\r\n
| \r\n
Page: 370
\r\nPage: 373
\r\nPage: 374
\r\n\r\n Under the provisions of\r\nclause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore,\r\nthe following Members have been granted permission by the Speaker\r\nto be absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament\r\nto which they have been appointed) for the periods stated:
\r\n\r\n \r\nPage: 374
\r\n\r\n \r\n 1\r\n Mr David Ong\r\n asked\r\nthe Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs whether\r\nthe Penal Code and other criminal legislation are sufficiently adequate\r\nto protect Singaporeans from offences and crimes committed by foreigners\r\nagainst them, in light of incidences of foreign suspects who have\r\nabsconded.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mr\r\nS Iswaran) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home\r\nAffairs)\r\n : Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to reiterate\r\na point that was made in this House earlier this year in reply to\r\na Member's question. And that is that all accused persons are treated\r\nequally under our laws, regardless of whether they are Singaporeans\r\nor foreigners, and regardless of whether the victim is a Singaporean\r\nor a foreigner.
\r\nPage: 375
\r\n\r\n Notwithstanding some high-profile incidents\r\nin recent months, foreigners do not disproportionately account for\r\ncrimes committed in Singapore.
\r\n\r\n When setting bail conditions,\r\nthe Police and the Courts take a variety of factors into account\r\nto assess the flight risk of the accused. These include the gravity\r\nof the offence, the extent of the accused person's roots in Singapore\r\nand whether the person has attempted to abscond previously. Ultimately,\r\ngiven that guilt is yet to be established by the Courts, a balance\r\nhas to be struck between ensuring that the accused person will be present\r\nto face charges, and not unduly curbing his movement.
\r\n\r\n When a person absconds,\r\nthe bail sum pledged by the surety may be forfeited. The Police\r\nwill arrest the wanted person if he is still in Singapore. In the\r\nevent that the accused person flees overseas, Police may issue an\r\nINTERPOL Red Notice. Police forces in INTERPOL member states will\r\nthen help to locate and arrest the accused person. The wanted person\r\nmay then be extradited back to Singapore. Absconding from bail is\r\nalso an aggravating factor which could result in a higher sentence\r\nwhen the accused person is later brought back to face charges against\r\nhim.
\r\n\r\n I want to assure Members\r\nof the House that MinLaw, MHA and its agencies regularly review\r\nour laws, procedures and the bail system to ensure that they remain\r\nrelevant to the crime situation and security needs of Singapore.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr David Ong (Jurong)\r\n : Mr\r\nSpeaker, I thank the Second Minister for the assurance. There is\r\nsome disquiet amongst Singaporeans over the several incidents involving foreigners\r\ninjuring Singaporeans, and had absconded. I can empathise with the Singaporeans'\r\nfeeling of a sense of injustice and rage as guilty foreigners flee\r\nafter committing a crime. How may we strengthen the legal process,\r\nincluding our courts system, to ensure that justice is done? May\r\nI ask the Second Minister if he would consider tightening the Criminal\r\nProcedure Code to prevent a repeat of future flight of probable\r\nsuspects involving crime of causing grievous hurt?
\r\n\r\n Sir, my next supplementary\r\nquestion is: can this House send a strong and clear signal of intent\r\nto protect everyone in Singapore, regardless of nationality, against\r\nbullies who take the law into their own hands and cause grievous\r\nhurt.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr S Iswaran\r\n : Mr Speaker,\r\nSir, I believe the second point was an exhortation. I will deal\r\nwith the first, which was a question. Can we tighten the Criminal\r\nProcedure Code (CPC) and what can be done? I would like to go back\r\nto the point I made in my answer to re-emphasise it. Bail is an\r\nimportant part of the criminal justice process that we have. In\r\nestablishing bail and conditions applicable to it, the Courts have\r\nto reconcile two important considerations. On the one hand, it has\r\nto ensure that the interest of the criminal justice system is served\r\nand perpetrators brought to task. On the other hand, it also has\r\nto respect the presumption of innocence and the right of free movement\r\nof the individual until he or she is proven guilty. This is an important\r\nprocess. The Police works with the prosecution to make sure all\r\nthe facts are brought before the Courts, so that the Courts can\r\nmake a full and informed decision on the matter. What it also means\r\nis that in the process, there may be some instances where you may\r\nhave flight. The objective of the exercise is to minimise flight\r\nrisk so that we do not have such incidents.
\r\nPage: 376
\r\n\r\n As I have mentioned before, MinLaw and\r\nMHA continually review the process and we will also look at whether\r\nthe bail system and the CPC can be enhanced to tighten this specifically.
\r\nPage: 376
\r\n\r\n \r\n 2\r\n Ms Tin Pei Ling\r\n asked\r\nthe Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs if he will\r\nprovide an update on the police inquiry into the case in which foreigners\r\ninvolved in a brawl at Suntec City in April 2010 jumped bail after\r\nbeing charged.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr S Iswaran (for the Deputy Prime Minister\r\nand Minister for Home Affairs)\r\n : Mr Speaker, Sir,\r\nin March this year, Deputy Prime Minister Teo informed the House\r\nthat the Police was conducting an internal inquiry to establish\r\nthe full facts of how the Suntec case was handled and whether there\r\nwere any lapses or negligence on the part of the officers handling\r\nthe case.
\r\n\r\n Police has now completed\r\nits internal inquiry, and has charged the Investigation Officer\r\nwho handled the case with neglect of duty. A Letter of Warning has\r\nalso been issued to his supervisor.
\r\n\r\n I would also point out that\r\nthe lapse was due to the error of an individual rather than to any\r\nsystemic shortcomings. In general, the framework for the management\r\nof investigations is sound. The Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)\r\nrequire supervisors to conduct regular checks on investigations\r\nand give directions, as appropriate, to ensure that there is progress.\r\nIf there is error or neglect in following established processes,\r\nthe responsible officers will be taken to task, as is evident in\r\nthis case.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Ms Tin Pei Ling (Marine Parade)\r\n :\r\nI thank the Second Minister for the update and clarification. I\r\nam heartened to know that the Ministry is taking a very serious\r\nview from a systemic point of view to make sure that the officers\r\ndischarge their duties responsibly and seriously. I would like to\r\nask a supplementary question, which is also related to the first\r\nParliamentary Question that hon Member, Mr David Ong, had asked.
\r\n\r\n Using this case as an illustration,\r\nin light of foreigners who have caused hurt to Singaporeans and\r\nwho have absconded and jumped bail, would the Ministry consider putting\r\nin as an SOP a mandatory impounding of passports, so that the accused,\r\nthough they have not been proven to be guilty, will remain in Singapore\r\nuntil the judgement is made? Impounding their passports would not\r\nrestrict their freedom of movement in Singapore, but it would ensure\r\nthat when the Courts need them, or when the judgement is made, they\r\nare in Singapore to receive the judgement. This is important in safeguarding\r\nthe safety and interests of Singaporeans who might have, inadvertently, become\r\nvictims of such unfortunate crime.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr S Iswaran\r\n : Mr Speaker,\r\nSir, I thank the Member for her question. I want to go back to the\r\nfirst point that I made and the response to the previous question.\r\nFirst of all, our laws are quite clear – they are impartial in the\r\nway they apply to all individuals who are within our jurisdiction.\r\nRegardless of the nationality of the perpetrator or alleged perpetrator\r\nof the crime or the nationality of the victim, our laws apply equally.\r\nI want to stress that.
\r\nPage: 377
\r\n\r\n The second point I want to make is that\r\nforeigners are not over represented in our crime statistics. Whilst\r\nthere may be some isolated cases which are highlighted, the fact remains\r\nthat it is generally not disproportionate. What we need to do is\r\nto make sure that our systems and processes are well equipped to\r\ndeal with the challenges.
\r\n\r\n The Member suggested the\r\nidea that if a foreigner is charged – not convicted but charged\r\n– with an offence that we make it mandatory to impound their passports.\r\nAs I have said, this is really a decision that we should leave to\r\nthe Courts, and not make it mandatory because there are so many\r\nconsiderations here. The nature of the crime, the gravity of the\r\nimpact, the nature of the individuals' own ties to Singapore and,\r\nmost importantly and fundamentally, we have to strike that balance\r\nbetween his or her right to freedom to move, especially before he\r\nor she is judged or found to be guilty. That trade-off and that\r\njudgement have to be left to the courts. What the Police and prosecution\r\ndo is to do their best to make sure all the facts are produced before\r\nthe courts so that the courts can make an informed decision.
\r\n\r\n Having said that, I understand\r\nthe Member's intent behind this, which is to ensure that we have\r\na more robust regime. That is why, as I mentioned earlier, we are\r\nreviewing the processes, as we do from time to time. We will see\r\nwhat else can be done to strengthen the framework and the procedures.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, one supplementary question for the Second Minister.\r\nHe mentioned in his answer that the Police have decided to charge\r\na police officer in charge of this case with neglect. I wonder whether\r\nhe is able to elaborate at this stage and give us details of what\r\nthe officer was alleged to have neglected to do.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr S Iswaran\r\n : Mr Speaker,\r\nSir, as the matter is before the Police Disciplinary Board, I would\r\nrather not go into the details. It would suffice to say that there\r\nare norms and expectations in terms of duty and what the officer\r\nneeds to do as part of his investigative duties. In this instance,\r\nhe was found, through the Police process, to have been negligent.
\r\nPage: 377
\r\n\r\n \r\n 3\r\n Mr Christopher de Souza\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts whether\r\nhis Ministry will consider helping to fund and upkeep the historically\r\nimportant \"Battle Box\" at Fort Canning Park as well as the ammunition\r\nstore at Labrador Park in view of their key roles in Singapore's\r\nhistory during the Second World War.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Senior Minister of State for Information,\r\nCommunications and the Arts (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien) (for the Minister\r\nfor Information, Communications and the Arts)\r\n : Mr\r\nSpeaker, Sir, I thank Mr Christopher de Souza for his interest in\r\nthe \"Battle Box\" at Fort Canning and the ammunition store at Labrador\r\nPark, which I agree are historically significant, given the roles\r\nthey played during World War II.
\r\n\r\n As part of the National\r\nHeritage Board's (NHB's) continuing efforts to promote heritage\r\nawareness, a heritage marker had been placed at \"Battle Box\", and\r\nanother one at Labrador\r\nPark. Together with 18 other World War Two markers, they form the\r\nWorld War II Heritage Trail launched this year. \"Battle Box\" is\r\nnow a private museum managed by The Legends Fort Canning Park Private\r\nLimited. Rich in flora and fauna, the Labrador Park also contains\r\nhistorical relics from the Second World War and has been incorporated\r\ninto a nature reserve by the National Parks Board (NParks). The ammunition\r\nstore is currently one of the landmarks along the nature trail,\r\nand is managed by the company GreenTube Technology Private Limited.
\r\nPage: 378
\r\n\r\n To address Mr de Souza's\r\nquestion on funding support, the two private companies can apply\r\nto NHB's Heritage Industry Incentive Programme (Hi2P), which aims\r\nto assist private museums in upgrading their galleries and programmes\r\nas part of the objective to develop, enhance and grow private and\r\npeople sector players in the heritage eco-system. Under the scheme,\r\nNHB can support up to a maximum of 50% of the qualifying costs incurred,\r\nwhich is capped at $100,000 per project.
\r\n\r\n Given the historic significance\r\nof the two sites, NHB is ready to consider the funding requests\r\nfrom the two companies favourably, if the companies wish to improve\r\nvisitor experience and are in need of financial support to do so.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State\r\nfor her comprehensive reply. My clarification, Sir, is borne out\r\nof the great significance of these two historic sites. If one visits\r\nthem, one would be able to see Kempeitai writings on the\r\nwalls of \"Battle Box\" and also a discussion leading to the surrender\r\nof Singapore which is very important for our National Servicemen\r\nto understand. Therefore, arising out of the 50% cost cap and the cap\r\nof $100,000 for running costs, in my humble view, it is quite low,\r\nespecially given the important historical nature of the ammunition\r\ndump in Labrador Park and the \"Battle Box\" at Fort Canning. Would\r\nthere be an open ness on the National Heritage Board or MICA's front\r\nto raise that quantum? I have visited both sites and I have seen, unfortunately,\r\na depreciation in the quality of the experience over the last few\r\nyears, especially for visitors.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien\r\n : Mr\r\nSpeaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to clarify. I think\r\nI see two questions here. One is the quantum of the programme itself\r\nand the other is the state of maintenance. I would like to clarify\r\nto the House that for these two projects, we have been speaking\r\nor discussing the possibility with the operators. So far, the operators\r\nhave not expressed any interest in tapping on the Government funds.\r\nSo, the issue about funding has not arisen, and has not been addressed\r\nbecause we need to get them interested to want to co-invest with\r\nus in this exhibition. The reason for the co-investment is that\r\nwe like to see private museum operators taking an interest in having a\r\nstake in the site so that there is an investment, so that there\r\nis an ownership of the exhibition.
\r\n\r\n As to whether MICA or NHB\r\nwill review and reconsider the significance of the two sites and\r\nelevated it to something else: at this moment we have gone through\r\nan evaluation programme and it did not meet the standards that is\r\nrequired by the Preservation of Monuments Board's criteria. But,\r\nas with most things, we will review it from time to time and we\r\nwill definitely consider Mr de Souza's suggestions.
\r\n\r\n On the state of maintenance,\r\nI would just like to clarify that the operators are obliged to observe\r\nthe terms and conditions listed in the leases with NParks. I would\r\nlike to bring this\r\nup with my NParks and MND colleagues and make sure that there is\r\nconstant monitoring of the state of maintenance at these two sites.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Christopher de Souza\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, thank you. I do not want to belabour the point,\r\nI would like to ask a clarification on if there is no private operator\r\nwho is willing to do this, then it would be my humble view that\r\nMICA does their bit and actually continues to keep these sites open,\r\nnotwithstanding a private operator not wanting to have a go of it\r\nand not being able to make a profit out of it. If I am not mistaken,\r\nthe ammunition store in Labrador Park does not run tours anymore\r\nunlike a few years ago. I hope that for military heritage's sake\r\nin Singapore that these sites will be opened, notwithstanding private\r\noperators not willing to operate them.
\r\nPage: 379
\r\n\r\n \r\n 4 \r\n Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin\r\nAbdul Manap\r\n asked the Minister for Information, Communications\r\nand the Arts and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) what is\r\nthe amount of funds that are granted to Mendaki for the Tertiary\r\nTuition Fee Subsidy (TTFS) scheme each year since 2001; (b) what\r\nare Mendaki's plans to ensure the financial sustainability of funding\r\nfor the TTFS for Muslim students; and (c) in the event of a deficit,\r\nwhat are Mendaki's plans to ensure that the welfare of our students\r\nare met.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Minister for Information, Communications\r\nand the Arts and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (Assoc Prof\r\nDr Yaacob Ibrahim)\r\n : Sir, I would like, first, to\r\nclarify that the TTFS is a scheme for Malay, not Muslim, students,\r\nas reflected in the hon Member's question. It is an educational\r\nsubsidy covering the tuition fees of Malay students at tertiary\r\ninstitutions.
\r\n\r\n Sir, the Government provides\r\nan annual grant for TTFS, which is disbursed by Yayasan Mendaki\r\nto eligible students. The grant is calculated based on the total enrolment\r\nof Malay students in the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) and\r\nprevailing fees. Therefore, there will be sufficient TTFS funding\r\nfor eligible Malay students in IHLs. No deserving Malay student\r\nwill be denied a tertiary education because of financial difficulties.
\r\n\r\n The amount of TTFS grant\r\nprovided by the Government has increased from $35 million in 2001\r\nto $47 million in 2012. The amounts are reflected in Mendaki's Annual Reports.\r\nUndisbursed funds from TTFS are channelled to Mendaki's Education Development\r\nFund (EDF), which currently has $72.6 million in its reserves. The\r\nEDF is used for educational assistance schemes and other educational\r\nprogrammes run by Mendaki.
\r\n\r\n Sir, the revised eligibility\r\ncriteria which have taken effect this year will not affect Mendaki's\r\nfinancial provision for TTFS. This is due to how the Government\r\ngrant is computed each year. In fact, the revised criteria means\r\nthat more Malay students are now\r\neligible compared to the past. Previously, only Malay students from\r\na family with a monthly household income of $3,000 and below qualify.\r\nWith the introduction of the per capita income in the new criteria,\r\nMalay students in a typical four-member household with a monthly\r\nincome of $6,000 and below would now qualify. Mendaki expects about 7,000\r\nnew and existing students to apply for TTFS this year.
