency is dangerous. Looking ahead, I would like to ask if the Government has considered the plausible worst-case scenarios that would see the Government's balance sheets and net foreign assets being weakened? What if our capital efficiency advantage weakens as global interest rates rise sharply?
The Deputy Prime Minister explained it very clearly and in detailed form in his speech earlier when talking about the 5.5% effective yield-to-maturity rates. But my question is: has MOF and other economic policy agencies such as MAS done counter-factual simulations using market shock variable?. What are the risks going forward?
The Bill has also importantly spelt out crystal-clear clauses for safeguards. There will be a gross borrowing limit of $90 billion. The Government cannot raise more than this amount in loans under SINGA without legislative amendments. There is also an annual interest rate threshold of $5 billion. These measures will ensure the future generations will not end up with burdensome financing costs.
But, may I ask the Minister if our debt servicing costs will be funded by our annual Budget and met from our overall revenue? If so, assuming we have a full $90 billion issuance and we are constrained by our current principle of having an overall balanced Budget over each term of Government, can the Minister share if this will affect our annual fiscal policy options in periods of extreme crisis in the future? Can the Deputy Prime Minister also share the different phases of fiscal policy options in a crisis or national emergency, for example, if we are to use past reserves first, at the first stage; do we then need to liquidate GIC investments second or do we need to borrow last?
Mr Speaker, Sir, secondly, since we know autonomous flows – for instance, changes in the stock of outstanding SGS where net issuance of SGS actually drains liquidity from the domestic banking system, how will the new SINGA SGS securities issuance affect our financial system liquidity as well as the Singapore dollar during times of financial market stress when banks may also desire to hold larger buffers of liquidity? The amount that we are borrowing – up to $90 billion – can be quite significant.
Thirdly, may I ask the Deputy Prime Minister on the SINGA infrastructure bond issuance: what are our baseline economic assumptions and how do we ensure issuance supply is calibrated to market demand? What tenors would be issued under SINGA? Following the introduction of SINGA, will the duration of the SGS market change over the medium term?
On a separate issue, some projects were previously placed under Statutory Board issuance but moving forward, will these be funded by the SINGA bonds if they qualify? It is useful to know if the SINGA bond issuance will have a crowding out effect on future bond issuances by Statutory Boards.
Mr Speaker, so far, the market seems receptive to the potential of SINGA bonds based on the prices of the yield curves when it was announced.
Globally, there has been steady growth in sovereign green, social and sustainable, or GSS, bond issuances in the past years. Looking at the experience of Germany's sovereign green bonds, there might be room for a sustained premium or lower yield to green issues versus conventional issues. Recently, Germany issued green bond counterparts to its 10-year and five-year conventional bonds. In both cases, the green bonds were priced at a premium when issued. They seem to have consistently maintained lower yields as well as exhibiting lower volatility than their conventional versions.
May I also ask the Deputy Prime Minister, if the Government will issue green bonds to the public under SINGA and what will these infrastructure projects likely be focused on? Can the Deputy Prime Minister also share more information about the project size, timing and so on, if possible?
Finally, I am glad to note that the majority of Government borrowing will still be for non-spending purposes such as meeting the investment needs of the CPF for Singaporeans' retirement and for market development and there are strict eligibility criteria in place to ensure that qualifying SINGA bond projects are truly essential to national interests. This is a forward-looking Bill with Singapore's economic, environmental and social sustainability in mind. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree that it is necessary to exercise good fiscal prudence by capping SINGA gross borrowings at $90 billion and setting the annual interest ceiling at $5 billion. I have some queries about these limits.
Firstly, I would like to ask whether these two controls are independent of one another. If they are related, assuming that we reach the maximum borrowing of $90 billion based on the $5 billion annual interest payment, the borrowing rate is 5.5% per annum. It would appear that the annual interest threshold is set rather high, considering that the coupon rate of a 30-year Temasek bond is only 2.25% per annum. Would the Minister elaborate on why the annual interest threshold is set at $5 billion?
Secondly, would the Minister share how the target of $90 billion was decided upon? Why not $88 billion – an auspicious number? Has the Government already selected the projects to fund and have their estimated costs in hand? Otherwise, why not choose a figure which is a percentage of our GDP or a multiple of the average development expenditure for the past three years, for example?
Another question is why is the minimum project cost set at $4 billion? To put this figure in context, a massive project like the iconic Sports Hub incurred only $1.3 billion in construction costs.
Instead of an aggregate limit of $90 billion, is it possible to consider an annual debt ceiling which is based on the estimated infrastructure expenditure over the next 10 to 15 years? We have seen how costs have ballooned over the past one year and costs will only continue to escalate in the future. Can we consider a short-term debt ceiling? For example, net short-term debt should not exceed a certain percentage of budgeted expenditure in a financial year. We can have a separate category for long-term debt.
Singapore's institutional framework has often been praised for its high level of quality, predictability and transparency. Although it was brought up during the Committee of Supply debate in March, I wonder if we could set such prudent debt limits in consultation with our citizens? I understand that in New Zealand, for example, the government had organised consultative sessions with industry bodies and its citizens to share the need to borrow or issue bonds.
I fully support the decision to issue green bonds to fund environmentally sustainable long-term projects under SINGA. This will result in a deeper and more varied Singapore bond market, providing more opportunities for long-term investors.
Would the Government set aside a good portion of SINGA bonds for retail investors? I hope a significant portion in affordable denominations can be reserved for Singaporeans so that more of our citizens can own a piece of our country's future development.
I would like to ask if there will be any issuance in US dollars or the euro so as to tap the pool of international investors. With the growing concern and interest in environmental issues globally, we will be able to attract a substantial pool of international green investors.
As what Member Saktiandi Supaat has said, drawing on the experience of Germany's sovereign green bonds, our potential investors should be able to attach a durable premium – in other words, lower yield – to green issues versus the conventional ones. I understand that many investors who support green initiatives accept lower yields because it is important for them to finance environmentally responsible projects.
With aligned goals for the benefit of our planet, our green issues should do well. How much of the SINGA bonds will be green? Would the Minister provide estimates for the various initiatives in our Singapore Green Plan 2030 and fight against climate change which will be supported by the SINGA green bonds, such as the construction of polders and so forth?
Can we set out a range of planning instruments relating to the provision of infrastructure? These can include a 20- to 30-year infrastructure strategy and 10-year plans for services and activities broken down to how they are related to financial strategies and annual plans.
Next, I would like to ask if bond issuance is the only mechanism to fund infrastructure development. How about public-private partnerships or crowdfunding? Perhaps we should look into the availability of private partners for public-private partnerships to finance local investments, for example, special purpose vehicles or lease contracts.
I hope Singapore's sovereign rating remains AAA forever. However, in the event that our rating deteriorates, to limit financial risks, derivative contracts should not be allowed and speculative positions with derivatives should not be permitted. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Significant Infrastructure Government Loan Bill will play a vital role in the development of our country's infrastructure construction in the future. With complete infrastructure and social resources such as sea walls, transportation, hospitals and schools, we can build a beautiful, sustainable and warm home, an ideal home where the capable can be gainfully employed, the young can learn, the sick can be treated and the elderly can find joy. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Deputy Prime Minister Heng for his contribution to Singapore in his capacity as Finance Minister.
(In English): I support the Bill.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, SINGA will allow the Government to better finance large, nationally significant infrastructure projects. This will materially improve national productivity and benefit the society and the environment.
Additionally, given the substantial drawing of national reserves to finance the costs from the COVID-19 pandemic, SINGA will create extra fiscal space and allow for the debt to be paid back in a manner that is equitable across generations.
That said, this is the first time in 40 years that the Government will be borrowing very large sums of money. It is important to have strict and robust safeguards in place to ensure that the borrowing is sustainable and prudent.
I have two areas of clarifications on the Bill.
My first area of clarification is on safeguarding the proper use of the loans. Deputy Prime Minister has provided assurances that the Bill includes \"strict safeguards on the projects that can qualify for borrowing and the amounts that can be borrowed\".
Key safeguards include the $90 billion gross limit on borrowing and an annual interest threshold of $5 billion. Future changes to the gross borrowing limit and annual interest threshold can only be made by introducing a new Bill in Parliament.
However, the definition of \"nationally significant infrastructure\" laid out in the new section 2(1) can be broadly construed.
First, can Deputy Prime Minister share what checks and balances will be put in place to assess if the loan is raised for infrastructure projects that are indeed nationally significant? For instance, while the new section 9 provides the Minister's power to raise a loan is non-delegable, can a committee be formed to deliberate and recommend if a loan should be raised for an infrastructure project?
Secondly, the $90 billion gross borrowing limit is not an insignificant amount. It is equivalent to about two-thirds of total outstanding Singapore Government Securities (SGS). Can the Deputy Prime Minister share what checks are in place to ensure that the loan is used in a manner that is responsible, prudent and sustainable by the party the loan is issued to?
Thirdly, the Government trusts that Singapore would likely benefit from favourable interest rates given Singapore's AAA credit rating and the current market environment. Low interest rates would keep the intergenerational costs of public debt low.
However, in the off-chance that interest rates rise substantially, what contingency plans does the Ministry have in place to finance the debt in a way that does not impose a huge burden on future generations?
My second area of clarification is around financing green infrastructure projects. With SINGA, the Government will issue a new category of government infrastructure bond, termed SGS (Infrastructure). Green bonds will form a subset of SGS (Infrastructure).
Firstly, will the SGS (Infrastructure) green bonds take reference from credible international bond standards? Examples of these standards include the International Capital Market Association (ICMA)'s Green Bond Principles, EU Green Bond Standards and the ASEAN Green Bond Standards.
Taking reference from these \"green\" standards can be important in giving lenders and financiers assurance and confidence that green financing is true to its label.
Secondly, can the Deputy Prime Minister clarify if there are plans to designate a set proportion of SGS (Infrastructure) bonds as green bonds for climate mitigation and adaptation efforts? If not, can Deputy Prime Minister, together with MSE, consider doing so? For example, these green bonds could be used to fund some of the $19 billion of public sector green projects identified in the Singapore Green Plan 2030.
Thirdly, I understand that there are plans for SINGA to finance the building of climate adaptation structures, such as sea walls, dykes, floodgates, barrages and coastal pumping stations to mitigate the risks of rising sea levels.
Can Deputy Prime Minister share if there are plans for climate mitigation projects? It is not only important that we adapt to climate change, but that we work to minimise its impact in the first place. Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Derrick Goh (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, in March this year, the local media reported that Singapore was ranked 11th in the world in the latest Schroders Global Cities index. This index ranked cities by measuring key dimensions, such as economic dynamism, innovation, sustainable environmental policies as well as transportation. Transportation infrastructure is a new factor included by the researchers this year as they noted it is critical to supporting social mobility, a key feature of great cities. Singapore will need to continue to invest in its infrastructure for its long-term development to continue to be amongst the top cities in the world for its citizens to live in and be an international place to do business.
Given the need to continue to develop our MRT lines, infrastructure to adapt to climate change as well as sewerage systems, it is logical and a sensible thing for our Government to finance these projects through borrowings to spread the lumpiness of the cost to match the benefits that will accrue over time. I fundamentally agree with this approach as it is also economically efficient given the ability of Singapore to tap the debt markets.
Given the past and continued strong track record of this Government, we have every reason to be confident that the SINGA Bill would be used optimally for the benefit of our citizens. Notwithstanding this, I am glad that there have been ample safeguards built into this legislation, such as, one, a precise definition of what an \"infrastructure project\" means to eliminate the possibility of using this Bill as a backdoor way to spend on soft investments; and two, a clear definition of \"qualifying capital expenditure\" to exclude expenditures, such as the cost of repairs and maintenance which should be rightfully expensed when incurred and therefore not be allowed for capitalisation.
This will ensure that such expenses, including soft investments, will need to be transparently put before this House as part of our annual Budget debate.
While we are on the topic of safeguards, since significant infrastructure have long development lead times as well as useful life, can the Deputy Prime Minister clarify how will the financial mechanism be applied to decide on the borrowing tenor since most of these public projects are unlikely to have a clear cashflow stream?
The Deputy Prime Minister had mentioned that nationally significant infrastructure funding is managed on a bond portfolio approach. However, a portfolio is made up of many projects. The question I have is that, at a project level, for example, if the useful life of the flood defences project is 50 years, can the Government decide to fund this through a shorter borrowing tenor of, say, 10 years? If so, when the time comes for rolling over the borrowings, interest rates could have risen potentially, leaving the future term of Government with a higher interest rate expense.
In short, as interest rate trends are not always predictable, the question more broadly is: how will the Government hedge the interest rate risk since we ought to also protect the future generation from shouldering an unexpected debt servicing burden?
Clause 5 (1)(b) limits the total effective interest rate paid on the securities issued under this legislation to be no more than S$5 billion. Effectively, the Bill provides an implied interest cap of around 5.5% against the total SINGA bonds of S$90 billion. This rate appears to be a good and reasonable control in the context of today's low interest rate environment. However, I note that 10-year SGS yields were over 5% in the late 1990s.
If there is a resurgence of inflation, which is not unlikely, given the massive stimulus by governments, such as the US, and a corresponding rise in the level of risk-free rates, it is good that the future Government be required to come back to debate and receive support from this House.
While this legislation will help address the funding of our significant infrastructure needs, from a financial market development standpoint, the issuance of SINGA bonds will help further deepen Singapore as an international financial market. Currently, there is lower liquidity at the longer end of the sovereign rate curve given that the Government has had little need to issue longer dated financial instruments. With SINGA bonds issued with longer tenors, this can help build out a longer term risk-free curve which financial institutions need for referencing the pricing of long-dated projects, such as project finance loans as an example. Additionally, SINGA bonds would be a good asset-liability match for financial institutions such as insurers which have long dated funds that needs to be deployed as the insurance market grows further. Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, I support this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Leader, would you like to move an exempted business Motion?
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exempted Business","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Significant Infrastructure Government Loan Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Ms Mariam Jaafar.
Ms Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, there are many factors that give us confidence in this move to borrow to fund nationally significant infrastructure development expenditure, given low interest rates, the likely healthy demand, all the safeguards in place that have been described and the opportunity to develop the market for green financing.
Notwithstanding the fact that interest rates could continue to be low for a protracted period of time, the risk remains that rates could move higher in the event of a strong economic recovery or even more importantly, a material rise in inflation. But what is more important than rates per se is perhaps the differential between rates or \"r\" and growth \"g\", in other words, \"r\" minus \"g\". Stated plainly, what matters is whether you can make more than you pay through borrowing.
The infrastructure projects that the SINGA bonds are expected to fund, whether for new rail lines or climate adaptation, will surely boost productivity, growth and the sustainability of our economy over the long term. If we can grow GDP faster, taking on debt to fund public investment in nationally significant infrastructure, under the current low interest rate environment, can in fact lead to lower debt-to-GDP in the long term. The bigger the interest rates-growth differential, the more favourable the debt dynamics. However, IMF studies have shown that marginal borrowing costs often rise abruptly and sharply after long periods of low differentials, and it is marginal borrowing costs which really matters when it comes to refinancing. So, I hope that as we envision a portfolio of tenors, we will pay attention to refinancing risks in particular.
So, in the end though, the important thing is, our economy must continue to grow. We must continue to transform the economy, spend on infrastructure, cut waste out of public spending, taking a value-based approach to all that we do. Some might say tapping the reserves and borrowing are really two sides of the same coin. Perhaps, the most noteworthy thing here is really the change to capitalisation of expenditures financed through borrowings under SINGA. Under a strong growth recovery, it should free up more budget for recurrent expenditure, including welfare, healthcare and yes, education and reskilling, for the current generation today, all of which Members from both sides of the House have asked on multiple occasions.
Mr Speaker, I feel that the Government has shown its ability to adapt and try new things, such as the SINGA bonds, without losing sight of fiscal prudence, responsibility and fairness. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Time Limit for Deputy Prime Minister's Speech","subTitle":"Suspension of Standing Orders","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of the Deputy Prime Minister's speech.
Mr Speaker: I give my consent. Does the Leader of the House have the general assent of the hon Members present to so move?
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
[(proc text) With the consent of Mr Speaker and the general assent of Members present, question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 48(8) in respect of the Deputy Prime Minister's speech. – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Significant Infrastructure Government Loan Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Deputy Prime Minister.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank, in fact, all Members who have spoken for supporting the SINGA Bill. They have also raised many suggestions. Even though Leader has just extended our time for my speech, I think if I were to go on to every single one of your suggestion, we will be here way past midnight. So, let me just cluster your suggestions around three broad questions.
First, why is the Government borrowing for nationally significant infrastructure? Second, is borrowing under SINGA a prudent approach? And third, how would the Government manage the debt issuance under SINGA?
Before I address these questions, I would first like to thank Mr Liang Eng Hwa for laying out the principles and considerations clearly. Indeed, as Mr Liang has rightfully pointed out, borrowing should be anchored by our overarching guiding values of prudence, discipline and equity. In fact, the key reason, as he pointed out, for borrowing is about intergenerational equity, a point which Prof Hoon Hian Teck also made about intergenerational equity or re-distributive justice. In fact, Prof Hoon mentioned that, for example, on climate change, the building of dykes and polders and other structures for keeping our island safe, is also a responsibility to unborn generations for which the Government is acting on their behalf.
What we are doing builds on what we have been doing in managing our reserves to make sure that while we draw on our NIRC for our recurrent spending, we are also leaving aside sums for the future generation, so that they too can manage the long term. So, this has been, in fact, the Government's approach which has been a very carefully calibrated one. So, let me now go into some details.
Today, we borrow under the Local Treasury Bills Act or LTBA and the Government Securities Act or GSA only for specific policy purposes such as for market development, meeting the investment needs of CPF, and liquidity. In fact, the majority of our borrowings, about 71%, is made up of the Special Singapore Government Securities (SSGS), which are issued primarily to support the retirement needs of Singaporeans.
All these borrowings are invested and are not spent, and the returns on our investments are able to cover the borrowing costs over the long term. This includes the higher interest rates that we give to CPF members for the monies in their CPF accounts. We manage our borrowings carefully to ensure that we have the financial resources to repay our debts.
While we used to borrow for spending in our development years, there has not been a need for us to do so since the 1990s because of strong growth and healthy revenues. Prudent management of our finances during these good years also helped us to build up our reserves.
As Mr Liang pointed out, we could therefore now count on our rainy-day fund to mount a quick and decisive response to protect the lives and livelihoods of Singaporeans when the COVID-19 crisis hit last year. We did not have to incur a single cent of debt to fund our COVID-19 response.
Our approach is different from other countries as our circumstances are different. As Ms Foo Mee Har reminded us, even during the COVID-19 crisis, some countries already had high levels of net government debt as they borrowed to fund recurrent needs. Some of these countries had to borrow even more to fund their COVID-19 response. For instance, the average net government debt amongst OECD countries rose from 65% of GDP in 2019 to 80% in 2020.
By contrast, Singapore does not have any net debt. This strong fiscal position puts us in a good position to emerge stronger from the COVID-19 crisis.
So, let me address why do we limit it to nationally significant infrastructure.
This Bill is a continuation of our careful and calibrated approach towards borrowing. As mentioned in my earlier speech, we are anticipating a hump of development expenditure as we embark on a generational upgrade of nationally significant infrastructure to improve the lives of Singaporeans. Borrowing and capitalisation of nationally significant infrastructure will help us spread out its lumpy costs, to better match the timing of the benefits to the timing of the spending. This is a fair and efficient approach. This is the result of long-term planning. We have been anticipating this need for quite some time now.
I first announced that we were studying the option of borrowing for nationally significant infrastructure about two years ago in 2019. I had also at the outset of my speech showed you this infrastructure hump that we are facing. Several Members have made comments relating about why $90 billion, why not lower it, why not increase it, why the criteria, and so on.
Let me remind all Members that we are not talking about from tomorrow, we are going to fund all development expenditure through borrowing. In fact, we are borrowing this $90 billion or we are going to borrow this $90 billion, in order to smooth out the funding needs because of this hump. Over and above that, our development expenditure will continue.
Several Members, including Mr Liang, have also asked about what is the impact on our AAA credit rating and several Members have pointed that this is the first time that we are borrowing for spending since the 1990s and it is not for a small sum; it is $90 billion. MOF and MAS have in fact engaged the three major credit rating agencies – S&P, Moody's and Fitch – to explain our approach on these borrowings. They too recognised that our approach is underpinned by key principles of prudence and sustainability. Even with the planned introduction of new borrowings to finance long-term major infrastructure, the credit rating agencies acknowledged that Singapore’s fiscal position and credit rating remain strong. This is because they understand that the Government is committed to a balanced Budget framework and to fund recurrent spending with recurrent revenue.
Having sound macro-policies – fiscal, monetary and structural – is paramount. As Ms Foo Mee Har reminded us, we cannot take our AAA rating for granted. We must be prudent in how much we borrow and what we use our borrowings for. So, let me elaborate.
One way we are exercising prudence is by limiting borrowing to infrastructure projects that have a total qualifying cost of at least $4 billion.
Mr Edward Chia, Mr Don Wee and Mr Xie Yao Quan asked about the Government's considerations in setting the project cost threshold at $4 billion and if the Government would review it in future. As explained earlier, the Government is starting off more prudently by limiting the scope of SINGA to larger projects that tend to have greater intergenerational benefits. Infrastructure projects are in most instances intended to provide a stream of services over many years, and a diverse set is needed for Singapore and many other countries. As Mr Don Wee pointed out, the Sports Hub itself, and whether it is Sports Hub or KPE, are all over a billion dollars.
It is not our intent that all types of infrastructure will be funded by borrowing. Let me emphasise. It is not our intent to fund all types of infrastructure by borrowing. Why? Because borrowing is not revenue. It must eventually be repaid by future taxpayers. If we borrow for all infrastructure projects, even the smaller ones, we will leave our children to shoulder a bigger stream of debt repayments. This would not be prudent, especially in view of our maturing economy and slower growth rates.
So, the Government will continue to plan for and build a range of infrastructure to meet the needs of our people. Such development expenditure will remain a part of our annual Budget, to be funded by the recurrent revenues that the Government has to collect. The $4 billion threshold captures major, lumpy development needs that form the upcoming \"hump\" above our baseline development expenditure, and are important to our national interests, as I have explained earlier on.
We are mindful that our infrastructure needs will evolve as our economy grows. Infrastructure costs may also grow with inflation. Hence, we are open to reviewing the $4 billion threshold in the future if necessary.
As to what should count as infrastructure, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Mr Louis Chua mentioned a few points and I want to thank Mr Murali Pillai for his thoughtful comments to these suggestions. Assoc Prof Jamus explained his proposal to expand the scope of borrowing. So, I take it that he is in full support of SINGA to fund large-scale infrastructure. But what he wants is an additional bit to further expand the scope of borrowing to include non-infrastructure spending. Let me sound a word of caution about the suggestions made by Members to borrow for other non-infrastructure needs, such as education or healthcare. And I thank Mr Derrick Goh, who has just spoken, for his warning that we should not dress all types of spending as \"soft infrastructure\".
In terms of spending on education, healthcare, the Government recognises the importance of spending on these needs but we should always focus on how well we spend, not how much we spend. And we should always focus on the outcome and effectiveness of our spending, not on how big a sum of money we spend.
So, we have made significant investments and ensured good outcomes. I have shown our effectiveness spending in education and health in this House before and I hope that Members will refer back to the Hansard and the charts that I have shown. This has been internationally recognised such as the World Bank Human Capital Index.
The second point is that Assoc Prof Jamus has also cited several studies, macro studies, and may not apply to Singapore. Singapore has already achieved high levels of schooling especially for our younger cohorts. Our university cohort participation rate is already at 42%, comparable to the advanced economies. More importantly, we have high employment and good outcomes.
Mr Louis Chua cited the recent US stimulus package and said it included a whole range of spending on social infrastructure. He then compared with what we are spending and suggested that actually we should be spending more. When we are looking at spending, we should be asking ourselves what do we have to spend on, what has been achieved and what other problems are we trying to fix?
So, both Assoc Prof Jamus and Mr Louis Chua's comments point to the risk, in fact, a very major risk, that if you do not draw clear lines every time expenditure items come up for debate, you would then blur the lines and the lines will keep getting blurrer. And you can argue that everything that a country needs to get itself working, to get working, would qualify. Just coin it by some nice names and call it \"soft infrastructure\". Is defence not soft infrastructure? Is security not soft infrastructure? Is guarding against cybersecurity not soft infrastructure? What about healthcare, education, social spending, spending to maintain social cohesion? Are those not so-called soft infrastructure too?
So, I think, please be rigorous. Let us stick to what are factors rather than to keep blurring the arguments. If you want to have higher spending on healthcare, on education, say so, and we can debate whether are we spending enough or not enough.
There is one other very significant point which I would like everyone to bear in mind. In talking about all the spending, neither Assoc Prof Jamus Lim nor Mr Louis Chua addressed the question of who is going to pay for this borrowing.
As I have said, borrowing helps you to finance but debt has to be repaid. Somebody has to repay debt.
The argument is that borrowing for recurrent expenditure will pay for itself because you will get higher returns on human capital versus infrastructure. But this has not been borne out anywhere in the world. Most developed countries that go into debt financing just end up with more debt. The hole is just getting bigger.
I want to remind Members that we spend more than 30% of our expenditure each year on MOE and MOH, and that share is expected to rise. In fact, I will talk more about this later.
So, if we borrow for one third of our recurrent spending, no matter how cost-effective they are, this would, over time, create a high debt burden for future generations.
I would also like to thank Prof Hoon Hian Teck for pointing out very clearly that we need to have the capacity to raise revenue, and this is critical for fiscal sustainability. Indeed, the credit worthiness of Singapore, the extent of credit that people are willing to recognise for Singapore and grade Singapore, depends critically on whether they think that we have a sustainable fiscal policy.
That, again, depends on how willing the Government is to maintain financial discipline and to raise taxes where it is necessary. If we do not do that, what is likely to happen is that your credit ratings will fall, the risk premium will rise. And this is going to have an effect on the entire economy – on not just Government borrowing but on corporate borrowing, and in turn, this is going to affect the jobs of our people. Because if we make ourselves a less desirable place for investments, it will come back and haunt us.
Mr Leong Mun Wai's long speech boils down to actually one argument: that we have a lot of money – more than enough – because our reserves are large and we can just spend and spend and spend. Then, he comes up with some estimates of how big our reserves are. As I have said before in this Parliament, we do not comment on the size of our reserves for the reasons I have set out in my earlier speeches. So, I shall not repeat these.
Mr Leong Mun Wai also conflated intergenerational equity for long-lived assets with intergenerational equity.
I mentioned that I would speak about the share of Government financing for just national healthcare expenditure alone. It was 35% in 2011 and 46% in 2018; and likely to rise further – so, an 11-percentage point increase in just seven years.
Mr Leong Mun Wai also claimed that the burden for paying various expenses came down to our workers. This is wrong. Let me just repeat what I said in Parliament again: about half of our workers do not pay income tax. About half of our workers do not pay income tax at all.
So, I hope that if Mr Leong Mun Wai would like to make a contribution to policy-making in this Chamber, please be rigorous. Come here with fresh insights or new facts. Bring this to the House for debate. Please do not reread and reread your old script.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked if we can borrow, say, during a crisis. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to a crisis. We need to take into account the nature of a crisis and be prepared to use all the tools at our disposal.
We are fortunate to have built up our reserves, which serve, among others, as a rainy day fund – as Mr Liang Eng Hwa pointed out earlier – which we can tap on in times of crisis. Indeed, with the President's concurrence, up to $53.7 billion is expected to be drawn from our past reserves over FY2020 and FY2021 to respond to the COVID-19 crisis.
Let me caution that the COVID-19 crisis is not behind us. If the global economic outlook worsens unexpectedly, we may have to take exceptional measures. If we have to draw on past reserves again to support our economy, we may consider raising cash by borrowing. Doing so would allow our assets to stay invested for the long term. But as I have said, we will be prepared to use all tools at our disposal but we have to consider this carefully.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa also asked about the update on his suggestion which he raised earlier during the Budget debate – other than SINGA, should we be prepared to borrow to finance investments that allow Singapore to emerge stronger?
Indeed, COVID-19 has accelerated structural changes in the global economy and has disrupted industries and reshaped jobs in significant ways. We are fortunate that five years ago, we started on our industry transformation and we have achieved results. In the midst of the crisis, we set up the Emerging Stronger Taskforce to look at how Singapore can emerge stronger from the crisis.
The Emerging Stronger Taskforce will be putting out its final report soon. There are many good suggestions in the report on how we can build capacity in our companies and in our people so that we can seize opportunities and emerge stronger. I will study this report carefully and discuss with MOF later on how we can fund additional investments during this period. This is an important opportunity for us to do so.
But if we do borrow for this purpose of emerging stronger, we must set some conditions; set safeguards, as Ms Foo Mee Har reminded us.
Firstly, the use of these borrowings should be tightly circumscribed to our Emerging Stronger strategies. Clear lines need to be drawn.
Secondly, we must ensure that this is a time-bound instrument, as any one-off special borrowing should be to meet the extraordinary circumstances arising from COVID-19. It is not to become a recurrent fiscal tool. So, let us stay disciplined. We will continue to monitor the economic and public health outlook closely and study this option carefully.
Ultimately, COVID-19 is sui generis. Exceptional times require exceptional measures. It is in this context that I am tabling this Bill and to consider borrowing, if necessary, to emerge stronger from this generational crisis.
Sir, let me just sum up this section by warning that while we have many needs in our society and these needs are very important, we must ensure that we use recurrent sources to fund all these recurrent needs and not to get our future generations to pay for what we enjoy today, because this is not fair. It is important that we must maintain this intergenerational equity.
Let me just move on to warn that if we lose our reputation for being fiscally prudent, investor confidence would be affected, cost of funding for everyone – the Government and our corporates – will rise and this will spill over to the real economy.
Ms Foo Mee Har, Mr Louis Ng, Mr Edward Chia and Ms Mariam Jaffar have asked about the checks and balances we need to put in place to ensure that the criteria for nationally significant infrastructure are met and borrowings are well used.
Sir, let me assure this House that there will be a rigorous multi-stage selection process to first identify potential SINGA projects which also involve third parties. This includes an evaluation through the Gateway Process and a certification by each agency's accounting officer that the criteria in SINGA are met. Let me elaborate.
First, all development projects will have to go through the Gateway Process to ensure project worthiness and cost effectiveness before construction – no different from today. Under the Gateway Process, these projects will first undergo review by MOF as well as the Development Projects Advisory Panel, or DPAP.
The DPAP includes independent third parties, such as academics and industry practitioners, with deep technical expertise. They ensure that the project meets Singapore's needs and not only today's needs, as Mr Edward Chia reminded us, but also tomorrow's. They also ensure that cost estimates are rigorous and reasonable. In fact, over the last few years, these processes have led to design improvements and generated savings of several billion dollars in total.
Thereafter, these projects will be subject to further approval by the Ministerial-level Development Planning Committee.
Finally, once these projects have been assessed to be meritorious, each agency's accounting officer, who is a senior civil servant, will be required to certify that the statutory criteria in SINGA are met, in particular, the $4 billion value project cost threshold and the 50-year useful life requirement, prior to the raising of borrowings.
Mr Murali Pillai asked about the approval process and so did Mr Louis Ng. Mr Xie Yao Quan suggested that, for prudence, perhaps we should reduce the total borrowing and reduce the interest cost.
Let me reiterate that this is to meet this hump coming up in the coming 15 years. But I want to assure Members that Parliament will continue to play an important role to ensure that our infrastructure investments are worthwhile. All infrastructure to be financed by borrowings will form part of our development expenditures to be approved through the annual Budget process. Parliament may carefully scrutinise our proposed infrastructure plans before we proceed with spending and capitalising the development expenditures. And any Committee of Supply Bill passed by Parliament has to be assented to by the elected President.
Let me now address some of the points raised by Members on how the safeguards under SINGA ensure that the borrowing is prudent and sustainable for both current and future generations.
First, I will address the limits on the amount of borrowings that can be raised before addressing the safeguards on the capitalisation of nationally significant infrastructure.
SINGA has two key safeguards to limit the amount of borrowings raised.
First, the $90 billion gross borrowing limit. Sir, let me put the $90 billion in context.
Ninety billion dollars is a sizeable limit, as Mr Xie Yao Quan pointed out. It is equivalent to about four Downtown Lines and about 20% of our GDP in 2020, at current market prices. Nevertheless, 20% of GDP is lower than the previous borrowing limits under the six Development Loan Acts, or DLAs. They averaged around 40% of GDP in the year the DLA was introduced. It is also lower than the borrowing limits in other countries. For example, Canada, which also has good credit rating, has a recurrent debt ceiling of 1.17 trillion Canadian dollars, which is about 51% of their GDP.
So, when we compare with our own past experiences and those of other countries, a gross borrowing limit of $90 billion is prudent and sustainable and can meet our needs.
Some Members, including Mr Don Wee, have asked why use an absolute limit of $90 billion instead, say, of rolling annual limits that are pegged to a percentage of GDP?
An absolute limit gives certainty to both current and future terms of Government on the amount that they can borrow to spend on nationally significant infrastructure. If we peg the limit to GDP, the limit will fluctuate as the size of the economy fluctuates over time. This will mean a lower limit during an economic downturn, like now, and constrain us from building critical infrastructure at a time when the conditions are right and could help to support the economy.
When we consider nationally significant infrastructure, we must take a longer term view. Nonetheless, I would like to assure Members, including Mr Edward Chia, Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr Louis Chua, that this $90 billion limit has taken into account future economic growth and expected inflation on the underlying development expenditures.
On the annual effective interest cost threshold of $5 billion, Mr Xie Yao Quan and Mr Don Wee asked about the considerations behind this threshold and whether it should be lower, given the low interest rates today.
As I have mentioned in my speech earlier, $5 billion caps our interest cost at around 1% of our GDP in 2020 at current market prices. This keeps the level of our interest payments sustainable and this is lower than the borrowing cost in other countries. For example, interest payment to GDP in the UK in FY2019/2020 is about 1.7%.
Mr Xie and Mr Wee are right that in the current low interest rate environment, we do not expect our interest costs to be near the $5 billion threshold even if we borrow up to the full $90 billion.
But the $5 billion cap provides some buffer when the interest rate cycle turns. And as several Members have pointed out, interest rates at some point will rise. So, we cannot expect interest rates to remain at current low levels forever and do not forget that this borrowing is not for the next year. This borrowing is for the coming 15 years.
So, I hope this will address Members' suggestion as to whether we should borrow more to take advantage of low interest rates.
Let us remind ourselves that our own interest rates are especially subject to global interest rate volatility, because our capital markets are open and monetary policy is centred on managing the exchange rate. And there were periods over the last 25 years of our history when our interest rates were much higher. For example, interest rates for 10-year Singapore Government Securities (SGS) reached 5.87% in 1998.
So, what will happen if interest rates rise? If we borrow too much from the onset, in particular for non-infrastructure expenditure, then we will have a much higher debt ceiling burden when we need to refinance our existing debts and our fiscal situation can spiral downward quickly. This usually happens in a crisis, when we can least afford it.
But if we borrow prudently to finance only critical, long-term infrastructure that bring significant benefits to Singapore, we can continue to ensure investor confidence even in a high interest rate environment. This will enable us to retain our triple A credit rating, which can anchor our interest costs.
In addition, because we are borrowing for infrastructure where the payment structure typically stretches across time, borrowing costs under SINGA would be averaged out. So, our prudent approach can therefore help us to maintain a strong fiscal position and continue borrowing to finance critical investments, even if interest rate cycles turn upwards. The interest cost threshold will keep the overall debt servicing costs in check.
Mr Edward Chia and Ms Foo Mee Har asked in the event that we are nearing the interest cost threshold, do we need to raise revenues or divest our financial assets to raise liquidity to repay some of the outstanding borrowings so as to keep within the threshold.
First, the cap on interest is on the outstanding debt. As we are ramping up infrastructure quite evenly over the next 10 to 15 years, the cap will not be binding as our initial spend is more limited. The next five years we are likely to utilise less than $30 billion but it is prudent that we size this cap early.
Second, the cap is on the effective cost across all the outstanding debt. If we issue bonds in the next few years, when rates are expected to be low, this will help reduce the overall effective interest cost even if rates go up in the future.
Hence, the cap will likely be more binding when we are closer to the $90 billion gross borrowing limit and if we are in a particularly high interest rate environment in the future. This is precisely why we need this safeguard to ensure that the Government will continue to exercise care in managing debt and debt servicing for future generations.
If interest costs rises beyond the threshold and we cannot borrow more, the government of the day can re-consider the threshold and debate in Parliament again.
I should also clarify that for outstanding loans, the Government can continue to maintain these borrowings until maturity and not have to repay the outstanding borrowings under SINGA immediately.
Some Members have also asked whether we should borrow the full $90 billion in advance, given the current low interest rates environment. Indeed, we are prepared to start borrowing for the infrastructure projects that have undergone the rigorous evaluation and review, for which approval has been given for works to begin within the next few years. This will enable us to benefit from the current low interest rates today and to better spread out the lumpy costs of our major infrastructure.
But we will not borrow for infrastructure plans that have yet to undergo evaluation and are not firm. Interest cost is not the only consideration – we have to continue to scrutinise projects rigorously. And by pacing our borrowings, it will also enable our financial markets to invest in a regular and stable way.
Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr Edward Chia asked about the safeguards. Besides limiting the amount of borrowings, the safeguards on the capitalisation and depreciation of nationally significant infrastructure assets.
We intend to depreciate the assets evenly via a straight-line depreciation method. This will ensure that each generation contributes an equal share towards the nationally significant infrastructure.
As an additional safeguard for prudence, we intend to cap the depreciation period for the assets at either 50 or 70 years, rounded down from its useful life.
This reduces the risk of future generations having to pay for an infrastructure that is becoming functionally obsolete towards the tail end of its useful life.
In addition, Mr Murali Pillai asked about potential abandonment of SINGA projects after borrowings have been raised.
I should first clarify that even the Government has started borrowing for and constructing a project, it has no incentive to abandon any meritorious projects. Because doing so comes with both tangible costs such as demolition costs that would be charged to the term of the government that abandons the project, as well as intangible costs such as reputational costs.
But as Mr Murali Pillai pointed out, there may be other scenarios where projects may be abandoned; for instance, if there is a change a government. If the new government abandons the project, it would indeed have to pay for the abortive costs, including contracts that have been signed. A few months ago, the Malaysian government decided not to proceed with the HSR project and compensated Singapore for the abortive costs in line with our bilateral agreement.
So, indeed, there is always a risk that any infrastructural projects, not just the ones that are financed by SINGA borrowings, may be aborted, due to circumstances beyond the Government’s control. And this is where we have to do our best, to put in place the measures to minimise the risks, and should these risks materialise, to have proper recourse and maintain investors’ confidence in the ability of the Singapore Government to manage the country’s finances properly and observe the rule of law.
Let me now address the points made by Members, including Mr Saktiandi Supaat, on how issuance will be managed, including green bonds.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) as the Government’s agent will be issuing a new category of Singapore Government Securities (SGS) under SINGA. It will be named SGS (Infrastructure). To delineate this from the existing SGS issued under the GSA, we will rename the SGS issued under the GSA as SGS (Market Development).
Both categories of SGS will rank pari passu and will be priced along the same yield curve. They will also be subject to the same tax and regulatory treatments and will be made available to both institutional and retail investors. Hence, investors would see both SGS (Infrastructure) and SGS (Market Development) as equivalent substitutes.
To keep overall issuance costs well anchored, both categories of SGS will be managed holistically, as Mr Saktiandi Supaat pointed out. This ensures that the overall supply of the SGS will be calibrated to market demand.
To assess the demand for SGS each year, MAS will consider the prevailing global and domestic financial and monetary conditions, feedback from investors and the infrastructure spending needs under SINGA.
In a year, when more SGS (Infrastructure) need to be issued, MAS will accordingly reduce the issuance of SGS (Market Development), assuming market demand is constant. Like SGS (Market Development), SGS (Infrastructure) will be issued across a range of tenors. This will help to manage the overall borrowing costs across the entire yield curve.
The tenors and the overall duration of SGS (Infrastructure) would be calibrated to account for demand from investors. When market conditions are supportive, MAS will tilt the tenors for SGS (Infrastructure) towards the longer dated tenors, given that the borrowings are intended to finance infrastructure with long useful lives. Presently, the longest tenor for SGS is 30 years. We will consider issuing beyond the 30-year tenor, if there is strong market demand.