\r\nPage: 380
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, I have one supplementary question. Would the Minister\r\nconsider extending the TTFS scheme to postgraduate programmes?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim\r\n :\r\nSir, the TTFS is a Government scheme, not a Mendaki scheme. At the\r\nmoment, it is restricted only to students doing undergraduate and\r\ndiploma courses in local institutions. Postgraduate funding – no\r\ninstitutions actually fund this other than scholarships given by\r\nthe institutes. So, the TTFS is meant only for students studying\r\nlocally as undergraduates, and at the polytechnics.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio)\r\n :\r\nI thank the Minister for the answers. May I find out how many Malay\r\nstudents have received help from TTFS and, with the revised eligibility\r\nguidelines, how many more Malay students will continue to benefit\r\nfrom TTFS? And my second question is: with more funds being given\r\nout through TTFS, how will this affect the implementation of other\r\nprogrammes or schemes under Mendaki currently and in the future.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim\r\n :\r\nSir, for the last four years or so, the number of Malay students\r\neligible for TTFS stands at about 2,200. As I mentioned in my reply,\r\nwe would expect the number to increase to about 7,000. Sir, let\r\nme explain to the House that the scheme is actually quite benign\r\ntowards being in favour of the students rather than towards the\r\nGovernment or Mendaki. If you are in the scheme, despite changes\r\nto your family income, you continue to qualify. If you are out,\r\nand there is a change in your family income and you qualify, you\r\nwill come in. So, the reason as to why the numbers will go up would\r\nbe simply because of students in the past who were not given the\r\nTTFS under the old criteria, would now qualify under the new criteria\r\nand they can apply. So, we expect many more students to qualify\r\nfor TTFS this year. This will have, obviously, an impact on the\r\nreserves which I mentioned earlier that goes towards the EDF.
\r\n\r\n As the number of Malay students\r\nhas been somewhat constant in the last few years, the reserves that\r\nwe have been getting, in fact, have been coming down and they will come\r\ndown significantly this year because of the fact that many more\r\nMalay students will qualify. As to whether or not this will impact\r\nMendaki's reserves, this matter is being studied very closely by\r\nmy staff. We have to wait until the new set of criteria is fully implemented\r\nthis year. By the end of this year we will have the complete numbers\r\nfor us to really understand its true impact, but initial calculations\r\nshow that there may be a chance that we have to dip into our reserves\r\nin order to maintain our programmes. This is something in which\r\nwe have to study very carefully because our commitment to the community\r\nis that all the programmes that we are implementing will continue\r\nto be implemented because they are important for the community.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr\r\nMuhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap\r\n : Sir, I would like\r\nto thank the Minister for his reply. The Minister mentioned that\r\nthere was this amount of undisbursed fund. May I know the reasons\r\nwhy this fund is not being disbursed? Is it due to low numbers of applications\r\nor any other factors?
\r\nPage: 381
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim\r\n :\r\nSir, as I have mentioned in my reply, the reason why we have undisbursed\r\nfunds is because the way the numbers are computed by the Government.\r\nThe Government looks at the number of Malay students, looks at the\r\ntotal fees and then computes the total amount, but not all of them\r\nwill get the subsidy. The reason is very simple – the Government\r\nwants to help Mendaki to run more programmes, and the money from\r\nthe undisbursed TTFS goes into Mendaki's Education Development Fund\r\nto run other programmes which are extended to all Muslim students, and\r\nnot only to Malay students. In that way, Mendaki can run more programmes.
\r\nPage: 381
\r\n\r\n \r\n 5\r\n Mr Ang Wei Neng\r\n asked\r\nthe Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what is the\r\namount of casino entry levies collected in 2011 and the first six\r\nmonths of 2012; and (b) how much of the casino entry levies collected\r\nare channelled specifically to fund measures to contain gambling\r\nill.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Minister of State for Finance (Mrs Josephine\r\nTeo) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, in 2011, the casino entry levies collected was about\r\n$195 million. The collection stands at $93 million for the first\r\nsix months of 2012. The casino entry levies are collected by the\r\nSingapore Totalisator Board (Tote Board) and used for social and\r\ncharitable purposes in Singapore. The Tote Board does not specifically\r\nring-fence the casino entry levies to fund measures to contain gambling\r\nills.
\r\n\r\n Measures to contain gambling\r\nills are funded separately. Since 2009, the Government has more\r\nthan doubled its expenditure on containing gambling ills, from $3.8\r\nmillion in FY2009 to $9 million in FY2011. Some key initiatives\r\ninclude the establishment of the National Council of Problem Gambling\r\n(NCPG), which administers casino exclusion, provides advice to the\r\nGovernment on how to address problem gambling and implements public\r\neducation programmes to address problem gambling. The Government\r\nalso provides grants to Voluntary Welfare Organisations, such as Family\r\nService Centres, to defray the cost of counselling services that\r\nthe VWOs provide to problem gamblers.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Ang Wei Neng (Jurong)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of State for the\r\nreply. From the financial reports of the two Integrated Resorts,\r\nI understand that the profit of Marina Bay Sands (MBS), in terms\r\nof EBITA (earnings before interest, tax and amortisation) between\r\nthe second quarter of 2010 and the first quarter 2012 – in just two\r\nfull years' of operation – is about US$2.6 billion or about S$3.3\r\nbillion. Similarly, Resorts World Sentosa's (RWS) profit, in terms\r\nof EBITA between the first quarter 2010 and the first quarter 2012,\r\nis also in the region of about S$3.3 billion. Quite a coincidence.
\r\n\r\n So, if MBS' earnings for the rest of the\r\nyear are as strong as the first quarter this year, the total accumulated\r\nprofits, in terms of EBITA, will reach or exceed S$5 billion by\r\nthe end of this year. This means MBS would have recovered all its\r\ninitial investment of S$5 billion in less than three years. This\r\nis far better than the prediction by the Sands' President which\r\nwas reported in The Business Times on 31 May 2006, whereby\r\nSands expected to get its money back by 2017.
\r\nPage: 382
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Speaker\r\n : Mr Ang, can we\r\ncome to the question, please?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Ang Wei Neng\r\n : Yes, Sir.\r\nThe two IRs have made very good profits and contributed to Singapore's\r\neconomy because of the tax they pay. In view of the above, I have\r\ntwo supplementary questions. Firstly, would the Government consider persuading\r\nthe IRs to do more Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) activity\r\nby helping the low-income group, especially those Singaporeans that\r\nare affected financially and emotionally by their family members\r\nwho patronise the IRs? Secondly, would the Government consider channelling\r\nthe penalties paid by the IRs into a separate pool of fund, in the\r\nevent disciplinary actions are taken against the IRs, to help to\r\nfund this same group of low-income people who are affected by gambling\r\nills? I would usually direct these questions to MCYS. Since the\r\nMinister of State for Finance is taking care of this question now,\r\nI hope she can answer us in a whole-of-Government approach [Laughter].
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mrs Josephine Teo\r\n : Mr Speaker,\r\nI would also want to thank Mr Ang for expressing the concerns of\r\nmany Singaporeans with regard to problem gambling. Mr Ang has highlighted\r\nthe profitability of the Integrated Resort operators because of\r\nthe patronage of the casinos. I thought that perhaps, it would be\r\nuseful to highlight that in tandem with the increase in profitability,\r\nthe tax revenues that we collect from the casino operators have\r\nalso been quite considerable. And perhaps just to provide a sense\r\nof perspective, in fact, the net increase in tax revenues from the\r\nIRs was about $900 million for FY2010 and for FY2011, the figure\r\nwas about $1.1 billion. So, yes, the casino operators have made\r\nmore money but, at the same time, they have contributed to our tax\r\nrevenues. And through these tax revenues, the Government is able\r\nto provide support for Singaporeans in many areas and expand our\r\nresources, in terms of care, for Singaporeans. That is the first\r\npoint I want to make.
\r\n\r\n Mr Ang is very right, Mr\r\nSpeaker, to say that actually his questions are going to be more\r\nadequately addressed by MCYS. I would like to assure him that, in\r\nfact, his questions which relate to whether we are doing enough\r\nto deal with problem gambling are being looked at seriously. Now,\r\nbefore I say more about that, Members will be familiar with the\r\nstringent social safeguards that have already been put in place\r\nto minimise the impact of casino gambling. Now, these include –\r\nof course, not just the casino entry levy – but also the minimum\r\nage limit of 21 years for entry into the casinos as well as Family,\r\nVoluntary Self and Third-Party Casino Exclusions. For exclusions,\r\nfor example, there are about 93,000 exclusions that are currently\r\nin force. In fact, two out of three exclusions are Self Exclusions.
\r\n\r\n Apart from these social\r\nsafeguards, there are also prohibitions of casino advertising and\r\npromotion targeted at the domestic market, prohibitions on credit\r\nfor local gambling in the casino and, also through public education,\r\nthere is now greater awareness on harms of gambling as well as the\r\navailability of services to help those who are facing difficulties\r\nin coping and managing their gambling habits.
\r\n\r\n Obviously, these safeguards are important\r\nand are reviewed regularly. As has been announced quite recently,\r\nstronger safeguards are being considered, and the House will have\r\nthe opportunity to discuss these measures as part of the Casino\r\nControl (Amendment) Bill, which has been put up for public consultation.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Ang Wei Neng\r\n : Sir, I thank\r\nthe Minister of State for the comprehensive reply. I noted that\r\nthe Minister of State said that we spent $9 million in 2011 on measures\r\nto contain gambling ills. This pale in comparison with the $1.1\r\nbillion of tax collected from the two IRs in 2011 and also the $93\r\nmillion of casino entry levies that we collected for the first six\r\nmonths of this year. I urge the Ministry of Finance to allocate\r\nmore funds to help the society to combat gambling ills.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mrs Josephine Teo\r\n : Mr Speaker,\r\nI would like to thank Mr Ang for raising the point again. If the\r\nproblem can be resolved by us putting aside more monetary resources,\r\nthat would be the easiest thing to do because we are not short on\r\nthe commitment to resourcing this set of measures and safeguards\r\nthat needs to be put in place. What we are, however, mindful of\r\nis that it is not just putting aside the monetary resources. It\r\nis really about identifying the interventions that will be most\r\neffective and helpful in curbing the gambling addiction. I take\r\nMr Ang's point, and I would like to assure him that we will set\r\naside sufficient resources and the Government is committed to doing\r\nso.
\r\nPage: 383
\r\n\r\n \r\n 6\r\n Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng\r\n asked\r\nthe Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Manpower if he will consider\r\nsetting up a central or decentralised Job Development, Assessment\r\nand Placement Service for Elderly Singaporeans for wider job options\r\nand proper job matching to commensurate with the job seekers' skills\r\nand physical abilities.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Minister of State for Manpower (BG [NS]\r\nTan Chuan-Jin) \r\n \r\n (for the Deputy Prime Minister\r\nand Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, the Government currently provides\r\njob assessment, matching and placement services through WDA's Career Centres\r\nat the Community Development Councils (CDCs), the Employment and Employability\r\nInstitute (e2i) and CaliberLink. These service centres are well-equipped, easily\r\naccessible and cater to the needs of a wide range of residents living\r\nacross Singapore, including older workers.
\r\n\r\n We recognise that older\r\nworkers often have special requirements and needs. However, rather\r\nthan a Job Development, Assessment and Placement Service for older workers\r\nonly, we believe in adopting a functional approach and ensuring\r\nthat our existing service touch points are sensitive to the needs\r\nand requirements of older workers too.
\r\n\r\n We aim to attract and develop\r\ncareer consultants to have the right experience and personal qualities\r\nto assist a wide range of job seekers. The career consultants adopt\r\na case management approach to help each client based on their individual\r\nneeds. They carry out an in-depth assessment of each client's capabilities\r\nand circumstances, before deciding how best to match job seekers\r\nto jobs or whether they need more training to become job ready.
\r\n\r\n For older workers who are job ready, career\r\nconsultants are careful during the job matching process to find\r\na good job fit and ensure that job seekers are able to meet the demands\r\nof the jobs applied for. Career Centres also actively source for\r\na wide range of jobs across different industries that suit the capabilities\r\nand needs of older workers. For example, our Career Centres hold\r\nthematic job fairs targeted at older workers. These include North\r\nEast Career Centre's Silver Job Fair and South East Career Centre's Evergreen\r\nJob Fair.
\r\nPage: 384
\r\n\r\n At the same time, we recognise\r\nthat some older job seekers may not be job ready and require more\r\ntraining to update and upgrade their skills. Career consultants\r\nwill work with such job seekers to identify their skills competencies\r\nand gaps, and recommend suitable training options for them to upgrade\r\nand get better jobs.
\r\n\r\n While the Government will\r\nprovide quality training and employment facilitation services for\r\nolder workers, honestly, our efforts will have limited effect if\r\nconditions at the workplace are not conducive for older workers.\r\nHence, we have and will continue to encourage employers to adopt\r\nage management practices in their workplaces, such as redesigning\r\nwork processes to suit the physical abilities and skills of an ageing workforce.\r\nThis will enable employers to be attractive to older workers in\r\nthis tight labour market. We will also continue to encourage companies\r\nto adopt fair employment practices through the Tripartite Alliance\r\non Fair Employment Practices (TAFEP). I would emphasise that especially\r\ngiven the tight labour market, companies should seriously look at\r\nolder workers, in terms of employment, as they represent a lot of\r\nexperience and a stable workforce to tap on.
\r\n\r\n Our concerted and dedicated\r\nefforts have helped a number of older workers into employment. Of\r\nthe 14,200 job seekers placed by WDA's Career Centres at the CDCs\r\nand the e2i in 2011, about 35% were individuals aged 50 and older.\r\nNevertheless, we believe that more can be done for this group and\r\nwe will continue to incorporate feedback and improve on our job\r\nmatching and placement services for older workers.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Moulmein-Kallang)\r\n :\r\nSir, I thank the Minister of State, for his response. I have three\r\nquestions. Would the Minister of State agree that the typical jobs\r\nin which less educated or uneducated elderly Singaporeans are placed,\r\nare usually physically demanding jobs like the cleaners in different\r\nsettings, either in their estates, in the public areas, in school\r\nsettings or food courts? Second question is, would the Ministry\r\nconsider proactively setting up a taskforce to look into creatively\r\ndeveloping different types of jobs for this age group either by\r\nredesigning or ring-fencing some jobs so that they have more options,\r\nother than the cleaner jobs that many of us refer them to? Third\r\nquestion is, if that is acceptable, when can we expect some action\r\nor deliverables that can be visibly felt on the ground for those\r\nof us, and I am sure the Ministry too, who want to help this group?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n BG [NS] Tan Chuan-Jin\r\n : I\r\nthank the hon Member for her concern. This is something that many\r\nof us in this House share as we do meet residents who are older,\r\nless educated and less skilled and who actually do want to find\r\njobs. Indeed, due to the profile of the older workers, we do find\r\nthat there are certain sectors that they tend to congregate in.\r\nOne of the areas that we have highlighted before, in terms of the\r\nlow-wage workers sector, we also do find older workers there, particularly\r\nthe cleaning sector as well as the security agencies. Having said\r\nthat, there are jobs available elsewhere as well – office jobs,\r\nadministrative jobs – depending on the skill levels.
\r\n\r\n It is a fair comment to say, given their\r\nprofile, but this is something that will change over time as education\r\nlevels have improved. With every corresponding passing of years,\r\nyou will have older Singaporeans who actually will be better skilled\r\nand better educated. So, more jobs will be available. The challenge\r\nreally is dealing with the here and now. For the older workers today,\r\ncan we explore more jobs being created in other sectors, whether\r\nby ring-fencing or redesigning to provide employment? This is something\r\nthat the Member has raised, and whether we should set up a taskforce\r\nto look at it. We do encourage companies to look at redesigning\r\ntheir work processes to encourage older workers to come back into\r\nthe job market. Having said that, a lot of these jobs probably may\r\nnot fit the profile of the older workers that she is talking about, but\r\nif the Member has very specific ideas and initiatives that we should\r\npursue, this is something we can discuss further, to see whether\r\nit is something feasible to explore, and whether the market could\r\nend up creating more jobs in specific areas for this segment of\r\nworkers.
\r\nPage: 385
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng\r\n :\r\nWould the Minister consider setting up a taskforce for this?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n BG [NS] Tan Chuan-Jin\r\n : As\r\nI mentioned, I would appreciate it if we could follow up on this\r\ndiscussion to understand what are the specific ideas that the Member\r\nmight have. We could explore whether it is something feasible. The\r\nmain priority right now is identifying workers who do need jobs,\r\nand how do we match them. Her concern is whether they should have\r\nmore options beyond the cleaning jobs and the security jobs. Those\r\nare perhaps more onerous. Whether we could create more of these\r\njobs, rather than the ones that she had described earlier. That\r\nis something that we could discuss and we could take a look at whether\r\nit warrants setting up a taskforce and a specific study on that\r\nbasis.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Nee Soon)\r\n :\r\nI would like to ask the Minister of State what more can his Ministry\r\ndo to encourage more employers from the current level to come forward.\r\nCurrently, the issue is the supply side. What else can the Ministry\r\nto get more employers to come forward to offer, not just the rank\r\nand file jobs, but the whole range up to some of these professional,\r\nmanagerial and executive (PME) jobs?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n BG [NS] Tan Chuan-Jin\r\n : Generally,\r\nin terms of the effort that we have put in, both from the Government\r\nencouraging the industries and companies and the response by the\r\ncompanies themselves, we have seen, for example, the employment\r\nrate for residents aged 55 to 64 actually rising to an all time\r\nhigh, 61.2% in 2011. We foresee that the numbers would increase.
\r\n\r\n Broadly, the measures put\r\nin place include the Retirement and Re-employment Act that we have\r\njust recently introduced this year. We do expect as a result of\r\nthat employment of older workers would rise across the board. We\r\nhave also enhanced the Special Employment Credit to provide further\r\nincentives to companies to hire and retain older workers. We also\r\nhave incentives such as to create more age-friendly workplaces and\r\nenvironments through the ADVANTAGE! Scheme. The Scheme will continue\r\nto provide generous funding and support to help companies train\r\nolder workers, and redesign jobs and work processes at workplaces.\r\nThis is something that might be feasible to help older workers who\r\nmight be able to be retrained and to be upskilled to take on different jobs.\r\nAnd for some of these companies to design the jobs so that they are\r\nactually suitable for these older workers as well. Therefore, by\r\nimproving the fit between older workers and jobs, companies can,\r\nwe believe, also maximise productivity and at the same time, with\r\nthe tight labour market, continue to attract older residents who\r\nare not working, into the workforce.
\r\nPage: 386
\r\n\r\n We provide opportunities\r\nfor older workers to upgrade their skills, to remain employable.\r\nThe companies and low-wage workers can tap on the Workfare Training Support\r\nScheme which provides generous training subsidies. WDA also works\r\nclosely with tripartite partners in industries with a high proportion\r\nof older workers to provide targeted training assistance and support\r\nfor older workers.
\r\n\r\n There is a wide range of\r\neffort. The issue at hand, coming back to Ms Denise Phua's earlier\r\npoint is whether for particular segments, especially the lower educated,\r\nlower skilled older workers, these measures would have sufficient\r\nimpact. I believe there would be some impact. The question is, whether\r\nwe are able to, in a very comprehensive way, uplift these workers\r\nso that in some sense we can open up the vista to better jobs rather\r\nthan the present ones that they are looking forward to. We can discuss\r\nfurther and take a look at whether there are more concrete measures\r\nwe can carry out.
\r\n\r\n The priority right now is\r\nto make sure that the measures we have in place are effective. We\r\nare quite happy to take on suggestions and, more importantly, to\r\ndo the job placements so that those who want to work can find work.\r\nThe next question is, are we able to qualitatively improve the range\r\nof work and jobs available? So that is something we can look at\r\nand see whether there are practical measures we can put in place,\r\nover and above what we have today.
\r\nPage: 386
\r\n\r\n \r\n 7\r\n Ms Mary Liew\r\n asked\r\nthe Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Manpower (a) whether\r\nthe Ministry has a record of the number of women employed under\r\nflexi-work arrangements; (b) if so, how many women under the rank\r\nand file category and the PME category are employed under flexi-work\r\narrangements; and (c) how will the Ministry encourage employers\r\nto consider offering flexi-work employment to address the manpower\r\nshortage.
\r\n\r\n \r\n 8\r\n Ms Foo Mee Har\r\n asked\r\nthe Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Manpower what enhanced\r\nmeasures are being considered to promote flexible work arrangements to\r\n(i) increase the availability of flexi-work for Government employees\r\nwith young, elderly and disabled dependants; and (ii) encourage\r\nmore private companies to offer flexi-work options for professionals,\r\nmanagers and executives.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n BG [NS] Tan Chuan-Jin \r\n \r\n (for\r\nthe Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker,\r\nmay I take the next two Questions together?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n BG [NS] Tan Chuan-Jin\r\n : Flexible\r\nwork arrangements are an important means for employees to manage\r\nboth work and personal needs. Properly implemented, we believe that\r\nflexible work arrangements can improve employee engagement and enhance\r\ntheir sense of well-being\r\nand provide flexibility all round. The provision of flexible work options\r\nalso avails employers to a larger pool of potential workers who\r\nmight otherwise find it difficult to join the workforce. This is\r\nan important point to emphasise. We do know that there are people,\r\nespecially women after having the children, are looking to re-enter\r\nthe workforce but are also looking for flexible work arrangements.\r\nGiven the tight labour market, we do encourage employers to consider\r\nadjusting the work arrangements to make it flexible so that you\r\ncan attract a portion of Singaporeans to come back into the labour\r\nmarket. This can be mutually beneficial for both employers and employees.
\r\nPage: 387
\r\n\r\n To promote flexible work\r\narrangements, the Government has in place a range of initiatives.\r\nThis includes funding assistance schemes, such as the Work-Life\r\nWorks! Fund, and Flexi-Works! Scheme, where employers receive Government\r\nco-funding when they put in place flexible work arrangements that\r\nwould directly benefit their employees. These include professionals,\r\nmanagers and executives. More than 840 companies and their employees\r\nhave benefitted from these two programmes so far, and we encourage\r\nmore companies to participate and come on board.
\r\n\r\n The Senior Parliamentary\r\nSecretary, Mr Hawazi Daipi, chairs a national Tripartite Committee\r\n(TriCom) on Work-Life Strategy to oversee initiatives to encourage\r\nand help employers implement flexible work arrangements. The TriCom\r\nhas been working with the Employer Alliance, under the Singapore\r\nNational Employers Federation (SNEF), to organise more fora and\r\ndialogue sessions to share effective work-life practices amongst employers.\r\nThe Employer Alliance is enhancing its Work-Life Tool Kit and developing more\r\ncase studies to better help employers recognise the value of enabling\r\nwork-life harmony for their workers, and at the same time, to implement\r\nflexible work-life strategies. This year, the TriCom is also organising\r\nthe Work-Life Excellence Award to showcase employers who have put\r\nin place good work-life practices and to encourage others to follow\r\nsuit. And many of these practices are indeed practical and replicable across\r\nmany of the companies.
\r\n\r\n In the course of the next\r\ntwo years, the TriCom will focus on fostering workplace cultures\r\nthat support flexible work arrangements. One initiative that is\r\ncurrently being piloted is the Home-based Work and Smart Work Centres\r\nProject by IDA to take advantage of Singapore's Next-Generation\r\nbroadband network to facilitate working from home or from satellite\r\noffices. While the initiative is not targeted solely at professionals,\r\nmanagers and executives, this group will see more options opening\r\nup to them if the pilot proves successful.
\r\n\r\n While the Government will\r\ncontinue to promote and facilitate the provision of work-life arrangements,\r\nemployers need to take the lead in implementation with the active support\r\nof their employees as well as the unions. Employees and unions can\r\nalso help the process by suggesting options and practical alternatives\r\nfor the companies to take up.
\r\n\r\n We do not have comprehensive\r\nstatistics on the number of employees who require and are currently\r\nemployed on flexible work arrangements. Nonetheless, we are heartened\r\nthat more employers are now offering work-life arrangements to their employees.\r\nFor example, in 2010, 35% of establishments offered at least one\r\nform of work-life\r\narrangement to their employees, which is up from 25% in 2007. We\r\ndo foresee that this trend would probably continue.
\r\n\r\n As the largest employer\r\nin Singapore, the Public Service is taking the lead in offering flexible\r\nwork arrangements to its officers. There are various schemes to\r\nhelp public officers better balance their work and personal needs,\r\nwhich can include looking after their parents, young children or\r\ndependants. Many agencies have both flexi-time and flexi-place practices\r\nthat give officers options, in terms of how they carry out work alongside\r\ntheir personal needs. The option of a reduced-hour work week is\r\nalso available to officers who are not able to take on a full work\r\nload due to their personal commitments. These flexible working arrangements\r\ncomplement the range of childcare and parental care leave that public\r\nofficers can tap on for their care-giving responsibilities.
\r\nPage: 388
\r\n\r\n The Public Service has also\r\nleveraged its Work-Life Network to build a culture of workplace\r\nflexibility. The Network meets regularly to share good practices\r\nand has fora and learning journeys to enhance capability in the\r\narea of flexible workspace. In addition, the Public Service also\r\nprovides resources to educate individual officers and supervisors\r\non the new ways of work, and the responsibility and trust that needs\r\nto come about in order to implement flexible work practices successfully.
\r\n\r\n The fact of the matter is\r\nflexible work arrangements can work and has worked, and we do encourage\r\ncompanies to take on board and to try these arrangements. This would go\r\na long way in engaging the workforce at the same time, in encouraging\r\nmore people to return to the workforce.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Ms Mary Liew (Nominated Member)\r\n :\r\nI would like to thank the Minister of State for his comprehensive\r\nresponse. I have a supplementary question. I would like to mention that\r\nI am also the Vice Chair of the NTUC Women's Committee. The NTUC\r\nWomen's Development Secretariat has been helping some 12,500 women\r\nover the past five years to rejoin the workforce.
\r\n\r\n We recognise that there\r\nis a tight labour market right now. Many of these jobs for the women\r\nare rank and file jobs. I would like to also add that increasingly,\r\nthere are more demands for the PME jobs. We would like to ask the\r\nMinister of State what more can be done, together with the tripartite\r\npartners, to improve the situation. Although we have been encouraging\r\nthe companies but the take-up rate has not been as encouraging as we\r\nhad hoped. I would like to ask if there are any further plans to\r\nlook into providing a more holistic and flexible support for companies\r\nto provide more flexible work arrangements for workers, including\r\nthe PMEs, and also to reduce the dropout rates from the workforce\r\nand to retain the women within the workforce.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n BG [NS] Tan Chuan-Jin\r\n : I\r\nwould like to thank the Member for her concerns and questions in\r\nterms of what more we can do. We are quite open to suggestions and\r\nideas about new initiatives that we can put in place to incentivise\r\nand encourage companies to go along this path.
\r\n\r\n As mentioned earlier, we\r\ndo note that in terms of trends, flexible work arrangements are\r\nincreasing. For example, as mentioned, the public service in a quite\r\nsignificant way has been embracing it, and trying to encourage it.\r\nIt actually varies from sector to sector. A lot depends on the nature\r\nof the jobs, whether it allows for flexible work arrangements. But\r\nwe do believe that there is still a lot of scope. For example, we\r\ndo know that in the F&B industry in the developed countries,\r\nthere is a lot of part-time staff. And they surge the staff numbers during\r\npeak hours, for example, during lunch time and dinner time. That\r\nkind of flexible work arrangements encourages a lot of women to come\r\nback into the workforce, who are looking at coming back to work,\r\nbut perhaps not looking at full-time work. We do not notice many\r\ncompanies embarking on those practices here.
\r\nPage: 389
\r\n\r\n We do believe that with\r\nthe tightening labour market, we hope that that, in itself, would\r\nincentivise companies to take that leap and to make that change.\r\nThe transition, I think, is not easy. Culturally, we have used to\r\noperating on a particular basis for a very long time. We find that\r\nalong with other productivity efforts, there is sometimes a bit\r\nof inertia in moving along those lines. The natural process will\r\ncome from the tightened labour market and companies would begin\r\nto explore.
\r\n\r\n What we really need to do\r\nis to actively promote this. We need to highlight companies that\r\nhave successfully implemented these practices in place, so that\r\nother companies can realise that it is actually quite feasible and\r\nto emulate it and to try it out. We do not have any other particular\r\ninitiatives right now. We have put in place a number of programmes\r\nas highlighted earlier. We will be quite happy to take on board suggestions\r\nfrom Members of this House and from the public as to whether there\r\nare other measures that can be put in place. My sense is that as\r\nthe labour market tightens, and companies are beginning to feel\r\nthe effects, I would encourage companies to explore, for those that\r\ncan, flexible work arrangements for their staff.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Ang Hin Kee (Ang Mo Kio)\r\n :\r\nThank you, Speaker, and to the Minister of State. I am very happy\r\nto hear that you are open to new suggestions to encourage the hiring\r\nof women and flexi-work arrangements. For a start, will the Ministry\r\nconsider having the public sector share the age profile and gender\r\nprofile of all the employees as an effort to encourage the hiring\r\nof workers of all ages, all gender and the proportion or share of flexi-work\r\narrangements in the workforce?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n BG [NS] Tan Chuan-Jin\r\n : I\r\ndo not have the specific figures with me but that is something that\r\nI can check on, and revert to him on it.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan\r\n :\r\nSir, I would like to ask the Minister of State this. Earlier on,\r\nhe said that his Ministry is looking at encouraging more flexible\r\nwork arrangements, but are there any targets set by his Ministry\r\nin the number of employers embarking on flexible work arrangements\r\nfor employees who are parents?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n BG [NS] Tan Chuan-Jin\r\n : I\r\nwould like to thank Mr Patrick Tay for his question. We do not have\r\na specific target per se. What we are tracking are the trends\r\nand what we do note is that the numbers are increasing. The percentage\r\nof companies that are participating is increasing and that is something\r\nthat we are encouraged by. We continue to do as much as we can to\r\nget as many companies on board as possible.
\r\nPage: 389
\r\n\r\n \r\n 9\r\n Ms Foo Mee Har\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for National Development what rental and sub-letting\r\nrules are being applied at HDB estates to prevent the formation\r\nof foreign worker enclaves and to ensure a balanced mix of ethnicity\r\nand locals/foreigners among communities living in public housing\r\nestates on rental basis.
\r\nPage: 390
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Minister for National Development (Mr\r\nKhaw Boon Wan)\r\n : Sir, we do not have the equivalent\r\nof the Ethnic Integration Policy or Singapore Permanent Resident quota\r\npolicy in the management of the number of foreign workers renting\r\nHDB flats or rooms. This is because unlike the sale of HDB flats\r\nfor longer-term occupation, the renting of a flat or a room is a\r\ntemporary housing arrangement.
\r\n\r\n Nonetheless, we have subletting\r\nrules limiting the number of subtenants allowed for each flat type.\r\nFlat owners who sublet their flats or rooms are also required to\r\nobserve the terms and conditions of subletting. Should there be\r\nany disamenity created by the subtenants, the subletting approval\r\ncould be revoked and the flat owners would be required to evict\r\nthe subtenants.
\r\n\r\n Currently, foreign workers\r\nrenting flats or rooms from HDB lessees form about 5% of the total\r\npopulation living in HDB flats. These include holders of Employment\r\nPasses, S- Passes, Professional Visit Passes and some Work Permit\r\nholders. Work Permit holders who are non-Malaysian construction\r\nworkers are not eligible to rent HDB flats or rooms.
\r\n\r\n HDB is monitoring the situation.\r\nWe will, if necessary, consider appropriate measures to discourage\r\nthe formation of significant foreign worker enclaves in HDB estates.
\r\nPage: 390
\r\n\r\n \r\n 10\r\n Mr Gan Thiam Poh\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Ministry has\r\nset any specific number of high value-added jobs to secure for Singaporeans\r\nper year for the past 10 years; (b) if so, what has been the achievement\r\nso far and what will be the number that the Ministry has set to\r\nachieve for the next five years.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Second Minister for Trade and Industry\r\n(Mr S Iswaran) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker Sir, MTI and our agencies promote and develop high value-add\r\nactivities across the various industries in the manufacturing and\r\nservices sectors. Our aim is to bring good job opportunities to\r\nSingaporeans, and to equip our local workers with the necessary\r\nskills to seize these opportunities.
\r\n\r\n For our key clusters, we\r\nwork with various agencies – Ministry of Education (MOE), Ministry\r\nof Manpower (MOM), Workforce Development Agency (WDA) – to develop\r\nthe manpower and skills needed for our industries. First, we work\r\nwith MOE and MOM to align the curriculum in local educational institutions\r\nwith industry needs so that young job-seekers graduate with skills\r\nthat are in demand. Second, we work with MOM and WDA to put in place\r\ntraining programmes so that our workers can continuously upgrade their\r\nskills and take on higher skilled and higher-paying jobs. Third,\r\nwe work with companies and co-fund efforts, such as training schemes\r\nand attachment programmes, to ensure the transfer of knowledge and\r\nexpertise to locals, particularly in new sectors and industries where\r\nour workers may not initially have the relevant industry experience.