Some Members, such as Mr Don Wee and Ms Foo Mee Har, also asked if we will consider issuing SGS denominated in foreign currency.
We will not be issuing such SGS for a start. However, the SINGA provides the flexibility to issue SGS denominated in foreign currency. Together with MAS, the Government will work with the market to explore the possibilities of structuring borrowings differently over time, including SGS denominated in foreign currency, if there is demand. Should we issue such SGS in the future, we will carefully study the options to mitigate foreign exchange risk, as some Members have pointed out.
To Mr Saktiandi Supaat’s, Mr Louis Ng’s and Mr Don Wee’s query on green bonds, we will issue Green SGS (Infrastructure) for projects that meet the green criteria. As announced at Budget 2021, the Government will take the lead in issuing green bonds on selected public infrastructure projects. These green bonds are an important enabler of the Singapore Green Plan 2030. They will serve as a reference for the domestic green bond market, deepen the market liquidity for green bonds, attract green investors and anchor Singapore as the green finance hub.
We will issue up to $19 billion of green bonds over the next five years for a start. This comprises borrowings by both the Government under SINGA as well as borrowings by the Statutory Boards. For Green SGS (Infrastructure) issued under the SINGA, we expect the first issuances from FY2022 onwards.
Preliminarily, Second Party Opinion providers, which are institutions with environmental expertise to provide independent opinion on Green Bond Frameworks, have indicated that our MRT projects are likely to qualify for green issuances under SINGA, as electric passenger rail is the greenest mode of mass transportation.
The Government is working with MAS and industry partners to establish our own Green Bond Frameworks for Green SGS (Infrastructure), taking reference from international standards, as highlighted by Mr Louis Ng.
As we are only just starting out our green bond programme, we will not be stipulating a minimum percentage of green bonds under SINGA for now. Nonetheless, we thank Mr Murali Pillai for his suggestion.
As for green bonds issued by Statutory Boards, we expect NEA to issue green bonds for the Tuas Nexus project. Mr Louis Ng will be happy to know that the Tuas Nexus is one of the projects to help mitigate climate change. It maximises energy and resource recovery in the solid waste and used water treatment processes, leading to carbon savings of more than 200,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide annually. So, this is equivalent to taking 42,500 cars off the road.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Ms Foo Mee Har also asked how borrowings under SINGA will interact with existing borrowings by Statutory Boards.
To reiterate, borrowings under SINGA will be used to finance an upcoming generational upgrade of infrastructure which are large-scale projects which can cost up to tens of billions of dollars.
While our Statutory boards do currently borrow for infrastructure; it would be more capital efficient for such large-scale borrowings to be undertaken on Government’s balance sheet to optimise financing costs. Nonetheless, there is still a place for borrowings by Statutory Boards. We expect Statutory Boards to continue issuing bonds, including green bonds, to finance smaller scale infrastructure that do not fall within the scope of SINGA.
So, let me sum up by situating borrowing under the SINGA within our broader fiscal strategy. And in so doing, address Members’ questions about our fiscal approach.
Our fiscal strategy must remain true to our core values of prudence and stewardship. But it must also be resilient and nimble to adapting to changing times. Hence, we have employed a differentiated fiscal strategy for different kinds of expenditure.
For infrastructure needs, we will now employ borrowing as one of our financing strategies. And this is in addition to other financing strategies such as pre-saving in the Rail Infrastructure Fund and the Coastal and Flood Protection Fund.
Where appropriate, we will also consider ways to partner the private sector, as suggested by Mr Don Wee and several others, to fund infrastructure such as electrical grid upgrades to support electric vehicle charging infrastructure.
SINGA allows us to borrow to finance nationally significant infrastructure in a prudent and disciplined way. The safeguards help to ensure that the costs of borrowing remain sustainable and that these costs can be met by overall revenues without constraining our ability to pay for future needs.
Let me assure Members of this House that our fiscal position remains strong with borrowing, even if the economic outlook takes a turn for the worse.
We will also continue to remain in a net asset position. The majority of the Government borrowings will continue to be issued under the existing LTBA and GSA for non-spending purposes.
As for recurrent spending, such as healthcare and social spending, it is more sustainable to meet these growing needs through revenue that we can collect on an on-going basis, such as taxes.
Borrowing is not revenue, let me repeat that, and it must eventually be repaid by future taxpayers. Borrowing for recurrent spending will only mean that we will end up with higher and higher debt levels.
So, therefore, there will still be a need to raise the GST rate, to raise recurrent revenues for structural increases in healthcare and social spending as our population ages.
Such recurrent spending is in addition to our nationally significant infrastructure needs, which we will be financing through borrowings under SINGA.
Without borrowing, we might have needed to raise taxes even more in the next few years to fund the large upfront costs of these infrastructure, as Ms Foo Mee Har highlighted. So, borrowing helps us to spread the costs of infrastructure over generations and avoid steep increases in taxes over the coming years.
Let me address the three specific questions that Ms Foo Mee Har raised.
First, the details of how our capitalisation under SINGA will be allowed. I have mentioned that earlier on in my main speech.
Second, does the $90 billion limit take into account upgrading and maintenance cost of the infrastructure over the lifetime of infrastructure. Well, we will not be borrowing for recurrent expenditure related to nationally significant infrastructure, such as cost of repair and maintenance. So, this cost will be excluded from counting towards the $90 billion borrowing limits.
Third, Ms Foo asked, to quantify the fiscal space created from this accounting treatment, what is estimated to be the amount of taxes that would have had to be raised to fund such long-term expenditure if this was made under the current annual expense approach and does that mean that we will have more fiscal room?
I have said in my main speech earlier on that borrowing under SINGA will, I quote, \"lower our annual average development expenditure over the next decade from around 5% of our GDP to 4.2% of our GDP after taking account depreciation and borrowing costs.\" So, in other words, on average, SINGA will create fiscal space of 0.8% of our GDP annually, in the next decade after taking into account the depreciation and borrowing costs. And this is around $4 billion in current dollars. So, put it another way, this is the amount of taxes we would have needed to raise have we not implemented SINGA, or the amount of spending that we will have to cut or not spend on SINGA.
So, to conclude, Mr Speaker, Sir, as we emerge from COVID-19, we must continue to build a better Singapore for the future. But we must remain prudent even as we do so and maintain our strong fiscal position. And to quote Ms Foo again, \"the debt we accumulate must not put unfair pressure on future generations.\"
Borrowing for nationally significant infrastructure under SINGA will help us to achieve these goals and set Singapore up for future success. I beg to move. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, thank you. I have four questions to clarify for the Deputy Prime Minister.
I am very perturbed by his saying that I am not contributing to this Parliament. I do not take umbrage because I aim to be a gentleman, but I am seriously perturbed. I think what I am trying to do here is to complete the picture. I think maybe because of the various commitment of Government, some of the information that is coming out of this Parliament is not complete. Let me ask four questions to complete the picture.
One, I will ask the Deputy Prime Minister: do you agree that this year, fiscal resources amount to $128 billion. We do not care how you classify that resources into revenue, but you have $128 billion; $39 billion of NIRC; $12 billion of land sales and $77 billion of taxes.
Two, while you refused to announce the accurate figure for the reserves, the Government publishes Government financial statements every year; and as of March 2020, the total financial assets reported on the financial statement was $1.35 trillion. Please confirm that.
Three, you provided some figures to say that middle class Singaporeans are getting more from the Government than the taxes they pay. One question I want to ask you is: why do you not go to our constituency and tell the constituents, \"Please pay more taxes; you will get more from the Government.\" Have you taken into consideration all the indirect taxes when you presented your conclusion?
And fourth, for the expenditures that the Government is trying to incur, are you prepared to give a 20-year forecast of all the expenditures that are going to come? It is a very serious matter, you know. If we have that much resources, we almost have 7% to 8% of our GDP, including when you take into consideration the land sales and the NIR we have. Every year, we have about 7% to 8% of our GDP in this sort of resources. And you tell me that going forward, our expenditures will still be more than this. Then, we have to look at our expenditures very carefully. Those are the four questions, Deputy Prime Minster, please.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: First, I thank Mr Leong Mun Wai for the questions. Let me ask that the Member do not put words into my mouth. I did not say that you are not contributing to this Parliament. I said, \"Please be rigorous when you come to Parliament and justify your position\".
You asked four specific questions so you should not be perturbed nor should you take umbrage.
First, you quoted the figure of $128 billion and quoted $38 billion of NIRC and $12 billion of land sales. Again, I said in this Parliament, over and over again, please, read the Hansard, that land sale proceeds are not be used for recurrent spending. We have a Reserve Protection Framework, where land sales go into past reserves. Past reserves are then invested, and we have the elected Presidency to ensure that the Reserve Protection Framework is working as it should, working properly.
And as for NIRC, again, and I have said it before, that we only take up to 50% of the NIRC and we are already doing that. It now constitutes 3% of GDP of our expenditure – huge amount! More than any single category of taxes, whether it is GST, personal income tax or corporate income taxes. And we are only using 50% because it is our responsibility to put back that 50% for future generations as our needs grow.
If our parliamentarians have taken the approach that you have advocated, we will not even be debating this because we will just be talking about how much debt to issue in order to fund. And my numbers which I have quoted, on many of the OECD countries, that the average is 80% of the debt to GDP and how that has increased further. So, please look at your figures carefully.
And second, you have asked me to confirm whether reserves in the gross financial statements are correct. Well, the statements are prepared and are correct when we publish it, but whether this can be spent is a separate matter.
The third question is, to ask me to go to my constituents and make the claim that the more taxes you pay, the more benefit you get. I do not know your logic because I did not, in any way, say that the more taxes you pay, the more benefits you get.
You also asked specifically about indirect taxes. Again, since you entered Parliament, in the various Budget debates, you have been raising this. I have been answering as patiently as I can. I hope that this will be the last time that I have to answer this.
You cannot see GST in isolation. You have to see GST in the context of the entire expenditure of our households; and on what taxes they pay and what rebates they get. And again, all my numbers, I stand by all the numbers I have used in my past parliamentary speeches. So, please do your homework and check it out.
And finally, you asked me: am I prepared to prepare 20-year expenditure forecast of all that is to come? I am not. Because just two years ago, I would not have predicted that we would have faced such a generational crisis that I had to go to the President to touch our past reserves, to unlock our past reserves for them to be used, and $53.7 billion is not a small sum. So any projection, if anybody claims to have the foresight to project 20 years, I would say, better not trust that person. Even five years, I cannot tell you what exactly will happen.
But for recurrent expenditure, we can project. We can project how much our healthcare costs will be going up because it is our responsibility to provide for that. We know globally what is the trend of how ageing affects healthcare costs. What we do not know is what new treatments will come out, how lifespan will continue to grow, what kind of new drugs, new treatments, approaches will come and therefore, how healthcare expenditure will rise. So, even whatever numbers that Minister Gan Kim Yong and I have been working on, we are always conscious that this represents, in a way, a lower limit, we have to provide at least for that amount. Which is why I have argued that we need to raise GST from 7% to 9%.
So, please think about it carefully. And for you to argue that we have 7% to 8% of GDP, equals NIRC, equals to land sales – your numbers are just completely off. So, I hope that you take your parliamentary duties seriously and that you do your homework before you come and debates with us on the numbers. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, I have not called you yet.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sorry, I have to interject because there were a lot of allegations.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, wait till I call you. Mr Leong Mun Wai, if you have fresh insights, please. Thank you. I just called you. You can respond.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, I am also speechless. All the numbers that I am saying are backed by research. So, what the Deputy Prime Minister has said just now, can I confirm again that you agreed that: first, we have $128 billion of fiscal resources this year but you define and classify some of it into revenue, and some not into revenue. So, the Government is doing a different classification from what we see as total resources available. So that, I take it —
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, can I suggest we cover new grounds? I think whatever Deputy Prime Minister has explained, he has explained. If you are holding your position, you are free to do so but if we can have new insights; otherwise, we can move on. Please do not repeat the same grounds.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, that is very important. What the Deputy Prime Minister is saying is – whatever he says is fact. Whatever we present as an alternative view is something that can be brushed off and I have to go back and do more homework and be more rigorous. That is, I do not want to take offence. Something that I take—I think that is not professional.
Mr Speaker: So, you will have a position in which you disagree with the Deputy Prime Minister and we can recognise that. So, do you have new insights that you would like to share with us in Parliament, apart from going over the same ground?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay. The Deputy Prime Minister said that he could provide the recurrent expenditures as expected over the next 10 to 20 years. If I may request that he provides us with that so that we can scrutinise —
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, the Deputy Prime Minister has replied as to how he wants to approach that. There is no point repeating the same question because you will get the same answer.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: But I am asking for a commitment.
Mr Speaker: The Deputy Prime Minister has replied and said that he is not able to provide the projection for the next 20 years because it is hard to project what the future will be.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: But he did say that recurrent expenditures are possible. Some expenditures, like the COVID-19 expenditures and all that, of course, are not predictable. But some are possible. So, I am requesting whether he can provide those that are possible. That is all, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much for your indulgence. Thank you for allowing it.
Mr Speaker: Thank you. Would the Deputy Prime Minister like to respond to any of that?
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me set on record what I said. I hope that you were not insinuating that I was non-professional in my approach. Because, if that were so, then I am completely speechless.
When you asked whether I could provide projections for the next 20 years, I warned that it is not possible to project over such a long term because there will always be contingent events like COVID-19. We had gone through the Global Financial Crisis, the Asian Financial Crisis and SARS. So, crises are a recurrent feature of our life today and for us to pretend that we have the foresight to see clearly what will happen in the future is just not right.
What we can do, to the best of our ability, is to look at structural drivers that will drive certain expenditures, such as healthcare. As I said, even then, in my many meetings with Minister Gan Kim Yong, our Health Minister, we had gone through our projections over and over again, and the numbers keep changing because of the factors that I mentioned in my speech earlier.
So, I hope that the Member listens carefully and not just look at the phone, please. I am speaking and the Member is just looking at the phone. I hope the Member has the courtesy to at least listen when I am trying so hard to address the points, even though I am not obliged to stand up and answer.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: I am checking the figures —
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, if you could let the Deputy Prime Minister finish.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Can you let me continue?
Let me also make the important point as to why I had to stand up to say this. It is not my classification or MOF's classification that this constitutes revenue available for spending, and this does not. We follow international standards. These have been agreed. It follows the international standard set out by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The IMF provides for a range of ways in which certain expenditures can be counted or not counted, because the structures of governments in different countries are different. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Deputy Prime Minister\", Official Report, 10 May 2021, Volume 95, Issue No 29, Correction by Written Statement section.]
Some countries have different layers of government. They have national government, they have state governments, they have city governments. What constitutes public spending will all have to be aggregated properly, in order to make useful comparison.
In Singapore's case, we have made it very clear – including during our IMF consultations – that we abide by these standards. We have always taken the same standards and reported our numbers consistently as to what we can spend and what we cannot spend. So, please do not confuse the public that the Government arbitrarily decides on what can be spent and what cannot be spent. This is a very serious allegation which I hope you will take back.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Deputy Prime Minister, I would like to clarify again. I do not think the definitions of NIR or NIRC, all these are IMF definitions. Can you provide documentary proof on that?
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Mr Leong, of course, they are not IMF definitions because which country in the world has NIRC? Tell me.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay. Then, inside the Budget and financial statements, there is a table of total receipts, and inside that, it includes what we call cash flow. If we use the cash flow, the Budget deficit will also not be so big. So, again, you are defining —
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Mr Leong, I do not want to waste Members' time on this. Let me, first, say that the IMF does not stipulate what is NIRC, what constitutes NIRC and so on. It has a set of clear principles as to what will constitute proper spending and what can be counted and what cannot be counted and so on. And because we are in a net asset position – we are not in a net debt position, debt servicing costs and so on – as I said in my speech, instead of us using current revenue to pay for debt servicing incurred by earlier generations, we have been in an extremely fortunate situation that we inherited that legacy, those reserves, from our forefathers.
And I hope that every one of us in this House and in Singapore will abide by that principle and will understand the need for us to remain prudent and that we are a tiny red dot with no natural resources and for which we are subject to the vagaries of the global economy. We are an extremely open economy as well.
Sir, I will just end there because if you have any further questions, you can file a Parliamentary Question and we will answer you.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have just two clarification questions that I hope will be a little tamer in nature.
My first has to do with the purpose of investment. A point was raised, both by Member Saktiandi Supaat as well as Minister Heng, that we are already number one globally on the Human Development Index. But, of course, we are debating infrastructure borrowing and our infrastructure ranking, incidentally, according to the World Economic Forum, is also number one. So, the first clarification is, surely, we do not invest only on the basis of the past or where we are now. Surely, we want to invest for where we want to be.
The second point that Minster Heng mentioned was that we should not count all education and health expenditures as infrastructure. I entirely agree. That is why I did not just wave my hands and suggest some random expenditures in these areas. I specifically spent one whole page of my speech explaining specific conditions where human capital projects would actually qualify as soft infrastructure. Suggestions I made would all pay for themselves and, just as important, satisfy intergenerational equity, a point that has been repeatedly made in this House over the course of this debate.
So, I wonder whether the Minister will consider any form of soft infrastructure that satisfies clear conditions. Or are these always going to be off the table?
Mr Heng Swee Keat: I thank Assoc Prof Jamus Lim for his questions.
First, on the point that we are number one in the world based on the Human Development Index and, for infrastructure, we are also number one, so, do we need to invest in infrastructure? The answer is, of course, yes, because the Member supported the infrastructure Bill as well.
But as to whether do we, therefore, need to invest further in human capital development – absolutely, which is why I said that, on healthcare, I had so many discussions with Minister Gan Kim Yong on healthcare expenditure and why we need to continue to provide for healthcare expenditure. Whether you call it “investments”, whether you call it by any other name, the fact is we do need to spend more on healthcare to take better care of our ageing population.
Will we continue to spend on education? Absolutely. When I was in MOE, we were already building on the investments that were made by previous Education Ministers, including Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean, and, over the years, we have been adding to our investments in education.
Just one data point, a simple data point: we increased the cohort participation rate that is funded by the Government to 40%. We set up two new Universities and, right now, we are also investing more in adult education, in SkillsFuture and so on.
So, it is not as if that the Government has stopped investing in education. So, please remember, as I said in my Budget Statements before, do not take every Budget as a standalone Budget. Every Budget builds on past Budgets and, therefore, we have to look at the cumulative effects of all these spending, investments and the outcomes that they have achieved.
On the Member's second point about whether I would ever consider any form of soft infrastructure and the Member said that he has spent a whole page specifying the conditions under which they would qualify.
Let me say that when I was Education Minister, I went to many, many countries to study their education system to see what we should do. I looked at the spending patterns of various countries and one education minister – whom I shall not name – said to me, \"Why are you coming to study us?\" And I said, \"Well, because you have great peaks of excellence\". And he said, \"Yes, but we have very deep valleys as well\". And I explained we will study from the best and look at how best we can learn, and we learn from each other.
And I have seen so many proposals on why spending more in this area or that area would make a bigger impact. The fact is that you have to consider education holistically. It is not just what you spend on pre-school, Primary school, Secondary school or University.
Human development takes time, takes effort. It takes consistent investment of time, effort and energy by parents and by students. So, to just simply think that we can achieve great outcomes by spending more money is just wrong. It is important for us to be rigorous about it, make out the case as to which are the areas of education spending which are lacking and what exactly would we do.
And do not get onto the wrong path, because I have also studied systems which had extremely high subsidies for students at various levels. Again, one education minister told me, \"Please do not make the mistake that we have made, which is to assume that when we spend more, we will get better results. We awfully regret that decision because, now, it is impossible for us to take back\".
So, please have a care. The Member is an Associate Professor of Economics and Finance, and I think the Member would understand these arguments quite well.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Heng Swee Keat.] (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Land Betterment Charge Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Second Minister for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, “That the Bill be now read a Second time.”
Sir, this Bill seeks to introduce a tax, called the Land Betterment Charge, which I shall refer to as LBC, in relation to land.
The LBC is a tax on the increase in land value, resulting from a chargeable consent given in relation to the land, on or after the Bill’s operative date. It ensures the return to the community, as set out in section 5 of the Bill, of an appropriate proportion of economic benefits from the grant of rights to develop or otherwise use land. The money collected as LBC can then be used to fund a wide range of infrastructure development and public programmes undertaken by the Government.
Sir, the LBC is not a new charge. Today, there is already an existing framework by which Development Charge, which I shall call DC, or Temporary Development Levy, which I shall call TDL, is collected by URA and a Differential Premium, a DP, which is collected by the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) today. So, all these three charges exist today.
Under this existing framework, landowners and developers currently have to pay a DC or a TDL to URA, where the grant of planning permission for a development proposal regarding land results in an enhancement to land value, or a DP to SLA if there is an enhancement in land value resulting from a waiver or variation of a restrictive covenant contained in the state title of that piece of land.
This Bill proposes for a single LBC to replace the DC, the TDL and the DP. Those three charges are similar in nature, as they all cream-off in different ways the increase in value of land resulting from chargeable consents.
The principles for computing LBC and proposed rates of charging will remain largely unchanged from the current regime.
One key change is that the LBC will be charged by and collected by a single agency – in this case, SLA. This will benefit landowners and developers, as they no longer need to apply to various public sector agencies for the payment of such charges.
Sir, I will now take the House through the key features of this Bill.
Part 2 of the Bill sets out the tax rate and rules for calculating the LBC. These should already be familiar to landowners and developers as they are currently used by URA and SLA in calculating DP, TDL and DC. So, there is no change to that.
The Bill itself does not set out the tax rate, which is a percentage of the increase in the value of the land likely to accrue from the giving of the chargeable consent. The rate itself will be set out by the Minister in regulations and will be reviewed periodically as necessary.
In general, though, I should tell Members that the LBC rate will be set at 70% of the increase in land value arising from the grant of consent for proposals involving the development of land which is what it currently is today.
In certain cases, as Members may know, on an exceptional basis, the LBC rate will be higher – that is also the case today – based on 100% of the increase in land value.
These cases fall into three broad categories.
First, where the state title contains a restrictive covenant on change of land use because the land was previously sold by the state directly to the lessee without a tender. The current practice is to collect DP at 100% of the enhancement of land value, if there were to be a material change of use of that piece of land.
Second, where the state title contains an “additional land premium” condition. Such a condition may be included in a state title to allow for the collection of the value enhancement arising from an intensification or change of use of land, prior to a certain cut-off date, such as before the Temporary Occupation Permit (TOP) of a development is obtained, or until certain conditions are met. The condition is to discourage landowners from changing their plans shortly after the purchase of the piece of land from the state, in order to avoid paying the full market rate to the state at the point of purchase.
Finally, a 100% tax is planned for the varying of state title restrictions against subdivision, or against controlled activities which are unconnected to the development of land.
Sir, Part 2 of the Bill sets out the two methods used to assess the amount of LBC. These methods are, again, not dissimilar to how DC, TDL and DP are computed today.
The first method uses a Table of Rates, which is similar to the DC Table of Rates in the Planning (Development Charges) Rules today, which goes by each geographic sector and land use group. The Table of Rates will apply for the majority of cases and will allow landowners to estimate the amount of LBC upfront using that Table of Rates. This provides a clear and certain process for landowners and developers to assess the likely LBC that they would have to pay should they choose to enhance or develop the use of land.
The second method involves a valuation of the enhancement in land value by the Chief Valuer of the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) or a private valuer appointed by SLA.
The second method applies where a taxable person chooses this method in lieu of using the Table of Rates method; or in specific circumstances where the Table of Rates might be inapplicable, such as where there is either no suitable or no comparable use group for assessment.
The Table of Rates and formulae for computing LBC will be prescribed in the Regulations. These will adhere with current principles, except for an adjustment for leasehold properties which will be standardised under the LBC regime.
The LBC payable for all state leases with a residual tenure of 99 years or less will be adjusted by a leasehold factor to account for the remaining tenure of leasehold land. In other words, the adjustment is made depending on the length of the balance of the remnant lease. There is currently no such adjustment for DC today to take into account the remaining tenure. So, this adjustment would make for a more accurate reflection of value.
Part 3 of the Bill sets out the provisions to exempt or provide concessionary relief from the liability to pay LBC.
Specifically, clause 13 empowers the Minister for National Development, in consultation with the Minister for Law, to provide for concessionary relief from the payment of LBC. This will allow MND to make provisions for concessionary relief in certain circumstances such as meeting planning objectives – for instance to encourage conservation of certain properties, or the comprehensive redevelopment of multiple private properties for more optimal use of land; or to encourage construction productivity; or to promote environmentally sustainable development.
This will enable the continuation of existing DC exemptions which are provided for under the Planning Act today. So, the regime for concessions exists today, in the Planning Act. It will also provide the Government with flexibility to extend concessionary relief in future to encourage desired outcomes on land planning and development.
Sir, Part 4 of the Bill sets out who is liable to pay LBC and how that liability may be assumed or deferred, as the case may be.
Under the Bill, every person who is an owner of the land when a chargeable consent is given is liable to pay LBC, by default. So, that is the standard default position. However, another party other than the owner of the land can assume liability to pay the LBC if a valid assumption of liability notice is given to SLA, or if liability to pay LBC has been deferred and the deferred liability is transferred to that other party with SLA’s approval.
Deferment of LBC liability is discretionary and not automatic.
The Bill sets out one main set of circumstances where deferment may be allowed by SLA, which is if the taxable person is a charitable institution and where the land is used wholly or mainly for charitable purposes.
This, I should add to Members, is also similar to what is currently provided for in the Planning (Deferment of Payment of Development Charge by Charities) Rules 2017, and in the Planning (Deferment of Payment of Temporary Development Levy by Charities) Rules 2016.
Where two or more persons may have a material interest in the land or are joint owners of a material interest, the Bill requires SLA to apportion the liability.
Part 5 of the Bill deals with assessment and collection of the LBC, while Part 6 of the Bill deals with the recovery of unpaid LBC.
What is new is SLA is empowered to issue a rectification order to collect penalty tax on top of the LBC due, where there has been an illegal development of land, and URA regularises the development through a subsequent planning authorisation afterwards; or where there is an activity, development or subdivision carried out in breach of a restrictive covenant contained in a state title, and SLA assesses that it is not reasonably practicable or it is undesirable to stop or resume any controlled activity or to reinstate the land.
To give Members an example of when this might happen – a developer may have subdivided the land and sold them to multiple buyers, and it would not be reasonably practicable or desirable in such a situation to order reinstatement. In that situation, the penalty tax is fixed at 30% of the LBC that is due. SLA will also be given the discretion to impose a higher or lower penalty tax at a percentage fixed by the Bill – to increase the penalty tax if the taxpayer hinders or obstructs the determination of the taxpayer’s liability; or to reduce the amount of penalty tax where the defaulting taxpayer is cooperative.
Finally, Sir, the Bill also includes other consequential amendments to the Planning Act to abolish the collection of DC and TDL under that Act; and to give the competent authority in URA and the Minister for National Development the discretion to refuse to grant an application for Written Permission, or refuse to accept a lodgement of any plans, if any LBC has not been paid in full.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the new Bill consolidates the collection of charges for the enhancement of the value of land under a single agency, SLA. This will simplify the process of collection and provide greater transparency for landowners and developers. With that, Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, while urban planners in most parts of the world are accustomed to planning for swaths of land, in our small Singapore, land is counted out inch by niggardly inch. As a matter of public interest, land here – those pieces that we have agreed to be developed – should be developed to its optimal potential. Where the Government allows for land to be developed more optimally, its value, in most circumstances, will tend to increase.
This Bill deals with the increased value arising from consent on the part of the public authorities. The Land Betterment Charge represents a tax to divert part of the increased value, created by the decision of the public body, for public good. The logic of this is that the value created by the decision of a public body must benefit the public.
To share the increase in the value of land with the public is not a new concept. Since Independence in 1965, Singapore has a Development Charge (DC) system, as mentioned by the hon Minister, under the Planning Act. It is a tax that is payable when planning permission is granted to carry out development projects that increases the allowable intensity or allows a change in zoning that increase the value of land.
Singapore also has a Development Premium (DP) system which works similarly. A DP is levied, as a matter of contract, unlike DC which is a tax, by the Government on the developer in return for the Government lifting title restrictions that will have the effect of increasing the value of the land.
This Bill consolidates these concepts under one Bill. This is an elegant solution to consolidate the bases for taxation and the levying of a charge arising from increase in land value because a public authority agrees to lift restrictions to enable a better utility of the land. There are similar pieces of legislation in many parts of the world, including the United Kingdom.
I seek some clarifications on the Bill with a view to understand the scope of the Bill.
First, will the DP system continue to operate outside the lifting of restrictive covenants? For example, when dealing with remnant land which is not capable of independent development because of the small size or shape, but has amalgamation potential which can bring out an enhancement in land value.
What will be the situation where the planning authority allows for amalgamation of land plots that has the effect of increasing the land value of the remnant land? From my perusal of what constitutes “chargeable consent” under the Bill, such situations seem to fall outside the Bill.
In contrast, a Land Betterment Charge may be levied arising from chargeable consent given in relation to sub-division of any land, even if there is no development on it, giving rise to an increase in its land value.
If my reading is correct, may I please ask: why is the Government not minded to bring such a situation under the Bill since the intent of the Bill is to consolidate the concepts of DC and DP under one single Bill?
Also, may I clarify that the Government will continue with the current practice to charge DP in such situations?
Second, I would like to understand the applicability of the Bill vis-à-vis decisions of the Court that may have the effect of enhancing land value.
Let us take an example where the Court makes a declaration that the burden of an easement over a servient tenement has been abandoned. As a consequence, the land value of the servient tenement may increase. Or, alternatively, a situation where the Court exercises the power under section 105A or section 140(5) of the Land Titles Act to vary or extinguish an easement or restriction over a servient tenement on the basis that they are obsolete and such burdens impede the development of the land. In such situations, by a stroke of the pen of the judge, the land value may increase too.
Again, my reading of the definition of \"chargeable consent\" is that such situations fall outside the Bill.
In my respectful view, if my reading is correct, there is little difference between an administrator lifting a restriction and the Court lifting a restriction that results in an increase in land value. Both should produce the same consequence. Alternatively, we should separately capture part of the increased value arising from Court decisions for public good.
Sir, let me conclude. In Singapore, land is a vehicle through which Singaporeans' wealth is built and transmitted. It is our duty to ensure that we make the best rules possible to optimise its use and to distribute the gains fairly.
I believe the Bill represents a step in the right direction. I look forward to the Minister's responses to my points of clarification. I support the Bill.
Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, I know the hour is late. I shall try to read my speech as quickly as I can.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the Land Betterment Charge (LBC) Bill has significant implications in shaping the future of development in our country. My parliamentary colleague, Mr Louis Chua will make an important speech, situating this Bill in the context of the Government's overall stance towards land sales in the treatment of the various revenue streams it thereby gains.
While I support this Bill, I will focus my speech here today on three broad areas which are mostly technical and clarificatory: firstly, greater transparency on information and consultation on this new Land Betterment Charge Bill; secondly, issues around concessionary relief in deferment of liability to pay, ensuring that we give incentives only to developments that are rightly and squarely in the public interest; and thirdly, technical clarifications of interest to industry stakeholders.
Before I proceed, I declare my interest as a CEO of a research consultancy that undertakes work in a broad range of fields.
Firstly, Sir, on streamlining. This Bill brings together in streamlines three separate charges under a single Land Betterment Charge framework.
By streamlining and combining these three charges into a single charge, this could simplify the processes for stakeholders and iron out any earlier disputes of unfairness in the different calculation methods for the different charges. However, to unlock these benefits, there should be greater transparency, accountability and stakeholder consultation on how this new Land Betterment Charge regime actually works.
Under clause 65 of the Bill, the Minister may make regulations to use the Table of Rates method. While we understand that the exact regulations will only be available at a later date, may I clarify broadly how the Land Betterment Charges will be calculated in relation to the existing regime of calculations of Development Charges, Temporary Development Levy (TDL) and Differential Premium.
Will it have elements of the existing regime or will it be a wholly new system? Will there be greater alignment across existing regimes? My colleague, Mr Louis Chua will pose similar questions in his speech.
Next, given the scale of charges set forth by this Bill, I was surprised that there was no public consultation – to the best of my knowledge – and no public consultation results made available to the public or press or in the press release by the Ministry on the Bill. Industry stakeholders have expressed similar sentiments.
Has there been a public consultation conducted on these changes? If yes, can the Ministry make public the results of the same, and if not, will the Ministry conduct one at some stage? For legislation as nuanced as this, it would be beneficial to seek out a range of stakeholder feedback. We need to surface and address potential issues and pitfalls with stakeholders.
In case studies from other countries such as Australia and the UK, policy experts and think tanks have noted the complexity of land value capture taxation. For example, while the UK has had a long history of land value capture, it has been of limited success. This was partially due to local authorities being burdened with the implementation of the policy without the necessary resources.
Next, Sir, clause 10(2) of the LBC Bill allows for not just the chief valuer but also \"another individual pointed by the authority to ascertain the amount of land betterment charge by the valuation method.\" This opens up questions around the possibility of bias and quality control.
Firstly, if a third party, say, a private sector valuer is now allowed to do the valuation, it is possible that that there may be a perceived or real conflict of interest if this party has developer clients. This may erode trust and support within the industry for the new regime.
Secondly, I would like to clarify how this would work if the third party is involved. Will only one valuation by a single third party be allowed? Will there be a second opinion? Will the chief valuer have the final say? In other words, what controls will be introduced to check on the work of third party valuers under this Bill in respect of quality and the possibility of bias?
Next, on clause 5A. The foremost purpose of this Bill is to, \"ensure the return to the community\" of economic benefits reaped from the development of land. However, it appears that the LBC would go into Government revenues and be consolidated with other tax revenues for their general expenditure instead of being earmarked for particular projects that benefit the community.
In many countries, similar charges are used to fund new or pay off existing infrastructure projects in the communities where the charges are collected. For example, the construction of Hong Kong's metro railway was funded solely from the sale of development rights around stations. Close to one-third of London's Crossrail is being funded by levies on nearby businesses.
How will the funds collected by the new LBC be used to return benefits to the community? Will these funds be earmarked for infrastructural works, for example? My parliamentary colleague, Mr Louis Chua, will make a similar point and ask for greater clarity around this as well.
Next, clause 13 provides for concessionary relief if the development shows \"desirability in achieving economic development or maintaining the cultural, economic, physical and social well-being of the people of Singapore and the community in the area concerned.\"
While it is understandable that this is worded in broad terms to cover a spectrum of possible developments that may fall under this, we should be wary of too broad a scope. We want to incentivise only developments that advance the public interest.
Could the Government provide concrete examples of the kinds of developments that would be eligible? What are the criteria for determining the eligibility for this relief? What are the guiding principles and what are the factors taken into consideration for determining the quantum of relief?
Right now, under clause 13(1), the \"Land Planning Minister may, after consulting the Minister, provide by order in the Gazette for concessionary relief\" of the Land Betterment Charge. In the case of competing interests, how will decisions be made?
For example, in the cases of Mandai Park developments in the Cross Island Line, these developments may result in economic benefits but they carry potential adverse environmental impacts.
Also, can the Government give itself concessionary relief? This appears to be the case from current rules. If so, how is the potential for conflict of interest managed? Can agencies and Statutory Boards seek concessionary relief and appeal decisions if concessionary relief is not obtained, and, if so, who hears such appeals?
Beyond environmental sustainability, which is mentioned in the Bill, I would like to encourage concessionary relief to be granted on the grounds of other public interest such as the conservation of heritage and art spaces.
Last October, when URA proposed the Golden Mile Complex for conservation to ensure that this move would not inhibit a future collective sale, they offered developers additional planning incentives, including a one-third increase in floor area and a waiver of a part of its development charge. This was a good use of the flexibility of the DC policy tool to incentivise developers to come on board and ensure the conserved building remains economically viable.
A conservation expert Prof Yeo Kang Shua has termed these incentives as \"unprecedented and signalling that the costs of revitalisation are reduced or subsidised by the state to safeguard the common good of the country's architectural heritage\".
Does the LBC include such flexibility as well? What the Government consider providing such planning incentives to development proposals for other heritage buildings?
Next, clause 22A provides for a deferment to be made if \"the taxable person is a charitable institution and the land will be used wholly or mainly for charitable purposes whether of the taxable person or that person in other charitable institutions\".
This is a positive step and will help offset the costs of running charities so that more of their resources can be channelled towards worthy causes. However, I have a few clarifications to seek.
Firstly, can we include organisations with Institutions of Public Character(IPCs), status to be covered by this provision? There may be organisations that have IPC status and work for the public good but are officially not registered as a charity, but as a society, for example.
Secondly, more clarity on the criteria for eligibility for this would be beneficial.
To take one illustration, in 2015, when the Singapore Weightlifting Federation, or SWF, moved into the Jubilee Industrial Building that is slated for industrial use, they had to pay at TDL estimated at $34,000 a year to use the space for sports-related purposes. With annual funding at the time of less than $70,000 from Sport Singapore and annual rental estimated at $72,000 for the Jubilee Industrial Building space, they were unable to pay the TDL. They had appealed URA's decision but did not succeed. However, earlier in 2009, the SWF had successfully applied for a waiver of the TDL when it moved from Mountbatten Community Club to Kallang. But this time, their request was rejected in 2015.
At that time, the weightlifting community was worried about the future of their sport in the country, given rising costs and these sorts of impediments. We ought to protect the future of sports in Singapore along with other worthy causes.
Next, I would like to raise some points for technical clarification.
Firstly, on stamp duty. As the LBC is a tax, as seen in clause 7 of the Bill, will stamp duty be additionally leviable on payment of LBC to the relevant authorities? If leviable, how do we reconcile this with the general position that tax is not levied on payments of tax or, in other words, that there should be no tax on tax? Under the current regime, stamp duty is leviable on DP and paid to the relevant authorities when enhancing or intensifying the use of land.
Next, on renewal of state leases and the definition of chargeable consent. Clause 3 of the Bill does not appear to capture the renewal of the leasehold tenure of state leases, for example, a 99-year lease. It is not clear as to whether or not the LBC applies to renewals. Hence, I would like to seek clarification on this point.
Next, under the current regime, the DP is typically only payable on the acceptance of the offer made by the relevant competent authorities with regard to the proposed enhancement of a land parcel. The proposed enhancement is formalised by way of a contractual agreement between the developer and the relevant competent authority, for example, SLA, by way of an offer made by the competent authority in the acceptance of the terms thereof by the developer – for example, Differential Premium payable, deadline for acceptance of the offer and so on.
As part of the terms, Differential Premiums are typically required to be paid on acceptance of the offer. Under clause 24(4) of this Bill, however, LBC is payable at the end of one month after a liability order is issued by SLA unless otherwise stated.
When a case of proposed enhancement is raised under the LBC, it seems that a liability order will be issued by the SLA after one of the following dates: firstly, the date that a planning permission or conservation permission, as the case may be, is granted in respect of the development of the land; and secondly, the date where the competent authority or land planning Minister notifies SLA that the competent authority or the land planning Minister, as the case may be, intends to grant final permission under clause 17(4) of the Planning Act 1998.
This means that the payment of LBC could be at an earlier stage than DP under the current regime since for DP, the offer and acceptance happens months after the grant of planning permission is issued.
It is not clear at what stage under the proposed regime would the applicant become aware of the different conditions they would be subjected to as the offer is being made and whether or not they would be able to refuse, reject or discontinue the proposed development after being granted provisional permission, planning permission or conservation permission. I would like to seek clarification on this point.
Next, will SLA introduce guidelines or a requirement that all changes of use applications include an undertaking that the LBC has been discussed between landlord and tenant?
Under the new Bill, the landowner with material interest in the land is by default liable to pay the LBC, providing clarity compared to the previous situation where landlords and tenants sometimes disputed the paying of TDL. While this is a good step, it would be helpful to have guidelines or a requirement that the landlord and tenant discussed this.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that in certain cases in the past, the tenant was made to bear the cost of TDL although the landlord also benefited from the change in land use permission by way of charging higher rents to the tenant. This risks an inequitable situation.
Lastly, Sir, right now, the Minister is able to decide on a case-by-case basis to defy liability to pay LBC. Can there be more specific criteria that would render a business immediately eligible for such deferment? For example, can we consider deferment due to tenants – namely small businesses – finding it difficult to pay TDL, especially those hard hit by the pandemic?
I noted that clause 14, the Minister can remit, in whole or in part, any Land Betterment Charge where the Minister is satisfied of certain conditions, including if a natural person liable to pay has suffered a loss or is in such circumstances that the charge would entail serious hardship. It would be helpful if the criteria on which these decisions would be made are spelt out more clearly.
To quote from the recent Budget cut speech made by my parliamentary colleague, Mr Gerald Giam, and I quote, \"Some businesses have lamented to me that their TDL far exceeds business revenue, especially during the pandemic. If businesses are unable to pay the TDL, they might have to close down, leading to losses to themselves, their landlords and their employees. The Government will also lose out on tax revenue. Can URA consider giving such businesses rebates or deferments on their TDL?\" That concludes my speech.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill recognises that those who reap economic rewards from the development of land benefit from public infrastructure. As such, it is equitable that such economic benefits are returned to the community.
I have three points of clarification on this Bill.
My first point is on the mechanisms in place to ensure that the planning objectives of the Bill are achieved.
The new section 13 of the Bill provides the Land Planning Minister the power to provide concessionary relief from Land Betterment Charge (LBC) for the purpose of meeting certain planning objectives. These conditions include that the relief will lead to a more optimal use of land, improve the productivity of the construction sector and promote environmentally sustainable development of land. These objectives are wide-ranging and very general in nature. Given how broad these objectives are, can the Minister explain which of these specific planning objectives the concessionary relief granted to a development is intended to achieve? Can the Minister also explain how he envisions the development will achieve the intended planning objectives?
Additionally, given that a fairly long timeframe may be required to determine if some of these objectives are achieved, what measures are in place to track whether concessionary relief granted achieved the intended planning objectives?
My second point is on the scope of Minister's power to grant general exemptions from the Land Betterment Charge under the new section 12. In contrast to the Land Planning Minister's power to provide concessionary relief, the Minister's power to grant a general exemption is not expressly limited by any planning objectives.
Can the Minister provide assurance that the Minister's power will be exercised in line with the purpose of the Act as set out under the new section 5? In other words, will Minister's power to grant general exemptions be consistent with the objectives of urban development, enhance productivity for the construction industry and promote environmentally sustainable development?
My third point is how the Government will recover benefits from any unlawful development. The new section 40(2)(d) provides the Authority the power to direct a person to pay a penalty tax if the Authority considers that restoring the land and other restorative steps is not reasonably practicable or is undesirable.
However, even if an unauthorised activity ceases or the land restored, the developer may still have reaped benefits for the period that the unlawful development lasted.
At present, the Authority's power to either order restoration or impose a penalty tax appears to be mutually exclusive.
Can Minister clarify what powers the Ministry has to require that a developer disgorge the benefits that it has reaped from such unlawful development? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Before I begin, Mr Speaker, I would like to declare my interest as a research analyst covering the real estate sector.
Mr Speaker, for a relatively small island state like ours, land is often said to be a scarce and non-renewable resource. This is notwithstanding, of course, that Singapore's land area stands at around 276 square kilometres as at 2019, about 140 square kilometres or 24% higher than what it was 50 years ago. After all, there is a hard limit to the amount of land reclamation that can be carried out in our waters. It is thus essential that we focus on optimising Singapore's land use so as to extract the maximum socio-economic benefits for all Singaporeans.
Optimising land use has come a long way in Singapore, starting with the amendment of the Land Acquisition Act in 1966, following Singapore's Independence. Back in 1964, then Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew shared two broad principles on land acquisition.
The first is that no private landowners should benefit from development which has taken place at public expense; and, second, prices paid on acquisition for public purposes should not be higher than what the land would have been worth had the Government not contemplated development generally in that area.
With these principles in mind, the Land Acquisition Act was subsequently amended to strengthen the Government's powers to acquire land and limit compensation. In the debate on the Land Acquisition Bill, Mr EW Barker, then Minister for Law and National Development, concluded that: \"There has not been a word of criticism. I have nothing much to add except to say that I am glad that our backbenchers have realised the importance and the necessity for this piece of socialist legislation.\"
The Land Acquisition Act has since been amended given changing circumstances, with the 2007 amendment providing for compensation based on prevailing market value of acquired land. But why are all these important?
The effect of legislation has meant that from 1960-2007, land owned by the public sector doubled from 44% to over 85%. Effectively, the Government has become the largest landowner and landlord, with the ability to simultaneously influence both demand and supply through policy levers. Critically, the Government also has the ability to extract monetary value from land throughout the course of time, with land having characteristics of a renewable resource and not a finite one.
First, I stand corrected, but it is the policy of this Government that, for leasehold land sold, at the end of the land lease tenure, land will revert to the Government for free and will thus be available for sale once again. Second, stamp duties will provide for taxes to be collected when sale or rental transactions occur. Thirdly, property taxes are collected on an annual basis.
The Land Betterment Charge (LBC) will be one additional mechanism, the principles of which I agree with, as it will allow for the collection of a tax on the increase in the value of land resulting from a chargeable consent given in relation to the land. For example, what used to be a low-rise carpark and hawker centre in the heart of the CBD, are set to be transformed into a modern mixed-use commercial complex rising to a height of 280 metres, one of the tallest buildings in Singapore. While the size of the land plot has not changed, the implied land value has soared considerably.
The LBC will thus be a logical policy lever to allow for value captured by the state for the public good. Specific to the Land Betterment Charge, I note that it is to be collected by SLA and replaces the taxes known as Development Charge (DC) and Temporary Development Levy (TDL) imposed under the Planning Act and the collection of Differential Premium (DP) by SLA. The streamlining of legislation and easing of administrative burden would just be much appreciated by private developers and public officers alike.
That said, I do have a number of specific clarifications to raise on the LBC.
The first, on the quantification of LBC. Clause 9 sets out the two methods to be used in assessing the amount of LBC – the Table of Rates method and the evaluation by designated valuers method. Today, DC rates are reviewed on a half-yearly basis in consultation with the Chief Valuer. The table of DC rates are broken down into 118 geographical sectors and nine different use groups.
Can the Minister clarify how the Table of Rates will be assessed and how will it be different from the current DC regime? How much will DC collections on an annual basis in the past and how would this differ with the switch to an LBC mechanism? Conceptually, almost all developments benefit from existing amenities and infrastructure. So, it is also fair that those who benefit financially when planning permission is given should share some of their gain with the community.
However, it is also difficult to quantify the land value increment resulting from infrastructure investments. Revaluation being a subjective matter, how would, for example, aggrieved landowners seek recourse for any disagreements in land valuation and LBCs, whether it is assessed under the table of rates method or the valuation method.
Second, with the blurring of lines across use groups and greater creativity in land use optimisation, we are already seeing retail malls of today house co-working offices while it is increasingly common to have lifestyle in hospitality provisions, in Grade A office buildings. How will SLA ensure that its table of rates is a dynamic one and not based on static singular interpretations of land use?
Third, on the powers conferred on the Minister. Clause 12 confers powers on the Minister to exempt any person or class of persons from all or any of the provisions of the Bill either generally or in a particular case and subject to such conditions as the Minister may impose. How is this exercise of legislative powers safeguarded and what would the conditions entail? Have similar exemptions been exercised in the past and what were the circumstances behind it back then?
Fourth, clause 13 empowers the land planning Minister to provide for concessionary relief from Land Betterment Charges, assuming certain conditions have been made. In practical terms, who will be the land planning Minister and would not the conditions under subsection 2(a), (b) and (c) be desirable, loosely defined conditions that we will expect out of property development in Singapore regardless?
Aside from the Act, these include the desirability of the proposed development or subdivision of any land in achieving economic development or maintaining the cultural, economic, physical and social well-being of the people of Singapore and the community in the area concerned.
Fifth, on the liability of lessees or occupiers, under clause 35, should the taxable person make default in payment of any LBC, the lessee or occupier will be liable for payment, notwithstanding that any such payments constitute a valid discharge from rents or payments due. While this would simplify recovery efforts, is such a clause fair to the tenants and should not efforts be focused on the defaulting party instead?
Finally, on the management of monies collected from the Land Betterment Charge. Clause 5 sets out admirable causes for imposing an LBC, including amongst others, ensuring the return to the community of an appropriate proportion of economic benefits from the grant of rights to develop or otherwise use land and to promote or encourage environmentally sustainable development or use of land. Would the Land Betterment Charges collected from the development be earmarked for the specific community in question? And how would SLA enforce the requirement for environmentally sustainable development?
To round up, Mr Speaker, I agree with the purpose of the LBC and recognise it is one of the many ways in which land in Singapore can be continuously monetised by the Government to provide for recurring revenue throughout the course of time; although I recognise at this point in time, the Government does not take into its operating Budget the recurring annual land sales revenue of about $14.5 billion on average.
With Singapore's Budget not inclusive of land sales revenue, it is worth considering realigning the focus in the sale of state land from one of revenue maximisation in that land is awarded to the highest bidder to one in which the greatest value uplift can be provided and the greatest socioeconomic good generated, similar to that as encouraged by the LBC.
Mr Speaker: Mr Don Wee.
Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, the aim of this Bill is to provide for a tax, that is, the Land Betterment Charge (LBC), which is based on the enhancement of land value due to a permitted change in relation to the property. The LBC will replace the current Differential Premium (DP), Development Charge (DC) or Temporary Development Levy (TDL) payments. The basis for payment computations will remain the same. Hence, as I understand it, the changes serve primarily to simplify the process for payment computations and to consolidate collections under SLA. At the same time, the tax will be a tool for serving wider national interests.
I would like to take this opportunity to seek several clarifications relating to these broader objectives.
The first objective, as stated in clause 5, is to ensure that a fair proportion of the expected economic benefits from the land development is shared with the community.
So far, the DP and DC payments have been put into a common pool and are not earmarked for use of projects in the vicinity of the properties involved. Going forward, would the Ministry consider ploughing the LBC back into the community most directly affected by the land development, such as re-zoning or an increase in plot ratio? While such developments enhance the value of the land itself, they are not always beneficial to the vicinity. Disamenities may include heavier vehicular and human traffic, noise, pollution, obstruction of scenic views and so on. The payments can be utilised for upgrading community infrastructure and town improvement works as a form of compensation to the community.
The second aim is to provide, I quote, \"certainty and transparency through rules and processes for calculating most land betterment charges by reference to fixed data without need for valuation\". Presently, under URA, DC rates are reviewed every six months in March and September in consultation with the Chief Valuer at IRAS.
Would the Minister elaborate under what circumstances valuation will be required and will SLA continue to review LBC rates as frequently as possible with IRAS? Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] With reference to the third and fourth objectives in clause 5, what will be the role of the LBC, in view of our new priorities in land planning and development as set out in the Singapore Green Plan 2030? In addition, would the payments collected be used to help reduce the amounts we need to borrow for future long-term national infrastructure projects? How does the Ministry intend to use the LBC for productivity enhancements in the construction industry, especially during the challenging times we are facing today? Would the Minister provide some examples which can serve to enlighten SMEs in the construction sector on how they can tap upon the incentives in this Bill?
(In English): I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Minister Edwin Tong.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Mr Speaker, I thank the various Members for speaking and expressing support for the Bill. I will go straight into the queries that have been raised and try and address as many of them as I can.
Mr Louis Ng, and I think Mr Louis Chua and Mr Leon Perera, asked about the concessionary relief. Mr Ng, in particular, asked what the planning objectives are that we intend to achieve by the grant of relief in section 13.
The provisions in section 13 enable the continuation of existing concessionary reliefs from Development Charge (DC), currently provided for in the Planning Act. It will also make provision for future concessionary reliefs for developments that promote sustainable development of land and which balances the interest of current and future generations of Singaporeans.
An example of the continued provision for concessionary relief for change of use proposals within conserved buildings to incentivise the restoration of conserved buildings – I think a point that Mr Perera also touched on – and the adaptive reuse of conserved buildings. This is necessary to promote more optimal use of land, whilst at the same time, maintaining Singapore's cultural heritage.
Mr Wee also asked for examples of concessionary relief to encourage construction productivity. Any future relief schemes will be gazetted according to purposes and objectives set out in section 13 of the Bill. Appropriate measures will be considered to ensure that these objectives, as we have set out in this Bill for the new relief schemes will be achieved. MND will share more about this when they are ready.
Mr Wee asked about the use of the LBC collections – I think Mr Chua did as well and so did Mr Ng – and whether LBC collections will reduce the amount of future borrowing needed for long-term national infrastructure projects. Let me first clarify that the LBC is a consolidation of three existing revenue streams. They do not seek to enhance these. As I mentioned at the outset, the existing framework is preserved, it is just put under one collection agency, and the LBC will be the name used for all three converted into LBC.
The consolidation is therefore not expected to result in a marked increase in the amount of revenue. Indeed, the revenue to be collected will, of course, depend on the extent to which developers and landowners make an application for enhancement or intensification which triggers the use of LBC.
Clause 57 in the Bill requires all LBC collections to be paid into the Consolidated Fund. The LBC would thus be a part of the public monies available for this House for appropriate expenditures that benefit Singaporeans as a whole. It would not be earmarked specifically for one purpose or one project, but it will be available generally, in the fund to benefit Singaporeans as a whole. And, these, Mr Speaker, would include the funding of infrastructure, services and public programmes, including projects that benefit the local community, as well as broader national ones, such as the Singapore Green Plan.
For major infrastructure spend that is critical to Singapore's development, we have just talked about the SINGA Bill. This would smoothen hefty costs, which could run into tens of billions of dollars. By doing so, we will no longer need to pay for the costs upfront from our operating revenues. This is part of the Government's differentiated financing strategy for different types of expenditure.
Mr Louis Ng asked whether the Minister's power to grant general exemptions will be exercised in line with the purposes of the Act; Mr Perera, and I think Mr Chua also did. The short answer is yes; that is set out in section 5. Mr Ng may also wish to note that sections 12 and 13 require that every order made to grant an exemption or provide for concessionary relief must be presented in Parliament as soon as possible after publication in the Gazette. Members of this House will be directly informed of the making of these exemptions when these are made. I think Mr Chua also made a point about this.
Mr Ng asked how the Government will recover the benefits accrued by developers from unlawful development of land. The purpose of the LBC Bill is to impose a tax on the increase in the value of land arising from a chargeable consent. It does not provide for a penalty tax to be collected for unlawful developments where no such consent is granted. So, if you have something that is done in breach of the restrictive covenants, for example, then, subsequently when the permission is granted, not only will LBC be collected, there will also be a penalty amount levied on top of that; up to 30%, as I mentioned at the outset.
For unlawful developments involving a breach of planning control, URA under the Planning Act today may issue an enforcement notice. The notice may require the removal of any unlawful structures and reinstatement of the land to its former site.
Mr Don Wee asked whether SLA will continue to review the Table of Rates every six months with IRAS. Mr Perera also touched upon this. Mr Chua as well raised this point. Yes, it will be reviewed to ensure that it continues to be updated and the circumstances under which the assessment of LBC by valuation is required.
That is similar to what is done for the DC Table of Rates today. So, as I said, the framework does not differ. To Mr Perera's question, as to whether there will be a wholly new system, the answer, I think, is quite clear from what I said at the outset, and also my last statement that no, it would not be a wholly new system. It will be similar to the existing framework. In fact, it is a consolidation of the existing framework, which is why we felt that no public consultation was necessary in this case.
Valuations are required in specific circumstances, where the Table of Rates might not be applicable in circumstances, which I outlined earlier, such as, for unique developments, like for example, golf courses, theme parks, where there might not be a suitable or comparable use group or sufficiently rich source of data available. Taxable persons might also opt to use LBC by valuation in lieu of the Table of Rates.
Mr Perera might wish to know that this system of having a valuer as an option, apart from the Chief Valuer, currently is already available. And there has not been any specific difficulty associated with that.
Mr Murali asked if the DP system will continue outside the lifting of restrictive covenants. And I think, specifically Mr Murali cited the example of remnant land parcels, odd pieces of land, which could be put together and developed upon. Mr Murali's point is that these odd pieces by themselves are not capable of independent development, but with amalgamation, they may have the potential to bring about enhancement.
Landowners who wish to purchase remnant state land will continue to have to pay a land premium as consideration to SLA for the remnant land parcel, and the LBC applicable for any chargeable consent thereafter granted on their private land parcel as a result of the amalgamation.
So, I think to answer Mr Murali's point, if you decide to put together the parcels and you need a chargeable consent to be given in respect of say, a restrictive covenant to be lifted, then an LBC will be levied.
Mr Murali also asked for the Government's position on the applicability of the LBC in relation to Court decisions, citing examples such as the lifting of easements or restrictions, dominant/servient, tenement, for example, which may result in land value.
A Court's decision to vary an easement or restriction would not in itself constitute a chargeable consent. So, in itself, it is not a chargeable consent, under the LBC Act. So, if you have a piece of land and you are subject to a Court decision – where the Court rules one way or another on the construction of the easement, for example, that itself will not amount to a chargeable consent. What the Court does is make a pronouncement as to the proper construction of the easement already existing as to what it should entail. But having said that, it can certainly affect the value of the land and I think that is Mr Murali's point. And this will certainly be taken on board in a valuation, should chargeable consent by the state be granted subsequently with respect to this piece of land with the Court's decision taken into account.
So, the Court decision per se on itself, it would not be a chargeable consent, but if subsequently, in the context of the decision taken by the Court to vary or lift or otherwise construe a restriction in a positive manner, that will be taken into account as an enhancement in the land value. And I hope that clarifies Mr Murali's point.
I should clarify to this House that the LBC is not a tax to cream-off any transaction that leads to an appreciation land value. In other words, if you develop ways not related to the land, the LBC is not designed to cream-off those appreciations.
The liability to pay LBC arises only when the state grants a chargeable consent by allowing a landowner to develop the land further or varying a restrictive covenant in the state title, so that you can do something, which you previously could not do under the title.
In keeping with the principle in clause 5, that those who benefit financially when permission to develop the land is given should share some of that gain with the community. And I think that is also a point raised by almost all the Members who spoke on this point.
Mr Perera raised several specific questions and I will just address them here very quickly. On the question of an IPC, I think Mr Perera's point is some might not be registered as a charity. So, it might be a society with an IPC status. The regulations will consider this and will take this into account, even if you are not registered as a charity but have IPC status.
Stamp duty is not leviable on the LBC, as the LBC is a tax, as Mr Perera had pointed out. In relation to the renewal of leases, leasehold interest for state leases, a lease renewal premium is paid, not the LBC.
In terms of the LBC between the landlord and tenant, I think both Mr Chua and Mr Perera raised this, yes, it is collectible from the parties who have a material interest and that includes, in the context of a landlord and tenant, the tenant itself. The tenant may have recourse to the landlord for any portion that the landlord ought to bear, but the provisions here set out the mechanism by which the state is able to levy the LBC as against any persons with an interest in the land. And as Members would know, that includes the tenant.
To Mr Chua's point, if there is a dispute as to the valuation or disputes as to the way in which the Table of Rates is used, that dispute is taken to the Minister whose decision would be final.
On Mr Perera's question, as to whether there can be a deferment if one cannot pay the LBC. Well, in the context of most cases, LBC is levied in a situation where there is an enhancement in the value of land. So, typically, a landowner or developer who obviously would have done his sums would come, make a proposal want to develop a piece of land, and obviously the intention behind that development is enhancement of land value.
Such a situation would not often arise, but should it arise, that is something that can be taken into account, as a matter of discretion. And you look at the entire context of the situation in considering the appropriate deferment, if any.
As to timing of the payment raised by Mr Perera, both the LBC and the DP are generally payable after PP, but before the Written Permission.
Sir, I think I have covered as many of the points which I think are salient. With that Sir, I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Clarifications? Very good.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to 10.30 am tomorrow\". – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Patients' Interest in Healthcare","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, I have tabled this Adjournment Motion to contribute to the on-going discussion about healthcare and health insurance, and to give voice to the concerns of patients. I would, first and foremost, like to salute our healthcare workers for their immense contribution to our nation and for all the sacrifices they have made to help our country overcome the COVID-19 pandemic. We owe them a debt of gratitude for putting themselves out in the frontlines, and I hope that we, as a nation, will continue to appreciate their service.
Our healthcare system has delivered good outcomes overall to date. However, there is still further room for improvement. We owe it to our nation, our constituents, our families and indeed ourselves to continually seek ways to improve Singapore's healthcare system, because all of us may become patients at one time or another in our life.
The central theme of my speech today is to ensure that patients' interests are protected within our healthcare system. In preparing for this speech, my colleagues and I in the Workers' Party consulted insurers, hospital administrators, insurance agents, doctors in both private and public practice, and constituents to better understand their concerns and hear their perspectives on the issues.
I recognise that the cost of healthcare is an enormous topic, of which I will only be able to scratch the surface in the time I have today for my speech. I will, therefore, focus on just three areas: medical fee benchmarks, health insurance coverage and over-servicing of healthcare. In each of these areas, I will suggest policy changes which I believe will benefit patients over the long term.
Let me begin with fee benchmarks. In 1987, the Singapore Medical Association or SMA first issued their Guidelines on Fees or GOF. The GOF was issued in response to complaints of overcharging made by members of the public against doctors. SMA's stated objective was to provide greater transparency of medical fees and safeguard the interests of patients.
Unfortunately, the GOF was withdrawn in 2007 after being flagged as being potentially anti-competitive. In its 2010 decision on the matter, the Competition Commission of Singapore (CCS) advised SMA that the GOF would contravene the section 34 prohibition of the Competition Act. While acknowledging that the GOF was an attempt to address information asymmetry in the medical sector, CCS at that time said that there were \"other more effective measures'' in place. However, with nothing to immediately supersede the GOF, the longer term impact of its revocation on medical costs may have been even worse than the initial problem the CCS was trying to correct.
To be clear, there were other factors beyond the removal of the GOF that led to rising healthcare costs. The removal of the GOF coincided with the expansion of zero payment \"full riders\" for MediShield Integrated Shield Plans or IPs and a rapid increase in rents in private hospitals. This trio of changes could have created a perfect storm which accounts for much of the rapid growth in healthcare costs in the private sector.
But it was not until January 2018 that the Fee Benchmarks Advisory Committee or FBAC was appointed by MOH to set reasonable Fee Benchmarks for surgical procedures and services. The FBAC came out with its first set of benchmarks in November 2018. Why did it take MOH more than 10 years to replace the GOF with its own Fee Benchmarks? Had the Fee Benchmarks been introduced soon after the revocation of the GOF, we might not have seen such a steep healthcare cost inflation over that decade.
Nevertheless, I am glad we now have the Fee Benchmarks to work with. According to the FBAC, the Fee Benchmarks are intended as a common reference for all stakeholders. Doctors can use them to set fair and appropriate fees. Insurers can use them to manage and assess claims. And patients can use the benchmarks to discuss with their doctors about their condition, available treatment options and fees.
Fee Benchmarks, therefore, have an outsize influence on the fees doctors charge, and the premiums, payouts and coverage of health insurance. By providing more transparency on doctors' fees, they can help narrow the perennial problem in healthcare: information asymmetry between patients, doctors and insurers. However, to be effective in helping stakeholders manage costs better, the Fee Benchmarks need to be more comprehensive.
The Fee Benchmarks were developed based on actual fee data derived from cases of Singaporean patients submitted by private healthcare providers in a single year – the year 2017. The benchmarks align with the Table of Surgical Procedures or TOSP, a comprehensive list of over 2,300 procedures categorised by their complexity. However, it is notable that only about 220 procedures or 9% of these procedures are listed in the Fee Benchmarks. The remaining 2,000-plus procedures do not yet have fee benchmarks. In comparison, GOF contained over 1,500 surgical fee recommendations.
To make the Fee Benchmarks a more effective and authoritative reference for patients, doctors and insurers, MOH should provide Fee Benchmarks for all the procedures in the Table of Surgical Procedures. To do this, the FBAC could use data from several more years of MediSave and MediShield claims from private hospitals. For procedures with insufficient transacted data, MOH could consult specialists, insurers and patients, before independently deciding on a reasonable range of fees.
Currently, the lower and upper bound of the fee range is set at around the 25th and 75th percentile respectively of the fees for that surgical procedure. Based on feedback I gathered from doctors and insurers, this might be too wide a range to take effective reference from. It may be more useful to set the Fee Benchmarks to a narrower 40th to 60th percentile of each fee range.
While coming up with the fee benchmarks for all surgical procedures will be a resource-intensive undertaking for the FBAC and its secretariat, it would be well worth the time and effort as it will reduce ambiguity in fees and claims for all stakeholders. It will also cut down administrative costs in the long run and reduce the need to have exclusive panels of doctors and pre-authorisation of medical procedures by insurers, which I will speak about next.
IP insurers currently have panels of doctors that their policyholders have to choose from in order to benefit from greater coverage and lower co-payments for procedures. One of my constituents likened panels to an umbrella she carries to prepare for a rainy day, but when it pours, she still gets wet because of the holes in the umbrella.
SMA has argued that panels should be expanded, while the Life Insurance Association has warned that if the number of doctors on panels is \"recklessly\" increased, premiums will \"rise significantly\". To provide patients with a wider choice of doctors, panels should be expanded to admit all doctors who wish to be on the panel, so that patients will not feel pressured to switch away from their preferred doctor just because that doctor is not on the panel. Doctors with an adverse track record with the Singapore Medical Council can still be excluded from the panels.
In order to give greater assurance to patients that fees charged by their doctors will be covered by insurance, all insurers should use the Fee Benchmarks to determine their payouts. They should not use their own panel doctors' fee schedules, which may tend towards the lower end of the Fee Benchmarks. If a doctor charges more than the upper end of the Fee Benchmarks for a procedure, he or she will need to provide written justification or inform their patient beforehand of potential out-of-pocket expenses.
The Government has to take the lead in introducing these changes across the board for all doctors and insurers. No insurer will be willing to be the first mover on this because of competitive pressures. Insurers also cannot coordinate these changes among themselves, lest it be deemed anti-competitive.
Greater certainty of fees may lessen the need for pre-authorisation by insurers. The main reason why insurers require pre-authorisation is to mitigate the risk of over-servicing and overcharging by non-panel doctors.
However, insurance companies are not in a position to decide on the medical necessity of a treatment, since they would not have personally examined the patient or understood their case history. These are professional decisions best made by the doctor. Even a doctor from a different specialty acting on behalf of insurers may not be sufficiently well-placed to determine if a particular treatment is appropriate for the patient. The risk of overcharging and over-servicing should be dealt with through a different mechanism, which I will talk about next.
Every doctor is under an ethical obligation to charge fair and reasonable fees for services rendered to their patient. The Court of Appeal, in its June 2013 verdict on Dr Susan Lim vs Singapore Medical Council, said that \"overcharging would constitute an abuse of trust and confidence placed by a patient in his or her doctor and this would (in turn) constitute conduct that is dishonourable to the doctor as a person as well as in his or her profession, ie, it would constitute professional misconduct.\"
The SMC's Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines or ECEG states that \"profit motives must be subservient to treating patients in their best interests\".
The vast majority of doctors are committed to patients' best interests. They do not view their practice of medicine simply as a trade but a labour of care and responsibility to their patients. For every doctor that overcharges, there are many more who routinely waive charges for patients who cannot afford their fees.
Often, what constitutes overcharging is not clear-cut. A doctor may order more investigations out of an abundance of caution, in line with their training. Certain patients may present a higher risk of complications and therefore require further tests before arriving at a diagnosis. In some cases, the doctor may fear being sued by their patient if they do not order sufficient tests, leading to a deterioration in their condition. It is important that we do not tar all doctors with the same brush when we accuse them of overcharging.
Nevertheless, overcharging and over-servicing are issues that must be addressed because they contribute to increasing healthcare costs. In doing so, we must not inadvertently create an administrative hassle for patients, insurers and doctors. This could lead to increased costs for all parties without improvement in health outcomes for patients.
We can address concerns about overcharging and over-servicing by instituting greater price transparency in billing. Doctors and hospitals should be required to provide detailed itemisation of charges on their bills by default. For example, surgeon’s fees could state the TOSP code and fee benchmark range for that procedure. Hospitals should list their base costs and mark-ups on drugs and consumables. This itemisation should be made consistent across all hospitals, based on a transparent, prescriptive template set by MOH. This added level of transparency will give payers and patients more confidence in the accuracy and reasonableness of bills and ensure a higher level of accountability by healthcare providers.
However, insurers should not unilaterally reject claims just because they deem a procedure medically unnecessary. Doing so risks saddling patients with higher bills that they are ill-equipped to contest. Instead, patients and insurers should be provided with a mechanism to register their concerns about overcharging or over-servicing.
I was glad to hear during Question Time earlier this morning that MOH is setting up an independent arbitration unit. This unit must be accessible by doctors, patients and insurers to resolve disputes about fees and the necessity of medical procedures.
The arbitrators could be empowered to call upon specialists in the same field as the doctor in question to give their professional opinions on the case. They can then decide whether to allow the charge or require it to be reversed.
Reputation is very important to doctors. No doctor wishes to be known among their peers or patients as someone who overcharges. The mere presence of this process will make doctors think twice before performing unnecessary procedures or overcharging. This could make this an effective mechanism against overcharging and over-servicing, while ensuring that the quality of care provided to patients is not compromised.
Mr Speaker, healthcare costs have increased at an unsustainable rate over the past decade. Almost 70% of Singaporeans possess an Integrated Shield Plan and most premiums funded by their MediSave. Because market failure is inherent in much of healthcare, a laissez-faire approach will not drive efficiency in the healthcare system.
The Government must step in and take a stronger regulatory role over the health insurance market to ensure optimal outcomes for the benefit of patients. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), as a regulator of insurers, should also take a more proactive role in this process. It is notable that MAS had two committee members on the Health Insurance Task Force in 2016, but has only observer status on the Multilateral Healthcare Insurance Committee (MHIC) that was just set up last month. Why not make them full committee members so that their inputs in the committee's deliberations will carry greater weight?
While I understand that there are often competing interests between doctors and insurers, I believe that these proposals can help to bridge the gulf between the two for the benefit of patients. I hope that the MHIC, MOH, MAS, insurers, doctors, hospitals and other stakeholders will consider these suggestions with due gravity. Ultimately, we should all share the same desire to place the interest of patients ahead of ourselves and contain the growth of healthcare costs in Singapore.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon.
The Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Koh Poh Koon): Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Gerald Giam for his impassioned speech asking for more efforts to help in ensuring patient's interest in healthcare. Indeed, ensuring patients' interests has been and will always be a priority of MOH. We have put in place many measures over the years and will continue to work on ensuring that all patients have access to good quality and affordable healthcare.
We have enhanced the safety net through universal coverage for life, of all Singaporeans and Permanent Residents with no disease exclusions under MediShield Life. Expanded CHAS allows subsidies for outpatient care and CareShield Life further supports long-term care for those with severe disability especially in old age.
The Government spending on healthcare has tripled within a decade, from $3.7 billion in FY2010 to $11.3 billion in FY2019. To ensure healthcare remains affordable and cost-effective, is an area that requires collective effort by patients, providers and insurers alike, and the Ministry works collaboratively with all stakeholders to achieve this.
Mr Gerald Giam asked why it took MOH more than 10 years to replace the Guideline on Fees, or GOF, with the Fee Benchmarks. It is understandable, as Mr Giam is not a practising doctor, so he may not be fully aware. And Mr Giam has spoken to some doctors, so, I am quite surprised that he does not know, that to increase the transparency of healthcare charges, MOH had already started publishing \"Total Hospital Bill\" sizes for both public and private healthcare institutions in the year 2003, four years before the Guideline on Fees was withdrawn in 2007 due to anti-competition concerns. Such transparency encourages providers to charge more competitively and enables consumers to make better informed choices about their provider.
The \"Total Hospital Bill\" size publication started in 2003 with 28 common conditions for the public sector and five-day surgery conditions for the private sector, using actual transacted charges. It was then progressively expanded to include more conditions and information. For instance, the \"Total Operation Fees\" for common surgeries was published by 2014 for the public sector and in 2016 for the private sector. A further breakdown of \"Facility Fees\", \"Surgeon Fees\" and \"Anaesthetist Fees\" for the private sector was also made available to facilitate the comparison of private professional fees. Today, the actual bill size publication for close to 300 procedures and medical conditions is available on MOH's website.
While publications on bill sizes provided a form of benchmarks on charges, we decided to further reduce the information asymmetry between healthcare providers and consumers. Therefore, in 2017, MOH appointed an independent, multi-stakeholder committee to develop and recommend Fee Benchmarks for the private sector.
So, it is not as if when we withdrew the Guidelines on Fees, there was a huge vacuum, there was actually a process that already preceded that, but it was enhanced and strengthened even after the Guidelines on Fees was removed and culminated in the Fee Benchmarks being promulgated.
The Fee Benchmarks serve as references for the public to assess whether the fees charged by a healthcare professional are reasonable; for medical providers and professionals to set appropriate charges; and thirdly, for insurers to take an active approach in their claims assessment and panel design.
As a start, MOH published Surgeon Fee Benchmarks for about 200 common surgical procedures in 2018. Although Fee Benchmarks have been published for only 8% of the 2,300 procedures listed in the Table of Surgical Procedures, or TOSP, these 200 procedures were selected as they accounted for more than 85% of the cases involving procedures and 75% of professional fees for procedures in the private sector. The TOSP lists all procedures from Table 1 to Table 7 based on the level of complexity. So, for example, a Table 1 procedure will be something much more simpler like taking out a small lump on your arm, but a Table 7 procedure will be where there is the highest level of complexity and surgical risk, involving multi-organ resections, for example.
So, even without direct information on the less commonly performed procedures and less available datasets, doctors will generally be able to benchmark the fees based on the equivalent level of complexity for procedures codes within the same Table level. This approach we have taken allows us to set the Fee Benchmarks for the most common procedures to achieve the intended outcome without the unnecessary administrative burden and costs of curating very limited data sets for less commonly performed procedures. This is also a point that Mr Giam has acknowledged. And I would like to say that our approach is far more efficient in achieving the same outcome that we want without imposing unnecessary burden on the clinicians who are busy doing their work.
And in fact, when the data set is scarce, what you have is a lot of outliers at the extreme ends which makes the range much more spread and the outliers may sometimes predominate and make the benchmarks actually inaccurate.
Indeed, our early data showed that doctors have been taking reference from the benchmarks, with more than 80% of fees in 2019 within the upper limit of the benchmarks. This was also 4% higher than in the year before in 2018. In 2020, MOH further introduced new benchmarks for anaesthetist and inpatient attendance fees, and will continue to review and develop new areas of fee benchmarking with the Fee Benchmarks Advisory Committee.
Mr Gerald Giam suggested that doctors and hospitals should be required to provide detailed itemisation of charges on their bills, to address over-servicing and overcharging. This is in fact already required under the current existing Private Hospitals and Medical Clinics Act, or PHMCA, for hospital bills, and will be further enhanced under the new Healthcare Services Act to cover all licensable healthcare services. MOH will prescribe the minimum level of granularity that must be reflected in patients' bills, which include categories such as consultation, medication and investigations.
Just as importantly, licensees are required to display common charges prominently at their premises or on their websites and provide financial counselling for services which tend to generate significant bills prior to service provision, to ensure greater price transparency upfront and help patients make much more informed choices.
On the issues surrounding Integrated Shield Plans, MOH has already implemented several measures and are continuing to explore and work on much more, which I have taken quite a bit of time earlier today during Question Time to elaborate in my response. And in fact, many of the questions and measures that were suggested were also brought up by the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) Chair and many of our GPC members and backbenchers.
The work by the Multilateral Health Insurance Committee, or MHIC, is already on-going on areas that Mr Giam has raised, amongst others. So, I shall not elaborate further and the Member can refer to my earlier Parliamentary Question (PQ) reply.
But I would just want to highlight a couple of points which he has brought up. One is on the issue of expanding the panel to more doctors or in fact, to all doctors, and I have explained in the PQ reply that pre-authorisation is the way to go, to provide access to care by all doctors through the pre-authorisation route. And in fact, panel sizes have increased by 40% in the last six months to a year, up to 70% of private specialists are already on at least one panel.
On taking a hands-on approach to regulating Integrated Shield Plans (IPs), MOH already exercises close oversight of IPs, due to their direct association with MediShield Life and also, as MediSave can be used for IP premium payments. Any changes to IP premiums or terms and conditions, requires approval from MOH. In approving any changes, MOH considers the interests of the policyholders, as well as the need for healthcare costs and premiums to remain sustainable.
As I had outlined in my earlier reply, riders are fully private insurance products, going beyond MediShield Life and IP plans. MOH will typically not intervene in this space. Such riders are regulated by MAS who exercises regulatory oversight on the financial viability of insurance products.
Mr Speaker, we thank the Member for his suggestions and would like to assure him that the issues brought up are already being looked into. MOH will continue to work closely and facilitate close collaboration between stakeholders to ensure that measures and solutions are put in place to uphold patients' interests in healthcare.
The Workers' Party Member's Adjournment Motion on ensuring patients' interest in healthcare focuses largely on the financial aspects of healthcare. Lest it be construed that good healthcare is only about finances and dollars and cents, I think it is useful to remind us, all of us here, that good healthcare, is ultimately delivered by our healthcare workers. Many of our healthcare workers are currently on the frontlines of this fight against the COVID-19 pandemic 24/7, putting themselves and their families at significant risk of infection and perhaps even mortality.
I want to thank them and salute their sacrifices and their bravery and their courage, and call on all Singaporeans to give them our fullest support during this period. Let us not shun them for the job they do in this challenging and difficult time, but support them, so they can better help us.
To all our healthcare workers on the frontline, let us remember the aphorism of Sir William Osler in the way we care for our patients: \"To cure sometimes, to relieve often and to comfort always.\" [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam, you have a few minutes for clarifications.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: I thank the Senior Minister of State for his response. I have got two clarification questions. First, regarding the issue of the Fee Benchmarks, not containing all the TOSP procedures, for the remaining TOSP procedures which are not in the Fee Benchmarks, can the Senior Minister of State explain how are insurers who are not medical professionals expected to determine what is a reasonable fee if it is not found in the Benchmarks? My concern is that if they cannot find it in the Fee Benchmarks, they might either just reject the claim, or they might just take some other Fee Benchmark which may not be accurate. I can understand that doctors may be able to find some equivalent Fee Benchmark, but I am not sure if insurers can.
Secondly, he mentioned that and tied in with that earlier point, that is why I feel that it is important to ensure that there is sufficient information inside the Fee Benchmarks, so that insurers would not be left hanging and will be just making educated guesses.
On the second point of the number of specialists on the panels, yes, I noted that he said up to 70% of specialists are already on at least one panel. But, if you take it from the patients' perspective, they only care about what percentage of specialists are on their own insurers' panels. So, can the Senior Minister of State share, for the different insurers, does he have the data on what percentage of all the specialists are on each insurance panel?
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State, you have two minutes.
Dr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Speaker, let me just take the first question, which is how do we ensure that insurers know how to price the cost of different procedures. Mr Gerald Giam may not be aware how the surgeons grade surgical procedures. Table 7 procedures, for example, would be usually grouped together in similar level of complexity. And in the private sector, when we charge a Table 7 procedure, we usually kind of put the cost around the same ballpark for other Table 7 procedures. You can have a certain variation above and below a certain range to account for some complexity but on the whole, generally, that is the approach taken.
Even if the insurers were to try and see how each procedure can have a certain range, the fact is that the ranges will overlap, because they are all Table 7 procedures. But if in this Table 7 codes, there are 10 procedures, of which you may have information for five, the other four may be rare and uncommon, so you generally try and place it somewhere in between one of the five. For example, in terms of level of complexity. Table 7, 7A, 7B and 7C. So, if this is a 7B procedure, it will be charged somewhere between a Table 7A and a Table 7C procedure. That is how you kind of get a gauge, a rough gauge.
It cannot be absolute because sometimes even a Table 5 operation can cost a bit more than a Table 7. If it takes longer to perform that procedure, intraoperatively there are challenges, a Table 5 procedure can cost more than a Table 7. So, it is not something that is easily hardcoded because it can vary from case to case. But, on the whole, for common procedures, there are enough data sets for insurers to get a certain sense of what the general ballpark is, and then use that to get an extrapolation of something that is not actually having a benchmark, but should fall somewhere in between. So, that is how it is done.