\r\n\r\n For new clusters that require\r\nspecialised skills for which we do not have sufficient local manpower\r\nsupply, foreign talent help fill the gap and facilitate the transfer\r\nof skills to locals as we build up the capability in our local workforce\r\nover time.
\r\nPage: 391
\r\n\r\n We do not set specific targets\r\nfor new jobs for Singaporeans. It would be too prescriptive and\r\ninefficient to do so. However, we do set overall skilled job creation targets\r\nfor key clusters. For instance, in 2012, Economic Development Board\r\n(EDB) expects to create between 18,000 and 21,000 skilled jobs.\r\nLikewise, Info-Communications Development Authority of Singapore\r\n(IDA) also sets skilled job targets for the Infocomm sector. As\r\npart of its Intelligent Nation 2015 Masterpan, IDA plans to boost\r\nthe number of infocomm jobs by 55,000 from 2005 to 2015. This approach\r\nhas worked well in helping Singaporeans secure the good job opportunities\r\ncreated in the economy.
\r\n\r\n At the national level, in\r\n2011, more than 75% of the Professional, Managerial, Executive and\r\nTechnical (PMET) jobs, were taken up by local workers. The investments brought\r\nin by EDB between 2002 and 2011 would have created 167,300 skilled\r\njobs when the projects are fully implemented, and the majority of\r\nthese jobs will go to locals. Based on the Census of Manufacturing\r\nActivity, more than seven in 10 skilled jobs in the manufacturing\r\nsector are filled by locals.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Pasir Ris-Punggol)\r\n :\r\nMay I ask the Minister whether he could share, presently, which\r\nsector has produced the highest value-added job in Singapore?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr S Iswaran\r\n : Mr Speaker,\r\nSir, in general, I would say that our overall economic strategy\r\nis to move towards higher value-added activities, across all sectors.\r\nSo, even within sectors where we historically perhaps may have been\r\ndoing some lower value-added activities, EDB's efforts and, in general,\r\nthe MTI agencies' efforts, have moved us up the value chain to higher\r\nvalue-added activities.
\r\n\r\n If I take electronics as\r\nan example, there used to be electronic contract manufacturing,\r\nlarge scale, low margin, high volume kind of businesses. Over time, these\r\nhave been phased out, but instead, we have higher value-added activities\r\nin the same sector. That includes micro-chip design, product design,\r\nsemi-conductor activities, and so on. I would say that as a broad\r\nrule, we are moving in the direction of higher value-added activities\r\nacross all sectors. Some of the newer sectors we have targeted, such\r\nas biomedical sciences, are examples of areas where there are also\r\nopportunities to be had in terms of high value-added jobs.
\r\n\r\n The reason I gave the preamble\r\nis to emphasise that it is not just in the new sectors, but even\r\nin our existing sectors, there is hope to create good, high value-added\r\njobs for Singaporeans.
\r\nPage: 391
\r\n\r\n The following question stood\r\nin the name of \r\n Mrs\r\nLina Chiam –\r\n
\r\n\r\n \r\n 11To ask the Minister\r\nfor Trade and Industry (a) what is the number of unlicensed tour\r\nguides caught during the last five years; (b) what is the most common\r\nnationality of unlicensed tour guides caught; (c) whether there\r\nhas been an increasing influx of unlicensed tour guides to Singapore;\r\nand (d) if so, whether the Singapore Tourism Board is stepping up\r\nenforcements to curb this influx.
\r\nPage: 392
\r\n\r\n \r\n 12\r\n Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the annual number\r\nof unlicensed tour guides detected operating in Singapore for the past\r\n10 years; (b) how many of those detected are prosecuted; and (c)\r\nwhat is Singapore Tourism Board's plan and strategy to combat against\r\nunlicensed tour guides carrying out guiding in Singapore in whatever\r\nform and duration.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr S Iswaran (for the Minister for Trade\r\nand Industry)\r\n : Mr Speaker, Sir, may I your permission\r\nto take Question Nos 11 and 12 together?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr S Iswaran\r\n : Thank you,\r\nSir. Any person guiding tourists in Singapore for remuneration has\r\nto be licensed by the Singapore Tourism Board (STB). Licensing ensures\r\nthat tourist guides in Singapore are knowledgeable about our heritage, geography\r\nand tourism offerings, and have the requisite language proficiency\r\nand professional conduct. As at 31 May 2012, there were 2,312 licensed\r\ntourist guides in Singapore. Ninety-six percent of these guides\r\nwere Singapore citizens or permanent residents. This proportion\r\nhas held steady since 2007. Many of the non-Singaporean guides are\r\nguiding in foreign languages.
\r\n\r\n STB takes a serious view\r\nof illegal guiding and takes enforcement action against unlicensed\r\nactivities. Unlicensed guides who are first-time offenders are issued\r\nstern warnings in lieu of prosecution, and encouraged to undergo\r\nproper training and licensing. Travel agents that engage such unlicensed\r\nguides will be similarly warned if they are first-time offenders.\r\nIn addition, these travel agents will be required to implement measures\r\nto ensure full compliance, and will also be subjected to closer scrutiny\r\nby STB.
\r\n\r\n The incidence of illegal\r\nguiding had not been high in the past: there were only 11 suspected\r\ncases of unlicensed guiding out of all enforcement checks conducted between\r\n2007 and 2010, with Singaporeans accounting for about half of these\r\ncases. However, such activity has become more apparent in recent\r\nyears, which may be partly attributable to the rapid growth in our\r\nvisitor arrivals. For example, feedback to STB on unlicensed guiding\r\ndoubled between 2010 and 2011.
\r\n\r\n In response, STB has more\r\nthan doubled the frequency of enforcement checks, to 200 spot-checks\r\nin 2011. In addition, STB has also mounted large-scale raids at\r\nkey tourist spots. Three such operations have been conducted since\r\n2011, yielding a total of 152 suspect cases. To date, 38 individuals\r\nand companies have been issued warning letters and advisories, with\r\nlocals and foreigners making up about an equal share of these first-time\r\noffenders.
\r\n\r\n Nevertheless, there are\r\nsome inherent limitations to STB's enforcement capabilities today,\r\nwhich we are addressing. First, the provisions of the Tourist Guides\r\nRegulations today\r\nare defined quite narrowly, making detection and enforcement challenging. Second,\r\nillegal guiding is neither a seizable nor compoundable offence.\r\nThis means offenders cannot be penalised on the spot, and foreign\r\noffenders in particular may leave the country before investigations\r\nare complete. Third, the current penalties for illegal guiding were\r\nset in 1985 and we need to update them to maintain their deterrent\r\neffect.
\r\nPage: 393
\r\n\r\n To address these limitations,\r\nMTI and STB are reviewing the regulatory framework and will progressively\r\nintroduce changes and enhancements. In the meantime, STB has committed\r\nmore resources to increase its enforcement, and will continue to\r\ndo so.
\r\n\r\n STB, as well as the Ministry,\r\nunderstands the concerns of the various stakeholders over this matter,\r\nand has engaged industry members as well as NTUC's Tourist Guide Chapter\r\nseveral times. More can and will be done, and I urge the industry\r\nand all stakeholders to work closely with STB on this effort.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Dr Lily Neo\r\n : Sir, I would\r\nlike to ask the Second Minister how many local Singaporean guides\r\nhave been displaced and deprived of their living due to this influx\r\nof foreign unlicensed guides. Does the Minister see the urgency\r\nin tackling this issue and when can we see the result to tighten\r\nthis regulation?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr S Iswaran\r\n : Mr Speaker,\r\nSir, I thank the Member for her question. Firstly, I think it would\r\nbe wrong to assume that all unlicensed guides are foreigners. Indeed,\r\nas I quoted from the statistics, it is roughly in equal proportions,\r\nSingaporeans and non-Singaporeans or foreigners. So, we should bear\r\nthat in mind when we approach this. Secondly, on what number has\r\nbeen displaced, I think it would be hard for me to guess because\r\nit depends on factors that are unknown to us and we really do not\r\nknow how many are actually involved in this.
\r\n\r\n More important than all\r\nof this, we need to be very clear that our objective is to make sure\r\nthat the tourism experience in Singapore is an authentic one for\r\nthe visitors. Therefore, we want to ensure that, by and large, Singaporeans\r\nand permanent residents are the ones who are providing this – specifically\r\nSingaporeans, because they would have the experience, the knowledge\r\nand the feel for the country, which is what tourists seek when they\r\nvisit a country. I think that is our primary objective. But I cannot\r\nquantify the displacement effect simply because it would be difficult\r\nto do so. We really do not know what is out there other than what\r\nis revealed by our enforcement statistics.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan\r\n :\r\nI am glad that the Second Minister shared earlier that his Ministry\r\nis considering more deterrent penal sanctions against unlicensed\r\nguides, including even considering whether to make the offence seizable.\r\nI have two supplementary questions: firstly, in this enhancement\r\nof the enforcement provisions, whether it also extends to meting\r\nout penalties to travel agents who hire these unlicensed guides.\r\nSecondly, STB – as what the Second Minister mentioned – in stepping\r\nup enforcement, has its limitations. Has STB considered outsourcing\r\nsome of these enforcement functions? And if so, may I also suggest\r\nthat those outsourced to conduct their enforcement checks should\r\nhave the relevant experience in detecting these unlicensed guides\r\nbecause it is an industry which is quite unique and it is not easy to\r\ndetect. As what the Minister has said earlier, I hope his Ministry\r\nor STB does work closely with the NTUC's Tourist Guide Chapter in\r\nthe detection and prevention of these unlicensed guides.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr\r\nS Iswaran\r\n : Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for\r\nhis questions and suggestions. I omitted in my earlier response\r\nto address a point raised by the Member Dr Lily Neo, on the timing\r\nfor the introduction of measures. There is a quite range of issues\r\nthat we have to deal with, so it will take us time. The intention\r\nis really to review and progressively introduce the measures. The\r\nsooner we can, and where we can move faster, we will do so. Then,\r\nthere will be other elements which may require perhaps changes in\r\nregulation or legislation, in which case it may take a bit longer.\r\nOverall, I expect that in the next 12 to 18 months, perhaps a bit\r\nlonger for some of the provisions, we should be able to address\r\nsome of them.
\r\nPage: 394
\r\n\r\n On the Member's question\r\nabout whether we will enhance the enforcement provisions, and to\r\naddress travel agents as well, the answer is \"yes\". It will be a comprehensive\r\nlook at the range of issues and the stakeholders in the industry.\r\nI want to inform Members that, today, the regime is such that we\r\ndo have penalties against those who are illegal tour guides, those\r\nwho are employing illegal tour guides and the travel agents as well,\r\nthat is, the companies, the body corporate. The penalties range from\r\nfines to, in the case of travel agencies, even imprisonment and\r\nrevocation or suspension of their licence.
\r\n\r\n The second point is whether\r\nSTB is outsourcing its functions. In fact, today, STB already outsources\r\nits enforcement activities. The key here is to make sure that we\r\nare adequately and well resourced, and the enforcement is well targeted\r\nto ensure it yields the best outcomes. And I take the Member's point\r\nthat we will continue to work every closely with the industry and\r\nother stakeholders to address some of these issues.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr David Ong\r\n : Mr Speaker,\r\nI would like to thank the Second Minister for the clarification.\r\nI want to check whether there is an acute shortfall of tourist guides\r\nin Singapore. If indeed so, can we then encourage more to take up\r\nthis trade or to try and convert those who are practising underground\r\nto come up and be converted to become fully licensed travel guides?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr S Iswaran\r\n : Mr Speaker,\r\nI thank the Member for the suggestion. I do not have an exact demand-supply\r\nanalysis for the Member. But what I can say is that if you look\r\nat the growth in tourism in Singapore and the way which it is being\r\ncompounding, and if you look at the new attractions and the enhancements\r\nof existing attractions that have taken place over the years, clearly\r\nthere is an opportunity for different types of jobs in the sector,\r\nand tour guide is one of them for sure, but that is not the only\r\npath where the jobs are being created. There is a whole spectrum\r\nof jobs being created in the tourism sector.
\r\n\r\n We have tried to communicate\r\nthis at different fora, at different platforms, that there is opportunity\r\nand people from different aspects or different skills background\r\nto be able to adapt to the opportunities in this sector. If you\r\nlook at our polytechnics and universities, a range of programmes\r\nare being offered as part of pre-employment training, to prepare\r\nour potential workers for the market opportunities.
\r\n\r\n I think this message can\r\nbe reiterated and, in fact, I would urge all Members to help us\r\nget this message out. In terms of tour guiding, in particular, I\r\nthink we have got the Singapore Tour Guides Association which works\r\nwith STB as well as the NTUC's Tourist Guide Chapter that has been\r\nstarted. These will be two other channels through which we can get\r\nthis message out in a more systematic way.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Yeo Guat Kwang (Ang Mo Kio)\r\n :\r\nSir, I understand that for a local or Singaporean to become a tour\r\nguide, he has to take a course and go through a very tedious examination.\r\nI would like to ask the Second Minister whether this would also apply\r\nto a foreigner who becomes a tour guide in Singapore. If not, should\r\nwe do so, and would the Ministry consider certain enforcement?
\r\nPage: 395
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr S Iswaran\r\n : Mr Speaker,\r\nSir, l thank the Member for the opportunity to clarify this point.\r\nThe process is a simple and straightforward one, which is equally\r\napplicable to whether you are a Singaporean, PR or foreigner. Essentially,\r\nfirst, you have to undertake a course which is conducted by two\r\napproved entities – one is the Tourist Management Institute of Singapore\r\nand the other is the Singapore Chinese Chamber Institute of Business\r\n– if I remember correctly. They conduct the courses, and typically\r\nthese are part-time courses which take about six months. Thereafter,\r\nthey have the aspiring tour guides take a multi-choice question\r\ntest, and then they have to take a simulated practical as well,\r\nwhere they will be judged for their competence. In the case of a\r\nSingaporean, he or she can then proceed to apply for their tour\r\nguide licence from STB.
\r\n\r\n In the case of someone who\r\nis a foreigner, he or she will also have to secure employment with\r\na travel agent who will then have to get the appropriate clearances from\r\nMOM before the individual is licensed as a tour guide for Singapore.\r\nSo, there is actually an additional hurdle when it comes to a foreign\r\ntour guide; otherwise the rules are all the same.
\r\nPage: 395
\r\n\r\n \r\n 13\r\n Er Dr Lee Bee Wah\r\n asked\r\nthe Prime Minister in light of the possibility that Singapore's\r\npopulation will shrink from 2025 if we do not have new citizens\r\n(a) whether there is any lesson that can be learnt from the European\r\nand Norwegian countries in the way they manage their population\r\ngrowth; and (b) whether other measures are looked at to encourage\r\nhigher birth rates.
\r\n\r\n \r\n 14\r\n Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar\r\n asked\r\nthe Prime Minister if there are plans to enhance the Baby Bonus\r\nscheme or other plans to help improve the total fertility rate of Singaporeans.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Deputy Prime Minister and Coordinating\r\nMinister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (Mr\r\nTeo Chee Hean) (for the Prime Minister)\r\n : Sir, may\r\nI have your permission to take Question Nos 13 and 14 together?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Teo Chee Hean\r\n : Sir, many\r\nEuropean countries are addressing their population challenges by\r\npursuing a mix of pro-parenthood and immigration policies. Nordic countries\r\nsuch as Sweden, Denmark and Norway have relatively high Total Fertility Rates\r\n(TFR) of between 1.88 and 1.98. These countries have a broad array\r\nof pro-parenthood measures such as good childcare systems, generous\r\nleave provisions and financial\r\nsupport for child raising costs. We have been studying their policies\r\nin the course of developing ours.
\r\n\r\n Pro-parenthood measures\r\nmay vary across countries due to differing cultural and socio-economic\r\nconditions. The Nordic countries have higher Government spending\r\non pro-parenthood measures, but they also have significantly higher\r\ntax rates. The personal income tax rates in the Nordic countries\r\nrange from 29% to 63%, and most people pay income tax there, compared\r\nto Singapore's personal income tax rates which range from 3.5% to\r\n20%. In fact, most Singaporeans do not pay income tax because the income\r\nlevel at which our income tax kicks in is quite high.
\r\nPage: 396
\r\n\r\n The total fertility rates\r\nvary between different countries. I mentioned that in Sweden, Denmark\r\nand Norway, the range is between 1.88 and 1.98. Among other European countries,\r\nsuch as Germany and Italy, they vary between 1.39 and 1.41. Germany\r\nis 1.39, Italy is 1.41. The US has a TFR of 1.93. So, it is not\r\nso easy to relate directly the policies or the amount of expenditure\r\nto the TFR because there are many other factors at work.
\r\n\r\n There is one observation,\r\nthough, in the Nordic countries which do have a higher TFR of 1.88\r\nto 1.98. A high proportion of births are to women who are not married\r\nto the father of the child. This is one main difference between\r\ntheir TFR and those of other countries at similar levels of development.\r\nBased on OECD reports, out-of-wedlock births made up about half\r\nof all births in Sweden, Denmark and Norway in 2010. In contrast,\r\nAsian societies, including Singapore, continue to value having children\r\nwithin the context of marriage. Creating a supportive environment\r\nfor Singaporeans to form families and raise children remains a key\r\nGovernment priority.
\r\n\r\n Over the years, we have\r\nsignificantly enhanced our Marriage and Parenthood package, and\r\ncurrently set aside $1.6 billion per year for a broad range of measures. These\r\ninclude:
\r\n\r\n (a) support for singles\r\nto find their life partner;
\r\n\r\n (b) Baby Bonus cash gift\r\nand co-savings to help parents defray the costs of child-raising;
\r\n\r\n (c) maternity and child\r\ncare leave provisions to help parents balance work and family life;\r\nas well as,
\r\n\r\n (d) measures to improve\r\nthe quality, affordability and accessibility of childcare options.
\r\n\r\n Since 2001, the parents\r\nof around 350,000 children have benefited from these measures.
\r\n\r\n We have also invested heavily\r\nin areas such as education, healthcare and security, in order to\r\nmake Singapore a good place for families. There are, of course,\r\nhousing subsidies as well for first-time homeowners to encourage\r\nthem to set up their own home, and these are not included in the\r\n$1.6 billion that I mentioned earlier for the Marriage and Parenthood\r\npackage.
\r\n\r\n We are reviewing policies\r\nand measures to support marriage and parenthood, taking into account\r\npublic feedback and the experiences of other countries. Over the\r\nnext few months, we will be engaging various stakeholders to discuss\r\nnew ideas as well as enhancements to existing measures. We welcome\r\nviews and suggestions from the public\r\non how we can improve Singapore's birth rate. I certainly encourage\r\nEr Dr Lee and Dr Intan to share their views with us.
\r\n\r\n However, we need to recognise\r\nthat relying on Government measures alone would not raise Singapore's\r\nbirth rate, as getting married and having children are very personal\r\ndecisions that reflect broader social values and attitudes. To support\r\nand encourage Singaporeans, we will need to strengthen Singapore's\r\npro-family environment, where employers, family members and society\r\nat large all have a part to play.
\r\nPage: 397
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon)\r\n :\r\nThank you, Sir. I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister\r\nfor the comprehensive answer. Definitely we are not encouraging\r\nmore births out of wedlock. A good childcare system is very important.\r\nI would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether there would\r\nbe more support given for childcare centres because there is a lot\r\nof feedback that there are insufficient childcare centres, and also the\r\nfees have gone up tremendously over the last few months.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Teo Chee Hean\r\n : Yes, certainly.\r\nI think Er Dr Lee is quite correct, childcare is one of those issues\r\nwhich have consistently been identified by young parents as an issue, which\r\nif we could make more accessible, more affordable, would be helpful\r\nto them. There are already currently childcare subsidies. The Baby\r\nBonus is there and it can be used for that. The Child Development\r\nAccount is also used by many of the parents to help to defray the\r\ncost of childcare. Sir, in fact, childcare is one of the main ways\r\nin which the Child Development Account is used today. But we are\r\nlooking at this issue again to see whether there are areas that\r\nwe can improve on.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar\r\n : Sir,\r\nI thank the Deputy Prime Minister for the extensive reply. Will\r\nthe Prime Minister's Office (PMO) consider extending paid maternity\r\nleave, or better still, having paid parental leave, for both mothers\r\nand fathers? Because if you look at the Nordic countries, or even\r\nthe European countries, such as Germany, Sweden and Norway, their\r\npaid parental leave is more than 40 weeks for both parents compared\r\nto our 16 plus three days.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Teo Chee Hean\r\n : The Member\r\nis talking about parental leave, not maternity leave? Maternity\r\nand parental leave – yes. The last we looked at maternity leave,\r\nwe were very careful because there was also another group of persons\r\nwho were very concerned that this would impact upon the employability\r\nof women. That was a fairly large area of concern. We wanted to\r\nmake sure that we did not, through making maternity leave provisions\r\nmore generous, impact on women being employed – as a result of which\r\nit would be harder for women to be employed. That is not what we\r\nwant to have happen as well. And that is why we have this balance\r\nwhere the one additional month of the maternity leave is actually\r\npaid for by the Government.
\r\n\r\n We are open to ideas on\r\nhow this can be done and I do support having some signal and some\r\npractical measures in which men are encouraged to take on a greater\r\nrole in parenthood and being a present parent rather than a sort\r\nof parent from a distance.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mrs Lina Chiam (Non-constituency Member)\r\n :\r\nI would like to ask a supplementary question. I would like to ask\r\na very controversial question of the Deputy Prime Minister. Would he consider \"Baby\r\nDrop\", since Malaysia is doing that and we are having this population\r\nproblem of not having enough babies? And since the child is born from\r\nGod's love and not the fault of the parents, is it possible that\r\nthe Deputy Prime Minister would consider a \"Baby Drop\" for Singaporeans\r\nto drop their babies off in cases where the child is born out of\r\nwedlock?
\r\nPage: 398
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Teo Chee Hean\r\n : Mr Speaker,\r\nSir, I think this is – as Mrs Chiam says – a controversial area.\r\nWe must be very careful when we implement such measures whether\r\nor not we end up inadvertently encouraging unwanted pregnancies\r\nand births, and causing greater problems as a result. So, I think\r\nwe need to be very careful about this.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Ms Janice Koh (Nominated Member)\r\n :\r\nSir, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his response. My supplementary\r\nquestion is with regard to the strategies that Singapore employs.\r\nIrrespective of marital status, just looking at a whole country's\r\nstatistics, can Singapore not continue to model after the Nordic\r\ncountries in terms of employing strategies that could also work\r\nin Singapore? Irrespective of how we calculate the statistics, whether\r\nit is birth out of wedlock or within the family context?
\r\n\r\n Let me re-phrase. We have\r\nbeen talking about the statistics, comparing the Nordic countries\r\nand Singapore, and how the main difference is in calculations. I\r\nmean the Nordic countries count out-of-wedlock births as legitimate\r\nbirths, whereas in Singapore we are looking at encouraging baby-making\r\nwithin the family structure. What I am trying to say is, can we\r\nnot look at models across the board and strategies that have worked\r\nin Nordic countries in any case?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Teo Chee Hean\r\n : Yes, we\r\nare certainly looking at that, but we have to be very careful. I\r\nraised the issue of marriages out of wedlock only because we have\r\nto be careful about how we implement the measures. There may be\r\ncollateral side effects. There are major cultural differences. When\r\nwe look at the urbanised East Asian societies – Japan, Taiwan, Hong\r\nKong – they also have low fertility rates. They have also tried\r\nmeasures of various kinds. While we will certainly look at all these\r\nmeasures, we have to be careful of the collateral side effects,\r\nthe unintended side effects on our society. And we also have to\r\nbe realistic about what we can achieve.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade)\r\n :\r\nSir, two supplementary questions for the Deputy Prime Minister.\r\nThese are proposals which I have raised several times over the last\r\nfew years. The first one is concerning a group of people who want\r\nto have children but for various reasons are unable to. IVF – can\r\nwe do more for them? I know we are already extending some subsidies.\r\nCould these be further increased because this is the group of couples\r\nwho want to have children?
\r\n\r\n My second supplementary\r\nquestion is something very uncontroversial. It is relating to paternity\r\nleave. I have argued several times in the House, I have been pushing\r\nto legislate paternity leave. I recognise the other angles, the\r\nbusiness costs of it. But I think we should make a start somewhere,\r\nand legislating it even for as short as one day. It is an important\r\nsignalling effect from the Government. After all, all of us recognise\r\nthat parenting is a shared responsibility by both the mother and\r\nthe father. Having talked to many residents, young couples, many\r\nof them have cited that paternity leave is something that is important\r\nto the family. I believe it is important to push that and allow our TFR to go up. I\r\nhope the Deputy Prime Minister would consider these two suggestions.
\r\nPage: 399
\r\n\r\n \r\n 15 \r\n \r\n Mr Baey Yam Keng\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for Education with regard to official textbooks for\r\nuse in our schools and educational institutions, if there are (i)\r\nframeworks for the selection and approval of such textbooks; (ii)\r\nregular exercises to collate feedback in order to update and amend\r\ntextbooks; and (iii) standard operating procedures to alert schools\r\nand teachers of errors in teaching materials.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Minister for Education (Mr Heng Swee\r\nKeat)\r\n : Mr Speaker, Sir, MOE engages publishers to\r\ndevelop instructional materials based on the syllabuses. The quality\r\nof the instructional materials is maintained through a textbook\r\nreview process whereby the materials are reviewed by a panel of\r\nprofessionals, including curriculum specialists, teachers, and academics\r\nfrom the universities. There are several iterations to the process\r\nbefore the materials are approved and listed on MOE's Approved Textbook\r\nList for selection by the schools.
\r\n\r\n MOE gathers teachers' feedback\r\non the instructional materials every year. These feedback and suggestions\r\nwill be taken into consideration for subsequent reviews of the instructional\r\nmaterials. In the event that errors are found in the materials,\r\nMOE will alert the publishers and work with them to rectify the\r\nerrors and communicate the amendments to the schools.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Baey Yam Keng (Tampines)\r\n :\r\nI would like to refer the Minister to a recent media report that\r\nthe MOE acknowledged the mistake of the wrongful use for the term\r\n\"shi\" in the Secondary 1 history textbooks. I would like\r\nto ask the Minister why such a mistake was not spotted for the last\r\nseven years, and what the Ministry is doing to enhance the system\r\nto prevent future slip-ups.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Heng Swee Keat\r\n : Mr Speaker,\r\nSir, I thank Mr Baey Yam Keng for his supplementary question and\r\nfor giving us this opportunity to clarify. The textbook review process\r\nwas adhered to in the production of the history textbook, The\r\nLiving Past – History of Ancient India, China and Southeast\r\nAsia, second edition. It was pointed out that there is an error\r\nin this textbook on the use of the term \"shi\" to refer to\r\na group of landowners in China's feudal system. Let me clarify that\r\nno Chinese character was used in the textbook. Instead, the hanyu\r\npinyin \"shi\" was used.
\r\n\r\n The misunderstanding arose\r\nwhen the person who spotted this, translated and interpreted \"shi\"\r\nas in the Chinese character \"boshi\" (\"博士\"). Our consultations\r\nwith the authoritative sources have revealed conflicting interpretations\r\nand translations of \"shi\" which could either be \"shi\"\r\n(\"士\") as in \"boshi\"(\"博士\"), or as in the other character \"shi\"\r\n(\"氏\") as in \"xingshi\" (\"姓氏\"), the latter referring to a broad\r\ncategory of nobility, including landowners. This latter usage of\r\nthe word \"shi\" is an ancient usage and it is not commonly\r\nused today. Although the textbook presentation of \"shi\" could\r\nbe retained, to prevent\r\nfurther confusion, MOE has decided that the word would be amended\r\nto simply \"feudal lords\", since it is an English textbook.
\r\n\r\n Sir, amending it will not\r\naffect students' understanding of ancient China's governance and\r\nsocial structures. We are working with the publisher to inform teachers of\r\nthis amendment. Amendment stickers have been printed, and this has\r\nalso been announced in the publisher's website. The publisher will\r\nalso reflect the amendment in the next re-print of the textbook.\r\nSir, I thank Mr Baey Yam Keng and members of the public for their\r\ninterest in this topic.
\r\nPage: 400
\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Speaker\r\n : Order. End of\r\nQuestion Time. Ministerial Statement. Minister for Transport.
\r\n\r\n [Pursuant to Standing\r\nOrder No. 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 18, 21-23, 25 and\r\n27 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix (Pg 428-442).\r\nQuestion Nos 16-17, 19-20, 24, 26 and 28-51 have been postponed\r\nto the next available sitting of Parliament.]
\r\nPage: 400
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Minister for Transport (Mr Lui Tuck\r\nYew)\r\n : Mr Speaker, Sir, in January, I delivered a\r\nMinisterial Statement in this House on the service disruptions that\r\ntook place along the North-South Line on 15 and 17 December 2011.\r\nMore than 200,000 commuters were affected and the severity of the\r\nincidents was unprecedented.
\r\n\r\n A Committee of Inquiry (COI)\r\nwas convened on 29 December, led by Chief District Judge Tan Siong\r\nThye, with two other members, Prof Lim Mong King and Mr Soh Wai Wah.\r\nIt was tasked to investigate the causes of the disruptions, as well\r\nas other factors that might have contributed to them. Based on the\r\nfindings, the Committee would make recommendations to minimise the\r\nrecurrence of similar incidents, and improve the management of such\r\nincidents.
\r\n\r\n The COI's report resulting\r\nfrom the inquiry was submitted to my Ministry on 3 July 2012. The\r\nreport is comprehensive, detailing the Committee's findings and recommendations.\r\nThese will be invaluable to on-going efforts to improve the reliability of\r\nour public transport system.
\r\n\r\n I want to put on record\r\nmy deep appreciation for the Committee's hard work. The inquiry\r\nwas demanding and challenging, given the technical nature of the\r\nissues. Prior to the start of public hearings, the Committee had\r\nto expend time and effort to equip itself with contextual and technical\r\ninformation in preparation for the inquiry. The public hearings\r\nstarted on 16 April, and lasted six weeks, concluding on 25 May.\r\nDuring this time, a total of 116 witnesses were called to the stand.
\r\n\r\n Apart from the Committee\r\nmembers, I must also thank the team that supported the Committee,\r\nincluding but not limited to its secretariat, resource persons,\r\nofficers from the Attorney-General's Chambers, and investigators\r\nfrom the Criminal Investigation Department\r\nand the Air Accident Investigation Bureau. I also thank witnesses\r\nwho testified at the inquiry, including expert witnesses, LTA and\r\nSMRT senior management and staff, as well as members of the public.\r\nWithout them, the inquiry would not have been successfully completed.
\r\n\r\n I will first summarise the\r\nCOI's key findings and recommendations, and then provide the Government's\r\nresponse. I will update Members on the measures that we have already\r\ntaken, and further measures that we will take, to improve MRT reliability\r\nand incident management. While the COI found shortcomings in SMRT,\r\nLTA too fell short. I will also speak about the improvements that\r\nLTA must make, particularly with regard to how it regulates the\r\npublic transport operators.
\r\nPage: 401
\r\n\r\n Let me say here before I\r\nproceed any further, that my Ministry accepts the findings and recommendations\r\nof the COI.
\r\n\r\n As the media has reported\r\nextensively on the findings of the COI, I do not intend to dwell\r\nat length on them.
\r\n\r\n The COI assessed that the\r\nimmediate cause of the stalling of the trains in both incidents\r\nwas damage to their Current Collector Device (CCD) shoes, due to\r\ncontact with a sagging third rail. The third rail, or power rail,\r\nruns along the MRT tracks and supplies electrical current to the\r\nrunning trains, which draw this power through the shoes mounted\r\non the trains. During both incidents, sections of the third rail\r\nwere found to have sagged and multiple claws dislodged. These claws\r\nare a key component of Third Rail Support Assemblies (TRSAs), which\r\nhold the third rail above the track.
\r\n\r\n The incident on 15 December\r\nwas initiated by a defective fastener on one of the TRSAs. This\r\ncaused the claw of that TRSA to dislodge and the third rail to sag.\r\nAlthough trains continued to pass the sag, it rendered the two adjacent\r\nTRSAs more vulnerable to vibration. Over time, these two TRSAs,\r\nwhich insulators were coincidentally also defective, failed gradually.\r\nBy the evening of 15 December, the third rail sag had gone beyond\r\nthe tolerance limits of the trains' shoes, damaging the CCD shoes\r\non trains passing the incident site. Some trains stalled after passing\r\nthe site as they were no longer able to draw sufficient power from\r\nthe third rail. At the incident site, multiple trains impacting\r\nthe sagging third rail eventually caused three more claws to dislodge, such\r\nthat a stretch of the third rail came to rest on the track-bed.\r\nThis segment of the track then became impassable to all trains.