For panels, I think I have explained previously that it is difficult to ensure that all doctors get on panels because doctors can choose not to be on panels.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State, if you can wrap up.
Dr Koh Poh Koon: Okay. The panel only makes sense, if you have fee arrangements. But, the key to ensure all patients have access to care is to enhance the pre-authorisation process, so all patients regardless of whether the doctors are on panel or not can have access to the doctor for continuity of treatment.
Mr Speaker: Order. The time allowed for the proceedings has expired.
[(proc text) The Question having been proposed at 9.02 pm and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 9.32 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":"Matter Raised On Adjournment Motion","questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Delaying or Cancelling School Mergers to Evaluate Effectiveness of Smaller Class Size","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"45 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the merger of Guangyang and Townsville Primary Schools can be deferred in view of the 2,000 HDB BTO flats to be completed in Bishan, leading to more demand for primary school places; (b) whether the merged school can be located at the Guangyang site as the school was rebuilt in 2012 and Guangyang Secondary School is at the adjacent plot thus providing for shared activities and facilities; (c) what factors determine the new name of the merged school; and (d) whether the 100-over-year-old history of Guangyang will be considered.
46 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Education instead of merging the nine pairs of schools, whether the Ministry will consider allowing half of these schools to operate with reduced class sizes as a pilot to evaluate the efficacy of smaller class sizes on student performance.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Declining birth rates, coupled with changing demographics in our housing estates, have led to steadily falling enrolment in some schools. In the case of the merger of Guangyang Primary School and Townsville Primary School, the decision to locate the merged school at the Townsville Primary School site is primarily because of its better student catchment, and that the school is on a bigger site with its own school field.
MOE has taken into consideration the 2,000 BTO flats that are currently under construction in Bishan, as well as other newly-completed BTOs and other likely future plans for both Ang Mo Kio and Bishan estates when we made the decision to merge Guangyang Primary School and Townsville Primary School in 2023, and to locate the merged school at the Townsville Primary School site.
In naming the merged schools, MOE works closely with the affected schools, taking into consideration a range of factors, including the schools’ history and heritage, enrolments, as well as stakeholders’ interests and sentiments. Regardless of the eventual name decided for each of these merged schools, MOE provides guidance and support to preserve and document the history and legacy of each school in a heritage space in the merged school. The names of the merged schools will be announced at a later date.
Assoc Prof Jamus Lim has suggested that instead of merging the nine pairs of schools, MOE could allow half of these schools to operate with reduced class sizes as a pilot to evaluate the efficacy of smaller class sizes on student performance.
But doing so will mean that we will not be able to optimally re-deploy teachers to other schools with growing enrolment and more significant needs. This includes schools with a relatively higher proportions of students with greater learning needs, which we support with more teachers so that the school has the flexibility to deploy teachers to teach such students in smaller classes.
Furthermore, as enrolment in the proposed merger schools drops further, students in these schools will not be able to enjoy the same holistic range of learning experiences as their peers in other schools, in terms of subject combinations, educational programmes and Co-Curricular Activities. These remain critical aspects that contribute to the vibrant and holistic educational experience we want for every student.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Teaching of Malay and Tamil Languages at Pre-schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"47 Ms Raeesah Khan asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the number of pre-schools that currently offer (i) only Chinese Language as a mother tongue language (MTL), (ii) only Chinese and Malay Languages and (iii) only Chinese and Tamil Languages; (b) whether there are targets to ensure that each neighbourhood has at least one pre-school which offers Malay or Tamil Language to better cater to the learning and developmental needs of minority children before they are enrolled in Primary school; and (c) if no, whether the Ministry will consider doing so.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Before I answer the specific questions the Member asked, let me provide some background to set the context of Mother Tongue Language (MTL) learning in Singapore.
Post-Independence, when the Government decided that English would be the common working language for all Singaporeans, we also made the learning of MTL compulsory from Primary school, with few exceptions.
As families increasingly adopted English as their daily language, the education system and our teachers worked hard to keep the Chinese, Malay and Tamil Languages alive. This effort continues and is by no means an easy task.
We introduced and expanded Language Elective Programmes at Junior Colleges, and then Secondary schools, to help students with the interest and talent in MTL to learn it at a deeper level. We introduced the Elective Programme in Malay Language for Secondary Schools for students to not just nurture their skills in the language, but also acquire a deeper appreciation of Malay culture and literature. We set up the Umar Pulavar centre, to deepen the learning of Tamil Language. To help students weak in MTL, we are also implementing the Mother Tongue Support Programme in Primary school.
While much has been done, we decided to bring the intervention upstream as language is learnt from young. MOE Kindergartens set the benchmark today, with all 36 MOE Kindergartens offering all three MTLs. The Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) has also been working closely with the Anchor Operators (AOPs) to double their provision of Malay and Tamil language education to about 350 centres by 2022.
But MTL teaching resources are limited, so the offer of different MTLs across centres is still expanding.
Nationally, about 1,800 or over 90% of pre-schools offer at least one Mother Tongue Language. Of these, about 160 pre-schools, including all MOE Kindergartens, offer all three MTLs. Another 260 pre-schools offer two MTLs, and the rest offer one MTL.
We have at least one pre-school centre offering Malay or Tamil language in almost all heartland planning areas. ECDA’s continued efforts with AOPs to have a good geographical spread of centres offering MTL, together with MOE’s planned increase in the number of MOE Kindergartens to about 60 by 2025, will offer parents a range of pre-schools that offer MTL learning. Parents may use the Pre-school Search Portal by ECDA to search for the nearest centre with their MTL of choice.
To expand MTL teaching resources, ECDA has been working closely with training providers and operators to expand training capacity. Today, we have about 10,500 early childhood educators who meet the required language qualifications and could be engaged to teach Chinese Language, about 2,800 for Malay Language and about 700 for Tamil Language. But not all may choose to teach MTL.
The Certificate in Pre-school MTL Teaching (CPMTL) for Malay and Tamil Language was launched in 2019 to enhance in-service early childhood educators’ pedagogical skills in the teaching of MTL.
As of February 2021, close to 300 in-service educators have completed the CPMTL for Malay and Tamil Language and have been deployed as MTL teachers in the pre-schools.
The national effort to strengthen the learning of MTL and keep our cultures alive has lasted decades and has been upheld as a cornerstone of our education policy. Thousands of educators have dedicated themselves to this mission and the hard work will continue, as we expand our intervention upstream to pre-school.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Passport Renewal Requests During COVID-19 Pandemic","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"48 Mr Abdul Samad asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many requests for renewal of Singapore passports have been made during the COVID-19 pandemic period; (b) whether ICA has the number of passports that expire during this period or will be expiring soon; and (c) whether there will be a waiver or review of passport renewals in view of the non-travel period during this pandemic.
Mr K Shanmugam: About 673,000 passports expired in 2020. As at end March 2021, close to 70%, or about 464,000, of these passports have been renewed. The validity of a passport cannot be extended after it has been issued. This is a requirement by the International Civil Aviation Organisation, which does not allow any changes to a passport once issued.
While the validity of an existing passport cannot be extended, ICA has recently announced the issuance of 10-year validity passports from October 2021. This is double the validity of the current five-year passports, but the passport application fee remains the same at $70.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Getting More Companies to Adopt Tripartite Standards on Implementing Fair and Progressive Workplace Practices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"50 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Manpower what are the Ministry’s plans to ensure more companies adopt the Tripartite Standards on implementing fair and progressive workplace practices and become part of the Human Capital Partners Programme as exemplary employers.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Tripartite Standards and the Human Capital Partnership (HCP) Programme are two key initiatives that MOM and the tripartite partners have launched to encourage more companies to adopt progressive employment practices and to recognise and support exemplary employers.
Since we launched these two initiatives in 2017, the tripartite partners have developed a total of eight Tripartite Standards, including those on Recruitment Practices, Grievance Handling, Age Friendly Workplace Practices and Flexible Work Arrangements. More than 10,000 organisations have adopted at least one Tripartite Standard, covering over one million employees. The tripartite partners have also recognised about 600 HCPartners, employing over 200,000 locals.
Adopters of Tripartite Standards and HCPartners are also publicly recognised, including on the MyCareersFuture website, so that jobseekers can identify them as progressive employers.
We are strengthening our efforts to encourage employers to adopt progressive employment practices. The Tripartite Alliance for Fair & Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) actively reaches out to companies through its promotional campaigns and briefings to members of Trade Associations and Chambers (TACs). TAFEP also organises regular clinics on Tripartite Standards to help companies better understand the specifications and confidently implement those practices. Organisations that wish to promote progressive practices at workplaces can also approach TAFEP to collaborate on such efforts.
Working together with tripartite partners and sector agencies, we will continue to build on this momentum to grow the community of progressive employers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Wrongful Dismissal Involving Employees who were Pregnant at Time of Dismissal","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"52 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Manpower (a) since its establishment in April 2017, how many wrongful dismissal cases administered by the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) involved employees who were pregnant at the time of dismissal; (b) what resources are provided to TADM in considering gender discrimination cases; and (c) how are gender discrimination cases currently being flagged to TADM and how are they evaluated.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Under the law, female employees are protected against wrongful dismissals at any stage of pregnancy. Since April 2019, when TADM started mediating dismissal disputes, 110 wrongful dismissal claims involving pregnant employees have been lodged.
In managing wrongful dismissal claims, TADM looks into the circumstances of the dismissal by gathering facts from the employee and the employer. TADM then assesses whether the dismissal claim is substantiated and steers the parties towards a fair settlement. In the majority of cases, employers had sufficient cause to dismiss the pregnant employees due to work performance issues but did not communicate the reasons properly to the employees. For such cases, TADM would explain to employees the lack of basis for their claims but still help them to get closure, such as getting the employer to provide some ex-gratia payments on compassionate grounds. Overall, about 80% of the concluded cases were resolved at TADM. The remaining cases were referred to the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT) for adjudication – of which 30% resulted in money orders in favour of the employees.
Unlike TADM which mediates disputes on wrongful dismissal, the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) focuses on in-employment and pre-employment discrimination cases, such as gender discrimination against jobseekers and employees. For cases where there is evidence of discrimination, TAFEP will refer them to MOM for further investigation. In such investigations, MOM will require employers to account for their actions which include not hiring pregnant jobseekers and provide evidence to prove that they did not have any discriminatory employment practices.
If discrimination were established, depending on the severity of the issues, MOM would take appropriate enforcement actions against the errant employers, from requiring them to rectify the lapses in their HR processes to suspending work pass privileges in the more serious cases.
MOM takes a serious view of workplace discrimination, including discrimination on the grounds of gender, marital status and family responsibilities. Individuals who feel that they have met with employment discrimination are advised to file a complaint with TAFEP if the alleged discrimination occurred before or during employment, and with TADM if it concerned dismissal.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rise in Property Prices Over Past 12 Months","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"53 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the increase in property prices over the past 12 months is within the expectation of the Government; and (b) whether any measures are being considered to ensure that there will not be a property price bubble.
Mr Desmond Lee: The pace of increase in private and public housing prices has gathered momentum since the second quarter of 2020, reflecting broad-based demand for housing, supported by the current low interest rate environment.
As has been publicly communicated, the Government’s intent is to ensure a stable and sustainable property market, where prices move broadly in line with economic fundamentals. The Government will continue to monitor economic and property market conditions closely, and adjust the supply of future Government Land Sales (GLS) Programmes and Built-To-Order (BTO) flats to meet occupation demand.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of Working Mother Child Relief to Unmarried Working Mothers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Working Mother Child Relief (WMCR) in respect of income tax payable can be extended to unmarried working mothers.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: All Singaporean children receive substantial benefits from the Government, regardless of their parents’ marital status. These include:
(a) Child Development Account (CDA) benefits, including the $3,000 First Step Grant and matched co-savings from the Government;
(b) $4,000 in MediSave Grant for Newborns;
(c) Over $180,000 of education subsidies by the time they turn 16 years old; and
(d) Government healthcare subsidies.
Working mothers, regardless of their marital status, are also entitled to:
(a) 16-week Government-Paid Maternity Leave;
(b) Six days paid Child Care Leave per year for children aged below seven years, or two days for children aged 7 to 12; and
(c) Concessionary foreign domestic worker levy.
In this way, we support all parents, including unwed working mothers, to give their children education opportunities, good healthcare and a conducive social environment, so they can realise their fullest potential in life.
The Working Mother’s Child Relief (WMCR) is granted to working mothers who are married, divorced or widowed. It is intended to support parenthood within marriage and to encourage married mothers to continue working after childbirth. So, there are specific objectives tied to this scheme. As the prevailing societal norm in Singapore is to have children within marriage, our policies reflect these values.
We will continue to review our tax policies from time to time, bearing in mind prevailing societal norms and needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Better Protection and CPF Contributions of Gig and Platform Economy Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"55 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry can urgently work with platform economy companies to ensure that Singapore-based self-employed employees will be able to automatically contribute CPF.
56 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether she can provide an update on the measures that the Ministry is studying to better protect gig workers; and (b) whether a review will be conducted on the definition of employees versus freelancers so as to better protect those who are employees in all but name.
Mrs Josephine Teo: We thank the Members for their interest. During this year’s Committee of Supply debate, I explained at length the Government’s thinking on the issues concerning gig workers and the steps we had already taken. We are actively studying further measures to safeguard their well-being, including helping them better meet healthcare and retirement needs. As there are multiple considerations to take into account, we need more time and will provide an update in due course.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Promote Homegrown Innovation under Research, Innovation and Enterprise Plan 2025","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"57 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what are the plans to promote homegrown innovation under the Research, Innovation and Enterprise Plan 2025 so as to attract companies to anchor their R&D activities in Singapore to develop new sustainability solutions; and (b) what has been the progress thus far.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Research, Innovation and Enterprise (RIE) is an important pillar supporting Singapore’s development as an innovation-led economy. Sustained investments in RIE have enabled us to develop a strong knowledge base and talent pool. This has attracted global companies to base their research and development (R&D) and operations here, and enabled local companies to develop new capabilities and enterprises.
For example, Singapore has developed into a global hydro hub with innovative companies providing water solutions globally. In the agri-food sector, SFA and A*STAR just awarded in total over $50 million in funding under RIE 2020 to support over 30 projects in sustainable urban food production and alternative proteins.
RIE 2025 builds on these efforts and contributes to the Singapore Green Plan 2030, which seeks green growth through creating new jobs, transforming our industries, and harnessing sustainability as a competitive advantage for Singapore.
We are making progress in developing technologies needed to meet Singapore’s carbon emissions reduction targets through our energy and decarbonisation R&D programmes. We are creating research partnerships to develop lower cost, low carbon energy technologies such as hydrogen and carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS). A*STAR’s recent call for proposals for its Low-Carbon Energy Research Funding Initiative has generated interest from global and local industries in partnership with local researchers.
More can be done to sustain this momentum. First, we will work with companies to strengthen their capabilities and capacity for innovation. Startup SG initiatives led by Enterprise Singapore, together with other Government agencies and private sector partners from the startup eco-system, supports start-up growth in and beyond Singapore. More mature enterprises are supported by initiatives such as EDB’s New Ventures Group.
Enterprise Singapore will be launching the Enterprise Sustainability Programme this year to support local enterprises to develop capabilities in sustainability and capture new opportunities in the green economy. The Investment Allowance for Emissions Reduction scheme will be enhanced to support projects that improve energy efficiency and/or reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Second, we will strengthen the technology translation platforms to enable our companies to better tap on the research capabilities and outcomes of our public research institutions. Examples of such platforms include the Environmental and Water Technology Centre of Innovation, the Food Innovation Resource Centre, the Aquaculture Innovation Centre and the EcoLabs Centre of Innovation for Energy at Ngee Ann Polytechnic, Singapore Polytechnic, Temasek Polytechnic and NTU respectively.
Third, we will strengthen linkages with global innovation nodes and build strong international networks for Singapore companies to have access to global and regional markets, innovation expertise and resources. These efforts will increase Singapore’s attractiveness as a destination for global entrepreneurial talent and companies.
As laid out in the Singapore Green Plan 2030, our vision is to ensure Singapore remains a green and liveable home for current and future generations. To achieve this, sustainability needs to be a national movement, undertaken by citizens, industry and organisations across all segments of our society. The Government is committed to partner the private sector and research institutions to promote innovation in sustainable solutions that will help build a greener Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"New Courses at Institutes of Higher Learning to Support Green Economy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"58 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Education what are the new courses, diploma and degree programmes in the Institutes of Higher Learning that will support the green economy.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) are committed to preparing their students to be able to seize good career opportunities, including in emerging areas such as the green economy. This will ensure a healthy pipeline of talent to support green growth in Singapore.
The IHLs have been introducing new courses and programmes in sustainability-related fields. For example, Republic Polytechnic has launched two new Diplomas. The Diploma in Sustainable Built Environment prepares students to take up roles as Energy and Sustainability Consultants, while the Diploma in Environmental and Marine Science prepares students to take up roles as Environmental Service Officers. SMU offers a sustainability major programme that equips students with the knowledge, skills and expertise to implement sustainable practices in businesses.
In addition, IHLs have been increasing their emphasis on sustainability within existing programmes. From this coming academic year, NTU undergraduates will be required to take up a new common module on “Sustainability for Society, Economy and Environment” under their interdisciplinary collaborative core curriculum. Temasek Polytechnic has also revamped its Diploma in Architectural Technology and Building Services to focus on using technology for the sustainable management of buildings.
For working adults, the IHLs are providing more opportunities to upskill and reskill for jobs in the green economy. For example, Singapore Polytechnic runs a Food Manufacturing Programme which trains individuals to analyse sustainability issues in food manufacturing and to apply technologies for converting food waste to value added products. The Singapore Institute of Technology has a course on Building Energy Modelling, to train building professionals such as architects and energy auditors to identify opportunities for improving energy efficiency when designing or managing buildings.
The IHLs will continue to work closely with their industry partners to equip students and workers with the new skills needed for the green economy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rationale for Excluding Heavy Goods Vehicles and Very Heavy Goods Vehicles from Commercial Vehicle Emissions Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"61 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what is the rationale for excluding Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) and Very Heavy Goods Vehicle (VHGV) from the Commercial Vehicle Emissions Scheme (CVES); and (b) whether the Ministry will consider harmonising the CVES to encompass all commercial vehicles.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Commercial Vehicle Emissions Scheme (CVES) promotes the adoption of cleaner new light commercial vehicles by providing an incentive of up to $30,000 for the purchase of cleaner models, whilst imposing a $10,000 surcharge to discourage the purchase of more pollutive models. Cleaner Light Goods Vehicle (LGV) models, such as petrol and electric ones, are readily available in the market.
The scheme currently covers LGVs with maximum laden weight not exceeding 3,500 kilogramme. This is because cleaner and market-ready alternatives for Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV) and Very Heavy Goods Vehicles (VHGV) are still limited. Availability of market-ready cleaner alternatives is an important factor for the scheme to be effective in shifting purchase decisions towards cleaner models.
We will continue to monitor the availability of cleaner HGV and VHGV models in the Singapore and international markets, and will consider expanding the CVES to cover more commercial vehicles in future.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Ensure Accurate Disbursement of Funds for Support Schemes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"62 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what measures are in place to ensure that different support schemes for the COVID-19 pandemic are properly disbursed; (b) how are the lessons learnt from overpayments under the Jobs Support Scheme being applied to other areas to ensure similar issues do not arise; and (c) whether more audits can be conducted in the post-pandemic period for sanity checks on emergency funds used in Budgets 2020 and 2021.
63 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what processes are in place to ensure that any large-scale disbursement of funds to companies or citizens under the various Government schemes are done so accurately; (b) which individuals are accountable for and provide oversight over the accurate disbursement of funds whether at the relevant Ministry or within the Ministry of Finance; and (c) why those processes failed to proactively catch the error in the recent Jobs Support Scheme, levy waiver and rebate over-payments.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: The COVID-19 pandemic led to unprecedented disruptions to the global economy and to Singapore. The Government responded swiftly and effectively through many different schemes to support households, businesses and workers, with the primary goal to protect lives and livelihoods.
For all Government measures including COVID-19 support measures, there are a series of checks to ensure that the grants are designed for and disbursed to the intended beneficiaries.
(a) At the design stage, the scheme owner sets clear policy guidance on the target beneficiaries of the grant, the benefits they will receive and the framework for assessing appeals.
(b) At the implementation stage, the implementing agency ensures correct payout computation for each beneficiary and oversees the accurate and timely disbursement of funds. For the Job Support Scheme (JSS), the two implementing agencies are the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) and the Central Provident Fund Board (CPFB). CPFB computes the payouts using information from its own sources and other agencies like MTI for firm re-opening dates and the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) for citizenship date. IRAS then disburses the payouts and handles the appeals. Before each JSS payout, IRAS performs internal checks on its computational logic and engages an external auditor to verify the computed JSS quantum for each beneficiary. IRAS also has an anti-gaming system to detect fraud and erroneous claims. For cases suspected of higher fraud risks, IRAS withholds the JSS payouts until the employers verify and confirm the authenticity and accuracy of their CPF contributions.
(c) Post-disbursement, independent audits and data analytics are also performed to detect any anomalies and verify that funds were channelled appropriately to the intended beneficiaries. For instance, IRAS conducted post-disbursement checks, comparing the amount of JSS disbursed against past payout quantum to check for any anomalies. It was during this process that the errors in re-opening dates were first detected. MSF also made use of data analytics to conduct post-disbursement checks on over 550,000 Temporary Relief Fund and COVID-19 Support Grant applications to detect false declarations.
(d) The Auditor-General’s Office (AGO) also conducts regular audits on grant disbursements to ensure proper accounting and use of public funds.
The erroneous JSS payments and foreign worker levy waiver and rebate amounts arose from source data errors in the firm re-opening dates. MTI had run sampling checks before passing the data to CPFB for the computation of the payout. But these sampling checks did not pick up the error, which affected about 4% of beneficiary firms.
The error was eventually detected by the processes that we had put in place to flag out anomalies for investigation and rectification. Specifically, IRAS first detected anomalies in end-November 2020 as part of its post-disbursement checks. At the same time, IRAS also received queries from some businesses about the quantum of the payouts they had received in the October 2020 JSS payouts. After thorough investigations, IRAS managed to trace the cause of the anomalies to errors in the re-opening dates. MOM was also alerted to take remedial action as the same re-opening dates were used for the computation of foreign worker levy waiver and rebates.
Since the incident, MTI has worked with MOF, MOM and IRAS to carefully examine and rectify the processes. Additional checks and steps have been instituted to prevent similar occurrences. The compilation of re-opening dates is no longer done manually and is now coded with rules that have been reviewed and tested. An external auditor has also been engaged to thoroughly check and verify the re-opening dates.
In addition to the checks and audits put in place by the scheme owners, the implementing agencies will also pay specific attention to the various COVID-19 support schemes as part of their internal audit.
The Government and our public officers are committed to doing our best, even in a crisis. In this case, the officers were working hard to disburse the funds quickly to businesses that were facing tremendous stresses during the circuit breaker.
Given the unprecedented nature of the pandemic and the sudden imposition of the circuit breaker, there was not enough time to put in place an enterprise IT system to manage the re-opening process. Agencies had to manually process, at short notice, more than 1.8 million applications from businesses to resume operations. Unfortunately, mistakes were made in the process, resulting in the overpayments.
Nevertheless, our existing processes and checks enabled us to detect the lapse. Once detected, the agencies acted responsibly to put things right, and were upfront and transparent about what happened. We have learnt from this incident and will spare no effort to strengthen our processes and to ensure that similar issues do not arise.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons for Wrongful $370 million Jobs Support Scheme Payouts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"66 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what caused the errors that resulted in the wrongful Jobs Support Scheme payouts of $370 million.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The incorrect Jobs Support Scheme (JSS) payouts resulted from errors in the tagging of business re-opening dates for some businesses, which was used for the computation of the JSS payouts. As the processes for the resumption of business activities had to be implemented at short notice, MTI used existing systems and manual processes to grant approvals for businesses to re-open. Unfortunately, in so doing, mistakes were made with the re-opening dates and concomitantly the JSS payouts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Recovery of Erroneous $370 million Jobs Support Scheme Payouts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"67 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Trade and Industry with regard to the erroneous $370 million payout under the Jobs Support Scheme (a) how much has been recovered thus far; (b) whether companies that may have already used the money will be able to pay back in instalments; and (c) what actions will be taken if firms refuse to pay back the amounts.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: As at the first week of May 2021, we have recovered $250 million (68%) and secured commitments for the return of another $83 million (22%) from larger affected firms which are in the process of returning this sum. Businesses that face cashflow difficulties may approach us for assistance. Instalment payment arrangements will be available for businesses that need them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Median and Mean Amounts Paid Out Erroneously under Jobs Support Scheme and Recovery Efforts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"68 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what were the median and mean amounts paid out erroneously to each firm under the Jobs Support Scheme; (b) what steps will be taken to claim the amounts back from firms which cannot afford to repay the amounts; (c) whether the Ministry will continue to request for payments from firms that would be insolvent if payments are to be clawed back; and (d) how many firms who received the erroneous payments have since been wound up.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The median and mean amounts overpaid amounts were $3,300 and $69,000 respectively. IRAS will first offset the excess amount against the businesses’ future JSS payouts. Businesses will be informed of any outstanding excess amount to be returned after their final JSS payout. Businesses that face cashflow difficulties may approach us for assistance. Instalment payment arrangements will be available for businesses that need them. Based on our records, no firms who received the erroneous payments have been wound up to date.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Interest-free Deferments of Student Loan Repayments During Pandemic","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"71 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry can work with the tertiary institutions and banks to create more flexibility in allowing Singaporean tertiary graduates who are having difficulty in finding good jobs upon their graduation to get interest-free deferments of their student loan repayments for up to 24 months.
Mr Lawrence Wong: As part of the Budget 2020 measures to support Singaporeans affected by the economic impact of COVID-19, MOE has suspended loan repayments and interest accrual for Government-funded loan schemes for all Autonomous University and Polytechnic graduates for one year, from 1 June 2020 to 31 May 2021.
In addition, through various traineeship programmes and active job placement efforts, we have been able to ensure that tertiary graduates were able to find good jobs upon their graduation. We will continue these efforts for this year’s graduating cohort. Generally, we can expect better employment outcomes as the overall economic and labour market outlook has improved.
Nevertheless, we are aware that the outlook is highly uncertain and unpredictable, and will depend to a large extent on the external environment and the path of the pandemic. Therefore, we will continue to monitor the situation closely and will consider how best to assist the graduates who continue to face difficulties in securing jobs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Standard Procedure for Patients to Get Access to Original Attending Surgeon at Public Hospitals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"72 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Health with regard to the recent incident on a catheter insertion surgery in SGH that was done on a different side from that previously agreed with the patient, (a) what is the standard procedure for a patient to get access to the original attending surgeon; (b) why was the patient’s request not followed up on and with no pre-surgery or post-surgery explanation given to her; and (c) why was there a lapse in communication for such a critical procedure.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: SGH has conducted an internal review on the incident and has apologised to the patient.
Preliminary investigations by SGH revealed that the patient’s preference for the placement of the catheter on the right side of the abdomen had been discussed with the original surgeon but it was not made known to the surgeon who took over the procedure, due to a lapse in the communication process. On the day of the surgery, the original surgeon was unavailable as surgery for a preceding case of his was unexpectedly prolonged. Another surgeon then performed the procedure so that the patient would not have her surgery delayed further. This resulted in the catheter being placed on the left side of the abdomen which is routinely done.
When a patient requests to see the attending doctor, the attending doctor will attend to the patient as soon as he is available. However, if a particular doctor is unavailable, a member of his medical team will attend to the patient on his behalf as part of team-based care.
In this case, the patient was seen daily by the surgical team and subsequently by the consultant-in-charge at the outpatient clinic. SGH acknowledged that the patient’s request to see the surgeon who performed the procedure for her during her inpatient stay was not conveyed to the surgeon and had issued an official letter of apology to the patient. The original surgeon had also met the patient and explained the situation to her. SGH has also reassured the patient that as the position of the catheter inside the abdomen remains the same, the siting of the exit site will not affect the proper functioning of the access tube. SGH will continue to engage the patient.
SGH regrets that this incident has occurred. Steps are being taken to improve communications and hand-over procedures between doctors to improve patient care. SGH will also be implementing pre-operative site marking for this procedure moving forward. Doctors have been instructed to document and communicate the concerns and the associated risks to the patient, as well as communicate specific instructions to the covering surgeon.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Requiring Singaporeans to be Fully Vaccinated before Taking Air Travel Bubble Flights","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"73 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Transport on Air Travel Bubbles (a) whether the Ministry has considered requiring Singaporeans to be fully vaccinated before taking the bubble flights to Hong Kong; and (b) what are the reasons for not having this requirement when countries are still battling sudden waves of COVID-19 infection.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: An Air Travel Bubble (ATB) is between two safe places that have kept the pandemic under control, so that we can remove the requirement for travellers to undergo quarantine or Stay-Home Notices, and rely on repeated testing for COVID-19 instead.
The risk of community transmission within Hong Kong is very low. As of 9 May, its seven-day and 28-day mean local incidence rate is 0.01 and 0.02 per 100,000 population respectively. It is hence safe for travellers from Singapore to travel there and back without vaccination.
Notwithstanding this, we urge all travellers, regardless of where they go, to be careful and observe safe management measures and good hygiene standards, and get your vaccinations when it is your turn.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Efforts to Care for Migrant Workers' Mental Well-being and Allow for Measured Access to Facilities Beyond their Dormitories","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"74 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Manpower in respect of migrant workers who have been restricted from going into the community since the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic (a) what are the Ministry's efforts to care for their welfare and mental well-being; and (b) what are the future plans to allow for their measured and safe access to facilities beyond their dormitories.
Mrs Josephine Teo: MOM has a range of measures to support the migrant workers’ recreational and welfare needs while ensuring that they stay safe and the risk of infection in the dormitories is kept low.
MOM has increased migrant workers’ opportunities to visit recreation centres to three times a week and increased the time allocated for each visit to four hours. Migrant workers may also combine their visit slots for the visit. We have re-opened in-dorm communal facilities such as communal kitchens and sporting facilities. We have also worked with various partners to facilitate outings to places of interest for migrant workers. We also keep our migrant workers updated on the latest COVID-19 measures and information regularly through our bulletins on FWMOMCare App.
We have made mental healthcare more accessible. To this end, we set up a multi-stakeholder taskforce called Project DAWN since November last year, comprising representatives from MOM, Government psychologists, the Institute of Mental Health (IMH), and two Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) – the Migrant Workers’ Centre (MWC) and HealthServe. Project DAWN seeks to develop and implement a comprehensive support ecosystem to manage the mental health of migrant workers. We have started putting our plans into action. Our NGO partners provide counselling services in our migrant workers’ native languages. We have also shared mental health resources, including the dissemination of helplines posters to all dormitories to act as visual cues and reminders.
Second, we have strengthened frontline support. IMH has trained close to a core of 50 frontline medical professionals to identify and offer care to workers who may require mental health interventions. Our ACE Group’s Forward Assurance and Support Teams (FAST) are also trained to identify and administer psychological first aid to distressed workers. Third, we have enhanced the support eco-system for migrant workers. To date, we have trained close to 100 migrant workers as peer support leaders in some dormitories and will be implementing this at another 300 dormitories. We aim to have 600 peer support leaders by the end of 2022. Employers and dormitory operators have also received advisories asking them to keep a look-out for their workers and encouraging the formation of a buddy system at work and in communal living.
The recent cases at Westlite Woodlands and SCM Tuas Lodge reinforce the need for us to ease restrictions in a safe, gradual and calibrated manner. We have tightened measures such as Safe Management Measures at RCs and suspended visits to the RCs for the affected dormitories to prevent the spread of COVID-19 beyond the affected dormitories. When we enforce restrictions within the dormitories, our FAST are also on the ground to reassure the affected workers and ensure that their salaries, benefits and welfare are also taken care of. When the number of cases in dormitories remain very low for a period of time, migrant workers will be allowed to visit the community in controlled numbers once a month. When a large majority of dormitory residents are vaccinated and the risk of transmission in dormitories is greatly reduced, we can ease restrictions further.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of Hawkers Succession Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"75 Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether NEA will be providing a report indicating the effectiveness of the Hawkers Succession Scheme upon the conclusion of its pilot next year; and (b) how does NEA work with stakeholders of the hawker community such as food advocates and representatives from hawkers’ associations and culinary training institutes in this pilot scheme.
76 Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what is the amount of nominal stipend given to veteran hawkers for their effort and time in guiding aspiring successors during the apprenticeship and mentorship phases under the Hawkers’ Succession Scheme; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider including veteran stallholders with less than 15 years of experience so as to benefit more hawkers.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Hawkers Succession Scheme (HSS) helps to sustain the hawker trade and heritage, by facilitating retiring veteran hawkers to pass down their culinary skills, recipes and hawker stalls to aspiring successors. This will be done through a paired apprenticeship and mentorship programme.
NEA has been consulting the hawker community, such as veteran hawkers, representatives from Hawkers’ Associations, food advocates and culinary chefs to seek their views on the pilot scheme. Many have expressed support and offered valuable suggestions on the scheme, which we are studying.
We will convene an independent advisory panel comprising members of the hawker community to assist us in areas such as identifying suitable veteran hawkers who are thinking of retiring and assessing the potential successors’ readiness to take over. For a start, we are considering hawkers with at least 15 years of experience as it is a reasonable period of time for hawkers to hone their recipes and culinary skills, and build their clientele, to be considered as a “veteran”. Nevertheless, we are also open to considering veteran hawkers with fewer years of experience in exceptional circumstances.
NEA is finalising the details of the HSS, including the amount of the nominal stipend for the veteran hawkers, and aims to launch the pilot scheme later this year. We will provide updates on the outcomes of the two-year pilot including its effectiveness, when they are available.
Notwithstanding this, aspiring hawkers can currently participate in NEA’s Hawkers’ Development Programme (HDP), which provides them with opportunities to undergo structured training as well as apprenticeship with veteran hawker mentors before starting their own hawker businesses.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Hawkers who have Benefited from Hawkers' Productivity Grant","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"77 Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment what is the number of hawkers who have benefited from the Hawkers' Productivity Grant since its inception.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: NEA launched the Hawkers’ Productivity Grant (HPG) in October 2017 to co-fund the purchase of kitchen automation equipment by cooked food stallholders, such as food processors and continuous feed vegetable cutters. Such equipment help them in food preparation and save time. In 2020, we expanded the grant to also benefit market stalls. With this expansion, stallholders can also receive co-funding when purchasing service innovation equipment, such as queue management and wireless paging systems.
Under the HPG, qualifying stallholders can claim for 80% of the equipment cost, up to a total of S$5,000. They can also submit claims for more than one equipment.
Since its inception, NEA has approved 1,072 applications for the Hawkers’ Productivity Grant. This has benefited 651 hawkers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of Incubation Stall Programme in Building Up Hawker Numbers and Culture in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"78 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) how many hawkers have gone through the NEA's Incubation Stall Programme (ISP) since it was launched in 2018; (b) what is the percentage of these hawkers who have successfully managed to become full-fledged hawkers when support from ISP tapered off; and (c) what are the lessons learnt from those whose ventures have failed and left the programme.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: As part of our efforts to sustain the hawker trade, NEA launched the Incubation Stall Programme (ISP) in 2018 to better support aspiring hawkers. Under the programme, eligible aspiring hawkers run their businesses at pre-fitted stalls with subsidised stall rental for a period of 15 months. This allows them to test and adapt their business plans, refine their recipes, and hone their cooking skills with lower start-up costs. Since its launch, a total of 34 persons have enrolled in the programme: 16 have completed the programme with eight becoming full-fledged hawkers operating their stalls. Another 10 individuals are currently undergoing the programme, while eight did not complete the programme.
We have been reviewing and enhancing the programme since its launch. In response to participants’ feedback that they needed more time to build their clientele and stabilise business operations, NEA extended 50% rental discounts from six to nine months and provided 25% rental discounts for an additional six months.
Success in the hawker trade is determined by a hawker’s ability to prepare a tasty dish and run his or her business well. ISP participants are required to pass a food tasting session judged by an expert panel and develop a feasible business plan.
We have also introduced other programmes to help aspiring hawkers succeed in the trade. This includes the Hawkers’ Development Programme (HDP), launched in 2020, which offers participants a two-month apprenticeship with veteran hawkers to learn the ropes. Following this, participants will run their own stalls, either incubation stalls under the ISP or stalls from NEA’s monthly tender exercises and continue to receive mentorship for up to three months.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Evolution of Special Assistance Plan (SAP) Schools to Stay Relevant","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"79 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for Education given the continuing need to build Singapore’s capabilities to engage the region as well as strengthen Singapore’s multi-cultural and multi-racial society, how have the Special Assistance Plan (SAP) schools evolved over the years to remain relevant today and what are the future plans for SAP schools to be relevant in the future.
80 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Education with increasing diversity, evolving needs and expectations of Singaporeans, and a post-pandemic environment, what are the new challenges which Special Assistance Plan (SAP) schools face and whether they will be able to achieve their intended outcomes.
Mr Lawrence Wong: It is useful to first set out the broader context behind the setting up of SAP schools in Singapore. In the 1950s, we had a fragmented and ethnically-based education system, with an array of vernacular schools and English-medium schools, established by various groups – philanthropists, clan associations and religious groups. One of our first tasks was to bring these schools under a national school system. Today, Government schools, clan-based and religiously-affiliated schools, all co-exist in our variegated school landscape. Later against the backdrop of declining enrolment in the Chinese-medium schools, SAP schools were established in 1979 to develop bilingual students.
Today, global factors have made the learning and mastery of languages more important than ever. Asia is now the fastest growing region in the world, with China as our largest trading partner. Countries around us are catching up in the learning of multiple languages and bilingualism may no longer be a unique advantage that Singaporeans possess. We must continue to have programmes and institutions that promote the learning of our mother tongues, and evolve them to remain relevant to the times.
SAP schools are therefore uniquely positioned to immerse their students in an environment rich in Chinese culture and language to develop effectively bilingual and bicultural talent. They continue to be relevant as part of Singapore’s approach for every community to preserve and practise their cultures, religion and languages, while safeguarding the common space to develop a distinctive Singaporean identity. For the Malay and Tamil languages whose population of learners is smaller, we have introduced the Elective Programme in Malay Languages for Secondary Schools and the National Elective Tamil Language Programme, with a similar aim to develop a profile of students with a deep understanding and appreciation of the respective languages and cultures.
SAP schools have also evolved over the years to ensure that their students are equipped with the dispositions, attributes and sensitivities to be active citizens in our multi-racial and multi-cultural world. For example, all SAP schools offer or will be offering Conversational Malay Programmes to enable their students to communicate with Malay-speaking peers.
In addition, SAP schools plan regular and sustained external programmes for their students to forge bonds across communities. One example is Dunman High School’s Diversity and Inclusivity programme, which pairs students with peers from other schools, including Madrasahs, and community groups to develop cross-cultural understanding and friendships. Other SAP schools run similar programmes, such as participating in social services for the local community or collaborating with the Malay Heritage Centre. Through such sustained interactions, students have been able to connect and foster friendships with others from diverse backgrounds.
As our society evolves, we will continue to ensure that SAP schools are able to nurture bilingual leaders, contribute to a multi-cultural Singapore and prepare students to seize opportunities in a changing world.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of COVID-19 on Turnaround Time at Singapore Ports","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"81 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the turnaround time at our wharves in the past six months compared to the pre-COVID-19 pandemic period; (b) whether the increase in throughput in the last quarter is expected to improve this year; and (c) how has the recent blockage at the Suez Canal affected Singapore and how can more resiliency to such future incidents be built into the system.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: As the world’s busiest transhipment port, the Port of Singapore has not been spared from the global disruptions caused by COVID-19. Congestion in upstream ports has caused vessels to arrive off-schedule in Singapore, leading to bunching and causing more peaks and troughs in port operations. If containers miss their onward connections, they have to stay longer in port yards and the port will need to establish new connections, re-plan and execute cargo movements. Turnaround times are inevitably affected.
To manage the situation, PSA has opened up more berths and yards for port operations and deployed more port workers. As we are a highly digitalised port, PSA is also able to support owners to track their cargo closely to manage delivery schedules and expedite connections for urgent cargo.
Notwithstanding the disruptions, overall global demand remains strong. Container throughput at our port increased in the first quarter of 2021, compared to the same period in 2020. It is however difficult to predict if this trend can be sustained, given various uncertainties before us.
The recent Ever Given blockage at the Suez Canal aggravated the disruption to shipping schedules. Fortunately, the situation has been manageable for Singapore. Last month, PSA cleared the backlog of 45 ships which arrived late due to the blockage. We thank our workers and industry partners for working closely together to successfully tackle this challenge.
Throughout this period, our port has shown to be resilient. This is due to the capabilities we have built up over many decades. Hence, when crisis struck, we were able to enhance our operating protocols and measures to keep our port open while reducing the risk of virus transmission. These include contactless container operations, crew change protocols, vaccinations of frontline workers and regular testing.
Having said that, we cannot totally eliminate risks, and from time to time, we do discover infections. Most are imported cases from foreign workers coming to work in our port. They are isolated on arrival and most are detected while in isolation and do not pose a high risk of community transmission.
There have been suggestions that we should not bear this risk and should instead ban the entry of foreign workers altogether. But we need these workers to keep our port working. That is why we have instead implemented various measures such as isolation, testing and strict safe management measures when they are working in our port, so that we can protect Singapore’s supply lines.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Checks on F&B Outlets to Prevent Hygiene Lapses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"82 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what is the Ministry doing to step up checks and enforcement on food and beverage outlets and catering companies to make sure there are no hygiene lapses; and (b) how does the Ministry help these outlets and companies to make improvements especially during this COVID-19 pandemic period whereby they face manpower constraints.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: All food establishments, including food and beverage outlets and caterers, are licensed by SFA. SFA conducts regular inspections on food establishments to ensure that they comply with regulatory requirements and more inspections are conducted for higher risk establishments. SFA also investigates public feedback on food safety. Besides taking enforcement action, SFA officers will engage and educate licensees on the required corrective actions.
From March 2020 to February 2021, SFA conducted more than 63,000 inspections on food establishments. The number of enforcement actions taken for food safety lapses has remained stable. SFA will step up inspections and other efforts if needed.
Food safety is a joint responsibility. While SFA will continue to regulate the food sector, food establishment operators must ensure that they provide safe food to consumers. Operators must also ensure that their food handlers successfully complete the Food Safety Course Level 1, which will equip them with food safety and hygiene knowledge, prior to deployment. Consumers must also play their part to upkeep high standards of food, environmental and personal hygiene at all times.
Given the serious consequences, my Ministry and SFA take a serious view on the importance of food safety. Food establishments must continue to exercise diligence in adopting good food safety management and practices, particularly during this COVID-19 period.
While COVID-19 is not transmitted by food, SFA has issued advisories and stepped up engagement during this period with food establishments on safe distancing management and cleanliness of their premises. This will reduce the risk of community transmission of COVID-19 and help ensure that food establishments can continue to operate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Increase Hiring and Training of Healthcare Professionals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"84 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the Ministry's plan to increase hiring of our healthcare professionals, in light of MOM's annual job vacancy report which found that nursing jobs are the hardest PMET positions to fill in 2020; and (b) whether it will be possible to further accelerate the Professional Conversion Programme for Registered Nurses at the diploma and degree levels to one year instead of the current two years.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Nurses form the largest professional group in our healthcare workforce. They have been at the forefront in our battle against the spread of COVID-19, and together with all our healthcare workers, have gone above and beyond their call of duty to keep us safe. MOH is committed to grow and develop our nursing workforce.
We have progressively increased the intakes of diploma and degree-level nursing programmes by about 45% between 2014 and 2020, from around 1,500 to 2,200 per year. We also facilitate mid-career entry into nursing via the Professional Conversion Programmes (PCPs) for Enrolled and Registered Nurses, and complement this with publicity and outreach efforts such as career talks and exhibitions. We have enhanced and expanded the nursing PCPs over the years. In the last three years from 2018 to 2020, enrolment into nursing PCPs was about double the enrolment between 2015 and 2017. Starting 2021, Ngee Ann Polytechnic will also offer the diploma-level nursing PCP, alongside Nanyang Polytechnic.
The PCPs for Registered Nurses are about two years in duration, which is already shorter than the regular three-year diploma programme, and three- to four-year degree programmes. The two-year training runway is necessary for PCP trainees to acquire the necessary competencies and skills to deliver safe and effective care to patients.
Apart from these enhancements to our training pipelines, we regularly review the salaries of healthcare staff, including nurses, to maintain market competitiveness. Starting this year, nurses will see an increase of 5% to 14% in their monthly base salaries, phased over the next two years. To raise the profile of the nursing profession and to ensure lifelong employability, we have also enhanced career progression, training and development opportunities, and recognition for nurses.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"HDB's Matrix for Assessing Condition of Public Rental Flats Before Release to Tenants","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"86 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for National Development what is the matrix used by HDB in assessing the condition of rental flats before they are being rented out to those who need it.
Mr Desmond Lee: After rental flats are returned to HDB, HDB will carry out sprucing works, such as cleaning and painting the flat, installing new locks, and repairing or replacing any defective fittings.
The flats are inspected after the works have been completed, before they are let out again. Officers are equipped with a checklist to check for defects and ensure that the fittings and fixtures in the flat are functional and up to acceptable standards.
For flats which remain vacant for some time after sprucing, HDB checks them every six months to ensure that they remain in a suitable condition for letting out to new tenants.
There was a recent incident where a rental flat tenant posted on social media about the condition of the rental flat allocated to her. The incident was due to an error where a HDB staff mistakenly thought that all the sprucing works had been completed for the affected unit. Upon discovery of the mistake, HDB immediately allocated a replacement rental flat to the affected tenant and assisted her to move the next day. HDB has since tightened our processes to prevent another similar incident from happening.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Accelerating Pace of Response to Requests for Public Rental Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"87 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB can accelerate the pace of response to rental flat requests so as to support Singaporean families facing urgent financial and housing distress.
Mr Desmond Lee: HDB aims to evaluate and respond to requests for a rental flat within three weeks of receiving the required information from applicants. This provides applicants with certainty on whether they are eligible for a rental flat.
For complex cases, HDB may need more time to understand the applicant’s circumstances and housing options, including working with social service agencies to address the underlying causes of the applicant’s housing situation. In some cases, applicants may need some time to submit additional documents to support their requests. Should more time be needed for evaluation, HDB will provide interim updates to assure applicants that their requests are being looked into.
The waiting time for successful applicants to be allocated a rental flat has increased from about two months prior to the COVID-19 pandemic to about five months currently. Due to the severe labour crunch that the construction industry is facing, a longer time is required to spruce up rental flats that have been returned to HDB before they are let out to new tenants. In addition, HDB had activated over 2,000 rental units as emergency housing in support of the fight against COVID-19. While these units have since been returned to the public rental pool, they also require sprucing works before they can be let out. To reduce the waiting time for rental flats, HDB is working on measures to speed up the sprucing works and facilitate key collections as quickly as possible.
For applicants with urgent housing needs such as medical grounds or other extenuating circumstances, HDB will expedite their key collection. In 2020, about a third of our successful rental applicants were granted priority allocation.
Anyone facing sudden housing distress and who is in need of immediate shelter should approach a Social Service Office, a Family Service Centre, or call the ComCare hotline to seek help from a crisis shelter.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Trends for Residents in Public Rental Housing Subsequently Owning Their Own Homes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"88 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for National Development (a) what proportion of residents in public rental housing (excluding those on interim rental housing who are waiting for their BTO flats to be completed) go on to own their own homes within three, five and 10 years; and (b) what proportion of young adults in public rental housing go on to apply for another rental unit when they form their own family nucleus.
Mr Desmond Lee: In the last five years, about 4,600 public rental households moved to home ownership, or about 2% of rental households per year. Among these households, 36% moved to their own homes less than five years after they entered public rental, 32% in five to 10 years, and the remaining 32% after more than 10 years. Less than 10% moved to home ownership within three years as households in public rental would generally need some time to stabilise their social or financial situation before purchasing a home. In addition, more than three quarters of the rental households who achieved home ownership bought subsidised BTO flats, which typically have a waiting time of at least three years.
Over the same time period, about 440 young adults aged 35 or younger who were previously occupiers in a public rental flat went on to rent another flat when they formed their own family nucleus.
We will continue to support public rental tenants to buy their own homes by providing generous grants and one-to-one guidance from HDB’s Home ownership Support Team. We will also continue to work closely with MSF and other partners under the Community Link initiative to provide coordinated support to uplift families with children staying in public rental flats.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of and Reasons for Public Rental Flats Remaining Unoccupied Each Year","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"89 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for National Development (a) in the last five years, what are (i) the average number of unoccupied HDB rental flats and (ii) the top three reasons for the turnaround time for vacated flats; (b) for how long do the rental flats remain unoccupied each year; (c) how often does HDB assist in the clearance of unwanted belongings following the vacation of a rental flat; and (d) whether HDB imposes deductions from tenants’ deposits for doing such work.
Mr Desmond Lee: Over the last five years, the average number of vacant rental flats was about 8,000. Currently, about one third of the vacant rental flats are set aside for purposes such as to rehouse existing tenants who will be affected by redevelopment and for operator-managed residences such as MSF’s shelters. The remaining are meant for new rental tenants. However, more than half of these flats will need to be spruced up before they can be let out to new rental tenants. Given the severe labour crunch in the construction industry, the pace of sprucing works has slowed down. HDB is working on measures to speed up the sprucing works and to facilitate key collections as quickly as possible.
The vacancy period of flats meant for allocation ranges from two months to over a year. The main factors affecting the vacancy period are the time required to spruce up the flat, the level of demand by new tenants for flats at the flat location and the time taken by tenants to move in, especially those affected by redevelopment of existing rental blocks.
Under the Tenancy Agreement, tenants need to return the flat to HDB in a clean and tidy condition. If there are belongings left behind in a vacated flat, HDB will first try to contact the ex-tenants and their next-of-kin. If they cannot be contacted, HDB will leave a notice on the flat door for a few weeks to seek a response from the ex-tenants or their next-of-kin, before helping to remove the belongings.
Over the last five years, HDB has assisted in the removal of unwanted belongings from about 30% of flats following the termination of tenancy. The cost incurred is deducted from the tenants’ deposit, as it goes beyond maintenance, which HDB pays for on a goodwill basis. On a case-by-case basis, HDB may waive the cost incurred, for example, for elderly tenants with medical conditions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of US Proposal for Global Minimum Corporate Tax Rate on Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"90 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance what is the impact of the US proposal for a global minimum corporate tax rate on Singapore's tax regime, status as a hub for regional corporate headquarters and the economy.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: The US administration, as part of its domestic tax reforms, has proposed to subject US multinational enterprises (MNEs) to a minimum effective tax rate of 21%, in each overseas jurisdiction where the US MNE operates. The reform is to be considered by the US legislature. If the US enacts this domestic law change, assuming that the effective tax rate of a group of Singapore-based entities of a US MNE is less than 21% here, the difference in tax will be payable in the US. This would apply to all sectors including regional HQs.
Since 2019, the Inclusive Framework on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS), comprising more than 130 members including the US and Singapore, has been in discussions to revise international corporate tax rules under the BEPS 2.0 Project. One of the proposals under discussion is the introduction of an internationally agreed minimum effective corporate tax rate for large MNEs, wherever they operate.
Although momentum towards an international consensus has accelerated, the negotiations and subsequent design of the new international rules on taxation of MNEs are not yet settled. It is, therefore, not possible to predict with a high degree of confidence what the impact on Singapore will be. For example, the potential net fiscal impact could range from significant downsides to some upside, depending on the final tax rules and how governments and businesses thereafter dynamically respond.
MNEs base their decisions on the overall business proposition of each location, including the availability of skilled manpower, the quality and cost of infrastructure and the attractiveness of the business environment. We will continue to build a supportive environment for businesses. These include supporting companies in building up deep enterprise capabilities including innovation, and in digitalisation. We will also continue to invest significantly in reskilling and upskilling our workers.
The Government has been updating the industry and businesses in Singapore on BEPS 2.0 developments. If and when a global consensus on an internationally agreed minimum effective tax rate is reached, we will make adjustments to our corporate tax system where needed, in consultation with the industry.
Any adjustments to our tax system will be guided by three principles: first, we will abide by internationally agreed standards; second, we will safeguard our taxing rights; third, we will minimise compliance burden for businesses, especially SMEs. Most of the BEPS 2.0 changes only apply to larger MNEs, rather than SMEs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Singaporeans' Desire to Have Babies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"91 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Prime Minister (a) what is the Government's assessment of the impact of the pandemic on Singaporeans' desires to have babies; (b) what has the Government done to understand the aspirations of women when it comes to getting married and having children; and (c) whether any study has been done to understand if women will consider having children as something to be done early on in a marriage or if they are delaying it for various reasons.
Ms Indranee Rajah (for the Prime Minister): The National Population and Talent Division (NPTD) regularly conducts surveys and obtains feedback from Singaporeans to better understand their perspectives and aspirations towards marriage and parenthood. These help to ensure that our policies and initiatives continue to meet the evolving needs of Singaporeans.
A National Marriage and Parenthood survey conducted in 2016 showed that over eight in 10 young Singaporeans intended to marry. However, many tended to adopt a \"sequential mindset\", only seeking to pursue marriage and parenthood after achieving other life goals, such as establishing their careers, achieving financial stability and even travelling. This may have resulted in later marriages and family formation, which could have also resulted in couples having fewer children over time.
Our assessment is that parenthood aspirations remained strong even though some married respondents indicated that they might delay childbirth due to concerns such as financial cost, lack of good care-giving arrangements, and difficulties in managing work and family demands. The fieldwork for the 2021 Marriage and Parenthood survey is currently on-going.
To examine the potential impact of the pandemic on Singaporeans’ parenthood plans, we commissioned a survey in June 2020 on about 2,100 married Singaporeans aged 21 to 45 years. Among those who were planning to have children prior to the pandemic, about three in 10 respondents indicated that they had changed their mind because of the pandemic. Most of them would delay having a child or another one, and quoted the uncertain health and economic situation as top reasons for delaying. Therefore, to provide some reassurance to these couples, we introduced the one-off $3,000 Baby Support Grant in October 2020 for Singaporean couples who have a child in these two years. This is in addition to the existing suite of support under our Marriage and Parenthood Package.
We are also holding a series of conversations from April to September this year on \"Building A Singapore That is Made For Families\". These conversations will allow us to hear from Singaporeans, both men and women, directly and gain a deeper understanding of how they feel about marriage and parenthood and also whether and if so, how, sentiments may have changed following the pandemic.
Marriage and parenthood are very personal decisions. The Government will work hard to listen to the concerns and priorities of young couples, and work with the community to build a Singapore that is Made for Families.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Standardised Treatment for Tenants at State-owned Properties","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"92 Ms Raeesah Khan asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether Statutory Boards accord standardised treatment to state-owned property tenants, especially the National Arts Council and SportSG; (b) how is oversight exercised to ensure greater transparency, sufficient prior participation, and active informed consent by tenants, whenever leases are terminated or conditions change; (c) what are Statutory Boards’ roles in supporting access to space and continuity by groups under their purview; and (d) whether these processes will be reviewed, and if so, when, and how will the public be informed.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: State properties, which are not affected by long term development plans, can either be put out for use by tender or directly allocated by SLA to Statutory Boards which are keen to use these properties to meet their statutory functions. As different Statutory Boards serve different functions, the treatment accorded to their tenants can vary depending on the specific needs and requirements of their operations, the nature of the use and also, the particular needs and circumstances of the specific tenant.
The Government regularly reviews its policies and schemes to ensure that they remain effective and relevant, and makes changes where necessary. Such reviews typically involve engagements with relevant stakeholders.
I will outline briefly how the National Arts Council (NAC) and Sport Singapore (SportSG) treat arts and sports spaces in general.
The provision of arts spaces is one of the key means of support which NAC offers to artists and arts groups, alongside grants and other schemes. Under the Framework for Arts Spaces (FFAS) scheme, NAC seeks to build a pipeline of diversified spaces to allow not only more, but also provide for a varied range of practitioners, to utilise different types of spaces for art making, capability development and audience engagement.
One of the ways in which this is achieved involves NAC working with SLA to identify potential arts spaces and ensure that they remain affordable. For example, NAC is currently working with SLA to explore how to make available currently unused spaces for use by the creative community on short-term leases. NAC also works with SLA so that rental rates for arts spaces take into account how the properties are to be used to support NAC’s arts initiatives. In addition, NAC provides significant rental subvention to arts groups and practitioners leasing arts spaces, of at least 80% of these calibrated rates.
NAC seeks to strike a balance between providing access to arts spaces for new and emerging artists and arts groups and also providing continuity for existing groups who can play an important role in our arts landscape. NAC regularly conducts Open Calls for available arts spaces, where the eligibility and assessment criteria are indicated upfront. All applications for spaces are also put through a formal assessment, as part of the approval process. Each tenant who takes up a space is aware of and knows the terms of tenancy, including when the tenancy would come to an end. In general, NAC directly engages each arts tenant at least 12 months in advance, and often more, when there might be upcoming changes to tenancy terms or where a tenancy is coming to an end. This includes assistance and support to the tenant to identify alternative spaces, if appropriate.
To ensure that its policies keep pace with evolving needs, NAC reviews its schemes from time to time, and engages the arts community as part of the process. This was the case for the FFAS ahead of its 2010 launch. During the consultation sessions for FFAS, there was broad agreement among the arts community that arts housing could be better optimised, with the concept of shared facilities also well-received.
In addition, the arts community requested for a gradual and phased approach in transiting tenants out of the old Arts Housing Scheme (AHS), which NAC has undertaken, and AHS has gradually been replaced by the FFAS, since 2010. Key enhancements to the FFAS include providing targeted schemes with differentiated support to meet the different needs of artists and arts groups at various stages of their development. For instance, higher rental grants and a longer tenure of up to nine years are provided to mature and established arts groups, compared to those who are new and in their developing stages.
FFAS also focuses on creating platforms to bring arts to the surrounding community, such as programming events and activities that introduce arts tenants to the public and co-locating artists and arts groups in community or commercial spaces. NAC publicly shared notes from the 2010 consultations on its website, together with the rationale behind its policy decisions, before it first rolled-out the FFAS at GAC.
NAC will continue to engage the arts community and other stakeholders for the next edition of Our SG Arts Plan, including envisioning how arts spaces can better serve Singapore’s evolving arts landscape.
The Member also asked a broad question on sports. For sports, SportSG encourages and facilitates the use of sports spaces and facilities by National Sports Associations (NSAs) for the promotion and development of sports in Singapore. Such arrangements take guidance from the Multi-Year Sports Plans (MYSPs) that are discussed annually between SportSG and the respective NSAs, which addresses the holistic development of the sport in question, and also takes into account the specific needs and requirements of the sport and NSA in question.
In accordance with existing guidelines, the leasing of such sites may be facilitated by SportSG through direct allocation, to support the NSAs in promoting their sport within the community. SportSG provides a facilities grant as part of its annual funding for NSAs. SportSG will engage the NSA tenants well in advance, in cases where there are changes to such arrangements or upon the expiry of tenure. Such occasions might arise when there is a need to repurpose existing sites for other uses, or to temporarily relocate as facilities are being upgraded. Where possible, SportSG works with the NSAs to identify suitable replacement sites and arrangements ahead of time to facilitate such transitions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Progress of Project Ubin Which Uses Blockchain and Distributed Ledger Technology for Clearing and Settlement of Payments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"93 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Prime Minister (a) what is the implementation progress of Project Ubin; (b) whether Singapore will issue a central bank digital currency; and (c) given the fast pace of development of decentralised finance, whether the Government will accelerate efforts to capture the emerging opportunities.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): Project Ubin is an industry effort led by MAS to explore the use of blockchain technology and a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) issued by MAS to clear and settle payments and securities more efficiently. It demonstrated that multi-currency payment and settlement across borders could be achieved in realtime, and at lower risks and costs.
The industry has moved to build on the success of Project Ubin. One example is Partior, a joint venture by DBS Bank, JP Morgan and Temasek, to create a blockchain-based platform that will enable participants around the world to transact with one another in real time using different currencies. Unlike Project Ubin, Partior will be based on digitised commercial bank money rather than CBDCs.
MAS continues to collaborate with the industry on potential applications of wholesale CBDCs. For example, MAS is partnering the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) Innovation Hub Centre in Singapore on Project Dunbar, which explores how different multi-currency settlement platforms could be designed to link up with one another. This aims to make cross-border payments faster and cheaper, while remaining secure.
A wholesale CBDC, such as the one MAS issued as part of Project Ubin, is used solely for payments within the banking system. It is not available to the general public. A retail CBDC which can be used directly by members of the public is essentially a deposit held directly with the central bank. If a retail CBDC becomes pervasive, it could have significant implications for banks’ deposit base and, more importantly, their lending activities. MAS is carefully studying the costs and benefits of a retail CBDC and has not made a decision on this yet.
Regarding the final part of the Member’s question, decentralised finance, or DeFi, refers to the autonomous execution of financial transactions by smart contracts deployed on decentralised blockchains, without the need for intermediaries. These smart contracts replicate the financial intermediation function normally carried out by a financial institution in providing services such as borrowing, lending or insuring. DeFi is a fast-growing part of the crypto-asset ecosystem. However, most DeFi applications are less than two years old.
The viability of DeFi has not been proven and its risks are not yet fully clear. MAS has been closely studying developments in DeFi to assess its potential for broader use.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Land Lease Duration for State Land Sold Over Last 10 Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"94 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Law in respect of state land sold over the last 10 years (a) what is the average land lease duration awarded; and (b) what is the breakdown in the land lease duration for sites sold within each of the following use groups: (i) residential, (ii) commercial, (iii) industrial, (iv) hospitality, (v) white sites and (vi) others.
Mr K Shanmugam: The tenure of sites sold through the Government Land Sales Programme typically depends on factors such as the type of use and site-specific planning considerations. For example, the tenure for residential, commercial, hospitality and white sites is typically 99 years, while industrial sites are generally sold on tenures between 20 and 30 years.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rationale for Annual Additional Flat Component in Electric Car Road Tax","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"96 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the rationale for the introduction of the Annual Additional Flat Component (AAFC) for road tax payable by electric cars; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider revising the AAFC to promote EV adoption.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Most of our vehicle measures are designed to control congestion, through regulating the ownership and usage of vehicles. Congestion control is a very important aspect of sustainable development.
There are two types of usage charges. The first is for general usage, such as fuel excise duty. The second is for usage of congested roads, which is the purpose of the Electronic Road Pricing.
Electric vehicles (EVs), while much less pollutive, should not be exempted from usage charges. Since EVs are not subject to fuel excise duty, the additional flat component (AFC) is levied as an interim measure. It is not punitive, but a way to approximate equal treatment between EVs and non-EVs. In the meantime, we will study different approaches and options for distance-based charging that is fuel-independent.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Allocation of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations amongst Suppliers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"97 Mr Abdul Samad asked the Minister for Transport (a) how will the allocation of electric vehicle charging stations be spread amongst the suppliers; and (b) whether the local companies will have a bigger share to ensure infrastructure stability and grid reliability.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: To build up the electric vehicle (EV) charging network, the Government will issue tenders for the deployment of charging points in public carparks, which will house the bulk of charging points in Singapore. The tender process will have to be fair and transparent, as in the case of all Government procurement exercises.
To ensure infrastructure stability and grid reliability, we will ensure that the provision of charging points in any tender is well within the power supply capacity of the area, and the necessary electrical upgrades will be undertaken by the successful tenderer. LTA has launched a Request-for-Information (RFI) to incorporate industry’s views on how best to structure private sector participation in this space.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Volunteer Leave as Part of Employee Benefits","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"98 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry will consider volunteer leave as part of employee benefits in future human resource practice; and (b) whether the civil service will consider paving the way for this effort to materialise soon.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Today, progressive employers, including the civil service, offer paid volunteer leave so that employees can take time off to volunteer in their individual capacities. There are also those that organise company or department-wide volunteering activities to foster a culture of service.
More leave mandated in the Employment Act will impact all businesses, regardless of their capacity to accommodate. There have also been calls to mandate additional leave for other needs, such as care-giving of aged parents, bereavement and to seek fertility treatment. Such statutory entitlements have to be carefully considered and prioritised, so as to strike a balance between employees’ needs and increased costs to employers as well as impact on these workers’ employability.
The Government, through several initiatives, has been encouraging employers to engage in volunteerism. With the Business and IPC Partnership Scheme (BIPS), employers enjoy 250% tax deduction on wages and related expenses when they organise or support their employees to volunteer and provide services at Institutions of a Public Character (IPCs), including secondments. Employers can also refer to the National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre’s Company of Good Portal for resources on corporate volunteerism and the Giving.sg platform for volunteering opportunities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Help for First-time Buyers who have Failed Twice at Securing a BTO Flat","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"99 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development (a) what can HDB do to help Singaporeans especially first-timer flat applicants to get their BTO flats especially for those who have applied for BTO and Balance of Sale flats and have failed more than twice; (b) how many appeals has HDB received from applicants who have failed more than twice in their applications; and (c) whether HDB can increase the supply of BTOs flats to further reduce the application rate for first-timers to less than 1.3 for non-mature estates.
Mr Desmond Lee: Helping families to secure their first home is a key priority for MND and HDB. As such, we have put in place various measures to improve the chances of first-timer families in their flat applications. Besides allocating more flats to first-timer families, HDB also gives them two ballot chances instead of one. First-timer families who have been unsuccessful in two attempts for BTO flats in the non-mature estates are given an additional ballot chance at their subsequent application for a BTO flat in the non-mature estates. As a result, virtually all first-timer families would be successful within their first three tries for a BTO flat in the non-mature estates.
In 2020, HDB received about 230 appeals from first-timer families with more than two unsuccessful attempts in BTO or Sale of Balance Flats (SBF) exercises. Many had applied for a flat in the mature estates, where flats are more limited in supply. Some had also not proceeded to book a flat, despite having the chance to do so. We encourage flat applicants to consider flats in the non-mature estates where application rates are generally lower and to book a flat when they are invited to do so.
First-timer families who have more specific preferences for location or flat attributes can also consider buying a resale flat on the open market and can receive up to $160,000 in housing grants.
In planning the BTO flat supply, HDB adopts a comprehensive approach, taking into consideration factors such as the prevailing economic and housing market situations, as well as long-term demographic and population trends. HDB will continue to monitor the housing market closely and calibrate the supply of public housing to ensure that the supply remains responsive to the housing needs of the population.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mosques Facing Financial Difficulties Due to COVID-19 Pandemic","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"100 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) how many mosques currently face financial difficulties; (b) as at 31 December 2020, how many mosques are in the red due to the COVID-19 situation; and (c) how does MUIS help mosques to remain afloat and financially viable in this tough economic environment.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: I provided a response to a similar question raised on 5 April 2021.
Currently, the financial situation of our mosques is stable. While there has been a drop in physical donations last year due to the temporary closure of mosques during the circuit breaker, MUIS and our mosques turned to digital means to facilitate donations online. MUIS and the Muslim.SG platform also launched OurMasjid.SG portal in April 2020, which raised about $5.2 million for our mosques as at March this year.
The gradual resumption of congregational prayers and other religious activities at our mosques in the last few months have led to an increase in physical donations, though not to pre-COVID-19 levels. MUIS will work with our mosques to ensure that they continue to be adequately resourced during these challenging times.
MUIS has provided additional funding to support mosques’ operations. This includes grants to offset the necessary expenses to ensure the safe resumption of religious activities. These include the purchase of equipment for temperature screening, SafeEntry check-ins, as well as masks and other personal protective gear.
Like other employers, mosques also receive wage support through the Jobs Support Scheme (JSS), which totalled about $9.9 million in 2020. Our mosques received the final JSS disbursement of $1.1 million in March 2021.
The support from MUIS and the Government, together with the increase in online donations, have offset the reduction in income and donations for mosques during the pandemic. The mosque cluster system has also helped to facilitate the collective efforts of mutual support amongst the mosques.
MUIS will continue to work closely with our mosques to ensure they remain financially stable and receive the necessary assistance during these challenging times.
I thank the community for their support and encourage them to continue donating through the various online platforms. Their support and generosity will enable our mosques to continue serving our community in a safe and sustainable manner.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on COVID-19 Vaccination Programme for Foreign Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"101 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether she can provide an update on the COVID-19 vaccination programme for foreign workers in Singapore and in the construction industry; and (b) whether workers in the construction industry are still required to undergo fortnightly swab tests after full vaccination is achieved; and (c) whether work permit applicants who are fully vaccinated in their home country have reduced days of Stay-Home Notice upon arrival into Singapore.
Mrs Josephine Teo: We have started the COVID-19 vaccination programme for workers staying in large dormitories who are more susceptible to the risk of infection and thus prioritised for vaccination. This included migrant workers from the Construction sector.
By end April, 42,000 migrant workers had been fully vaccinated of which about 70% were from the construction sector. Depending on availability of vaccine supply, MOM and MOH will continue to progressively vaccinate migrant workers in the coming months.
Vaccinated migrant workers will have better protection against becoming seriously ill, but the risk of infection is not zero. In addition, the risk of onward transmission by vaccinated persons is being studied. At present, migrant workers who have received the full course of two doses of the COVID-19 vaccines will be tested every 28 days instead of the current 14-day testing cycle. This frequency will be subject to monitoring and review.
For newly arrived migrant workers, the requirements for Stay-Home Notice who are vaccinated in their home countries remain the same as unvaccinated persons for now. The Government is monitoring the vaccine situation, including studies on reduction of transmission risk due to vaccination, and will review these requirements as more information become available.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enterprise Singapore's Power to Recall Products with Safety Risks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"103 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether Enterprise Singapore (ESG) has the power to recall products which present a safety risk to consumers including electrical appliances and refrigerators that are found or suspected to be the cause of fires and other serious safety issues; (b) if not, what are the available measures to address safety concerns over potentially defective or dangerous products; and (c) what are the factors that ESG takes into account before triggering such measures.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Under the Consumer Protection (Trade Descriptions and Safety Requirements) Act, Enterprise Singapore (ESG) can require a supplier of Registered Controlled Goods to effect a recall and inform users of the potential dangers of goods that pose safety hazards. Certain categories of household electrical, electronic and gas products, including refrigerators and some electrical appliances are considered Registered Controlled Goods. ESG will disallow the supply of such goods when investigations indicate that the product is unsafe. A recall could be ordered if there are found to be uncertified modifications, incorrect testing, or incorrect certification, as well as other reasons that could lead to a significant public safety risk.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Factors to Determine Basic Rail Reliability and Financial Penalties for MRT Operators","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"104 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Transport (a) what has been the impact from the introduction of the Rail Reliability Incentive (RRI) to enhance rail reliability; (b) how long will this performance incentive in the form of an enhanced maintenance grant for rail operators be provided; (c) to date, how much of the RRI has been disbursed; (d) which of the rail operators have received these incentives; and (e) what are the reliability targets and qualifying conditions set.
105 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Transport (a) what factors are considered to determine basic rail reliability for MRT operators; (b) what financial penalties have been imposed on the operators in the past eight years for failure to comply with reliability standards; and (c) whether LTA will consider changing the financial incentive scheme for rail reliability to investing in core technical capability within the operators.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Since 2011, LTA has been working with rail operators to enhance their maintenance regime. Everyone played their part. LTA upgraded rail operating assets such as signalling and power systems and invested in infrastructure, such as the simulation centres to test signalling systems, back up operation control centres and now the Integrated Train Testing Centre.
The operators have put in place a higher maintenance tempo and over time, made a significant shift to more preventive instead of corrective maintenance. They increased the frequency of inspections, used sensors to troubleshoot, invested in digitalisation, and are replacing components more frequently.
As a result, reliability of train services improved over the years. But so did maintenance cost. In train-kilometre terms, reliability increased by 10 times over the past six years. While overall this is a good development, especially from the point of view of the commuter, it raises issues concerning the financial sustainability of the rail network as the operators will make huge losses.
The Government therefore decided to enhance our subsidy for rail operations. But instead of an outright subsidy, we devised an incentive system called the Rail Reliability Incentive (RRI), a temporary grant from 2020-2023.
Rail operators are held to a set of performance standards on both the operation and the maintenance of the rail system. LTA may impose financial penalties if there is a breach of these requirements.
Conversely, if operators can meet the performance targets, they will be eligible for the incentive. To qualify for the grant, rail operators must achieve at least 500,000 train-kilometre in Mean Kilometres Between Failure (MKBF), and fulfil other requirements relating to operational performance and safety. Operators obtain the full grant quantum if they achieve 1 million MKBF or better.
I had earlier reported to the House that every year, the Government spends about $1 billion on annual operating subsidy for rail. The RRI is part of this $1 billion. Last year, SMRT and SBST both received the full RRI as they achieved MKBF of more than 1 million train-kilometre for the lines they operate. The incentive is based on a rate of 0.3 cents per place-kilometre. The total amount worked out to $173 million, and the amount that each operator received is proportionate to the operating capacity that they provide.
We must also invest in building up the capabilities of our operators. To this end, the Government developed the Rail Manpower Development Incentive (RMDI) to encourage rail operators to accelerate workforce upskilling and reskilling in core and emerging technical capability areas, such as automation application, data and statistical analysis, and asset management. More than 1,300 workers have completed their training under RMDI to date.
We have also established the Singapore Rail Academy to professionalise the rail workforce and deepen workforce capabilities in rail engineering, operations and maintenance. The Academy has also partnered Institutes of Higher Learning and the industry to develop innovative technical solutions for rail reliability.
We will continue to work with operators and other stakeholders to provide reliable rail services in a sustainable manner.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Distribution of Masks and Hand Sanitisers at Vaccination Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"106 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the conditions for the distribution of masks and hand sanitisers at the vaccination centres; and (b) whether there will be standardisation of what is to be given to persons who go for vaccinations at the centres.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Masks and hand sanitisers were distributed at vaccination centres as a gesture of goodwill to encourage people to observe safe management measures and practise good personal hygiene. This was an initiative undertaken by MTI and supported by People’s Association in partnership with the medical service providers at the vaccination centres.
The medical service providers at the vaccination centres are given the discretion to provide additional complimentary items to members of public who receive their vaccination, if they are assessed to be appropriate and safe.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Checks on Masks Sold in Singapore for Effectiveness against COVID-19","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"107 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry conducts checks on face masks being sold in Singapore to assess their effectiveness in protecting against the COVID-19 virus.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: As one of the measures to reduce the risk of spread of COVID-19, everyone is required to wear a mask when outside of their homes. There are two main types of masks: (a) medical masks (also known as surgical masks), and (b) non-medical masks made of cloth or other fabric.
Surgical masks are used in the healthcare settings and for medical procedures, where there is risk of splash or contact with potentially infectious persons or materials. Surgical masks are regulated as medical devices by the Health Sciences Authority (HSA). All importers of surgical masks are required to provide HSA with the details of the masks they are importing. HSA also monitors global safety reports on such masks and will take necessary actions to recall affected masks from the market if there are any safety concerns. Local surgical mask manufacturing facilities are also required to comply with internationally recognised standards.
For the general population in a low transmission setting, in line with recommendations by the World Health Organization and other authorities, non-medical masks are sufficient to provide a barrier against droplets. Non-medical masks are not regulated by HSA. For greater effectiveness, the public is advised to look out for masks with appropriate fit and specifications, such as having at least two layers of fabric and better filtration capabilities. These are often indicated on the packaging or product description of the masks being sold.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number and Waiting Time for Appeals to HDB for Interim Rental Housing by Persons Going Through Divorce","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"108 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the current number of appeals made to HDB by persons going through a divorce for interim rental housing for themselves and their children; (b) what is the average waiting time for rental housing to be allotted; and (c) whether there are plans to review the financing support available to persons who plan to purchase HDB housing after their divorce.
Mr Desmond Lee: Interim Rental Housing (IRH) is offered on a case-by-case basis to those who can buy a flat or have already bought one, but have no family support and other housing options in the interim. On average, it takes about two to three months for HDB to assess the appeal and allocate the flat, once all the required documents are submitted.
All appeals for IRH are assessed based on the appellant’s specific circumstances. While HDB does not specifically track if the appellants are undergoing divorce, based on our records, as at end March 2021, there were eight households staying in IRH who were going through divorce, including four whose children were staying with them.
Divorcees with care and control of their children have the same access to public housing as other families. They may buy a flat from HDB or a resale flat on the open market and qualify for housing grants and priority schemes if they meet the prevailing eligibility conditions.
For those who are second-timers, we help to improve their chances of getting a subsidised flat through the Assistance Scheme for Second-Timers who are divorced or widowed parents, or ASSIST. In HDB’s BTO sales exercises, we set aside a 5% quota for the 2-room and 3-room flats in non-mature estates under ASSIST, for second-timer divorced or widowed persons with a child aged 18 and below.
Divorcees without care and control of their children or who do not have a child from their marriage are eligible for the same flat types and housing grants as singles.
The Member asked if there are plans to provide additional financing support specifically for divorcees. We continually review our policies and assistance schemes to keep public housing inclusive for all. Those who need help with housing can approach HDB, and we will do our best to assist them based on their individual circumstances.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Skyrise Greenery as Part of Green Plan 2030","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"110 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for National Development with regard to the Singapore Green Plan target of 1,000 hectares for green spaces (a) what proportion of the 1,000 hectares will comprise skyrise greenery, including rooftop and vertical gardens; (b) what is the current take-up rate of NParks’ Skyrise Greenery Incentive Scheme 2.0; and (c) what more can be done to encourage building owners to make use of the scheme.
Mr Desmond Lee: As part of our efforts to transform Singapore into a City in Nature, we are adding 1,000 hectares of green spaces over the next 10 to 15 years that will include new parks, gardens and park connectors. This target does not include skyrise greenery. In addition to these green spaces, we are aiming to increase our skyrise greenery footprint from 133 hectares today to 200 hectares by 2030.
Under NParks’ Skyrise Greenery Incentive Scheme, building owners and developers can apply for financial incentives to retrofit their existing buildings with rooftop and vertical greenery. To date, 268 building projects have benefited from this Scheme, with close to $9 million disbursed.
NParks continues to encourage building owners to apply for the Scheme through various engagement channels. For example, NParks organises regular sharing sessions and publishes newsletters to update industry stakeholders and building owners on the Scheme, including latest innovations in skyrise greenery design. Building owners can also find out more about skyrise greenery through a dedicated online portal and tap on training courses and technical guides provided by NParks. NParks also works with professional and industry associations, such as the Landscape Industry Association of Singapore and the Singapore Institute of Landscape Architects, to promote the Scheme and encourage their members to incorporate skyrise greenery into their building designs and developments.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Publishing Summaries of NAC's Consultations on Arts Management Issues","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"112 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether the National Arts Council (NAC) publishes summaries of its consultations on arts management issues for the public to scrutinise; and (b) whether NAC uses the REACH platform when conducting public consultation.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: NAC conducts regular engagements with the arts community through various platforms. It has made public the key issues and outcomes from such consultations on its website. However, not all consultations or discussions on art management issues are handled in the same way. The outcome of such consultations, and the extent to which they are published in public fora are addressed in a number of ways, depending on the specific issue at hand.
Let me cite some recent examples. NAC hosted two Emerging Stronger Conversations in December 2020 to hear the arts community’s feedback arising from COVID-19, with reports and summaries published on NAC’s website and social media channels. Prior to this, NAC engaged self-employed workers and freelancers in the arts for over a year, with reports also published on its website. These engagements helped inform the establishment of the Arts Resource Hub in 2019. Similarly, NAC consulted over 700 members of the arts community on Our SG Arts Plan and published the draft report on its website for public comments and feedback, before the Plan was launched in 2018.
In the coming months, NAC will engage the arts community on the new SEP Grant and Business Transformation Grant under the enhanced Arts and Culture Resilience Package to incorporate their suggestions and design these grants in a way that will best meet their needs. NAC will also begin consultations with the arts community and other stakeholders on the next edition of the SG Arts Plan.