\r\n\r\n The COI attributes the incident\r\non 17 December to one, or possibly more, \"rogue train(s)\" that suffered\r\nCCD shoe damage when they passed the 15 December incident site as\r\nthe third rail there was progressively sagging. The damaged shoes\r\nof these rogue trains destabilised the third rail system at other\r\nlocations along the North-South Line on 16 December, causing one\r\nthird rail claw on the south-bound track between Newton and Orchard\r\nstations to dislodge and the third rail to sag. On 17 December morning,\r\nthere was a train, which was traced to Train 119, that made unusually\r\nforceful contact with the third rail at the incident site, causing\r\nan adjacent claw to also dislodge. And now, with two adjacent claws\r\ndislodged, the third rail sagged further, and caused damage to the CCD\r\nshoes of this Train 119 and the trains that passed after it. Some\r\nof these trains subsequently stalled as they were no longer able\r\nto draw sufficient power.
\r\n\r\n On incident management, the COI recognised\r\nthe complex challenges that SMRT and LTA faced on the two days,\r\ngiven the trying and unprecedented circumstances. While commuter\r\nsafety was not compromised, there were lapses and gaps in the management of\r\nthe incidents. Individual SMRT staff generally did their best, but\r\nthe overall incident response was skewed towards train safety and\r\noperational considerations, resulting in insufficient attention\r\nto the well-being of passengers in stalled trains and stations.
\r\n\r\n The COI's key conclusion\r\nis that the incidents were preventable, had adequate maintenance\r\nmeasures and checks been carried out. The COI found shortcomings\r\nin SMRT's maintenance work culture, and in its overall maintenance\r\nand monitoring regime. In particular, the COI agrees with the expert\r\nwitnesses that the material defects in the fastener and insulators\r\nlikely took time to develop before the 15 December incident. However,\r\nthey were regrettably not identified and remedied by SMRT's maintenance\r\nefforts. After the first incident on 15 December, SMRT's checks,\r\nincluding the checks done after MRT operations the following night\r\n− so they had two night windows − failed to detect the damaged CCD\r\nshoes on the rogue trains and the third rail sag. This allowed the\r\n17 December incident to take place.
\r\nPage: 402
\r\n\r\n Sir, let me now bring the\r\nHouse through the COI's key recommendations to improve MRT reliability.\r\nLet me assure Members that we will follow through on all the recommendations.\r\nSMRT and LTA have already implemented or decided to implement many\r\nof the recommendations, while some others require further feasibility\r\nstudy. SMRT has given its initial response last week on how it is\r\nalready improving its maintenance and monitoring regime and work\r\nprocesses. LTA, as the MRT regulator, will provide its detailed\r\nresponse later today.
\r\n\r\n The COI has made a number\r\nof recommendations specifically on the third rail system as this\r\nwas the source of the problem in the December disruptions. We need\r\nto avoid a situation where we have two or more adjacent claw drops,\r\nas the third rail will then sag beyond the tolerance limit of the\r\nCCD shoes. This means that we must identify third rail sags and\r\nfix the sags in a timely manner. In this regard, SMRT has accepted\r\nthe COI's recommendation to enhance the maintenance regime for the\r\nthird rail system. Full maintenance requirements in the original\r\nMRTC maintenance manual, which includes annual TRSA inspections,\r\nwill be implemented. Non-destructive tests such as ultrasound scanning\r\nhave already been carried out at vulnerable stretches of the third rail,\r\nto pick out cracks on third rail joints. LTA and SMRT are reviewing\r\nthe upgrading of SMRT's current Multi-Function Vehicle (MFV). The\r\nreview will be completed by August this year, at which point SMRT\r\nwill call for tender to upgrade the MFV. A new MFV will be acquired\r\non top of this current MFV. In the meantime, the MFV that is deployed\r\non the Circle Line will be redeployed for use also to the North-South\r\nand East-West Lines (NSEWL).
\r\n\r\n SMRT will explore capabilities\r\nto detect third rail sags via the installation of sensors on selected\r\ntrains. Installation and testing of this mode are expected to begin\r\nby the end of this month. In addition, SMRT will study a camera-based\r\nsystem so that the third rail can be monitored on a real-time basis.\r\nAs an interim measure, SMRT will implement stainless steel capping\r\non TRSAs with cable ties at higher-risk areas such as high speed ramps\r\nof tight turn-outs. This will further reduce the likelihood of claw\r\ndislodgements.
\r\n\r\n The COI has also recommended\r\nthat the design of the TRSAs be reviewed. Those in the older parts\r\nof the NSEWL are over 20 years old. There are now better and more robust\r\ndesigns which have more effective locking features. SMRT will undertake\r\na change-out programme\r\nfor the older TRSAs on the NSEWL. Fifth generation claws will be\r\ninstalled on the sections of Floating Slab Tracks (FST), where several\r\nof the dislodged claws were found in December. This will be completed\r\nby August. Thereafter, the current speed restrictions that we have\r\nimposed on these segments since the incidents last December will\r\nbe progressively lifted. In addition, SMRT and LTA will continue\r\nto study plans to replace TRSAs for the rest of the network, and\r\nmake a final recommendation on the type of TRSA that will be used\r\nbefore the end of the year.
\r\nPage: 403
\r\n\r\n Specific train components\r\nalso contributed to the December incidents, in particular, severe\r\nvibrations caused by wheel defects. SMRT will monitor the condition\r\nof train wheels through the use of a Wheel Impact Loading Detection\r\n(WILD) system which automatically picks up wheel defects. This system\r\nis already in place on the Circle Line today. It will be implemented\r\non the compass lines by December. In addition, SMRT will procure\r\nadditional wheel lathes for wheel re-profiling to rectify wheel\r\ndefects. To monitor all this, LTA will require the MRT operators\r\nto introduce formal processes to track indicators and analyse faults,\r\nincluding the number of trains in queue for wheel profile works.\r\nLTA and SMRT will also study the COI's recommendations to improve\r\nthe maintenance regime for CCD shoes, and to explore means to detect\r\ndefective shoes.
\r\n\r\n Beyond recommendations for\r\nspecific components, the COI has emphasised the need for SMRT to\r\nstrive for maintenance excellence. SMRT has assured me that it will improve\r\nits maintenance and monitoring regime. I understand that it is already\r\ntaking steps to enhance its engineering and maintenance capabilities\r\nand resources, and that it has put in place a more robust maintenance\r\nregime overall.
\r\n\r\n Let me move on to talk about\r\nthe regulator. Sir, it is the responsibility of LTA as the regulator\r\nto hold the operator accountable for delivering a reliable system\r\nfor commuters. LTA fell short in this regard. It must do better.\r\nLTA must re-look how it can better fulfil its duties as the regulator.\r\nIt must work with and also supervise more closely the operator,\r\nand strengthen its regulatory framework.
\r\n\r\n Today, the oldest parts\r\nof the compass lines have been in operation for some 25 years. Given\r\nthese ageing assets and the added strain of increased ridership,\r\nthe quality and robustness of the maintenance regime, especially\r\npreventive maintenance, become even more critical. Rather than relying\r\non a corrective approach to rectify problems, we must adopt a systems\r\napproach towards maintenance to pre-emptively identify potential\r\nareas of concern.
\r\n\r\n The operator and regulator\r\nwill therefore need to work even closer than before, on key preventive\r\nmaintenance and upgrading plans, starting with the NSEWL, but eventually\r\nextending this same approach to all other lines as they too will\r\nage.
\r\n\r\n Earlier this year, I directed\r\nboth LTA and SMRT to set up a Joint Team, comprising engineering\r\nand maintenance experts from both sides, to look into reducing disruptions and\r\nenhancing the reliability of the compass lines.
\r\n\r\n The Joint Team has briefed\r\nme twice on its findings and recommendations. They plan to reduce\r\nthe number of train service withdrawals by 30% by 2013, to adopting\r\na systems-based preventive maintenance approach and tackling key\r\nareas like, for example, the pneumatic compressors, the propulsion\r\nsystems, and the brake control units of different generations of\r\ntrains. The Joint Team has also identified additional areas of improvement,\r\nincluding systematic upgrading and replacement of infrastructure\r\nand operating assets. This illustrates LTA's evolving role. While\r\nLTA in the past would have largely left it to the operator to decide\r\non what components to change-out as part of mid-life upgrading of\r\nthe trains, LTA will henceforth jointly work with the operator on\r\ncritical aspects of such upgrading programmes.
\r\nPage: 404
\r\n\r\n I expect LTA and SMRT to\r\ncontinue this new Joint Team approach in studying and implementing\r\nthe COI's recommendations.
\r\n\r\n But apart from working closer\r\nwith the operators, the LTA will also strengthen its regulatory\r\nframework. LTA's regulatory approach in the past has been outcome-based, with\r\nselective intervention on safety-critical aspects. Going forward,\r\nits regulatory framework will be enhanced to be more prescriptive\r\nand also to exercise greater oversight on areas that affect reliability\r\nand commuter comfort.
\r\n\r\n To exercise closer and more\r\neffective oversight over the train operators' maintenance and operations,\r\nLTA will require operators to track certain indicators so that early detection\r\nof problems and timely preventive actions can take place. This includes indicators\r\nsuch as the Mean Time between Failure (MTBF) of train propulsion\r\nand braking systems, incidents of dropped claws, misaligned third\r\nrails, and the number of trains in queue for wheel re-profiling\r\nworks. These will give the regulator a better sense of the operator's\r\nmaintenance efforts. In addition, the operators will be required\r\nto submit to LTA trend analyses and improvements plans with specific\r\ntimelines to arrest and reverse faults.
\r\n\r\n The COI has also recommended\r\nthat LTA impose a requirement on SMRT to conduct a Maintenance Management\r\nSystem audit, to identify areas of possible improvement in their\r\nmaintenance regime. I fully agree. LTA will require SMRT to engage\r\nindependent experts to audit their maintenance processes every three\r\nyears. I have also asked SMRT and LTA to work with and consult their\r\ncounterparts overseas who have to operate and regulate older MRT\r\nsystems, to see what preventive measures we should put in place, and\r\nwhat useful lessons we can learn from them.
\r\n\r\n New Operating Performance\r\nStandards (OPS) will be introduced to better reflect commuters'\r\nexperience. In particular, more stringent standards will be set\r\non the frequency and number of delays. LTA will also review the\r\npenalty framework, which includes the maximum fine payable by the\r\noperators for regulatory breaches, so that the penalties can be\r\nmore commensurate with the severity of incidents and their impact\r\non commuters.
\r\n\r\n For incident management,\r\nthe COI has called for greater clarity in the roles of stakeholders,\r\nand for improved coordination between stakeholders; improvements\r\nto various aspects of the incident management plan with an emphasis\r\non the well-being of passengers; and ensuring incident management\r\nreadiness. LTA and SMRT have taken steps to address the gaps and\r\nthe lapses that were identified with regard to incident management\r\neven prior to the release of the COI report. And I am confident\r\nthat both parties are better equipped today than they were a year\r\nago to handle similar incidents.
\r\n\r\n The regulator has taken\r\nthe lead to better integrate stakeholders' and transport emergency\r\nplans to ensure that there is clarity in their respective roles.\r\nSince the December incidents, LTA has worked with the operators\r\nto harmonise their incident classification levels to be consistent\r\nwith LTA's. This ensures that appropriate support from all parties is\r\nrendered in accordance with incident severity. LTA will continue\r\nto review and refine these plans, and robustly test these against\r\nrealistic exercises and challenging scenarios.
\r\n\r\n We have taken measures to\r\nimprove the incident management plan with an emphasis on passenger\r\nwell-being. When I addressed the House in January, LTA and the operators\r\nwere looking into the improvement of contingency plans for train\r\nservice disruptions, particularly with regard to bus bridging services\r\nand the improvement of communication to in-train commuters and to\r\nthe general public. Since then, LTA has worked with the operators\r\nto provide regular bus services free of charge at designated points\r\nnearest to affected stations in the event of an extended MRT service\r\ndisruption, to improve signages at the stations, and to develop\r\nmore robust and comprehensive station-level plans to deal with such\r\nincidents.
\r\nPage: 405
\r\n\r\n The premature failure of\r\nbatteries during the December incidents caused some discomfort,\r\nindeed, great discomfort to commuters. In response to the COI's recommendation\r\nto improve back-up power, SMRT has committed to instituting more battery\r\nchecks, while a detailed study will be carried out to look into\r\nthe feasibility of extending the current duration of back-up batteries\r\nfrom 45 minutes to 60 minutes.
\r\n\r\n As regulator, LTA issued\r\nto the PTOs early this year, a Code of Practice (COP) on incident\r\nmanagement. This new COP sets more prescriptive standards for compliance on\r\nkey aspects of incident management such as incident reporting by\r\nthe operators to the LTA and other authorities, information management\r\nvia regular and comprehensive announcements, the detrainment of\r\npassengers from stalled trains, and bus bridging services. The introduction\r\nof a COP relating specifically to incident management signals its\r\nimportance and will raise standards of incident management. Beyond\r\nthe COP, the rail operators will now be required to seek approval\r\nfrom LTA for their Rail Incident Management Plan (RIMP).
\r\n\r\n Sir, the COI was set up\r\nto look into the causes of the December disruptions and to make\r\nrecommendations to minimise the recurrence of such incidents, as\r\nwell as how on future incidents should be managed. The COI has delivered\r\non their Terms of Reference, and done so in a manner which is open,\r\ntransparent, and fair in allowing for due process. This also means\r\nthat it is to be expected that the parties involved will hire good\r\nlawyers and credible experts as part of the inquiry processes. More\r\nimportantly, I believe that the COI has taken an objective, fact-based\r\nand thorough approach in its inquiry, with a clear emphasis on being\r\nconstructive and forward-looking. MOT is satisfied that the Committee\r\nhas met its objectives and our expectations.
\r\n\r\n In particular, the COI has\r\nenabled us to get to the root of what happened on 15 and 17 December\r\nas best as we can, given that unfortunately, some of the information\r\nwas not preserved or available by the time the Committee started\r\nits work. We will therefore have to implement more effective forensic\r\ninvestigation procedures as recommended by the COI, so that we can\r\nlearn useful lessons whenever we have significant incidents and\r\ndisruptions. Nonetheless, as a result of the COI's thorough and\r\nsystematic work, we now know much more about the vulnerabilities\r\nof the NSEWL and can take more appropriate preventive and remedial\r\nmeasures.
\r\n\r\n It is not the purpose of the COI to determine\r\naccountability and penalties to be imposed for the incidents. LTA,\r\nas the regulator, will separately complete its investigation into\r\nthe December incidents. The findings of fact within the COI report\r\nwill provide useful input to LTA's investigation and I understand\r\nthat LTA will announce the outcome of its investigation shortly,\r\nincluding the penalties that will be meted out.
\r\nPage: 406
\r\n\r\n Sir, let me conclude. SMRT's\r\nmaintenance regime had shortcomings, but we too – both MOT, as the\r\nsupervising Ministry, and LTA, as the regulator – have to shoulder\r\nour share of the responsibility. We could have done more, and could\r\nhave done better. The December incidents were a painful lesson but\r\nwe can and we will learn from them. We will improve our ability\r\nto address new challenges that arise with an expanded public transport\r\nnetwork. I give the House my assurance that we will spare no effort\r\nto improve.
\r\n\r\n The COI itself may have\r\ndrawn to a close, but it marks the start of the next phase for all\r\nof us. We know that we must work hard to restore confidence in the\r\nMRT system. We will put in place measures to address specific problems\r\nthat have been identified to improve the overall reliability of\r\nour system. We will move towards a more holistic and robust framework\r\nfor maintenance issues and we will strengthen today's regulatory framework\r\nso that the operator is held more accountable.
\r\n\r\n This Government is responsible\r\nfor delivering a quality public transport system to Singaporeans.\r\nWe take this responsibility seriously and we will deliver.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng (Pioneer)\r\n :\r\nSir, it is very heartening to hear that the Minister has received\r\nand accepted the COI report and has also acknowledged that the LTA\r\nhas also fallen short. Can I ask the Minister what gives him the\r\nconfidence that LTA will correct all its shortcomings, and also\r\nwhat gives him the confidence that SMRT will from now on improve\r\nits maintenance culture and regime?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Lui Tuck Yew\r\n : Mr Speaker,\r\nSir, I thank Mr Cedric Foo for that excellent question. Let me first\r\nof all talk about some of what SMRT is doing. I think when both\r\nthe chairman and the interim CEO talk about re-engineering the company,\r\nI am very much heartened by the fact that it is not just about re-jigging\r\nthe organisational structure but putting a renewed emphasis on engineering,\r\nmaintenance and its role in providing an essential public service.