NAC also uses a variety of platforms for its engagements, including small group dialogues and one-to-one consultation with NAC’s dedicated account managers for major arts companies, and has also received feedback from the arts community via the REACH platform. NAC will continue to use the most appropriate modality for its future engagements, including REACH, where suitable.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Space Utilisation Rates at Goodman Arts Centre, Stamford Arts Centre and Aliwal Arts Centre","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"113 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what has been the space utilisation rate at the publicly-managed Goodman Arts Centre, Stamford Arts Centre and Aliwal Arts Centre in terms of hours of use of available space; (b) whether there is significant under-utilisation of the space; and (c) if so, whether the Government will investigate the reasons for this.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Infrastructure and spaces are key enablers for MCCY and NAC to grow a sustainable arts ecosystem, alongside grants, rental subvention, and other schemes such as capability development initiatives. These spaces are managed in a number of different ways, of which the publicly-managed facilities, which the Member has asked about, is one. The aim is to ensure that these spaces are used optimally; that we provide fair access and inclusive opportunities for as many as possible in the community – especially new groups and younger practitioners for a variety of purposes; and that our schemes, grants and spaces are regularly updated to remain relevant to prevailing needs.
In this way, our arts spaces have grown over the years. In the last 10 years between 2010 and 2020, arts gross floor area (GFA) increased by about 35%, from around 66,000 square metres to just over 88,000 square metres.
NAC makes available different types of spaces under its Framework for Art Spaces (FFAS) initiative. The FFAS recognises the differing needs of our diverse arts community, which requires spaces for art making, incubation, experimentation and presentation. Goodman Arts Centre (GAC), Stamford Arts Centre (SAC) and Aliwal Arts Centre (AAC) are spaces under the FFAS and provide tenanted spaces and shared facilities.
The utilisation rate of spaces at the three arts centres ranged from 65 to 85% in 2019, pre-COVID-19, although some of the shared facilities had a lower utilisation. For such shared facilities, the average utilisation has been rising in the past six months as we have gradually resumed and expanded arts and culture activities and stood at 66% in Q1 2021. NAC will continue to monitor this to ensure that arts spaces are well utilised by the community.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Yearly Number of Reconstituted Families Applying for HDB Loans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"114 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the number of reconstituted families applying for a HDB loan every year; (b) what percentage of HDB loan applications by reconstituted families are rejected because one spouse has taken prior HDB loans even though the other spouse has not and so would have been eligible for a HDB loan; and (c) whether HDB can consider making it easier for reconstituted families to buy and get HDB loans if one of the spouses has not benefited from HDB loans or subsidies.
Mr Desmond Lee: HDB provides up to two concessionary housing loans to eligible Singapore citizen households, subject to credit assessment. Households who require another loan, including reconstituted families where one party has previously taken two HDB housing loans, have the option of taking up a housing loan from the financial institutions regulated by MAS.
HDB does not keep track of the number of HDB Loan Eligibility (HLE) applications made by reconstituted families as applicants are only required to provide their current marital status when they apply for an HLE letter. Nevertheless, HDB does exercise flexibility to offer a third or subsequent housing loan to flat buyers, including reconstituted families, who have urgent housing needs and have no alternative financing options.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Conversion of Huge Utility Stations in City Areas to Underground Stations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"117 Mr Abdul Samad asked the Minister for National Development whether there are plans to convert huge utility stations in the city areas like power sub-stations and telecommunications stations to underground stations.
Mr Desmond Lee: URA’s long-term plan is to locate more utility facilities underground. This can be done for new utility facilities, or when existing facilities are upgraded, taking into account the feasibility and cost of the specific sites.
We have started piloting the development of large utility facilities underground. For instance, the construction of Keppel Marina East Desalination Plant underground freed up about two hectares of open green space for community activity and recreation. A 230-kilovolt underground substation is also currently being built at Labrador. It will be ready around 2025 and will free up about three hectares of surface land for commercial uses.
We will continue to explore opportunities to locate more utility facilities underground to free up surface land for other essential uses, including housing and greenery.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans for Keppel Club Site","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"118 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for National Development what are the plans for the Keppel Club site and whether the plans will ensure that the site will be a shared area that is inclusive for all Singaporeans.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Keppel Club site will be redeveloped for public and private housing. HDB and URA will plan for a diversity of land uses, including spaces that are open to the public. For example, the redeveloped site will be connected to green and recreational spaces such as Labrador Nature Reserve, Berlayer Creek and Keppel Bay, and enjoy connectivity to the nearby Telok Blangah and Labrador Park MRT stations.
Agencies will continue to involve Singaporeans and key stakeholders, to plan for the Keppel Club site and the Greater Southern Waterfront together. We will share more details when ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mental Health Support for New and Expectant Mothers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"119 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Health whether there are plans to include mental health support for new and expectant mothers as part of their periodic pregnancy health check-ups.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: A mother’s mental well-being during and after pregnancy has an impact on her pregnancy health and her child’s development. Most new and expectant mothers are managed by the obstetricians during their pregnancy, who play a major role in identifying mental health concerns such as antenatal and postnatal depression symptoms, both in the private and public sectors.
In this regard, our public healthcare institutions run mental health support services for pregnant mothers as part of routine obstetrics care. Since 2007, the KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital (KKH) and National University Hospital (NUH) have been providing screening and early intervention for perinatal mental health conditions. Under the NUH Women’s Emotional Health Service (WEHS), women are screened for depression and severe anxiety during pregnancy. The NUH WEHS and KKH’s Postnatal Depression Intervention Programme (PNDIP) also provide depression and/or severe anxiety screening at two to eight weeks postpartum, during outpatient postnatal reviews at the specialist clinics. As at December 2020, more than 165,000 women have benefited from the WEHS and PNDIP programmes. In addition, the Singapore General Hospital (SGH) has a psychiatry clinic located within the obstetric-gynaecology specialist outpatient clinic and obstetricians who pick up women with antenatal and postnatal depression symptoms can refer them to the psychiatry clinic.
Women who are screened positive for depression will be managed by a multi-disciplinary team comprising a psychiatrist, case manager, occupational therapist and psychologist. The women and their family members will also be given useful contacts and information on managing their emotional health. In addition, mothers who face challenges with finances, family support and caretaking will be referred to the Medical Social Workers, occupational therapists and/or nurses for the relevant assistance. The outcomes in this support system have been positive.
We had earlier announced this year, the plan to develop a Child and Maternal Health and Well-being Strategy. Under this effort, MOH will review how we could better support the mental well-being of new and expectant mothers arising from the latest research and pilots aimed at improving the health outcomes for both the mother and child.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"More Frequent Inspections of Trees in Public Areas Given Recent Spate of Thundery Downpours","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"120 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for National Development in light of heavy winds and rains occurring more frequently causing many trees to uproot and fall onto cars, roads and public amenities, whether NParks can consider (i) inspecting all trees more regularly than the current practice and (ii) providing a guide for the public to help spot signs of a tree that is rotting, diseased or in need of inspection so that they can contact the authorities to conduct further checks.
Mr Desmond Lee: NParks has a rigorous tree inspection and maintenance regime that is aligned with the Best Management Practices of the International Society of Arboriculture. Regular tree inspections are carried out by trained inspectors every six to 24 months, depending on the location and size of the tree. Trees that are close to areas with high pedestrian or traffic activity are inspected more frequently.
Over the years, NParks has strengthened its tree inspection regime in response to changing weather patterns. For instance, when tree inspections were first introduced, trees along expressways and major roads were inspected once every 12 to 18 months. Since 2012, the frequency of these checks has increased to once every six to 12 months. As a precautionary measure in response to changing weather conditions, NParks also introduced an annual in-depth inspection for trees of more than four metres in girth since 2016, which is over and above the Best Management Practices of the International Society of Arboriculture.
Besides tree inspections, NParks has other measures to mitigate the risks of tree failure due to strong winds and heavy rains. First, NParks prunes trees regularly to remove weak, dry or overgrown branches, to improve their structure and balance, and ability to withstand severe weather conditions. It also undertakes targeted crown reduction and pruning of trees prior to seasons of wet weather. Second, NParks is progressively replacing storm-vulnerable tree species with hardier species. Third, NParks uses technology to analyse risks and improve inspection processes. For instance, it is piloting modelling techniques to understand the impact of adverse environmental conditions, such as strong winds, on the structural integrity of trees. This will help NParks to better determine the pruning required to improve tree stability.
With this comprehensive tree management programme, NParks has reduced the number of tree failure incidents by almost nine-fold, from 3,100 in 2000 to 339 in 2020. However, even with these efforts, it is not possible to completely prevent tree-related incidents. Even healthy and structurally-sound trees can still be affected by exceptionally strong winds or heavy rainfall. Nonetheless, NParks will continue to review its tree management programme to ensure that it remains robust and comprehensive, and that our trees do not pose a safety hazard to the public.
Lastly, I thank the Member for her suggestion to rope in the public to help NParks in these efforts. Recognising potential tree hazards requires assessing the health and structural integrity of trees. This is best carried out by trained personnel with the requisite experience and expertise, as this requires a good understanding of tree anatomy and physiology, including the various ways that disease and decay can manifest in trees. Nevertheless, members of the public who spot some obvious hazards, such as a snapped branch hanging from a tree after a storm, or a dead tree following a period of severe drought, or who have feedback on public trees, can contact NParks via its hotline, 1800-471-7300, or through the OneService mobile application. NParks will follow up on the feedback to inspect the trees.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Selection of Tree Types in HDB Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"121 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry has consistently reviewed guidelines on the selection of tree types and their locations within HDB estates in light of lessons from tree falls and tree inspections.
Mr Desmond Lee: NParks has guidelines on the selection of tree types and their planting locations. These are aligned with the Best Management Practices of the International Society of Arboriculture. NParks reviews these guidelines regularly, taking into account its experience in tree management, including lessons learnt from tree falls and tree inspections. For instance, NParks selects trees for their hardiness and suitability to be planted in an urban landscape, including in public housing estates. NParks also identifies storm-vulnerable tree species that are prone to failure and removes these trees periodically.
Trees in new public housing estates are planted by HDB, while trees in existing public housing estates are planted and maintained by Town Councils (TCs). NParks shares its best practices on tree risk management, selection of tree species and suitable planting locations with HDB and TCs. On plant health and maintenance, NParks provides a range of training courses and seminars, and certifies the TCs’ arborists using the International Society of Arboriculture framework. This helps TCs to ensure that the trees in public housing estates are well maintained and do not pose a public safety risk.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Educating Youths in Schools about Hate-based Violence to Avoid Pitfalls of Radicalisation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"122 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Education what is presently being done in schools to educate youths about hate-based violence and how to avoid the pitfalls of radicalisation.
Mr Lawrence Wong: In schools, the importance of social cohesion and racial harmony are taught in the curriculum. In Social Studies and Secondary History, students learn about the negative impact of extreme ideas, prejudice and stereotypes, and how these can be countered. In Character and Citizenship Education, students learn to develop empathy and respect for each other.
Through teacher-facilitated inquiry and discussions, students examine the roles played by individuals and groups in strengthening understanding and interactions between different racial and religious groups; and consider how they can play their part in promoting harmony. They also learn to recognise harmful content and discern information from different sources, including online media.
By 2022, all schools will establish a peer support structure, where students will support each other and be taught to speak up for their peers where necessary, when their peers experience racism and hate speech. These social bonds are one of the strongest counters against any exclusivist or extremist ideologies.
Through Co-Curricular Activities and other school experiences, students bond and interact with one another, regardless of background. Learning journeys to places of worship and heritage sites, and celebration of cultural festivals also help students to develop a stronger sensitivity on racial and religious issues.
Building on the foundation established in our schools, the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) have programmes and activities that promote cross-cultural and inter-religious understanding, and modules that foster critical thinking and equip students to be more discerning in what they read online. The IHLs work closely with students and staff to build a safe and positive campus environment, with a culture of mutual care and support.
Apart from efforts by schools and IHLs, parents and community groups also play a crucial role in guiding students to adopt socially desirable values and attitudes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Suppliers' Safety Record and Compliance with Manpower Policies amongst Factors Taken into Account in Award of Government Contracts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"123 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether a supplier’s track record in terms of safety standards and compliance with manpower policies are taken into consideration in awarding Government contracts and whether suppliers with serious lapses will be banned.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Companies doing business in Singapore are required to comply with prevailing employment and safety regulations. Any company with poor safety standards, or who has infringed manpower policies will be taken to task in accordance with the law, regardless whether their offences are related to public or private sector contracts.
Where it is relevant to the tender and likely to impact the supplier’s or the industry’s ability to safely deliver the goods or services, agencies will consider the supplier’s track record, including his safety or employment practices.
For instance, in public sector construction projects, safety-related criteria such as MOM’s demerit points accrued by contractors for safety lapses, amongst other safety considerations, account for 15% to 20% weightage in the Quality evaluation. For cleaning, landscape and security services, the Government has committed to buying only from providers that have consistent track records in their employment and professional standards and pay their workers according to the Progressive Wage Model.
In addition to the above, a supplier that has committed serious safety lapses may also be excluded from being awarded government contracts for a period of time. As mentioned in MOM’s COS earlier this year, MOM is reviewing the workplace safety requirements expected of tenderers participating in public sector construction contracts and will be releasing further details later this year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Audits to Ensure Jobs Support Scheme Payouts Have Not Been Made to “Phantom” Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"125 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Ministry intends to conduct audits to ensure that Jobs Support Scheme payouts have not been made to “phantom” workers.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: The Government takes a serious view of any attempt to defraud or abuse our schemes, including the Jobs Support Scheme (JSS). This includes the payment of purported mandatory CPF contributions for non-genuine, or “phantom” employees, with the intent of attracting JSS payouts for such phantom employees.
IRAS, as the administrator of JSS, has instituted a robust anti-gaming framework leveraging data from multiple sources to identify and detect abuse such as “phantom” employment. While we are unable to share the specifics of IRAS’ anti-gaming operations, this framework has been in place since the first JSS payout in April 2020. For cases suspected of higher fraud risks, IRAS requires the firms to authenticate their CPF contributions before the payouts are released. Cases with strong corroborative evidence to support JSS abuse are reported to the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) for further investigation and prosecution.
Thus far, more than 5,000 employers have been selected for review by the anti-gaming framework. After further reviews, about $28 million of payouts have been denied to over 1,000 employers due to suspected abuse, and 10 employers have been referred to CAD.
The penalties for any attempt to abuse the JSS are severe. Offenders can be charged under section 420 of the Penal Code, and may face up to 10 years of imprisonment and a fine.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Social Safeguards for Problem Gambling to Protect Vulnerable Groups","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"126 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what are the current social safeguards for gambling; (b) what are the measures to protect vulnerable groups from gambling; and (c) what is the current campaign to improve the situation of responsible gambling.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Singapore has stringent social safeguards for gambling. At the broad level, gambling operators are prohibited from extending credit to locals, with the exception of premium players in the casinos, all advertising and promotions are restricted and require approvals from the Casino Regulatory Authority. There are also minimum ages for all legal gambling products, in order to protect minors. You have to be 18 years old and above to place bets at Singapore Pools’ outlets and 21 years old and above to enter the casino, to enter the fruit machine rooms in private clubs and to bet remotely with Singapore Pools.
To enter the casinos, Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents are required to purchase an entry levy. It is $150 for a daily levy and $3,000 for the annual levy. This is to deter casual gambling and signal that casino gambling is only for those who can afford to do so.
To bet remotely with the Singapore Pools, an account holder has to set monthly deposit and betting limits. The individual will be notified when the bet amount exceeds 50%, 75% or reaches 100%, and he is unable to deposit or place bets for the rest of the month. If he wishes to increase the bet limit, it will only take effect after 24 hours. This is to deter impulse betting.
To protect vulnerable groups, we take a preventive approach for the most financially vulnerable. For example, undischarged bankrupts and those who are receiving financial aid or subsidies from the Government such as ComCare Short-to-Medium Term assistance or legal aid are automatically barred from entering the casinos, fruit machine rooms in private clubs and from betting online with Singapore Pools.
The National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG) also has powers under the Casino Control Act to limit the number of visits an individual can make to the casino each month, under the Third Party Visit Limit regime. If the individual has incurred debt due to gambling, NCPG may even bar the person from entering the casino by issuing a Third Party Exclusion Order.
Many have also chosen the Self-Exclusion Scheme to voluntarily exclude themselves from the casinos or fruit machine rooms in private clubs, or from opening an online account with Singapore Pools.
For individuals impacted by gambling directly or indirectly, they can contact the National Problem Gambling Helpline at 1800-6-668-668 or webchat service to seek advice and e-Counselling anonymously, or request for face-to-face counselling with NCPG’s appointed agency. Within the community, there are also various Social Service Agencies running support groups for those with gambling problems.
Responsible gambling measures are preventive efforts required of gambling operators. In 2019, we asked the casinos to move further upstream to encourage responsible gambling at the individual level by using technology to provide real time information on the amount of time and money spent directly to the patrons. Similar to the real time notifications available on Singapore Pools’ online betting service, this tool helps individuals make informed decisions on whether they should continue or stop gambling when their spending has reached certain pre-set levels. Both casinos are studying how best to implement this and their respective systems are at the trial implementation stage.
MSF has also worked with the casinos to enhance training for the Responsible Gambling Ambassadors, to guide them on educating patrons on the myths of gambling, to give them the necessary language and confidence to offer help to patrons at risk of gambling problems.
Singapore Pools has also strengthened responsible gambling for remote gambling, which now include a self-assessment tool and an option to increase the betting limits temporarily for a specified period of time, for example, for the World Cup season, instead of permanently.
We are also working with Fruit Machine Room operators to adopt Responsible Gambling Standards, including basic requirements such as providing information and assistance to patrons. MSF will continue to work with the various operators to strengthen their responsible gambling measures.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Stepping Up Punishment for E-commerce and Online Scams","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"129 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Ministry will enhance the punishment for e-commerce and online scams considering the large number of cases and amount of money lost to such scammers.
Mr K Shanmugam: Depending on the facts of the case, scammers can be charged with one of the cheating-related offences under sections 417 to 420A of the Penal Code, which carry imprisonment terms of up to between three and 10 years. MHA’s assessment is that the penalties are adequate.
The main challenge in combating online scams is that most of the scammers are based overseas. We have been actively collaborating with foreign law enforcement agencies. We have also enhanced collaboration with industry partners such as telcos, online marketplaces, banks and remittance companies, to detect and stop scams before they happen, or at least before the monies have been transferred to the scammer. MHA has also stepped up efforts on scam prevention through public education and awareness, as the most effective protection against scams is a discerning and vigilant public.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of Fumigation of Rubbish Chutes at HDB Blocks and Other Buildings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"130 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry keeps track of the effectiveness of the fumigation of rubbish chutes in buildings, especially HDB blocks, in controlling pests; and (b) whether technical support can be provided to Town Councils on the rubbish chute flushing system to automate sterilisation of these chutes to reduce the population of cockroaches and other pests.
Mr Desmond Lee: Town Councils are responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of common property, including refuse chutes. Town Councils engage their own Pest Control Operators to ensure that HDB common areas, including the refuse chutes, remain free of vectors and pests. The effectiveness of the fumigation of refuse chutes depends on how it is carried out by the Town Councils’ Pest Control Operators.
The refuse chute flushing system is installed in HDB blocks to clean the interior of the chutes. The flushing system is designed based on NEA’s Code of Practice on Environment Health (COPEH), which requires the system to wash the refuse chute to be activated manually.
Manual flushing allows cleaners to activate the flushing system only after ensuring that the chute is clear of refuse. This prevents water from mixing with remnant refuse in the chute, which may result in heavier refuse which is harder to clear, and cause odour and hygiene issues.
The sterilisation of refuse chutes is done separately from the flushing. If Town Councils wish to modify the refuse chute flushing system for existing refuse chutes, including through adding an automated sterilisation system, they can engage specialist contractors to propose appropriate technical designs. The relevant Government agencies such as HDB, NEA and PUB will then review the proposed designs to ensure that the automated system can function alongside the original flushing system and that it complies with the relevant regulatory provisions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of Code of Conduct for Leasing of Retail Premises to Other Commercial Leases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"131 Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Code of Conduct for Leasing of Retail Premises in Singapore will be extended to other commercial leases such as those for offices and industrial-use premises; (b) whether there is a timeline for the Code of Conduct to be extended to these other types of leases; and (c) whether legislation will be introduced to enforce the Code of Conduct.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Code of Conduct for the Leasing of Retail Premises in Singapore is an industry-led effort, developed jointly by landlords and retail tenants to increase the vibrancy, resilience and competitiveness of Singapore’s retail, food and beverage, and lifestyle sector. The Code addresses the severe challenges that this sector has faced from multiple disruptions and intense competition, especially from e-commerce. Other industries have their own unique circumstances, which may make the Code of Conduct for Leasing of Retail Premises less applicable.
As announced in March 2021, the Government has accepted the industry’s recommendation to enact legislation to make compliance with the Code of Conduct mandatory for all retail tenancies in Singapore. Prior to any legislation, key landlord and tenant associations have already pledged that they will adopt the Code from 1 June this year. This is a strong foundation for the retail sector to overcome its challenges and to emerge stronger in a post-COVID-19 world.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Low Take-up Rate for Lift Access Housing Grant","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"132 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for National Development given that as at August 2020 only 17 applications for the Lift Access Housing Grant (LHG) are made out of the 2,000 HDB flats that have no direct lift access, whether the Ministry has studied the utility of the LHG since its launch in March 2020 and the reasons for the low take-up rate of the LHG.
Mr Desmond Lee: Prior to 2001, there were more than 5,300 HDB blocks without full direct lift access. In 2001, HDB launched the Lift Upgrading Programme, or LUP, to provide direct lift access to flats and enhance convenience for residents, especially the elderly and less mobile. Today, the vast majority of HDB residents enjoy direct lift access.
There remain about 150 blocks, affecting about 2,000 units, where it is not presently possible to implement the LUP due to technical constraints or prohibitive costs. In some cases, the cost of implementing the LUP could be almost as high as that of a new flat. Hence, it would not be financially prudent to provide the LUP in such blocks.
Therefore, while HDB continues to explore new methods to bring down implementation costs and overcome the technical constraints for the remaining flats, it introduced the Lift access Housing Grant, or LHG, in March 2020 to assist residents who urgently require direct lift access due to medical or mobility issues, to move into a flat with such access.
As of February 2021, HDB received 28 complete applications for the LHG. Of these, 22 applications were approved, while four are under evaluation. Given that LHG recipients need to undertake relocation, it is intended for households with a significant need for direct lift access. We fully expect that the number of such households would be small.
As the LHG was introduced recently, HDB will continue to monitor the situation and assess if further enhancements are necessary to meet the needs of HDB residents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Making Public Buses More Accessible to Ageing Population and Adding More Stops in Feeder Buses Routes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"133 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for Transport (a) what measures will be implemented to ensure that public bus transportation is more accessible to our ageing population; and (b) whether LTA will consider allowing feeder buses to make more stops within the estates during off-peak hours so that the elderly do not need to walk as far to a bus stop.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Ensuring that our public transport is inclusive and accessible for all commuters, including the elderly, is one of the key thrusts of the Land Transport Masterplan 2040. Today, all public buses are wheelchair accessible, and all bus interchanges and integrated transport hubs are barrier-free.
However, it would not be practical to add more bus stops for buses to call at during off-peak periods. Today, most bus stops are 300 metres to 400 metres apart. Reducing this distance further will result in operational challenges, inconveniences due to frequent stops and longer journey times for commuters. If inappropriately sited, the bus stop can also raise safety concerns.
LTA will continue to study community requests for enhanced accessibility, taking into consideration the commuter demographics of the area while balancing operational and financial constraints.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Features in Public Service Hiring Process to Ensure Those Aged 60 and Above have Fair Interview Opportunities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"134 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Prime Minister (a) what percentage of workers aged 60 and above are full-time staff or contract workers in the public service; (b) what roles are these workers assigned to; (c) what changes are made in the public service hiring process to ensure those aged 60 and above have fair interview opportunities; and (d) whether flexible work arrangements are applicable for this group of workers.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): Approximately 3% of the Singapore’s resident labour force, aged 60 and above, are full-time staff/contract workers in the Public Service. These officers are employed in a wide variety of roles across the Public Service, including teachers, operations, technical roles and corporate administration.
Public Service recruitment is based on merit and not on age. Our recruitment practices are aligned with the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices (TAFEP) guidelines. We recruit on the principle of selecting the “best person for the job”, taking into account their skills, qualifications, work experiences and personal attributes against the job that they applied too. We do not ask for a candidate’s age in our Public Service Application Form and regularly review the form in tandem with changes to TAFEP’s guidelines on fair hiring practices.
Similarly, access to flexible work arrangements is not based on age. As long as their job nature allows for it, public officers of all ages can have access to flexible work arrangements such as staggered start-work hours, telecommuting and part-time work.
The Public Service is committed to the employment and employability of mature workers. Besides extending our retirement and re-employment ages from July this year, one year ahead of the national schedule, we have made available career coaching and additional training across the Public Service to support our officers to adapt to changing work demands and to take up different job roles. PSD will continue our efforts to educate the leaders, supervisors and HR managers across the Public Service so that everyone plays their part in ensuring the employment and employability of our mature workers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Dementia-friendly Features for Older Estates and Future HDB Housing Projects","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"135 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will (i) add dementia-friendly features like those piloted in Nee Soon, to other old estates and (ii) incorporate such designs in HDB's future BTO housing projects.
Mr Desmond Lee: HDB estates and precincts are designed to be inclusive and accessible to residents of all ages, including seniors. For new developments, Universal Design (UD) and barrier-free design principles have been incorporated to enable residents, especially the elderly, to move around their neighbourhood with ease. Existing developments are upgraded with senior-friendly features such as ramps and resting points through upgrading programmes like the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP). Senior-friendly facilities such as elderly fitness corners and community gardens are also planned and provided for where possible.
HDB recently announced the “Designing for Life” roadmap, which sets out how HDB will plan and design both new and existing estates to provide a high quality living environment that can support residents’ overall health and well-being across different life-stages. This includes catering to residents with dementia.
For instance, one way to create a neighbourhood that is more accessible to residents with dementia is to facilitate wayfinding by making the environment more easily recognizable. For the Nee Soon pilot, the Town Council introduced features such as clear wayfinding markers, large block numbers and using easily recognisable colours to demarcate different zones in the neighbourhood. On HDB’s end, it has also started designing and developing estates and precincts to strengthen their sense of identity, with certain features to facilitate easier recognition of places and aid in wayfinding, such as larger font sizes for signs and block numbers, and the use of icons, motifs and colours.
HDB will continue to work with experts and partner agencies to look into how other such dementia-friendly features can be incorporated into new developments, as well as in existing estates through upgrading programmes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of and Reasons for Children Currently Under State Care","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"136 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how many children are currently under state care; (b) what are the reasons for such care; and (c) for those who cannot be reunited with their families, what options do these children have.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: As at end-December 2020, there were about 1,100 children being cared for by foster families or in residential facilities. Such out-of-home care arrangements are made as a last resort when it is not safe for the children to continue to stay with their families, even with support from MSF and social service agencies.
MSF endeavours to keep families intact, with safety plans in place to minimise the risk of harm. However, in serious cases of abuse or neglect where the home environment remains unsafe, MSF’s Child Protective Service will remove the child and look for an alternative family-based environment for the child. MSF will first explore kinship care arrangements before finding a suitable foster family. If these options are not available, MSF places the child in residential care.
After out-of-home care arrangements have been made, MSF works with both the child and his or her family towards safe reunification wherever possible. MSF works together with community agencies to address the key concerns in the family that have led to the child’s removal, strengthen parent-child relationships through counselling and coaching on positive parenting, and psychological services to help the child heal from the abuse or neglect. We also arrange for the family to have supervised or unsupervised access to the child so that familial bonds are retained.
However, when reunification is not possible despite our best efforts or is not in the best interest of the child, alternative longer-term plans are put in place to provide safety, stability and certainty for the children.
Since 1 July 2020, the Court may grant Enhanced Care and Protection Orders, to enable caregivers such as foster parents to legally care for the children until they are 21 years old. Some children are eventually adopted by their foster parents or other couples who provide a supportive environment that enables the children to realise their full potential.
A small number of children remain in children homes, which prepare the children for independent living by providing guidance in key areas like education and employment, facilitating referrals to community agencies post-discharge and connecting them to rental or hostel options.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of and Reasons for Impounding of PMDs and PMAs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"137 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Transport (a) over the past year, what is the number of personal mobility devices (PMDs) and personal mobility aids (PMAs) that have been impounded; (b) what are the reasons for impoundment; (c) what percentage of impounded PMDs and PMAs are subsequently returned; and (d) what is the mean and maximum length of time in which the owner is informed that his PMD or PMA will be confiscated or is asked to retrieve them.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Over the past year, LTA impounded 1,378 personal mobility devices (PMDs) and three personal mobility aids (PMAs).
LTA impounds devices when they do not comply with technical standards. For example, they could exceed weight and width limits, which means they cause serious injury if they knock down a pedestrian. The device may also not be UL2272-certified and thus pose a fire risk. We do not return these devices because they pose a danger.
LTA also impounds devices where the offender had displayed egregious behaviour, such as riding on roads or reckless riding. In such cases, impounded devices will generally be returned to owners if they comply with device criteria.
In the past year, about 17% of all impounded devices were compliant and could be returned. For straightforward cases, it generally takes about three weeks before owners are notified if their devices may be returned. For more complex cases, this can take a few months.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Achievement Points for Sports Not Offered at National School Games","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"139 Mr Mark Chay asked the Minister for Education how will students whose sports are not offered at the National School Games be awarded CCA points and national colours.
Mr Lawrence Wong: MOE has taken a calibrated approach in resuming the National School Games (NSG) with 12 non-contact sports, in order to safeguard the well-being of our students.
To ensure that no student would be disadvantaged as a result of this approach, all students selected to represent their school in all 29 sports in the NSG would be accorded the same recognition for school representation and credited with CCA achievement. This was also the approach taken in 2020, when NSG was suspended for all sports.
The Singapore Schools Sports Council (SSSC) Colours Award was established to recognise students’ outstanding achievement in sports and their exemplary conduct. The qualifying criteria is to achieve top four placings in NSG. Hence, students whose sports are not offered in NSG, would not be eligible for this award based on NSG achievements. However, all students representing the Singapore Schools Sport Teams or the state through Singapore National Olympic Council, Singapore Disability Sports Council or the National Sports Associations of SSSC sports at major games can still be nominated for the award.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Replace Programme for Sigma/LG Lifts after HDB Ban on Sigma Elevator Since 2015","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"140 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for National Development in light of the barring of Sigma Elevator Pte Ltd from bidding for HDB elevator contracts since 2015 due to higher-than-normal breakdown rates, whether there are plans by HDB to consider implementing a selected lift replacement programme for Sigma/LG lifts in blocks where such lifts are installed.
Mr Desmond Lee: HDB had restricted Sigma from tendering for new HDB lift term contracts in October 2015 due to its inability to fully adhere to the timeline of lift installation under its contract with HDB, namely the 23rd Lift Term Contract. This was to allow Sigma to focus on completing the installation of lifts, and also to improve the performance of the installed lifts under the contract, which had then registered a higher than usual breakdown rate in the first year of operation. Most of the breakdowns were due to the misalignment of the lift doors or lift sensors, mainly caused by knocks and rough use.
Since then, Sigma has carried out a series of actions to improve the performance of those lifts, such as strengthening lift door components including door springs and steel ropes to counter the impact of knocks and rough use. The performance of the lifts installed under the 23rd Lift Term Contract has since improved and has been meeting the required performance standards set by HDB for the past two years. There is therefore no requirement to replace these lifts. The tender restriction imposed on Sigma has also been lifted last year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Addressing Issue of Suicide Amongst Youths","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"141 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Social and Family Development how does the Ministry work with MOE to address the issue of youths committing suicide.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Every suicide is one death too many. MSF and MOE are committed to suicide prevention and enhancing the mental well-being of our youths. The causes of suicide are complex and multi-faceted, often involving family, social and mental health issues. We have therefore partnered with various Government agencies and community partners to adopt a multi-pronged approach to suicide prevention, based on the following key thrusts: building mental resilience, early identification and encouraging help-seeking, supporting at-risk groups and providing crisis support.
To build resilience and support mental well-being in youths, MOE has enhanced upstream efforts through the refreshed Character and Citizenship Education curriculum in schools and mental resilience and well-being programmes in Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs). There have also been efforts to raise parents’ awareness on mental health to help them better support the well-being of their children in schools. Additionally, individuals and families with socio-emotional needs may receive assistance from community touch points such as Family Service Centres for counselling and case management support.
Early identification and encouraging help-seeking are vital for suicide prevention. School teachers and academic staff in IHLs are trained to identify students experiencing distress, provide timely support and refer students to counsellors or mental health professionals for further interventions when necessary. Promoting peer support also equips students to look out for one another and encourages help-seeking. All IHLs have established peer support structures, and all schools will have a peer support structure in place by 2022. The National Council of Social Service has also been working with partners to address the issue of stigma and promote help-seeking behaviours through the \"Beyond the Label\" movement.
For youths who are at risk or require crisis support, schools and IHLs provide parents with timely updates on their child’s mental health state and potential risks, and work with them to ensure there is adequate safety and support. Schools and IHLs also tap on community agencies when necessary. Youths in crisis may also seek support from 24-hour hotlines by the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) and the Samaritans of Singapore (SOS). SOS has started a text-based service to provide an alternative help-seeking platform for youths in crisis.
To enhance coordination of our multi-pronged approach to suicide prevention, an Inter-agency Research Workgroup on Youth Suicides led by IMH has been set up to work on various initiatives to prevent and intervene in suicidal behaviours in children and youths.
MSF and MOE, together with MOH, also support the Youth Mental Well-being Network, which has brought together over 1,500 youths, parents, care-givers, and social sector and mental health professionals to discuss and implement ideas and initiatives to enhance youth mental well-being.
There is no easy solution to suicide prevention. A whole-of-society approach is needed to prevent suicides among our youths. We will continue to strengthen our inter-agency and cross-sectoral efforts to support youths at risk of suicide. We also encourage everyone in the community to continue looking out for each other.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"ASEAN's Actions on Tackling Marine Debris in the Region","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"142 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment based on the ASEAN Framework of Action on Marine Debris (a) what steps Singapore has taken with the national governments of other ASEAN countries to develop a regional action plan on combating marine debris; and (b) what updates are there on the establishment of an ASEAN Centre on Combating Marine Debris.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Marine litter is a key environmental concern for the ASEAN region and will require collective action by all stakeholders. Singapore has been working with fellow ASEAN member states, and international marine litter experts and industry stakeholders, to develop an ASEAN Regional Action Plan on Combatting Marine Debris. This follows from the commitment made by ASEAN Leaders in the 2019 Bangkok Declaration on Combating Marine Debris in ASEAN Region.
The Regional Action Plan is in the final stages of endorsement by ASEAN. It will list out actions to reduce plastic waste; enhance their collection and minimise leakage; and create value from waste reuse, to support a more sustainable approach to plastics and waste in the region. The Plan’s proposed regional actions will enhance ASEAN’s collective and individual capabilities to address marine debris pollution through both upstream and downstream measures. ASEAN member states will continue to assess the feasibility of establishing an ASEAN Centre of Combating Marine Debris to support the Plan’s implementation.
Singapore welcomes regional cooperation with ASEAN to reduce marine debris pollution and supports the early endorsement and implementation of the Regional Action Plan. We are an active contributor to international and regional platforms that address marine litter. Last November, Singapore organised a virtual training programme on urban solid waste management for ASEAN member states, to build regional capacity on sound waste management practices and prevent the leakage of litter into waterways and the ocean. Singapore also partnered Norway to conduct two runs of a joint capacity training programme on waste management and reduction of marine litter for Asian countries in October 2017 and March 2019.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Distribution of Seed Packs under Gardening with Edibles Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"144 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for National Development (a) to date, how many seed packets have been issued under the Gardening with Edibles Programme; (b) what are the types of seeds that have been distributed; and (c) what are the considerations when deciding on which seeds to use for distribution into public housing estates.
Mr Desmond Lee: NParks launched the Gardening with Edibles Programme in June 2020 to encourage Singaporeans to grow edible plants at home. This is part of our efforts to involve the community in the transformation of Singapore into a City in Nature. To date, close to half a million seed packets have been distributed to households across Singapore.
The seeds are mostly for leafy greens such as kang kong and xiao bai cai, and fruited vegetables such as tomato and lady’s finger. These plant species were chosen because they are easy to grow, fast-growing, and are commonly used in our local cuisine. NParks has also distributed seeds which are more challenging to grow, such as capsicum, radish and zucchini, to experienced gardeners who have attended its virtual gardening masterclasses. All selected plant species are generally suitable to be grown along common corridors, or in outdoor gardens such as the community gardens in our public housing estates.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Limit Exposure of Retail Investors in Trading and Investments in Crypto Assets","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Prime Minister regarding trading and investments in crypto assets (a) what measures are in place to limit the exposure of retail investors to these highly risky products; and (b) how will the Government work with individuals and families to spot signs of distress by victims and assist them.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): MAS has repeatedly cautioned that investing in cryptocurrencies is risky and not suitable for retail investors. The prices of most cryptocurrencies are subject to speculative swings.
Those who choose to trade in cryptocurrencies should therefore understand the significant risks they are taking on, and verify the credentials of the entities involved before dealing with them. This should include checking the MAS Investor Alert List which identifies businesses that have falsely purported to be licensed and regulated by MAS.
Our best defence is an informed public. Earlier this month, MoneySense, Singapore’s national financial education programme, launched a campaign to raise awareness of the risks of investment scams involving cryptocurrencies and online trading. Consumers are educated to spot red flags such as the promise of quick and substantial profits. If promised returns look too good to be true, they are.
MAS continues to watch developments in the cryptocurrency space and will regularly review the adequacy and appropriateness of our regulations. Consumers who suspect that a scheme involving cryptocurrencies could be fraudulent or misused for other unlawful activities should report such cases to the Police.
Ms Pereira also asked how the Government will help individuals in financial distress. They can call the National CARE Hotline for support. Family members, who observe their loved ones in distress can also encourage them to call the Hotline. The CARE Officers will do their best to offer support and direct them to possible avenues for additional assistance. For instance, if an individual is in debt after having incurred investment or financial losses, he or she may be directed to Credit Counselling Singapore, which will work with them to understand their financial situation and facilitate appropriate debt repayment arrangements with their creditors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulatory Guidelines in Classifying Third Party Administrator Costs in Financial Returns Lodged by Accident and Health Insurance Companies with MAS","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Dr Tan Yia Swam asked the Prime Minister (a) whether there are any regulatory guidelines in classifying third party administrator costs in the financial returns lodged by accident and health insurance companies with MAS; and (b) if so, whether such costs are included in the returns as management expenses or gross claims settled.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): Some insurers offering health insurance appoint third party administrators (TPAs) to undertake a variety of claims administration services on their behalf.
In their statutory submissions to MAS, insurers are required to classify TPA-related expenses directly related to claims paid, such as claims administration expenses incurred for each processed claim, as part of gross claims settled. They must classify other TPA-related expenses, such as on-going panel management fees, as part of management expenses. External auditors check whether these requirements are met, and MAS will take action on any non-compliance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Defaults in Car Loan Payments in Past 12 Months","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Prime Minister (a) how many car loans have been defaulted in the past 12 months; (b) how many of these loans involved used cars; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider outlawing the practice of overtrade of used cars to encourage financial prudence in the purchase of cars.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): In 2020, 64 or 0.03% of borrowers defaulted on car loans granted by financial institutions (FIs). Twenty-three of these loans were for the purchase of used cars, which translates to a default rate of 0.01%.
We understand the concern that car dealers’ practice of overtrade1 may result in financial imprudence. There are safeguards in place to mitigate this.
First, FIs will check if the purchase price of the car is reasonable, by referring to car valuations from multiple, independent sources.
Second, FIs conduct income and credit bureau checks on borrowers to assess their ability to service the car loans.
Third, MAS is also working with relevant Government agencies to monitor car financing and market conduct practices of FIs and non-MAS regulated entities like car dealers. Where practicable, we will consider additional measures to ensure consumers’ financial prudence.
We urge consumers to be cautious when car dealers offer overtrades. Before committing to a car purchase, consumers should consider their financial situation and ensure that they can afford the costs associated with ownership, including car loan repayments over the longer term.
Overtrade refers to car dealers' practice of offering a higher price when customers trade in their old cars, so as to entice them to make a new car purchase and take up a car loan. As this is an indirect discount to the purchase price of the new car, it will result in a higher car loan amount based on the inflated car purchase price.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Overtrade refers to car dealers’ practice of offering a higher price when customers trade in their old cars, so as to entice them to make a new car purchase and take up a car loan. As this is an indirect discount to the purchase price of the new car, it will result in a higher car loan amount based on the inflated car purchase price."],"footNoteQuestions":["3"],"questionNo":"3"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Users Requesting to Deregister from TraceTogether Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Prime Minister (a) how many users have requested to be deregistered from the TraceTogether programme; and (b) whether the users making the requests will be notified that their data has been deleted following their request.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan (for the Prime Minister): As of the 30 April 2021, there were 4,923,054 individuals on board the TraceTogether (TT) programme, or approximately 92% of the population above the age of six years. As of the same date, only 1,155 users (or 0.021% of the population above the age of six years) had requested deregistration from the TT programme.
TT App users who apply to deregister will be sent a SMS confirming that their request has been received. For users returning the TT Token, the officer receiving the token at the Community Centre will provide confirmation of the deregistration on the spot.
All TT registration data, including NRIC or contact number, is deleted from the TT server within three to five working days. Consequently, any data previously exchanged with other TT devices cannot be decrypted any longer. When the user uninstalls the app, all previously collected data will also be permanently deleted from the smartphone. In any case, all data is deleted from TT devices automatically after 25 days.
If a user had previously been identified as a close contact and uploaded his or her data to the Government’s server for contact tracing purposes, these records are retained. This is essential for public health reasons. Notwithstanding this, subsection 82(9) of the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act allows the Minister to specify a date, once the pandemic is over, after which all personally identifiable contact tracing data must be deleted as soon as reasonably practicable.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Estimated Amount of Each Type of Tax Paid by Pass Holders and Other Foreigners Working or Living in Singapore in Last Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in the last five years, what is the estimated amount of each type of tax paid by holders of Employment Passes, S Passes, Work Permits, Dependant Passes, Long-Term Visit Passes and other foreigners working or living in Singapore.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Everyone in Singapore, local or foreign, pays some form of taxes. But we have designed our tax system to be progressive and fair, so that those who are better off pay more taxes. The revenue we collect from all taxpayers is then used to benefit Singaporeans who enjoy a range of subsidies, in areas like education, healthcare and housing.
Therefore, the tax system generally does not differentiate by nationality, and we do not have the detailed breakdown of the tax paid by the different groups of foreign taxpayers by pass types, as requested by the Member. Nevertheless, we have extracted some relevant information on the main tax items.
On personal income tax, those who earn more pay a higher proportion of their income in tax. Foreigners, who accounted for about 28% of the resident personal income taxpayers, contributed about 32% of personal income tax revenue or about $3.7 billion per year, on average over the past five years.
On GST, based on an estimate using GST collections in 2018, foreigners residing in Singapore and tourists are estimated to account for over 40% of the net GST borne by households and individuals. This is after taking into account the GST refunded under the Tourist Refund Scheme and the GST Voucher scheme, which is extended only to Singaporean households.
For property-related taxes, we have a progressive system for residential properties, where higher-value residential properties are subject to higher property tax rates as well as higher Buyer’s Stamp Duty (BSD). Most properties in Singapore are purchased and owned by locals rather than foreign work pass holders.
But we recognise that there continues to be a strong buying interest from abroad in Singapore residential properties, vis-à-vis the relatively small size of the Singapore market. Hence, we had put in place the Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty (ABSD) as a property market cooling measure, with foreign buyers subject to higher ABSD rates. Foreigners accounted for about 16% or $174 million per year of ABSD revenue from property purchases by individuals on average over the past five years.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Processes in Place to Ensure Fair Consideration for Small and Medium-sized Law Firms in Litigation, Negotiation and Contract Reviews","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Leon Perera asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) to what extent does the Government engage small and medium-sized law firms for legal matters such as litigation, negotiation and contract reviews; and (b) what are the processes in place to ensure fair consideration for small and medium-sized law firms.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) serves as the Government’s legal advisor. However, there may be instances where Government agencies need to procure external legal services, for instance, where specific areas of legal expertise are required.
Over the past five years, about one-third of Government contracts for provision of legal services were awarded to small and medium-sized law firms, that is, those with not more than 30 lawyers.
Government agencies conduct their procurement in accordance with the principles of transparency, open and fair competition, and value for money. Contracts are awarded to suppliers who are best able to meet the agencies’ requirements, such as whether they possess the specific expertise required, while ensuring cost effectiveness. The requirements and criteria for selecting the supplier are specified upfront in each tender or quotation request.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Flexibility by Commissioner of Stamp Duties to Remit Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty Payable by Individuals Acquiring a Partial Interest in Residential Property in Last Two Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in the last two years, whether the Commissioner of Stamp Duties has exercised flexibility to remit, wholly or partially, the Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty (ABSD) payable by individuals who acquire a partial interest in a residential property due to changes in family circumstances such as the death of a co-owner.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Today, an individual who acquires partial interest in a residential property due to the death of a co-owner does not have to pay the Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty (ABSD).
Generally, in other instances of an individual acquiring a partial interest in a residential property, ABSD applies. For taxpayers in extenuating circumstances, the Minister for Finance and the Commissioner of Stamp Duties have granted remission of ABSD on a case-by-case basis.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Singapore's Assistance to India Due to Worsening COVID-19 Infections","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he can provide an update on the assistance that Singapore has provided to India due to its worsening COVID-19 infections.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: The resurgence of COVID-19 cases and evolution of multiple variants poses a global challenge. The virus does not discriminate across language, race, religion, or national borders; it is therefore in our collective interest to help one another because no one is safe until everyone is safe. India has been hit especially hard due to their recent second wave, exacerbated by the emergence of new variants of the virus that appear to be more transmissible. Countries around the world are rallying together to work with India to alleviate the critical situation. India is a close friend and partner of Singapore, and many Singaporeans have families and friends there. Singapore is committed to doing our part to contribute to these efforts.
I have been in contact with Indian External Affairs Minister Dr S Jaishankar and our officials have been working to ensure that our efforts to help would be rapid, targeted, and practical. On 28 April 2021, the Singapore Government sent a consignment of 256 oxygen cylinders to support India’s pandemic response. These were flown directly to West Bengal in India via two Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) C-130 aircraft. There is a critical need for oxygen-related supplies in India, especially in the areas of oxygen storage and last-mile delivery to hospitals around the country. Our modest assistance was aimed at supporting this critical and urgent area of need and we hope that it provided some relief to those battling the pandemic on the frontlines. Singapore was amongst the first countries to send oxygen cylinders to India.
In addition, we are facilitating India’s efforts to procure COVID-19 supplies and equipment through Singapore-based entities or by providing transport and logistical support. For example, we are supporting on-going efforts by the Indian Air Force to airlift cryogenic tanks from Singapore in several batches, and facilitating Indian naval ships coming to Singapore to pick up relief supplies.
This has not only been a Singapore Government effort. Many Singapore-based private sector entities and other civil society organisations are also playing an important part in providing assistance to India. For example, the Temasek Foundation has sent urgent relief supplies and essential medical equipment such as oxygen concentrators, oximeters and ventilators. It is working with Indian partners to ensure that these are distributed to areas in need. Singapore Airlines has helped to airlift these items to India. Many people and companies have generously reached out and indicated their interest in contributing to relief efforts. The Singapore Red Cross has launched a fundraiser and is currently coordinating contributions from the public and private sector entities. These resources will go towards procuring and distributing the necessary medical supplies and equipment to India.
We will continue to work with our Indian friends during this difficult time and explore various avenues to help in areas that we can.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Detect and Prosecute Human Trafficking Offenders and Help Schemes in Place for Victims of Such Crimes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether he can provide an update on the training given to frontline police officers to assist them in detecting possible situations of human trafficking.
10 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Home Affairs what has been done to enhance the protection of victims of human trafficking such as to encourage them to come forward to report their plight to the police.
11 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether more support can be given to employers to incentivise them to employ survivors of human trafficking.
12 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) between 2015 and 2020, what is the number of investigations that have been conducted involving offences of trafficking in persons; (b) how many of these investigations have led to prosecutions; and (c) of these prosecutions, how many have been for labour trafficking and sex trafficking respectively.
Mr K Shanmugam: Since the Prevention of Human Trafficking Act (PHTA) was enacted in 2015, MOM and the Singapore Police Force (SPF) have investigated 260 cases of alleged sex and labour trafficking till date, of which 12 cases were prosecuted. Of these 12, seven cases concluded with convictions under PHTA – one labour trafficking case and six sex trafficking cases; one case of alleged sex trafficking was convicted under the Women’s Charter; and another case of alleged sex trafficking was acquitted. The remaining three cases – two labour trafficking cases and one sex trafficking case are still undergoing court proceedings.
Frontline service and enforcement officers from the SPF, MOM and ICA are trained to detect potential cases of human trafficking, and to manage the victims in a sensitive manner. SPF, MOM and ICA officers also received training on the identification of potential trafficking victims conducted by international partners such as the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and INTERPOL.
Under the PHTA, there are a suite of protective and assistance measures to protect the trafficked victims, as well as the informers. To protect the identity and safety of the victims and informers, in-camera court proceeding is made mandatory for child victims. For non-child victims, in-camera court proceeding has to be available as an option. Media gag orders for proceedings involving sexual exploitation are also issued to protect the identity of victims and informers, to encourage more to come forward to report human trafficking activities.
To ensure that the victims continue to be protected and cared for after being rescued, the Government supports and funds non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that provide victim support services such as shelter, sustenance and counselling. Examples of such NGOs include HAGAR and the Good Shepherd Centre. When required, the Singapore Inter-Agency Taskforce on Trafficking in Persons (TIP Taskforce) supports the NGOs in working with their overseas counterparts to help the victims return safely to their home countries and reintegrate smoothly into society.
While the victims remain in Singapore to assist with investigation and prosecution, arrangements are made through the Temporary Job Scheme for employers to hire those who are able and willing to work. To achieve better job matches, the Government engages potential employers to understand their requirements before facilitating the emplacement of the victims. NGO partners also provide basic conversational English lessons, and relevant job skills training, to help victims find a job and adjust to the workplace.
The TIP Taskforce will continue its efforts to combat human trafficking by working in close partnership with the NGOs and employers; reviewing the support given to employers; and participating in TIP training with international partners such as UNODC, INTERPOL, overseas law enforcement agencies, and foreign embassies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Complaints of Cheating, Fraud and Other Crimes in Connection with Investments in Cryptocurrencies Lodged with Police in Past Three Years and Amounts Involved","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many complaints of cheating, fraud or other crime in connection with investments in cryptocurrencies have been lodged with the police in the past three years; and (b) what is the total amount of loss suffered by the victims of such crime in the same period.
Mr K Shanmugam: Between 2018 and 2020, the Police received 533 reports of cheating, fraud or other crime in connection with investments in cryptocurrencies. Around $29 million was lost to such cases between 2018 and 2020.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Consultations with Attorney-General's Chambers in Deciding Charges to be Preferred","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether existing protocols or practices mandate that law enforcement agencies consult the Attorney-General's Chambers for advice in every case before finalising decisions on whether to charge suspects in Court or not and what charges to prefer.
Mr K Shanmugam: The discretion whether to charge offenders in court, and what charges to prefer, lies with the Public Prosecutor.
In general, law enforcement agencies (LEAs) under MHA will make their recommendations to the Deputy Public Prosecutors (DPPs) after investigations are completed. The DPPs will then review the evidence and the circumstances of the case, before deciding on the appropriate course of action.
The Public Prosecutor, however, has authorised LEAs to prosecute some offences without the need to consult the DPP. These authorisations are subject to criteria imposed by the Public Prosecutor, and the offences involved are generally straightforward and less serious in nature, such as drink-driving and driving without licence. Some LEAs are also authorised to administer stern warnings in lieu of prosecution for pre-agreed categories of cases.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Safeguards in Place Regarding Issue of Firearms to Officers of Singapore Police Force and Auxiliary Police Forces to Minimise Risk of Misuse","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Home Affairs what safeguards are in place regarding the issue of firearms to officers of the Singapore Police Force and the auxiliary police forces to minimise the risk of misuse by officers.
16 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Police Licensing and Regulatory Department is minded to harness geo-fencing or similar technology to ensure that the whereabouts of police officers and auxiliary police officers who have drawn arms for the purposes of their duties are tracked and reduce the risk of incidents involving use of arms for illegal or unauthorised purposes.
Mr K Shanmugam: I will set out some of the measures in place to manage the risk of security officers misusing firearms which are issued to them.
All Police officers and Auxiliary Police Officers (APOs) undergo security vetting before employment. During employment, officers may be barred from accessing firearms in certain circumstances, for example, if they are under disciplinary investigation.
Firearms for the Police and the Auxiliary Police Forces are kept in armouries, and subject to processes for their issuance and safe custody. For example, there are systems to verify the identity of the officers, confirm that they are authorised to carry firearms for that particular deployment, and track the timely return of the firearms after the deployment. These processes are regularly audited to ensure compliance.
For operational security reasons, it is not appropriate to disclose details on the use of geo-fencing, other technology, and measures in relation to Police operations. Regardless, such technology and measures are not infallible, and cannot monitor or ascertain the location and activities of every officer at all times, or stop them from misusing their weapons at all times.
The real issue is this: Police officers need to carry firearms, to carry out their duties. That, in itself means there are some risks.
The selection, training and discipline of Police officers, and the conditions under which they can draw weapons, substantially reduces the risk of them misusing their weapons. But the risk is not zero. There have been cases in the past where Police officers have committed offences. No police force in the world can ensure zero risk.
The choice is therefore choosing between the risk that a Police officer might misuse his weapons; and the risk that society will face, from not arming Police officers. The latter is the far bigger risk. The way in which we manage the risks from the earlier situation have been described (in very broad terms) above.
The same goes for APOs. The choice is to decide between risks that arise from two different situations: (a) Not having armed APOs (b) Having armed APOs.
The risk to society from having APOs who do not carry weapons, and who therefore cannot intervene effectively when the situation requires, is greater.
Likewise, the same can be said about our foreign national APOs. Naturally, our ability to know the security background of foreign national APOs will be less compared with what we will know about local APOs. There is naturally a risk in having foreign APOs and arming them. But we do not have enough local APOs. We therefore need foreign APOs. Again, the risks from not deploying enough APOs are greater than the risks from having foreign APOs and arming them.
The record shows the misuse of weapons, by Police officers, APOs including foreign APOs, is very low.
We deal with the risks through the measures set out above.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enhancing Criminal Penalties for Breach of Personal Protection Order and Review of Existing Framework to Protect Persons from Violence and Harassment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Ms Raeesah Khan asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Ministry will consider (i) enhancing the criminal penalties for breach of a personal protection order under the Women's Charter or the Protection From Harassment Act to deter such conduct (ii) setting up a specialised support centre for persons under protection orders to report their perpetrators for breach of their protection orders and (iii) conducting a review of the existing framework to protect persons from violence and harassment and to establish areas for improvement.
Mr K Shanmugam: MinLaw had amended the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) to, among other things, double the prescribed punishment for:
(a) Repeat breaches of a protection order or an expedited protection order;
(b) Offences under POHA committed against vulnerable persons and persons in intimate relationships;
(c) Breach of a protection order or an expedited protection order involving vulnerable persons or persons in intimate relationships.
These enhanced penalties have been in force since 1 January 2020.
Apart from the enhanced penalties for breaches of protection orders, the Government has been working closely with community partners to support victims of family violence. The National Family Violence Networking System was established in 1996 to connect the Police, Courts, hospitals, social service agencies and MSF in a network to provide support to victims of family violence. For instance, victims may report breaches of protection orders to the Police, and with their consent, the Police will refer them to the Family Violence Specialist Centres (FVSCs) or Family Service Centres (FSCs) if they require social support or to crisis shelters for temporary accommodation. The FVSCs and FSCs may also accompany victims to make Police reports for breaches of protection orders, or to a hospital if the victims have injuries that require medical attention.
MSF also officially launched the 24-hour National Anti-Violence Helpline in February 2021 to make it easier for victims of violence and abuse to seek help.
The function of the specialised support centre that the Member asked my Ministry to consider setting up for persons to report breaches of protection orders is not clear. The Member’s question seems to ask the Government to do, what is already being done. If the Member meant something other than what is already being done and set out above, then she can clarify, and the Government will consider her suggestions.
The Government conducts periodic policy reviews of existing laws and measures, including those to protect persons from family violence and harassment. The amendments to POHA in 2019 were a result of MinLaw’s policy review of the measures, after consulting stakeholders and feedback from the public.
The Task Force on Family Violence set up in 2020 is conducting a review of the family violence landscape and identifying recommendations along the following four broad thrusts:
(a) Increasing awareness, strengthening societal attitudes against violence, and enhancing targeted preventive efforts for individuals at potential risk;
(b) Making it easier for victims and the community to report violence, and to get immediate help;
(c) Strengthening protection for victims to reduce their risk of being harmed again; and
(d) Increasing the accountability of perpetrators and strengthening their rehabilitation.
The Task Force will present its recommendations later this year.
The Member may wish to note that all the above points have been mentioned several times, both in Parliament and public. For instance, the point relating to enhanced penalties for repeated breaches of protection orders had been made during the Second Reading for the Protection from Harassment (Amendment) Bill in May 2019 and in the press releases issued by MinLaw. This point had also been reported in both the online and print media. In February and March this year, I also talked about the enhancements to POHA in MHA's Committee of Supply debates and in the Ministerial Statement on the review of sentencing framework for sexual and hurt offences.
The set-up of a Task Force on Family Violence to look into tackling family violence was first announced by then Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Home Affairs Ms Sun Xueling and then Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Social and Family Development Mr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim in February 2020 during the launch of a children educational book on family violence, and subsequently in a joint press release by MHA and MSF in April 2020. Minister of State Ms Sun Xueling also talked about the Task Force’s mandate in MSF’s Committee of Supply debates in February this year.
It will be useful for Members, where possible, to consider the publicly available information, and what has been stated in Parliament, when asking a question.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures in Place to Ensure Legal Trainees Receive Training from Properly Qualified Persons and Support Available for Trainee in Dispute with Supervising Solicitor","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Law (a) what are the measures in place to ensure that legal trainees receive training from properly qualified persons; and (b) what are the support given should there be a dispute between the legal trainee with his supervising solicitor.
Mr K Shanmugam: The practice training contract is a formal training arrangement entered into between a law graduate and a Singapore law practice. Under the Legal Profession (Admission) Rules 2011 of the Legal Profession Act (“the Rules”), the Singapore law practice must ensure, among other things, that the practice trainee is supervised by a solicitor who is in active practice in that law practice and has had in force a practising certificate for at least five out of the seven years immediately preceding the date of commencement of his supervision of the practice trainee.
The Rules also require the Singapore law practice to register every practice training contract with the Singapore Institute of Legal Education (SILE), including the particulars of the trainee and the supervising solicitor, and to declare to SILE the number of solicitors in the law practice who are qualified to be supervising solicitors.
As for practice trainees who wish to ascertain if their supervising solicitor has the qualifying experience, they may seek confirmation from the law practice or supervising solicitor concerned and also request to have sight of the practising certificates. The Law Society can assist to verify the supervising solicitors’ eligibility upon the request of the supervising solicitor or the trainee. The Law Society will also investigate any incident which is brought to its attention where the lawyer in question does not meet the requirements of a supervising solicitor.
Cases of disputes between a practice trainee and supervising solicitors or law practices are rare. But when they occur, the Law Society and SILE provide informal assistance and support to the parties concerned. Trainees may also seek the Law Society’s assistance through the Members’ Assistance and Care Helpline and the SCMediate scheme, where a Senior Counsel acts as a mediator.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Vaccinations and Quarantine Requirements for COVID-19 Pandemic","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the COVID-19 vaccination status of a foreigner who had been previously vaccinated in their home country with a vaccine that is not approved by HSA will be recognised by Singapore; (b) whether such a foreigner will be required to take another COVID-19 vaccination if he/she is in Singapore for the long-term; and (c) whether the foreigner will be eligible for re-vaccination in Singapore on their own accord.
20 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider relaxing the requirement for returning Singaporeans and permanent residents to serve their quarantine in dedicated facilities if they have been vaccinated and tested negative for COVID-19 upon their arrival and for such Singaporeans and permanent residents to serve their quarantine at home instead.
21 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Health in view of the surging number of COVID-19 infections in certain countries and the emergence of more contagious and lethal variants, whether the Ministry will consider (i) a temporary suspension of flights from high risk areas to Singapore and (ii) increasing the duration of quarantine for all arrivals.
22 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health whether patients who experience mild allergic reactions but no anaphylaxis following the first dose of their COVID-19 vaccine will be permanently debarred from taking their second dose.
23 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Government is assessing the use of other vaccines other than Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna; and (b) whether there are any local vaccines under consideration for approval and use.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The questions will be addressed via the Ministerial Statement on 11 May 2021.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Collection of Data by Working Group on Health for Ethnic Minorities to Examine Root Causes of Poor Health in Such Communities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for Health whether the Working Group on Health for Ethnic Minorities will collect data to examine the association between poorer health and other social determinants of health to accurately identify the root causes of poor health in such communities.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: \tThe work group overseeing health promotion efforts for the ethnic minorities intends to examine the underlying causes for poor health in the Indian and Malay communities, including social determinants of health, drawing on data from national surveys and qualitative studies. This will allow the work group to develop culturally appropriate interventions with the overall aim of improving health and well-being.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Trend of Hiring of Professional Care-giving Help for Elderly in Past Three Years and Plans for Review of Subsidies and Eligibility for Home Caregiving Grant","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) over the past three years, what has been trend for hiring of professional care-giving help for the elderly; and (b) whether the Ministry plans to do a review of subsidies and eligibility for the Home Caregiving Grant.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Ministry of Health has a range of professional services that provide care-giving help. These include day care services including dementia day care, Integrated Home and Day Care (IHDC)1, Home Personal Care (HPC)2, Home Palliative Care, Day Hospice, and short-term respite care3 such as nursing home respite and centre-based weekend respite services. Formal healthcare workers are deployed in these services to care for seniors.
There has been an upward trend in utilisation of these services, from 17,000 in 2018 to close to 19,000 in 2019. However, there was a decline in utilisation to an average of 12,000 across Q1 to Q3 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
MOH continually reviews our schemes and services to ensure that they meet care needs of our seniors. This includes the Home Caregiving Grant which was introduced in 2019 and provides a $200 monthly payout to eligible individuals with permanent moderate disability living in the community. Families who need further help with care-giving services and support can approach the Agency for Integrated Care for further assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : IHDC is a pilot programme that helps seniors age in place by giving them the flexibility to receive home-based care services, centre-based care services, or a combination of both, depending on their care needs.","2 : HPC provides seniors with care in areas such as assistance with Activities of Daily Living (for example, showering and feeding), elder-sitting, as well as cognitive stimulating activities.","3 : Include nursing home and centre-based weekend respite care services, and night respite, home-based respite, and Go Respite (for quick activation of respite care) pilot programmes."],"footNoteQuestions":["25"],"questionNo":"25"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Amount of Medical Waste from Hospitals and Clinics in Past Year Compared with Five Years Ago and Measures to Reduce and Manage Such Waste","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the amount of medical waste from our hospitals and clinics in the past year compared with five years ago; (b) what has been done to manage these waste for disposal; and (c) how are hospitals, clinics and other organisations in the healthcare sector working on reducing the amount of waste.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Most medical waste are biohazardous waste such as used syringes and Personal Protective Equipment, that require careful disposal.
From 2016 to 2020, the amount of biohazardous waste generated and disposed of increased from 4,400 to 5,700 tonnes, about 5% per annum1. The increase may be attributed to several factors, including an increase in the number of patients seen in our hospitals; an increase in the treatments and procedures performed for these patients, particularly if they older and are more ill; and additional infection control and biosafety measures, especially during the on-going COVID-19 pandemic.
Biohazardous waste must be collected and disposed of safely to prevent cross-contamination risks and safeguard public health. Healthcare workers are trained to segregate biohazardous wastes safely, which are collected by toxic industrial waste collectors licensed by NEA for proper disposal.
For patient safety and care, it is not always feasible to avoid, reduce or reuse consumables which are necessary in treatment processes. However, hospitals and clinics have been mindful in reducing and recycling non-biohazardous waste, including general waste such as office administrative waste, food waste and packaging material, where possible. For example, plastic packaging materials of sterile equipment, fluids, and glove wrappings would be collected as recyclable waste.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Source: National Environment Agency. Data period: 2016 to 2020"],"footNoteQuestions":["26"],"questionNo":"26"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Total Number of Beds for Classes A, B1, B2 and C Wards in All Public Hospitals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health how many beds are there currently for each of the classes A, B1, B2 and C wards in all public hospitals.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: There are currently 640 A class, 910 B1 class, 3,513 B2/B2+1 class and 4,345 C class beds in the 10 public acute hospitals2 and the Institute of Mental Health. Of these 9,408 beds, 84% are B2/B2+/C class beds, 9% are B1 class beds, and 7% are A class beds.
The distribution of beds across different ward classes is largely in line with the principles set out in the 1993 White Paper on Affordable Health Care, where at least 65% of the hospital beds are B2 or C class beds, and no more than 13% of the hospital beds are A class beds. The distribution of beds for the various ward classes may fluctuate from time to time due to ward renovations and differs across hospitals to cater to different demand patterns.
MOH closely monitors the bed demand and supply for the different ward classes on an on-going basis.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Includes 77 B2+ beds in KKH","2 : Alexandra Hospital, Changi General Hospital, KK Women's & Children's Hospital, Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, National University Hospital, Singapore General Hospital, Sengkang General Hospital, Tan Tock Seng Hospital (including National Centre of Infectious Diseases) and National Heart Centre "],"footNoteQuestions":["27"],"questionNo":"27"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Recognise Art Therapists as Allied Health Professionals under Allied Health Professions Act","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Health whether there are plans to recognise art therapists as allied health professionals under the Allied Health Professions Act.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Allied Health Professions Act provides for the registration of prescribed allied health professionals. One of the key objectives of the Act is to ensure patient safety and wellbeing by regulating allied health practices which may cause adverse outcomes if inadequately trained persons are allowed to practice.
Art therapy by its nature does not pose significant risk of harm to patients. There are presently 381 art therapists who are registered as members of the Art Therapists’ Association of Singapore (ATAS). MOH currently has no plans to regulate art therapy under the AHPA.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Source: Art Therapists’ Association of Singapore website"],"footNoteQuestions":["28"],"questionNo":"28"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Marketers Facing Industry Level Sanctions for Breaching Guidelines on Interactive Marketing Communications and Social Media and Measures to Better Protect Consumer Interests","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Ms Raeesah Khan asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) whether the number of marketers who have faced industry level sanctions for breaching the Guidelines on Interactive Marketing Communications and Social Media are tracked; (b) if so, how many have been in breach since the Guidelines are established in 2016; and (c) whether the Ministry intends to introduce legislation or policies to improve the transparency of advertisements on social media and better protect consumer interests.
Mr S Iswaran: The Advertising Standards Authority of Singapore (ASAS), an advisory council to the Consumer Association of Singapore (CASE), issued the Guidelines on Interactive Marketing Communication and Social Media as part of the Singapore Code of Advertising Practice (SCAP) in August 2016. The guidelines clarify how advertisers and the parties they work with should design and manage their digital and social media marketing communications, so as to enable consumers to make informed choices about the products and services advertised online. The guidelines were developed in consultation with social media agencies, public agencies, multinational companies and members of the public.
From August 2016 to 2020, there were 10 breaches by seven marketers, mainly pertaining to the lack of disclosure of sponsored content. The marketers amended their marketing communication to comply with the guidelines after being notified by ASAS.
The advertising industry in Singapore is self-regulated. ASAS’ SCAP helps to ensure that advertisements are legal, decent, honest and truthful. Consumers can also play an important role, such as by exercising caution against advertisements that seem too good to be true.
False and misleading claims about products and services are prohibited under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (CPFTA). Companies that persistently engage in such unfair trade practices could be referred to the Competition and Consumer Commission (CCCS) for investigation.
ASAS is in the process of reviewing the SCAP to ensure alignment with international and community standards and changes in the advertising landscape. MCI and MTI will continue to engage ASAS on its efforts to safeguard consumer interests, uphold standards of advertisements and ensure its guidelines remain relevant and fit-for-purpose amidst the evolving advertising landscape.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Implement Points System for All NEA-related Offences Such as High-rise Littering","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether there are plans to implement a points system that is similar to the Traffic Offence Demerit system for all NEA-related offences such as high-rise littering.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: My Ministry has no plans to implement a demerit points system for all NEA-related offences committed by members of the public such as high-rise littering. We oversee a variety of issues and the penalties tagged to each offence have been calibrated to be commensurate with its severity.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Steps to Ensure Hospitality Industry Minimises Plastic and Food Waste from SHN Stays","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in light of the need for incoming travellers to serve their Stay-Home Notice (SHN) in hotels, whether there are steps taken to ensure that the hospitality industry minimises plastic and food waste generated from SHN stays and what more can be done to reduce such waste.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Hotels that serve as Stay-Home Notice (SHN) Dedicated Facilities are required to adhere to guidelines and minimise contact between hotel staff and the persons serving SHN to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission. These guidelines include requiring meals to be served in disposable containers and to avoid using reusable containers and cutlery, as these potentially contaminated items would need to be collected and cleaned by the hotel staff.
Notwithstanding these temporary measures, my Ministry has been working with stakeholders such as hotels to step up the 3Rs – Reduce, Reuse and Recycle. To focus attention on waste reduction opportunities, hotels with more than 200 rooms are required to report the amount of waste generated at their premises, along with waste reduction plans and targets, to the National Environment Agency (NEA) annually. Large commercial and industrial premises including hotels will also be required to segregate their food waste for treatment from 2024.
Hotels are also encouraged to adopt best practices to minimise waste. NEA has partnered the Singapore Hotel Association to publish a 3R Guidebook for Hotels. The guidebook highlights best practices in 3R programmes, such as doing away with unnecessary packaging and offering guests the option to reduce food portions. We urge all hotels to enhance their practices to minimise waste.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Support Companies Introducing Sustainable Packaging Alternatives to Single-use Plastics","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what are the plans to support companies in introducing sustainable packaging alternatives to single-use plastics; and (b) what considerations are given between the sale of single-use plastic packaging and charging it at the end point of retail sale.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Addressing packaging waste, which includes single-use plastics, is a priority for my Ministry. All packaging, regardless of material type, impacts the environment over its life cycle. Our approach has been to discourage the excessive use of all types of single-use packaging and to promote the use of reusables.
To encourage companies to adopt more sustainable packaging practices, NEA partnered the Singapore Manufacturing Federation to introduce a new industry-led programme called the Packaging Partnership Programme (PPP). The PPP develops industry knowledge and expertise in minimising the amount of packaging materials used for their products, and switching from single-use plastic packaging to reusables, where possible.
To focus companies’ attention on the packaging that they are placing on the market and nudge them to reduce packaging use in their operations, we have introduced measures under the Resource Sustainability Act. From this year, large producers of packaged products and retailers are required to start collecting data on the amount of packaging they put to the market as well as develop plans to reduce, reuse or recycle packaging, for submission to NEA annually. This mandatory reporting will lay the foundation for an Extended Producer Responsibility framework, where producers and retailers will be responsible for the collection and end-of-life management of the packaging materials of their products.
We also need to change consumer habits. Hence, we support the recommendation by the Citizens’ Workgroup on Reducing Excessive Consumption of Disposables for a disposable carrier bag charge at supermarkets and will commence public consultations to develop an appropriate charging model. Jurisdictions that have implemented bag charges have observed as high as a 60% to 90% reduction in the use of disposable bags.
The bag charge will be accompanied by outreach and engagement efforts to remind consumers to take and use disposable carrier bags judiciously, and to bring their own reusable bags. In the long run, bringing reusable bags would also be the more cost-effective and sustainable option since they can be used repeatedly.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Status of Review of First Batch of SG Eco Fund Applications","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment what is the status of the review of the first batch of SG Eco Fund applications which saw an overwhelming interest with over 200 applications received since its launch last year.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The first SG Eco Fund grant call was open for application from 25 November 2020 to 31 January 2021. We received more than 200 applications from the People, Public and Private (3P) sectors, covering a broad range of topics, such as waste, farming as well as nature and biodiversity.
The Trust is finalising its evaluation of the proposals. The outcome of the first grant call will be announced later this month and more details will be released then.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Further Flash Flood Mitigation Measures to Safeguard Flood Prone Locations Like Those Affected by Heavy Downpour on 17 April 2021","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"34 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) where were the places in Singapore that were flooded as a result of a heavy downpour on 17 April 2021; (b) whether flood mitigation measures were in place at these areas and, if so, what were these measures; and (c) what further flash flood measures can be implemented to safeguard flood prone areas in Singapore.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: On 17 April 2021, the Sumatra squall, coupled with convergence of surrounding winds arising from the influence of typhoon \"Surigae\" near the Philippines gave rise to intense and prolonged rainfall across Singapore. The highest rainfall that day was at Ulu Pandan with 170.6 millimetres of rain. This is the highest daily rainfall recorded in April since 1980 and is equivalent to 110% of Singapore’s average rainfall for the whole month of April, falling in a single day. This rainfall resulted in flash floods occurring at Bukit Timah and Dunearn Roads near Sime Darby Centre and a stretch of the Park Connectors along Ulu Pandan Canal.
The water levels in Bukit Timah Canal were very high due to the intense and prolonged rain, impeding discharge from roadside drains along Dunearn Road and Bukit Timah Road into the canal. This resulted in floods of around 150 millimetres depth at Dunearn and Bukit Timah Roads, and around 50 millimetres depth on the pedestrian sidewalks adjacent to the roadside drains. All affected roads remained passable to traffic and the flash floods subsided within 30 minutes. PUB Quick Response Teams were onsite directing traffic and assisting affected residents by issuing inflatable flood bags and portable flood barriers to prevent floodwaters from entering their homes.
PUB had completed the upgrading of the Bukit Timah First Diversion Canal between Bukit Timah Road and Clementi Road in September 2019 at a project cost of $300 million to alleviate flood risks along Bukit Timah Road and Dunearn Road. Water level sensors installed along the upgraded stretch of Bukit Timah Canal from Jalan Kampong Chantek to Sixth Avenue, just upstream of the expanded Bukit Timah First Diversion Canal, showed the section of the canal was 50% full on 17 April with no flash floods along that stretch despite the heavy rainfall.
PUB started the upgrading work on the section of Bukit Timah Canal between Rifle Range Road and Jalan Kampong Chantek, where the localised flash flood occurred, and is expected to complete it in 2024. When completed, we expect the top water level in this section of the Canal to be lower by over one metre for the same rainfall intensity experienced on 17 April.
A low-lying 300-metre stretch of the Park Connector next to the Ulu Pandan canal was also flooded on 17 April even though major roads, such as Clementi Road, Clementi Avenue 6, Commonwealth Avenue West and the AYE, served by the canal did not experience flooding. PUB will raise this low-lying section of the Park Connector when PUB reconstructs the Ulu Pandan Canal in tandem with future developments.
Since 2011, the Government has invested almost $2 billion in drainage works, and will invest another $1.4 billion over the next five years to enhance our flood resilience. Drainage design standards were also raised in 2011 to cater for higher intensity rainfall, as part of PUB’s broader efforts to address the impact of climate change.
It is however not practical to expand our drains to accommodate every extreme rainfall event as this would require massive land take and much higher costs. PUB will put in place cost-effective measures to minimise flood risks and better manage flood events. For instance, PUB is currently upgrading its rainfall forecasting radar technology, which will help improve prediction of locations where heavy rainfall might occur and enhance response time to potential flash floods.
PUB also works closely with LTA and Traffic Police during heavy storms to monitor road conditions and notify motorists of flooded roads to avoid through electronic road signages, online and social media platforms and radio broadcasts. Members of the public can be alerted on flash floods by subscribing to NEA’s and PUB’s weather forecast and water level SMS alerts or access the mobile app, \"myENV\", for updates on impending heavy rain and the water level in drains at designated locations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Current Average Size of Hawker Stalls and Plans for Building Larger Stall Units","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"35 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what is the current average size of hawker stalls; (b) whether the Ministry is open to the idea of allowing hawkers to take over an adjoining vacant stall so that the hawker can reconfigure the space to have more working space; and (c) whether there are any plans to build hawker stalls with larger spaces.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The sizes of hawker stalls within hawker centres managed by NEA or NEA-appointed operators have changed over the years. Hawker centres built before 1985 have stall sizes ranging from five square metres to 13 square metres. Newer centres built after 2011 have a minimum stall size of 10 square metres and provide hawkers with a more comfortable working environment, with more space for cooking and storage. We will continue to use these larger stall size norms for upcoming centres, as well as centres that undergo redevelopment.
Each hawker is able to rent up to two cooked food stalls. They can tender for two adjacent stalls, subject to availability. The successful tenderer of two adjacent stalls can apply to NEA to remove the dividing wall to create a larger working space. Many hawkers have successfully done this.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Progress Made with Producer Responsibility Scheme Operator to Work with informal Waste Collectors in View of New Electronic Waste Disposal System","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"36 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment with the introduction of the new electronic waste disposal system on 1 July 2021, what progress has been made with the producer responsibility scheme (PRS) operator to work with informal waste collectors or rag-and-bone men in relation to the collection of e-waste.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Informal waste collectors or rag-and-bone men have a role to play under the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme for e-waste. NEA requires the Producer Responsibility Scheme (PRS) Operator to develop and operationalise a plan to integrate them into the overall e-waste collection system.
ALBA was appointed as the PRS Operator in February and is engaging companies that consolidate e-waste collected by informal waste collectors. ALBA will leverage such parties to collect, transport and sort e-waste, thereby tapping on the informal waste collectors’ knowledge and network.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"State Expenditure Budgeted to Support World Economic Forum Special Annual Meeting","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"37 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Trade and Industry how much state expenditure has been budgeted to support the World Economic Forum Special Annual Meeting.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: We look forward to hosting the World Economic Forum’s Special Annual Meeting in Singapore in August this year. It will reinforce Singapore’s positioning as a choice location for safe and successful world-class Meetings, Incentive Travel, Conventions and Exhibitions (MICE) events. We are working with the Forum to put in place the necessary measures to ensure the safety and security for all participants and staff, and for our community. The specific arrangements and hence, the associated costs can only be firmed up nearer the date.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact on Singapore's Imports and Exports and Supply Chain Disruption due to Blockage of Suez Canal","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"38 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the impact on Singapore's imports and exports due to the blockage of the Suez Canal by a stranded container ship; (b) whether there are critical supplies for our industries and domestic consumption that have been delayed significantly; (c) whether there are sufficient stockpiles or alternative supply sources to mitigate the supply shortage; and (d) how has the Government assisted businesses that have been affected by this supply chain disruption.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Suez Canal was blocked between 23 and 29 March 2021 when Evergreen Marine Corp’s container vessel Ever Given ran aground in the canal.
Global shipping was disrupted during the blockage. Fortunately, our multi-prong strategy of stockpiling, diversifying sources and localising production helped mitigate the impact of the blockage on Singapore. Singapore businesses drew down their buffer stock, activated alternate freight options for urgent shipments and tapped on alternate sources of supplies.
Nevertheless, the longer term impact of the Suez Canal logjam has yet to play out fully. The blockage has exacerbated existing challenges in global shipping, including constraints in vessel capacity, congestions at major ports, and imbalance of containers. This will thus put more pressure on global supply chains and increase the cost of shipping in future.
The Suez Canal incident is another reminder that in our interconnected world, disruptions can happen at any time and from any source, and they will be felt by the global economy, including Singapore. It is therefore imperative for all companies, to continuously prepare themselves for a more uncertain operating environment and refresh their resilience and supply chain strategies accordingly.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extend Validity of SingapoRediscovers Vouchers beyond 30 June 2021","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"39 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how many adult Singaporeans still have not redeemed their SingapoRediscover Vouchers; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider extending the validity of the vouchers beyond 30 June 2021 so as to prevent overcrowding and overbooking during the June school holidays.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: As at 30 April 2021, over a million adult Singaporeans have used their SingapoRediscovers Vouchers (SRV) at least once. About two million adult Singaporeans have not redeemed their SRV.