\r\n\r\n My understanding is that\r\nthis is felt on the ground. When I visited SMRT, talked to the people\r\non the ground, the people doing the maintenance and operating the\r\nsystems, they too sensed that there was that renewed emphasis on\r\nengineering. And I urge SMRT to continue this because ultimately\r\nit is, I think, the culture of the organisation that will set the\r\ndirection and for the team thereafter to effect these changes.
\r\n\r\n On LTA, it has always taken\r\nits regulatory role seriously. It tries to strike a judicious balance\r\nbetween being the designer and developer of the MRT system as well\r\nas regulating the system. In that sense, I think it has done reasonably\r\nwell in both.
\r\n\r\n In the past, I think the\r\nemphasis had been on an outcome-based approach, and the focus had\r\nbeen on safety-critical aspects. And it has realised that it needs\r\nto do more in this regard, not only working in closer cooperation\r\nwith the operators on an ongoing basis but also to revise the regulatory\r\nframework to pay more attention to not only the safety-critical aspects\r\nbut also to reliability-critical aspects and commuter comfort. There\r\nare also other regulatory changes that I have mentioned, and on\r\nwhich LTA will provide greater detail later. And I believe that,\r\noverall, this will strengthen the regime within LTA.
\r\nPage: 407
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Non-constituency\r\nMember)\r\n : Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for his\r\ncomprehensive explanation. I have two broad questions: first, the focus\r\non the PTOs that has arisen from this incident; and, secondly, how\r\nmuch leverage LTA has over them. First question – we have seen from\r\nthe report that there have been shortcomings in the maintenance\r\nwork culture and the COI recommended that SMRT focus on being an\r\nengineering company, which suggested that it was not really focused on\r\nthat before. So, is this due to the setup of the structure of this\r\nsystem where there is a focus on making profits rather than engineering,\r\nwhich is a cost centre? Engineering is the cost centre for SMRT\r\nat this point of time and it will be for the foreseeable future. Second\r\nquestion – what leverage does LTA have over the operators? The Minister mentioned\r\nthat there are plans to increase the fines and there are also plans\r\nto work together more with the operators and have more performance\r\nmetrics. Besides all these things, I think underlying the whole\r\nthing is just the fines that are going to be increased. Is there\r\nany other leverage that LTA has over the operators to ensure that\r\nthey do what they are supposed to do?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Lui Tuck Yew\r\n : Mr Speaker,\r\nSir, I thank Mr Gerald Giam for his questions. Let me deal with\r\nthe second one first, which is on the leverage. In addition to working\r\nwith them, fines and so on, there is also the issue of a licence.\r\nWhat happens is that we have a licence that is for a limited duration.\r\nFor the North-South-East-West Lines (NSEWL), the licence expires\r\nin 2028.
\r\n\r\n And because we have more\r\nthan one operator in the system, we do have – as we had done for\r\nthe Downtown Line earlier last year – the possibility of putting\r\nout the lines for tender and getting the best offer from potential\r\noperators to run these lines. So, it is not as if SMRT will be able\r\nto run these lines indefinitely. They have a licence. The licence\r\nis for a fixed duration and it will be up for renewal. In the very\r\nextreme situation, of course, if they are egregious in breaching\r\nthe licence conditions, then LTA can take other actions against\r\nthem, based on the licence conditions.
\r\n\r\n Let me move on to his first\r\nquestion which is on the focus of the operators, because I think\r\nthat is a fair question to ask. They have to find the balance between\r\nbeing a commercial entity as well as being an engineering company\r\nthat provides an essential public service. The COI – and I agree\r\nwith them – felt that going forward, the SMRT needed to pay more\r\nattention to the engineering aspects. Has there been an over-emphasis\r\non the commercial aspects and should we strip it out from the operator altogether?\r\nThat probably is the gist of the question. If I could continue the\r\ndiscussion from yesterday on buses and extend it to trains now –\r\nand we look at what is happening in different parts of the world\r\n– back to this issue of whether public transport should be nationalised?\r\nShould it be single operator concentrating solely on not the commercial parts,\r\nbut the engineering and delivering the service? I think you will\r\nfind that there are different models. The two models that I thought\r\nmaybe worthy of bringing to the attention of the Members of the\r\nHouse is that adopted by London tube and the New York subway. Both\r\nof these systems are run by nationalised entities that focus only\r\non the delivery of the essential service. I do not think it is in\r\nour interest to emulate the outcomes or the standards that are provided\r\nby both the London tube and the New York subway.
\r\n\r\n I think at the end of the day, when we\r\nhave a profit motive in the equation, it actually engenders certain\r\nbehaviours in the operators that require them to be more efficient,\r\nto be more productive. And when a new licence comes up or the existing\r\nlicence comes up for tendering, they have to put in the best possible\r\nbid, as we have seen for the Downtown Line. There is that pressure\r\non them to be efficient and that is a helpful ingredient that I\r\nwould like to see in our public transport network.
\r\nPage: 408
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Christopher de Souza\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, on the issue of the audit, there is going to be a lot\r\nmore kilometres of line of rail in the next few years. A lot more\r\nstations, obviously a lot more manpower. How will the audit of every\r\ntwo years, or every three years, have the capacity for that \"give\"\r\nin future of operations?
\r\n\r\n The second clarification\r\nis not the debate of whether SMRT should stop its retail business,\r\nbut really that the bandwidth of SMRT operations is occupied by\r\noperations, the maintenance, the aligning of services and the customer-centric\r\nnature of transporting individuals from one place to another. So,\r\nit is not to do away with the retail or the commercial sensibilities\r\nof the business, but to have the assurance of the Minister that\r\nat the front centre of the bandwidth is operations.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Lui Tuck Yew\r\n : Sir, I thank\r\nthe Member. Those are very, very valid comments. If I were to take\r\non the second point that the Member mentioned with regard to bandwidth, and\r\nwhere SMRT is focusing its orientation, that is indeed a very valid\r\npoint. At the end of the day, just like LTA, with the need to balance\r\nbetween being a designer, developer and a regulator, likewise, the\r\noperators will also need to balance their dual roles. In that sense,\r\nit is a fair point and we will need to constantly remind both the\r\nmanagement as well as the board that they should not pay undue attention\r\nto only one aspect, to the detriment of the other. So, that is an\r\nabsolutely valid point.
\r\n\r\n On the audits: in addition\r\nto what LTA does and will continue to do, we are talking about getting\r\nindependent auditors and assessors to come in, to take a look and\r\nprovide us with a heath check every three years or so. Depending\r\non the size of the network as well as the terms of reference for\r\nthe auditors, I am sure they will size up their resources accordingly.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Speaker\r\n : I have a request.\r\nWe have got quite a few Members who want to ask questions. Can we\r\nkeep the questions short, please? Mr Low Thia Khiang.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied)\r\n :\r\nSir, I noted that the Minister has worked hard in response to the\r\nDecember incidents. I have two clarifications. One is I wonder whether the\r\nprofit nature of the operators, which forces them to look after\r\nthe bottom line, has resulted in the consequence of a lack of focus\r\nin the maintenance. Secondly, I would like to seek clarification\r\non incident management. The Minister earlier said that there is\r\nnow a new incidence classification system that is in sync with both\r\nthe SMRT and the LTA. I would like to know what the new classifications\r\nare and what happened in the past. I also understand that there\r\nis now a new code of practice on incident management. So, may I\r\nknow what can commuters expect if the December incidents were to\r\nhappen again?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Lui Tuck Yew\r\n : I thank\r\nthe Member for the questions. Like I said, we really do need from\r\ntime to time to review and to re-orientate where the balance is:\r\nfor the regulator, balancing between designing and developing and\r\nregulating; for the operators, balancing between the commercial\r\nand the engineering aspects. This is something that we have the\r\ncommitment from SMRT to look into.
\r\n\r\n To some extent, it depends on the composition\r\nof the management team, especially at the senior level as well as\r\nthe culture of the organisation. Over time, the culture shifts. It\r\nwill take time, I think, for the culture of the organisation to\r\nshift towards paying a lot more attention on the engineering as\r\nwell as the maintenance aspects.
\r\nPage: 409
\r\n\r\n As I have said, talking\r\nto the people on the ground, those who are really directly working\r\non the systems, what we find is that the management team is paying\r\nfar more attention, going down to the ground and understanding some\r\nof the issues, the challenges that they face, the resources that\r\nthey need to support it.
\r\n\r\n On the Member's second question\r\non incident classification: in the past, the SMRT used a six-level\r\nclassification whereas the LTA used a three-level classification.\r\nSo, you can imagine that sometimes, there is not a lot of clarity\r\nbetween the six different levels, nor a lot of alignment between\r\nthe six and the three. After the December incidents, LTA has worked\r\nwith both the operators to make sure that we have a common alignment,\r\na harmonisation of the incident classification systems. It is important\r\nthat we can not only communicate clearly between the operators and\r\nthe regulator but also reach out to the other stakeholders like\r\nTransCom, SCDF and other agencies that might be able to provide\r\nsupport.
\r\n\r\n Now, let me say that, actually,\r\nbefore the December incidents, there was already an SOP, where the\r\noperator could draw on support from all these stakeholders. It is\r\nnot as if, prior to December, there was no such mode of requesting\r\nfor help and support. It is just that after December, there is a\r\nclearer harmonisation and, hopefully, less confusion of the different\r\nroles and responsibilities going forward.
\r\n\r\n On the Code of Practice\r\nand what commuters can expect to have: one thing we require them\r\nto look at is their detrainment procedures to make sure that the\r\ndecision is taken in a more timely manner, that passengers are not\r\nkept in the train without knowing what is happening and not too\r\nlong a time is taken before the detrainment processes start. That\r\nis one of the areas. Two, is that we require announcements to be\r\nmade, not only at the station that is affected by the incident,\r\nbut across the entire line and over the whole network as well as\r\nto make sure that the general public is properly informed, especially\r\nif it is a severe incident. There are some of these different measures\r\nand processes that are spelt out as well as, of course, the free\r\nbus bridging services and what the stations ought to do better in\r\nterms of preparing themselves for such incidents.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene (Nominated\r\nMember)\r\n : Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister\r\nfor his statement. It is significant that the LTA has been deemed\r\nto have fallen short, and that there will be legal penalties meted\r\nout to SMRT. My question relates to what sort of penalties will\r\nthere be for the LTA. We have a classic question now of who regulates\r\nthe regulator.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Lui Tuck Yew\r\n : I thank\r\nthe Member for the question. If I take it at a deeper level, I guess\r\nthat it is really a question of whether we should have a separate\r\nentity altogether to look at the regulatory aspects, separate from\r\nwhat LTA is doing. It comes back to the question of whether we are\r\nbetter off dividing the limited expertise into two organisations\r\nor to house them centrally. Within the LTA today, we have made clear\r\na separation between the design, the development arm and the regulatory\r\narm, even though\r\nthey are housed under the same organisation. Part of it is really\r\nbecause we think that there is a great deal of value in making sure\r\nthat the people who have had some experience in design, development\r\nand the building of the system are able, for some of them, to transit\r\ninto the regulatory arm and therefore spend enough time there before they\r\nmove back to developing a new line or a new network altogether.
\r\nPage: 410
\r\n\r\n Ultimately, it is the responsibility\r\nof the Ministry to make sure that LTA performs as we expect of it,\r\nboth in designing, developing, delivering the new networks that\r\nwe have planned, rolling them out on time and safely, as well as\r\nregulating the operators to make sure that they deliver on the standards\r\nthat we expect of them. This includes the operating performance\r\nstandards, the incident management, as well as the maintenance and\r\nsafety regimes.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Speaker: Order. I propose\r\nto take the break now. We will continue with the clarifications\r\nafter the break. Before I suspend the Sitting, I would like to remind Members\r\nto please turn their mobile devices to \"silent\" mode. We have had\r\nquite a few incidents today. I suspend the Sitting and will take\r\nthe Chair at 4.05 pm.
\r\n \r\n \r\n\r\n Sitting resumed at 4.05\r\npm
\r\n\r\n [Mr Speaker in the Chair]
\r\n\r\n GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO\r\nTHE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY INTO THE 15 AND 17 DECEMBER\r\n2011 MRT DISRUPTIONS
\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Speaker\r\n : Before I call\r\non the clarifications, what I propose to do is that we will take\r\nall the clarifications together, allow everyone to ask their clarifications,\r\nafter which I will call upon the Minister to answer them. Er Dr\r\nLee Bee Wah.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Er Dr Lee Bee Wah\r\n : Thank\r\nyou, Sir. I have four supplementary questions. First, how much will\r\nit cost to adopt all these recommendations by the COI and who will\r\npay for them? Question two: can the Minister share with us if there\r\nare any recommendations that will not be adopted by SMRT – that\r\nis, those that they said needed feasibility studies? Question three:\r\nwould we expect to see some changes in the top management and the\r\nboard of SMRT – that is, reinforcing the board or bringing in somebody\r\nwho has engineering experience and background? Question four: besides\r\nimposing more fines on PTOs, would the Ministry think of some other\r\nways that benefit commuters more directly, for example, giving the\r\ncommuters a free ride for the day when the train is down?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng\r\n :\r\nSir, there has been a line of questioning that the quest for financial\r\nviability/profits by the PTOs is incompatible with running a reliable\r\nsystem. I would like the Minister to comment on that, or whether\r\nor not indeed the reverse is true, that only with financial viability\r\nas one of the necessary conditions can the PTOs have funds to maintain\r\nand make it reliable.
\r\n\r\n The second point relates to penalties.\r\nI understand LTA is looking into increasing the quantum of the penalties\r\nbut I would like to ask the Minister whether he feels that the thresholds\r\nthat PTOs will be held to should just be on outcomes of the standards\r\nof service, or should these thresholds also include whether they\r\nsuccessfully pass audit regimes for maintenance. This way would\r\nbe more preventive, rather than allowing the breakdowns to occur\r\nand the harm done.
\r\nPage: 411
\r\n\r\n My last point is whether\r\nor not both the LTA and SMRT will continue to communicate as they\r\nprogress on the steps they have taken, pursuant to the COI's recommendations.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Ms Sylvia Lim\r\n : Sir, my clarification\r\nrelates to incident management. Earlier the Minister mentioned about\r\nthe fact that going forward – or maybe that has already been done\r\n– the various agencies will harmonise their classification of incidents.\r\nThere was a media report on Saturday in The New Paper where\r\nformer CEO of SMRT, Ms Saw Phaik Hwa, mentioned that under the critical\r\nincident protocol that SMRT had signed up to at that time, the agencies\r\nsuch as the Police and the SCDF could only be activated if there was\r\na death. I would like to ask the Minister: one, is this true; two,\r\nif true, was this approved by LTA; and, three, going forward, will\r\nthis change because if it is true, I think it is a very worrying\r\nprotocol to have.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Ang Hin Kee\r\n : Sir, a question\r\nfor the Minister. Some of the SMRT ground crew that I spoke with\r\nhave said that following the December incidents, there have been\r\nmany visits by the senior management on the ground to engage them,\r\nto get feedback from them and to also render support to the hard\r\nwork they have been putting in. They have been asking if such ground\r\nlevel encouragement and support will be sustained and whether or\r\nnot LTA, or even if I daresay the Minister, would also be involved\r\nin such engagement to get views from the ground.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Speaker\r\n : What I suggest\r\nis that we let the Minister answer that batch of questions and then\r\nwe will come back again for the rest.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Lui Tuck Yew\r\n : Thank you,\r\nMr Speaker. I think this is better, otherwise I really will lose\r\ntrack of who is asking what. Let me, first of all, reply to Er Dr\r\nLee Bee Wah – recommendations not adopted. No, we are really going\r\ninto it, to study those that have not yet been adopted with an open\r\nmind, and our every intention is to adopt the recommendations as\r\nbest as we can.
\r\n\r\n Changes in top management:\r\nI would say that I am less interested in \"heads rolling\". I am more\r\ninterested in heads being fixed on and focused on the problems and\r\nthe issues, which means carrying out thorough checks, doing systematic\r\nanalyses, and doing a proper follow-up. I know SMRT is actually\r\ndoing its CEO search. It has been doing so for some time. I will\r\nleave them to carry out the due process but I think Mr Tan Ek Kia,\r\nto his great credit, has actually done a lot for the company.
\r\n\r\n On whether there are ways\r\nto benefit commuters more directly: I accept her point. I will ask\r\nLTA to see if there is some possibility of looking into maybe a\r\ncompensation regime and in what form. We will have to learn from\r\nwhat other countries and other operators are doing and see whether\r\nthere is room for us to adopt it.