The redemption deadline has been extended to 31 December 2021 to allow Singaporeans to spread their visits throughout the rest of the year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Availability of Rest Facilities or Break Areas for Non-teaching Staff in Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"40 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Education whether there are mandated rest facilities or break areas for non-teaching staff at schools and which are not within the discretion of the school administration.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Non-teaching staff at schools have rest areas such as the staff lounge and dedicated rooms. For outsourced workers such as cleaners, there are dedicated rest facilities as recommended under the Tripartite Advisory on Provision of Rest Areas for Outsourced Workers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on International Researchers in Local Universities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"41 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Education what is the proportion of international researchers in our local Universities who are (i) masters research students (ii) PhD research students (iii) post-doctoral research fellows and (iv) assistant professor and above, respectively.
Mr Lawrence Wong: In 2019, around one-third of Masters by Research students and two-thirds of PhD students and Post-doctoral Research Fellows (Post-docs) in the Autonomous Universities (AUs) were non-Residents, that is, non-Singaporeans and non-Permanent Residents. As for research-active faculty, Assistant Professors and above, around 40% were non-Residents.
Like Universities everywhere around the world, our AUs seek to attract and retain international academic talent, so as to pursue excellence in research and education for the benefit of Singapore and Singaporeans. At the same time, our AUs are continuing to build up the local academic and research manpower pipeline. MOE also works with the AUs to provide support to local academics at different stages of their studies and careers. Through the Singapore Teaching and Academic Research Talent scheme (START), we support young Singaporean undergraduates and postgraduates keen on pursuing an academic career at the AUs via scholarships and mentorship opportunities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adoption of Work-from-home or Flexible Working Hours for Staff in Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"42 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Education in light of the encouragement for employers to continue supporting their employees to work from home or adopt flexible working hours (a) whether there are efforts by all schools to support staff especially administrative staff, to enable remote working, digital collaboration and flexible work; (b) whether this has been effective for schools in their day-to-day operations; and (c) what has been the response to such measures from staff.
Mr Lawrence Wong: MOE aligns our workforce arrangements for teachers and staff with the workforce advisories issued by the Multi-Ministry Taskforce (MTF), MOM and Public Service Division (PSD).
With students attending school as per normal, teachers and school staff need to be physically present to support school operations and to ensure that the learning of our students is not disrupted.
The schools will exercise flexibility on work arrangement where operationally feasible. For example, school staff may be allowed to:
(a) Report or leave at staggered hours if they have no lessons or duties assigned for the start or end of the school day; or
(b) Work from home on a day where they have no physical classes or other assigned duties requiring their physical presence in school.
This arrangement has worked well for our schools and staff in balancing the need to meet the schools’ operating needs while providing flexibility in work arrangement where feasible.
To facilitate new ways of working and digital collaboration in schools, school staff are supported with suitable IT devices and tools, as well as resources on topics such as conducting lessons with students, meetings with colleagues or engaging parents using virtual platforms.
Our staff have generally adapted well to embracing new technologies in their work. For example, there have been many positive stories about our officers employing innovative pedagogies and leveraging digital tools to design and enhance students’ learning experiences, especially in the context of blended learning.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Entry to Local Universities and Extension of Education Subsidies to Singaporean Students Studying in Private Universities Locally","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"43 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Education from 2015 to 2020 (a) what percentage of Polytechnic students have secured places in local Universities; (b) whether Junior College students are given priority over Polytechnic graduates in entry to local Universities; and (c) whether there are plans to extend education subsidies to Singaporean students studying at private Universities locally.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The proportion of Polytechnic graduates gaining admission to local Universities has increased over the years, in tandem with the expansion of University places to raise the cohort participation rate. It has risen from about one in four in 2015, to one in three today. Admission to the Autonomous Universities is based on merit and all applicants are assessed fairly and objectively based on their demonstrated strengths and merits, and regardless of their prior educational pathway.
Private education institutions (PEIs) are not part of the public education system and have varying quality of programmes and learning outcomes. Given the diversity of programmes offered by PEIs, it is challenging for SkillsFuture Singapore or MOE to meaningfully review and accredit these degree programmes for their quality. It is thus difficult to apply a blanket approach in terms of Government funding and support.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Background Checks Conducted Prior to Hiring of Non-teaching Staff and Safeguards in Place to Ensure Schools Remain a Safe Environment for Students","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"44 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Education (a) what are the background checks conducted prior to the hiring of non-teaching staff who may come into contact with students in Primary schools; and (b) what are the safeguards in place to ensure that schools remain a safe environment for students.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The safety of our students is of paramount importance to MOE. As part of the hiring process, MOE conducts pre-employment checks on all prospective employees who are considered for non-teaching staff positions in schools. These include screening the applicants with the Police and conducting reference checks with their previous employers or referees.
MOE has a set of guidelines on how MOE officers, including non-teaching staff are expected to conduct themselves professionally. These are communicated to our staff regularly to ensure they understand the expectations. MOE takes a very serious view of any misconduct by staff that may impinge on the safety and well-being of students. Where there is indication of improper behaviour, the case will be thoroughly investigated and disciplinary actions taken accordingly, or if need be, referred to the Police for their investigations. In severe cases, the offending officers will be suspended from service or re-deployed to non-student facing roles while investigations take place. Schools will continue to strengthen the communication and engagement with our staff on the Code of Conduct, make explicit the professional boundaries in their interactions with students as well as step up vigilance to safeguard and protect our students.
Students also learn about personal safety and protection from abuse through the Character and Citizenship Education curriculum. These lessons start from Primary 1 and are reinforced throughout their years in school. Schools also help students recognise that they can seek help from trusted adults when there is risk of their personal safety being compromised. Our teachers, School Counsellors and Student Welfare Officers are also trained, and look out for signs of distress in students so as to support them where necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Availability of Safe Spaces for Youths of Institutes of Higher Learning to Engage and Have Difficult or Contentious Conversations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"45 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for Education whether there are currently safe spaces for youths of Institutes of Higher Learning to engage and have difficult or contentious conversations in a well-guided and supported manner without fear of peer or public \"cancellation\".
Mr Lawrence Wong: As part of their educational mission, the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) are committed to helping students develop critical thinking skills and to provide a safe and conducive environment for rational discourse and learning.
The IHLs’ Codes of Conduct for staff and students emphasise the importance of civil, respectful and balanced discourse where differing opinions can be voiced and discussed objectively. Against this backdrop, students learn to engage respectfully and constructively with diverse perspectives, including those related to contentious issues.
The IHLs are very clear that they need to provide a safe environment for students to express their views, and engage in robust and rigorous debate, without fear of being “cancelled”. While the views on specific issues may differ, the discourse must always be carried out in a civil and respectful manner, so as to ensure a positive learning environment.
At the national level, our youth also have opportunities to discuss and engage with diverse perspectives, including with other youth, industry experts and policy makers from various agencies. Such platforms include the regular Youth Conversations and Youth Action challenge, organised by the National Youth Council. We continue to provide safe avenues for our youths to voice their opinions and to engage with each other respectfully.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Efforts to Help Fresh Graduates from Private Education Institutions (PEIs) Secure Jobs and Accreditation Process for PEIs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"46 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Education (a) what the current efforts are to help fresh graduates from private education institutions (PEIs) secure jobs in both the public and private sectors; and (b) whether SkillsFuture Singapore and the Ministry will consider an accreditation process for PEIs.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The private education landscape is diverse, with a range of providers and course offerings. Under SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG)’s regulatory framework, Private Education Institutions (PEIs) can apply to be accredited under the EduTrust Certification Scheme, a voluntary quality assurance scheme focused on the academic and organisational processes and structures of the institution.
While useful as a guide for employers and prospective students, the EduTrust Certification Scheme does not cover academic standards. Given the diversity of programmes that are offered by the PEIs today, it would be difficult to have a central accreditation framework that covers academic quality or industry relevance.
As private institutions, the onus remains on PEIs to work with industry to regularly review their curriculum and course offerings for relevance to potential employers. This positions their graduates to secure good jobs post-graduation. SSG publishes results of the annual PEI Graduate Employment Survey (GES), to support prospective students in making informed decisions on whether they wish to enrol in a PEI programme.
There is a range of Government initiatives and programmes to help graduates in their job search. Graduates can visit any of the Career Matching Services touchpoints comprising WSG’s Careers Connect and Careers Connect “On-The-Go”, NTUC-e2i’s career centres and SGUnited Jobs and Skills Centres for employment assistance. Recent graduates can also participate in traineeship opportunities in both public and private organisations under the SGUnited Traineeships programme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support for Pre-schoolers Identified with Special Needs or Learning Disabilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"47 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the current number of pre-schoolers in mainstream pre-schools who have been diagnosed or identified with special needs or learning disabilities; and (b) whether our early childhood educators are equipped with the necessary skills to support these pre-schoolers.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Development Support (DS) and Learning Support (LS) Programme is one of a suite of programmes which provides additional developmental support for pre-school children. The DS-LS Progamme is currently designed to support pre-school children aged five and six identified with mild developmental delays or learning needs. The DS-LS programme is currently offered at about 550 pre-schools. Children on the DS-LS programme are given the necessary support such as pull-out sessions with Learning Support Educators or therapists to address their developmental and learning needs.
For the younger nursery children, there are issues of whether identifying children with mild developmental delays or learning needs at these earlier ages is appropriate and if intervention via the existing DS-LS programme is suitable. ECDA is studying these issues with agencies.
For nursery children with clearer moderate to severe developmental delays, pre-schools can already identify and refer these children to KKH and National University Hospital as well as the Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children (EIPIC) where more intensive support can be provided.
At the same time, ECDA is scaling up KidSTART to support more low-income families with the development of their children from birth. This will support the development of these children from these families, regardless of whether there are development delays.
Taking ECDA’s KidSTART programme, DS-LS programme and the EIPIC programme together, these form the range of assistance available to provide additional developmental support for children of pre-school-age and their families.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Study on Children Who Age out of Foster Care System without Being Adopted or Reunited with Their Natural Parents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"48 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) over the past 10 years, what is the percentage of children who age out of the foster care system without being adopted or reunited with their natural parents; and (b) whether there has been any study conducted on such children as they become adults particularly on (i) securing employment (ii) home ownership and (iii) risk of incarceration.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Children who have been abused, neglected or abandoned are placed in alternative care such as with foster families. This is usually a temporary arrangement, until it is safe for the children to return home to their families. MSF and social service agencies (SSAs) work with the children and their families towards safe reunification wherever possible.
The proportion of foster children who aged out of MSF’s fostering scheme and were not reunified with their birth families or adopted is low, accounting for less than 1% of foster children each year from 2011 to 2020. Of this handful of young adults, almost all of them would stay with their relatives or stay on with their foster parents.
At present, while there is no dedicated research on children who age out of foster care, MSF and the National Council of Social Service collaborate on research on the outcomes of vulnerable children. Preliminary findings suggest that children impacted by certain negative life events, such as contact with the criminal justice system or child protective system, generally earn lower incomes in adulthood and are also more likely to be staying in rental housing, compared to those who did not have such experiences. In addition, individuals with a history of contact with the child protection and welfare systems are also more likely to have contact with the criminal justice system. If individuals have any specific needs for assistance, MSF together with other Government agencies and our SSA partners would provide the necessary support to them. These findings are consistent with overseas research and underscore the importance of MSF and SSAs’ efforts to intervene upstream and early to help children from at-risk families, so that they may achieve better outcomes in life.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mandatory Intervention or Counselling Programmes for Rehabilitation and Re-integration of Perpetrators of Domestic Violence Cases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"49 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether there are mandatory intervention or counselling programmes for the rehabilitation and re-integration back into the family unit for perpetrators of domestic violence cases.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: A person who experiences violence by a family member may apply for a Personal Protection Order (PPO) under the Women’s Charter. When granting the PPO, the Court may order the parties involved in the PPO application and their family members to attend the Mandatory Counselling Programme (MCP). The MCP aims to keep families safe by addressing the perpetrator’s use of violence, helping family members learn more respectful behaviours to resolve conflict and reducing the risk of violence recurring. It also provides family members with the necessary support and skills to ensure their safety.
Other than attending the MCP, which is conducted by trained social service professionals, perpetrators and victims of family violence may voluntarily seek support from Family Violence Specialist Centres and Family Service Centres. The aim is to rehabilitate perpetrators of violence so that the family is safe and functioning.
While re-integration of perpetrators with their families is generally desirable where possible, this may not always be the best outcome or feasible for every family. Social work professionals partner families, and the Courts where applicable, to determine the most appropriate interventions and safety plans for them depending on the specific circumstances.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Funds Allocated to Casework, Group Work and Community Work in Family Service Centres in Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"50 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development for each year in the past five years with regard to funding provided to family service centres, what is the amount and percentage of funds respectively allocated to (i) casework (ii) group work and (iii) community work.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Family Service Centres (FSCs) serve low-income and vulnerable individuals and families who need help addressing their social needs. The FSCs’ services are funded almost entirely by MSF, Tote Board and the Community Chest.
Each FSC receives funding for case-work based on the actual number and complexity of cases. Additional funding is provided for headcount to conduct group work and community work. Each FSC may internally re-allocate funding across its casework, group work and community work, according to its assessment of needs. We do not have readily available data on how individual FSCs allocate resources across their casework, group work and community work.
For community work, FSCs are also encouraged to leverage the SG Cares Community Network which brings together community and government agencies in identifying and meeting local community needs, and providing comprehensive, convenient and coordinated help to persons who need help.
In the past five years, the total amount of funding disbursed to FSCs has increased steadily from $84.3 million in 2016, to $114.7 million in 2020, details in Table 1 below. This is due to factors such as an increase in cases handled by the FSCs, an increase in the number of FSCs and also an increase in funding norms.
51 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) whether he can provide an update on travel conditions and quota allocations for Singaporeans to perform the Haj or Umrah pilgrimage this year; and (b) whether there is any safeguard to protect consumers and ensure that travel agencies offering pilgrimage services in Singapore do not collect deposits or excessive payments given the current situation.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: As of 10 May 2021, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) has yet to announce the arrangements for Haj 2021. It is unclear whether the Haj pilgrimage will be opened to Singaporeans and other international pilgrims.
Should Haj be allowed for international pilgrims, MUIS, in consultation with MOH, will assess the public health risks of sending a delegation for Haj this year. Given the on-going challenge of bringing the pandemic under control globally, public health must be a priority.
MUIS has instituted measures to mitigate the financial risks for pilgrims. These include requiring Haj General Service Agents (GSA) to provide bankers’ guarantee to safeguard pilgrim deposits and mandating a progressive payment schedule, instead of a lump sum collection by the Haj GSAs.
In special circumstances such as the deferment of Haj last year, MUIS worked closely with Association of Muslim Travel Agents Singapore (AMTAS) and the GSAs to recover most of the deposits paid by the pilgrims for the travel. The deposits collected by the GSAs was necessary to reserve airline tickets and accommodation, which was originally intended to be brought forward for Haj 2021. MUIS is working with the GSAs to provide refunds to pilgrims who made payments for Haj 2020, subject to some administration fees. MUIS will provide further updates to pilgrims in due course.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Asatizahs under Asatizah Recognition Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"52 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) as at 31 December 2020, what is the number of asatizahs under the Asatizah Recognition Scheme; (b) what is the profile of these asatizahs according to gender, age and educational attainment; (c) how many asatizahs have been financially assisted through zakat; (d) how many asatizahs have been disciplined; and (e) how many asatizahs have been struck off the roll and why.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: There are 4,945 asatizah recognised under the Asatizah Recognition Scheme (ARS).
About 60% of the ARS-recognised asatizah have degree or diplomas in Islamic studies, while the remaining 40% are Quranic reading teachers with qualifying certificates.
Female asatizah comprise about two-thirds of all ARS recognised asatizah. About half of the asatizah are aged 36 or below, while just over 10% are above 65 years of age.
Currently, about 40 of these asatizah are financially assisted through zakat. During the COVID-19 period, an additional 500 asatizah received financial assistance from Pergas' Gracious Package, which was supplemented by MUIS.
The ARS ensures our asatizah, as certified religious teachers, have proper religious qualifications and meet the ARS Code of Ethics. Since ARS was made mandatory in January 2017, 33 Tier 1 and Tier 2 asatizah have been disciplined. Out of these, 18 asatizah have been removed from the ARS due to ethical misconduct and/or doctrinal issues.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Classification of Recumbent Bicycles and Whether They Are Allowed on Roads","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"53 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether recumbent bicycles \t– two-wheeler and three-wheeler – are classified as personal mobility devices or personal mobility aids; and (b) whether they are allowed on roads.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Recumbent devices are not considered personal mobility aids, which refer only to motorised wheelchairs and mobility scooters. Instead, two-wheeled recumbent devices, by convention, are classified as bicycles, whereas three-wheeled recumbent devices are classified as non-motorised personal mobility devices.
LTA has received requests from owners of three-wheeled recumbent devices to use them on roads. It is currently studying such requests, with safety as our primary consideration. LTA is keeping an open mind, and its decision will be informed by the Active Mobility Advisory Panel’s on-going review of existing rules for both cyclists and motorists to strengthen road safety. An assessment will be made after this review is completed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessment of Structural Integrity of Building at 68-74 Thomson Road","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"54 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether a thorough assessment of the structural integrity of the building at 68-74 Thomson Road to withstand the construction of the North South Corridor (NSC) could have been made so that its owners and occupants need not have to move out temporarily and then be told later of the need for demolition; and (b) whether the alignment of the NSC can be adjusted further away to avoid the need to demolish the building.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: A thorough impact assessment study of 68-74 Thomson Road (\"the Building\") was conducted in early 2020. Inspections and non-invasive tests, in accordance with international practices and guidelines, were conducted. The study found that the Building’s foundation would need to be strengthened to withstand the excavation works for the North-South Corridor (NSC) tunnel and therefore, demolition was not required. To ensure safety during the strengthening works, LTA assisted the occupants to move out of the Building.
However, after the residents had vacated the premises, LTA, as part of its due diligence, conducted further detailed and invasive tests to validate the Building’s concrete strength. It was through these tests that LTA found that the actual concrete strength was lower than required to safely carry out the strengthening works. This test would not have been part of the first test, which was to ascertain if the building foundation requires strengthening in view of the excavation works of the NSC. BCA concurred with the test results and assessment. The Government therefore decided that for safety reasons, the Building has to be demolished before excavation works for the NSC tunnel near the Building can commence.
The NSC alignment was announced in 2011 after an extensive study by agencies and takes into account the fact that the Thomson area is very densely built up with buildings next to the road reserve and underground MRT tracks in the vicinity. Due to site constraints, the two NSC tunnels, one tunnel for each direction of traffic flow, are already designed to be vertically stacked, instead of being built side by side, under the road reserve of Thomson Road. Given these land constraints, it is not possible to adjust the NSC alignment to avoid affecting the Building or other buildings along Thomson Road.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Safety Measure Introduced on Use of Lorries to Transport Workers to Prevent or Reduce Accidents, Injuries and Fatalities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"55 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry will consider banning the use of lorries for transporting workers; (b) if not, what safety measures will be introduced to ensure the safety of the workers in these vehicles; and (c) what will be done to prevent or reduce accidents, injuries and fatalities.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: I thank the Member for his questions. I have addressed them in my reply to Question Nos 32 to 36 at the 10 May 2021 Parliament sitting.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Incentive Programmes Offered to Public Transport Companies for Reliability","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"56 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) what incentives are offered to public transport companies for reliability; (b) how long these incentive programmes have been in place; and (c) how much incentives have been given over the past five years, broken down by companies and amounts.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Since 2011, LTA has been working with rail operators to enhance their maintenance regime. Everyone played their part. LTA upgraded rail operating assets such as signalling and power systems, and invested in infrastructure, such as the simulation centres to test signalling systems, back-up operation control centres, and now the Integrated Train Testing Centre.
The operators have put in place a higher maintenance tempo and over time, made a significant shift to more preventive instead of corrective maintenance. They increased the frequency of inspections, used sensors to troubleshoot, invested in digitalisation and are replacing components more frequently.
As a result, reliability of train services improved over the years. But so did maintenance cost. In train-kilometre terms, reliability increased by 10 times over the past six years. While overall this is a good development, especially from the point of view of the commuter, it raises issues concerning the financial sustainability of the rail network as the operators will make huge losses.
The Government, therefore, decided to enhance our subsidy for rail operations. But instead of an outright subsidy, we devised an incentive system called the Rail Reliability Incentive (RRI), a temporary grant from 2020 to 2023.
Rail operators are held to a set of performance standards on both the operation and the maintenance of the rail system. LTA may impose financial penalties if there is a breach of these requirements.
Conversely, if operators can meet the performance targets, they will be eligible for the incentive. To qualify for the grant, rail operators must achieve at least 500,000 train-kilometre in Mean Kilometres Between Failure (MKBF), and fulfil other requirements relating to operational performance and safety. Operators obtain the full grant quantum if they achieve 1 million MKBF or better.
I had earlier reported to the House that every year, the Government spends about $1 billion on annual operating subsidy for rail. The RRI is part of this $1 billion. Last year, SMRT and SBST both received the full RRI as they achieved MKBF of more than 1 million train-kilometre for the lines they operate. The incentive is based on a rate of 0.3 cents per place-kilometre. The total amount worked out to $173 million, and the amount that each operator received is proportionate to the operating capacity that they provide.
We must also invest in building up the capabilities of our operators. To this end, the Government developed the Rail Manpower Development Incentive (RMDI) to encourage rail operators to accelerate workforce upskilling and reskilling in core and emerging technical capability areas, such as automation application, data and statistical analysis, and asset management. More than 1,300 workers have completed their training under RMDI to date.
We have also established the Singapore Rail Academy to professionalise the rail workforce and deepen workforce capabilities in rail engineering, operations and maintenance. The Academy has also partnered Institutes of Higher Learning and the industry to develop innovative technical solutions for rail reliability.
We will continue to work with operators and other stakeholders to provide reliable rail services in a sustainable manner.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Improve Affordability of On-demand Point-to-point Transport Services for Personal Mobility Aids and Devices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"57 Ms Raeesah Khan asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry has any plans to improve the affordability of on-demand, point-to-point transport services for users of wheelchairs, personal mobility devices, and motorised wheelchairs to make our public transport system more inclusive.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Government has several measures in place to ensure that persons with disabilities can access point-to-point transport services. Foldable wheelchair users can commute on regular taxis, as LTA requires taxis to have sufficient boot space to accommodate luggage and most foldable wheelchairs. Users of motorised and high-back wheelchairs and personal mobility aids can book SMRT’s London Cabs, which are subsidised by MSF.
In addition, recognising the potential financial difficulties faced by persons with disabilities, the Government has also put in place schemes to defray transport costs in a targeted manner. Persons with disabilities who have been medically certified to be unable to take public transport and are dependent on taxis for their travelling needs can apply for SG Enable’s Taxi Subsidy Scheme (TSS) for travelling to school, work or employment-related training. The TSS covers up to 80% of their transport costs.
We are glad that the Member agrees that ensuring the affordability of point-to-point transport services for persons with disabilities is important. The Government will continue to support persons with disabilities, including ensuring their access to affordable point-to-point transport services.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Profile and Data on Professionals, Managers and Executives Placed through Workforce Singapore and Other Government schemes in Past Two Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"58 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Minister for Manpower (a) in the past two years, how many professionals, managers and executives have been placed through Workforce Singapore and other Government schemes; (b) what are the profiles of these placements; (c) whether the Government tracks the duration for which the placed worker stays in the company; and (d) how many became permanent employees.
Mrs Josephine Teo: WSG works closely with the unions, agencies and employers to place local jobseekers into jobs. In 2019 and 2020, WSG’s programmes and career matching services placed over 81,000 locals into jobs. In addition, WSG placed close to 5,300 locals into traineeships and company attachments under SGUnited Traineeships and Mid-Career Pathway programmes. Over 52,000 locals, or 60%, were placed into professionals, managers and executives (PMET) level jobs, traineeships or attachments.
Amongst those placed into PMET-level positions: (a) about 40% were mature workers aged 40 and above, (b) more than 35% were placed in growth sectors such as Information and Communications, Financial Services, and Healthcare; and (c) for those whom we have information on their previous employment, more than 60% were previously unemployed. Almost half of this group had been out of work for six months or more before placement.
The majority of these placements was into permanent jobs. These placements were primarily through career matching services offered by WSG’s Careers Connect, NTUC’s Employment and Employability Institute and other placement partners, with career conversion programmes accounting for a smaller share of placements.
The employment outcomes of participants placed in PMET-level positions through the career conversion programmes are good. About nine in 10 of participants remained employed after 18 months. About seven in 10 earned more than in their former job.
As for participants in the SGUnited Traineeships and SGUnited Mid-Career Pathways programmes, the large majority are still undergoing their traineeships or company attachments. Whether the trainees will be offered a permanent role with their host organisations will depend on the fit of each trainee to the available jobs, and the business situation and hiring needs of the host organisation. However, the skills and experience acquired through the programmes will put the trainees in a better position to secure jobs in other organisations as well. We will continue to monitor these programmes closely and WSG will provide career support to trainees where needed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Key Factors Contributing to Reduction of Gender Wage Gaps over Past Decade and Industries where Gender Wage Gap is Zero or Reversed","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"59 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what are the key factors contributing to the reduction of gender wage gaps over the past decade; (b) what are the industries in which the gender wage gap is zero or reversed; and (c) whether there are industries in which the gender wage gap widens with career progression.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Singapore’s adjusted gender pay gap – that is, after adjusting for differences in occupation, industry, hours worked, age and education – narrowed from 8.8% in 2002 to 6.0% in 2018. This compares favourably to other countries such as the US and Canada, both of which are around 8.0%1.
Through a recent joint study on Singapore’s Adjusted Gender Pay Gap that MOM conducted in collaboration with Assoc Prof Jessica Pan from NUS, we found that the main contributing factor for gender pay gap in Singapore is occupational segregation. In the healthcare sector, for example, there are more men than women in higher-paying occupations such as medical doctors. For science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) related occupations such as engineers, there is a higher proportion of men than women.
The adjusted gender pay gap measures the difference in pay for men and women in the same occupation. We are not able to isolate the impact that factors such as experience and performance have on career progression and consequently on the adjusted gender pay gap.
We seek to support women to enter and remain in occupations of their choice. This includes facilitating mentorships and career guidance to help women enter traditionally male-dominated industries, greater recognition of women and their career achievements to inspire other women to do the same, and upholding merit-based employment practices. We also encourage shared care-giving responsibilities between both genders as well as the adoption of flexible work arrangements and other work-life strategies to help employees fulfil both their work and personal responsibilities.
The fall in the adjusted gender pay gap is likely a result of these on-going efforts. Nevertheless, there remains much work to be done to promote the development of social norms that support more equal gender roles and more opportunities for women’s career progression.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Based on results for similar studies done for USA and Canada."],"footNoteQuestions":["59"],"questionNo":"59"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Renewal of S Passes for Companies where Quota was Reduced Due to COVID-19 Pandemic Restrictions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"60 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for Manpower whether companies seeking renewal of existing S Passes can be allowed to do so even if their quota has been reduced as a result of a drop of the companies' workforce numbers due to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.
Mrs Josephine Teo: A company’s quota for work permits and S Passes would be reduced as a result of a drop in the company’s workforce numbers. Existing employees who may not be in Singapore due to entry restrictions are included in the workforce numbers so long as they continue to be on the company’s payroll as evidenced by CPF contributions, or hold a valid work pass if they are non-residents. To be fair and consistent to all employers, we do not include workers who have obtained in-principle approval but have not arrived in Singapore to start work.
MOM may, on appeal, grant time-limited extensions for existing work passes, if there are valid reasons and assurance that they are short-term in nature. Companies that need transitional support while implementing plans for a leaner workforce can also consider applying for the Lean Enterprise Development (LED) Scheme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Work-from-home Arrangements for Employees Who Are unable to Take COVID-19 Vaccine","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"61 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Manpower for those unable to take the COVID-19 vaccine, whether the Ministry has considered requiring employers to allow them to continue their work-from-home arrangements as long as their jobs are amenable to such arrangements.
Mrs Josephine Teo: All employees, regardless of whether they have taken the COVID-19 vaccine, should continue to practise public health measures such as the Safe Management Measures for the workplace. This includes adhering to the prevailing work-from-home requirements.
When a high proportion of the population is vaccinated, the risk of infection for those who have not been vaccinated is also indirectly reduced. Employees who are unable to receive the COVID-19 vaccination, such as those who are severely immunocompromised or have a history of anaphylaxis, will thereby be better protected.
Should persons who are not vaccinated wish to continue working from home on a permanent basis, they may raise the request with their employers. We encourage employers to consider such requests sympathetically and explore mutually acceptable arrangements.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans for Permitting Urban Farms on Top Floor of HDB's Multi-storey Carparks across Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"62 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are HDB's rollout plans for permitting urban farms on the top floor of HDB's multi-storey carparks across Singapore; and (b) whether estates, in particular Sengkang, may voluntarily avail themselves to this plan.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) and HDB have tendered out a total of 16 Multi-Storey Carpark (MSCP) sites for commercial urban farming across two tenders. The second tender closed recently on 23 March 2021.
SFA and HDB consider multiple factors when identifying suitable MSCP sites for commercial urban farming. These include the utilisation rate of the MSCPs, the loading which the rooftops at each site can bear, the availability of water and electricity supply, as well as the current and future developments plans for the surrounding HDB blocks. This allows us to open up alternative urban spaces for food production without compromising residents’ needs for parking spaces and to ensure that urban farms situated on MSCP rooftops are safe and have access to adequate supporting infrastructure.
Agencies will evaluate the first two tenders and gauge the level of industry interest, before deciding on future plans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Completion Number and Annual Net Increase in Number of HDB Public Rental Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"63 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development what is the annual completion number and annual net increase in the number of HDB public rental flats respectively for (i) 2011 to 2020, and (ii) the next five years on a projected basis.
Mr Desmond Lee: Between 2011 and 2020, HDB added an average of 1,780 new units to our stock of rental flats every year. After accounting for the clearance of old rental flats, the average net increase in rental units was 1,640 annually.
HDB will continue to build rental flats in the next few years, to gradually renew our stock of rental flats. There are currently about 1,600 rental flats under construction, which will be completed progressively by around 2025.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Number of Rental Flats under HDB Public Rental Scheme and Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme by Flat Type","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"64 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the current number of rental flats under the HDB Public Rental Scheme, broken down by 1-room and 2-room flats; and (b) what is the current number of rental flats under the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS), broken down by flat type.
Mr Desmond Lee: There are currently about 31,000 1-room and 31,000 2-room Public Rental flats. We have sufficient supply for households who need these flats.
For the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS), there are about 110 2-room, 570 3-room, and 60 4-room flats. The supply of PPHS flats is limited and depends on the availability of vacant flats, such as those in vacated blocks that are not immediately needed for redevelopment. We have been working to provide a more stable supply of PPHS flats and will continue to study how we can provide more options for families who need temporary housing while waiting for their new flat to be completed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Current HDB Flat Allocation System for BTOs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"65 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for National Development whether there will be a review of the current HDB flat allocation system for BTOs to ensure that the system continues to be inclusive, fair, transparent and equitable for all Singaporeans.
Mr Desmond Lee: The allocation of flats in Build-To-Order (BTO) exercises serves to meet the housing needs of different buyer groups – first-timer (FT) and second-timer (ST) families, seniors, and singles. Given Singapore’s limited land and resources to build new flats, we need to prioritise the allocation of BTO flats among these different groups.
Generally, applicants with greater housing need enjoy priority in HDB's flat allocation system. For instance, FT families receive an extra ballot chance compared to ST families, and FT families expecting a child or who have a child aged 18 years old or younger can qualify for priority under the Parenthood Priority Scheme. The eligibility criteria and allocation quotas for HDB's priority schemes are published on the HDB InfoWEB.
HDB also strives to ensure that the needs of vulnerable groups are met, thereby keeping our public housing estates inclusive. For instance, public rental tenants who are able and wish to buy their own home enjoy priority under the Tenants' Priority Scheme.
All applications are put through a computerised balloting process to allocate queue numbers to flat applicants. At every sales exercise, rigorous audits and checks are carried out. These include checking applicants' eligibility, auditing the computer balloting process and counter-checking ballot results before publishing them. These steps ensure that the balloting process remains robust and fair to all applicants.
MND and HDB will continue to conduct regular reviews of our public housing policies to ensure that they meet the evolving needs of society.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Amount Refunded to Lessees by Room Type and Balance of Lease under the Lease Buyback Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"66 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development since the introduction of the Lease Buyback Scheme, what amount has been refunded to lessees who returned their flats to HDB and received a refund of the value of the unused portion of the lease by (i) room type and (ii) balance of lease.
Mr Desmond Lee: Seniors who participated in the Lease Buyback Scheme (LBS) may return the flat early to HDB under certain circumstances, for example, moving in to stay with family for mutual care and support or demise, and receive compensation based on the value of the remaining lease. The median amount received by such seniors since the introduction of the LBS scheme, broken down by flat type and remaining lease, is shown in Tables 1 and 2 respectively.
67 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development since the introduction of HDB's 2-room Flexi Flat Scheme, what are the amounts that have been refunded to lessees who returned their flats to HDB, broken down by lease balances, under the Lease Buyback Scheme or other schemes.
Mr Desmond Lee: Seniors who purchased a 2-room Flexi short-lease flat may return the flat early to HDB under certain circumstances, for example, moving in to stay with family for mutual care and support or demise, and receive compensation based on the value of the remaining lease. The median amounts received by such seniors since the introduction of short-lease 2-room flexi flats, broken down by the remaining lease, is shown in Table 1.
68 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB can consider (i) painting HDB block numbers in large fonts and (ii) ensuring that HDB block numbers or block number light boxes are visible to both pedestrians and motorists.
Mr Desmond Lee: HDB provides two illuminated block signages and two non-illuminated signage plates to every residential block, precinct pavilion and multi-storey car park.
The signages are designed in accordance with the Singapore Standards SS 599 “Guide for Wayfinding Signage in Public Areas” to ensure visibility, even from a distance, and are installed at appropriate heights such that they are visible from ground level. In fact, the text height adopted for HDB’s illuminated block signages at residential blocks is 300 millimetres, which is larger than the minimum text height of 150 millimetres recommended by the Singapore Standards.
As part of their role to manage and maintain common property in HDB estates, Town Councils may also make changes to block signages in response to ground feedback or as part of their repairs and redecorations cyclical works.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures in Place to Ensure Safety and Integrity of Temporary Workers' Quarters and Building and Safety Incidents at Such Sites in Last Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"69 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for National Development (a) what measures are in place to ensure the safety and integrity of temporary workers' quarters; (b) whether there are adequate checks and supervision during the materials sourcing and construction process of the quarters; and (c) how many building or safety incidents relating to the quarters have occurred at such sites in the last three years.
Mr Desmond Lee: Temporary workers’ quarters (TWQs) are required to comply with the relevant codes and standards for temporary buildings.
For example, under the Building Control (Temporary Buildings) Regulations, temporary workers' quarters (TWQs) are required to comply with requirements for lightning protection and ventilation. For TWQs exceeding one storey in height, a Professional Engineer (PE) is required to design the TWQs in accordance with the relevant codes and standards, which includes requirements for structural design and construction materials. The PE is required to supervise the works to ensure that the TWQs are built according to the PE’s design and BCA’s requirements. BCA conducts inspections on completed TWQs located at or near construction sites to ensure that they are built in accordance with the building regulations.
Similarly for fire safety, a Qualified Person (QP) must ensure that the design of the TWQs is compliant with the relevant codes and standards, and supervise the works to ensure that the works are carried out in accordance with the designs and the relevant codes and standards. Upon completion, QPs must also ensure that the fire safety systems are operationally ready.
BCA and SCDF can take enforcement action against any party who contravenes the respective Regulations. In April 2021, a temporary steel structure collapsed and damaged an adjacent unoccupied TWQ. Investigations are currently on-going. BCA is not aware of any other safety incidents involving TWQs in the last three years. SCDF is not aware of any major fire incidents in TWQs in the last three years.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Applications to Purchase HDB Flats by Single Unwed Parents Rejected in Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"70 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development for each year in the past five years (a) how many single unwed parents have applied to purchase a HDB flat from HDB; and (b) how many of such purchase applications have been rejected.
Mr Desmond Lee: We recognise that many single unwed parents are in the situation not out of choice, but out of circumstance. MND announced at the Committee of Supply debate in March 2020 that we will assist single unwed parents who approach HDB with their housing needs, and that each case will be assessed holistically. For those who are in stable employment and can afford to buy a flat, we will allow them to buy up to a 3-room flat in a non-mature estate. For those who have insufficient finances and need a place to stay, we will continue to consider them for public rental if it is in their child’s best interests, taking into account inputs from social workers if necessary.
Between 2017 and 2019, HDB received an average of about 50 requests from single unwed parents to purchase a new flat from HDB. About 70% of these requests were rejected. Following MND’s announcement, HDB received about 200 such requests from single unwed parents in 2020. About 30% of these requests were rejected. The top reasons for rejections were not submitting the necessary documents for assessment and insufficient budget to buy a flat.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Number of People Charged for Animal Cruelty Offences under Animals and Birds Act in Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"71 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development (a) in each of the last five years, what is the number of people who have been charged for animal cruelty offences under the Animals and Birds Act; (b) of these, what is the number of people who have been (i) convicted and (ii) sentenced to imprisonment; and (c) what are the top three categories of animals in respect of which the persons have been charged.
Mr Desmond Lee: The number of individuals who have been charged for animal cruelty offences under the Animals and Birds Act since 2016 is provided in Table 1.
Of these cases, 22 individuals have been convicted as of April 2021, and 11 of them have been sentenced to imprisonment. The types of animals involved in these cases are primarily cats and dogs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Deputy Prime Minister","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WS","content":"[(proc text) The following statements were in the speech given by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Heng Swee Keat) during the debate on the Second Reading of the Significant Infrastructure Government Loan Bill at the Sitting of 10 May 2021: (proc text)]
The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Heng Swee Keat): Let me also make the important point as to why I had to stand up to say this. It is not my classification or the Ministry of Finance's classification that this constitutes revenue available for spending and this does not. We follow international standards. These have been agreed. It follows the international standard set out by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The IMF provides for a range of ways in which certain expenditures can be counted or not counted, because the structures of governments in different countries are different. [Please refer to “Significant Infrastructure Government Loan Bill”, Official Report, 10 May 2021, Volume 95, Issue No 29, Second Reading Bills section.]
[(proc text) Written statement by Mr Heng Swee Keat circulated with leave of the Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5): (proc text)]
I wish to make the following factual correction to the reply given during the debate on the Second Reading of the Significant Infrastructure Government Loan Bill at the Sitting of 10 May 2021. My reply should read as follows:
The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Heng Swee Keat): Let me also make the important point as to why I had to stand up to say this. It is not my classification or the Ministry of Finance's classification that this constitutes revenue available for spending, and this does not. We follow international standards and our Reserves Protection Framework. These have been agreed. It follows the international standards set out by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The IMF provides for a range of ways in which certain expenditures can be counted or not counted, because the structures of governments in different countries are different.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[{"annexureID":1921,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 1","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210510/annex-Annex 1 - Maps of Flood Locations.pdf","fileName":"Annex 1 - Maps of Flood Locations.pdf","sectionType":"OA","file":null},{"annexureID":1922,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 2","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210510/annex-Annex 2 - SINGA Bill.pdf","fileName":"Annex 2 - SINGA Bill.pdf","sectionType":"BP","file":null}],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":4481,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210510/vernacular-Ms Nadia A Samdin - Min Statement SPH Restructuring.pdf","fileName":"Ms Nadia A Samdin - Min Statement SPH Restructuring.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4482,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Tin Pei Ling","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210510/vernacular-Tin Peiling MS 10May2021-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Tin Peiling MS 10May2021-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4483,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Liang Eng Hwa","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210510/vernacular-Liang Eng Hwa Singa 10May2021-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Liang Eng Hwa Singa 10May2021-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4484,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Leong Mun Wai","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210510/vernacular-Leong Mun Wai Singa 10May2021-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Leong Mun Wai Singa 10May2021-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4485,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Don Wee","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210510/vernacular-Don Wee Singa 10May21-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Don Wee Singa 10May21-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4486,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Don Wee","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210510/vernacular-Don Wee LBA 10May21-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Don Wee LBA 10May21-Chinese.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}