\r\n\r\n On cost: I do not know what the exact cost\r\nis going to be. I know the other question is, is this cost going\r\nto be passed on to the commuters? That is probably the question\r\nin our minds. Let me say that the Fare Review Committee is looking\r\nat how the fare formula is going to be going forward – Mr Magnus\r\nand his team are now currently looking at it. But if I look back\r\ninto the past at what the fare formula says, the fare formula is\r\npremised on three areas: one, is on inflation; two, is on the wage\r\nindex; and the third, is on a productivity dividend that comes back\r\nto the commuters. There is no formula or factor in the formula that\r\nsays that if they spend more on maintenance that will come out as part\r\nof the fare review. Okay, so I assure her on that.
\r\nPage: 412
\r\n\r\n Mr Cedric Foo, very good\r\nquestion. Thank you. On financial viability, I think it is important\r\nand it is part of the PTC's role not only to set fares, not only\r\nto make sure the standards are upheld, but also to make sure that\r\nover the longer term, indeed the operators are financially viable.\r\nIf they run inefficient regimes, if they are unproductive and have\r\nlosses, ultimately it is the Government, the taxpayers, the commuters themselves,\r\nwho have to pay for it. To me, efficiency is important. Giving them incentives\r\nto be more productive is important. In the fare formula, there is\r\na productivity extract and so they have to meet that. Anything that\r\nis more productive, they get to keep it. So, I think there is that\r\nincentive in there as well.
\r\n\r\n On audit regimes and whether\r\nwe should impose penalties: we can consider this but I look at audit\r\nregimes more as helping us uncover potential shortcomings and making improvements\r\nrather than as penalties that we want to impose on them. I dare\r\nsay that whether it is financial audits or, in this case, engineering\r\naudits, people are likely to be more cooperative if they know that\r\nit is all in the process of helping us uncover shortcomings and\r\nimproving on them, which is ultimately my main priority. We will have\r\nto look at that a little bit more closely.
\r\n\r\n Certainly, I expect them\r\nto continue to communicate on the improvements that they are making.\r\nSMRT, I think, had last week talked about some of the improvements\r\nthat are being made, and they will continue to do so.
\r\n\r\n Ms Sylvia Lim mentioned\r\nan account by Ms Saw Phaik Hwa in The New Paper. As far as\r\nI understand it and as I mentioned earlier, there is an SOP. The\r\nSOP existed before December. The SOP allows the operators to call\r\non TransCom and other Government agencies for assistance. During\r\nthe course of the incidents on 15 and 17 December, SMRT was probably\r\npreoccupied and so LTA took on the responsibility of calling the Government\r\nagencies and asking for resources to come in to provide support.\r\nSo the Police was in. LTA itself sent people on to the ground, and\r\nhelped to monitor the system, and changed the traffic lights – for\r\nexample, the timings in order to allow more time for the buses,\r\nand so on. There is an SOP in place. I do not believe that she has\r\ngotten the account accurate.
\r\n\r\n On Mr Ang Hin Kee's point\r\n– I am gratified to note that the visits by the senior management\r\nare being felt on the ground. I had myself visited SMRT to talk\r\nto the maintenance people themselves and also to express my appreciation\r\nto a small group of them. Hopefully, the message will be passed\r\non to a larger group, that I really appreciate the hard work and\r\nthe dedication that they are putting in under very trying circumstances.\r\nI hope they will be sustained. I would like to believe that they\r\nwill be. And I take the commitment of the Chairman and as well as\r\nthe interim CEO that they want to re-engineer the company. Certainly,\r\nwe already see some of that emphasis being felt down on the ground.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr\r\nSeng Han Thong (Ang Mo Kio)\r\n : Sir, many Singaporeans,\r\nespecially commuters, have given feedback that they did not follow\r\nthe six-week COI thoroughly, but they know from the COI Report that\r\nboth incidents were preventable. May I ask the Minister what is\r\nhis message to the commuters, in particular? Two, of all the recommendations,\r\nwhich will be at the top of the agenda for both SMRT and LTA? And third\r\nis on the system maintenance audit every three years. Will they\r\nbe made public and, also, can the audits be every two years in the\r\ninitial period?
\r\nPage: 413
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng\r\n :\r\nSir, I would like to, first, commend the Transport Minister for\r\nhis level-headedness and diligence by which he has tackled this\r\nwhole challenge. I had some concerns when there was talk about the\r\nshift in focus from a commercial focus to an engineering focus.\r\nI want to ask the Minister, post-COI, if there is a risk of an over\r\nskewing towards engineering and maintenance versus the other priorities?\r\nI believe that engineering proficiency or even elegance is just\r\na means to an end, and that public transport is, after all, a public\r\ngood. The business has to be customer-centric, user-centric. What\r\nthe public wants is not just engineering elegance, but what it wants\r\nis timeliness for the daily travel, the commute; reasonable fares;\r\nand accessibility and connectivity. That is my question to the Minister:\r\nif there is going to be an over skewing of focus towards engineering?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Png Eng Huat (Hougang)\r\n :\r\nThank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, since the PTOs will now be closely audited,\r\nand PTOs being profit-oriented entities, would the Minister consider mandating\r\nthat they set aside certain amount of money for repairs and maintenance costs?\r\nAs I was going through their financials, I saw that in FY2011, the\r\nrepair and maintenance costs actually came down. The reason cited\r\nwas due mainly to lower scheduled repairs and maintenance costs.\r\nGoing forward, we are going to have more trains and the ridership\r\nis going to increase. Maybe the Minister can look into this.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Lui Tuck Yew\r\n : Thank you,\r\nMr Speaker. Let me take the questions in turn. Firstly, from Mr\r\nSeng Han Thong. Yes, I agree with the COI Report that the incidents\r\ncould have been prevented. Whether it is making sure that the MFV\r\nis functioning properly, making sure that the vibration level is\r\nbeing tackled through more regular profiling of the wheels, picking\r\nup sags in the third rail at the appropriate times. There were a\r\nnumber of recommendations by the COI on how to improve the situation,\r\ngoing forward. On his point about recommendations, they are all\r\nimportant. It would be remiss of us not to pay attention across\r\nthe board to all the recommendations because we are trying to eliminate\r\nas many of the weak links as possible. We really need to tackle\r\nthis on multiple fronts. The whole purpose really is to try and\r\nminimise these severe disruptions as much as possible. On the point\r\non system audits: let us do them first and, if necessary, we will do\r\nthem on a more frequent interval during the early years.
\r\n\r\n I agree with Ms Denise Phua.\r\nEngineering is only the means towards an end. Therefore, the emphasis\r\non engineering is towards a more reliable system, fewer breakdowns,\r\nfewer train withdrawals so that the journeys of commuters are not interrupted.\r\nI have asked them to pay special attention to disruptions during\r\nthe peak hours. When you have a train withdrawal during peak hours,\r\nreally, the impact cascades for quite a while simply because commuters\r\nthat are detrained need to move on to the next train and the next\r\ntrain coming in is already reasonably crowded. The whole idea of\r\nmaking this more reliable is so that commuters can have greater\r\nassurance that they will\r\nhave a predictable journey. It is not really because engineering\r\nis now the item that the management is paying attention to – and\r\nthey should – but it is really because we want to deliver a better\r\nsystem.
\r\nPage: 414
\r\n\r\n On Mr Png's point of whether\r\nthey should set aside more money or whether the regulator should\r\nrequire them to set aside more money: it is not the amount of money because\r\nthey do have the money. They are declaring profits. It is really\r\nwhat standards we hold them to. The standards that we hold them\r\nto and impose on them would subsequently translate into the extent\r\nand the amount of work that they have to do. It is not for us to\r\nsay, \"Better set aside another $10 million\" and so on and so forth.\r\nI am not so sure we want to micro-manage them to that extent. We\r\nwill ratchet up the standards, making sure that we pay attention\r\nto the right areas, doing the regular audits to throw up aspects\r\nthat we may not be aware of. These will already require them to\r\nput more emphasis and resources, including financial resources into\r\nthe right areas.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Yee Jenn Jong (Non-constituency Member)\r\n :\r\nSir, I have two questions. The first was somewhat answered by the\r\nMinister, but I still hope to make a point regarding the composition\r\nof the board. Going through the list, I noticed that it comprises members\r\nwho are trained mainly in accounting, finance, economics and law.\r\nI do not think there is anybody with transport engineering background\r\noriginally. I want to ask who will look eventually into the suitability\r\nof board members, not just at SMRT but at the other public transport\r\noperator as well, to ensure that this emphasis on better engineering\r\nis across the board.
\r\n\r\n The second question is that\r\nduring the COI, there were views that the burden of changing of\r\nthe claws should lie with LTA as the ultimate asset owner. Such\r\nviews may persist in future. The COI recommended that SMRT and LTA\r\nreviewed asset management framework which included many things,\r\nincluding maintenance. My question is, how much money the Minister\r\nforesees LTA may have to bear as a result of this requirement for\r\nbetter maintenance and infrastructure, from the point of LTA as\r\nthe ultimate asset owner.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah)\r\n :\r\nSir, a related but relevant question. I want to ask the Minister\r\nwhether LTA will expect and demand SMRT to extend this enhanced\r\nmaintenance regime and also, of course, the tighter audits that\r\nwill come along, to SMRT's other subsidiary line which is the Bukit\r\nPanjang LRT, where we are still seeing frequent breakdowns and disruptions.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Er Dr Lee Bee Wah\r\n : Sir, I\r\nwould like to clarify that I am not asking for heads to roll, as\r\nthe Minister mentioned. I agree that the interim CEO has been doing\r\na lot. What I was trying to say was: will there be more people with\r\nthe engineering experience and background being brought into the\r\nboard and the top management in order to strengthen the team?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Teo Siong Seng (Nominated Member)\r\n :\r\nSir, I would like to ask a very basic question. If all the schemes\r\nand surveys were to be implemented, does the Ministry consider if\r\nthey would add to the costs of the whole system, and, eventually,\r\nwhether there will be a fare increase.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr\r\nLui Tuck Yew\r\n : There are comments on bringing the\r\nright expertise into place at the management level and at the board\r\nlevel. And indeed, over time they have been doing that. For example,\r\nsince 2010, they have got somebody from the engineering side attending\r\nthe board meetings. Not as a board member, but attending the meetings\r\nso that the board itself pays the appropriate amount of attention\r\nto engineering matters. I believe also that beyond the composition\r\nof the board, they do refer to expertise outside of the board that\r\nmay be able to advise them on specific issues related to engineering or\r\nother aspects altogether.
\r\nPage: 415
\r\n\r\n There are cost-related issues.\r\nMr Teo Siong Seng and Mr Yee Jenn Jong mentioned them as well. Who\r\nbears these costs? Is this going to be passed on to commuters? Let me\r\nassure you, as I have answered earlier, that the fare formula as\r\nin the past, really is dependent on macro factors of inflation and\r\nwages minus the productivity dividend. It is not dependent on how\r\nmuch extra they spend on maintenance and so on. I do not expect\r\nthat additional costs that they will spend on claws or whatever\r\nit is are going to be passed on to the commuters as a result.
\r\n\r\n The question from Mr Yee\r\nJenn Jong is who bears which part of the costs. There is an agreement\r\nin the licence agreement on the apportionment of the costs, whether\r\nit is on the fixed infrastructure or it is on the rolling stock\r\nor on additional rolling stock in order to cater to, for example,\r\nridership growth. It is a reasonably complicated matter. I do not\r\nreally want to go in depth into this. To be fair, there is a portion\r\nthat the Government is required to bear, for example, renewing ageing\r\ninfrastructure. Which is why when SMRT announced that they were\r\ngoing to spend $900 million on re-signalling as well as changing\r\nout the sleepers and so on – we are still discussing on what is\r\nthe exact apportionment of the costs between the SMRT and the Government.\r\nThere is responsibility from the point of view of the Government\r\nthat we have to bear part of the costs.
\r\n\r\n Mr Liang Eng Hwa, I take\r\nyour point on the Bukit Panjang LRT. There is a commitment from\r\nSMRT. They were going to spend about $3 million over the coming\r\nyears – we announced that last year – to improve the BPLRT. Still\r\nnot quite satisfactory. I agree with the Member on that point, and\r\nwe ought to do more and see greater improvements going forward.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Speaker: Order. The Clerk will now\r\nproceed to read the orders of the day.\r\n
\r\nPage: 415
\r\n\r\n Question, \"That the House\r\nwill immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill\", put,\r\nand agreed to.
\r\n\r\n The House immediately resolved\r\nitself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Lui Tuck Yew].
\r\n\r\n Bill considered in Committee;\r\nreported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.
\r\nPage: 415
\r\n\r\n Order for Second Reading\r\nread.
\r\nPage: 416
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the\r\nMinister for Law (Ms Sim Ann)\r\n : Mr Speaker, Sir, I\r\nbeg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
\r\n\r\n The Patents (Amendment)\r\nBill is closely related to the next one on our Order Paper, the\r\nIntellectual Property (Miscellaneous Amendment) Bill. Sir, may I\r\ntherefore suggest, with your permission, that the debate on both\r\nBills take place now? Members are welcome to raise questions or\r\nexpress their views on both Bills during the debate.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Ms Sim Ann\r\n : Sir, intellectual\r\nproperty (IP) is a vital component of the global economy. The total\r\nnumber of patent applications filed globally has increased significantly.\r\nThis increase is particularly marked in Asia. East Asia has now\r\novertaken North America and Western Europe in the number of Patent\r\nCooperation Treaty (PCT) international applications filed. The PCT\r\nis used for the filing of patent applications in multiple jurisdictions\r\nand its increasing use is indicative of the global nature of patent protection\r\ntoday.
\r\n\r\n Singapore has come some\r\nway in our development as an IP hub. Over the years, our IP legislative\r\nand enforcement frameworks have been considerably strengthened. Singapore's\r\nhigh international rankings bear testament to our efforts.
\r\n\r\n Since 2006, Singapore's\r\nIP regime has been consistently ranked among the top five in the\r\nworld by the World Economic Forum, and top 10 by the Institute for\r\nManagement Development. In addition, according to the Global Innovation\r\nIndex 2012, which was compiled by the INSEAD Business School in\r\ncollaboration with the World Intellectual Property Organisation,\r\nSingapore is Asia's most innovative country.
\r\n\r\n This has benefited our economy,\r\nin our ability to attract foreign investment to Singapore. For example,\r\nmulti-national companies such as Rolls-Royce and Mead Johnson Nutrition\r\nhave recently invested hundreds of millions of dollars to set up manufacturing\r\nand R&D facilities in Singapore. Our strong IP regime was cited\r\nas one of the key reasons for their significant investment in Singapore.
\r\n\r\n The growth of IP in Asia\r\npresents us with a window of opportunity to develop a greater role\r\nfor Singapore as an Asian IP hub in the international IP landscape.
\r\n\r\n To that end, my Ministry\r\nhas convened an IP Steering Committee to formulate an IP Hub Master\r\nPlan to guide our next phase of efforts. The Committee will recommend strategies\r\nalong two key thrusts, namely, (i) to develop a vibrant marketplace\r\nto transact and commercialise IP; and (ii) to build world-class\r\ncapabilities and infrastructure. The review would be completed by\r\nearly next year.
\r\n\r\n The present Patents (Amendment)\r\nBill and the Intellectual Property (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill\r\nare aimed at further strengthening our IP regime, to better support Singapore's\r\ndevelopment as an IP hub.
\r\n\r\n The proposed amendments serve three main\r\npurposes:
\r\n\r\n (a) to effect a move from\r\nthe current \"self-assessment\" patent system to a new \"positive grant\"\r\npatent system;
\r\n\r\n (b) to liberalise the patent\r\nagent sector; and
\r\nPage: 417
\r\n\r\n (c) to streamline and harmonise\r\nthe IP Registries processes at IPOS.
\r\n\r\n Let me explain the changes.\r\nFirst, the Patents (Amendment) Bill amends the Patents Act to replace\r\nour current self-assessment patent system with a new positive grant patent\r\nsystem. All applications for patents must undergo a search and examination process.\r\nUnder our existing self-assessment patent system, patent applications\r\nneed not, however, fully fulfil Singapore's patentability criteria\r\nin order to be granted. This means that patents may be granted without\r\na fully positive examination report.
\r\n\r\n This was a pragmatic approach\r\nrecommended by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO)\r\nwhen Singapore started its own patent system in 1995. Such a system\r\nallows inventors to decide whether they have made adequate adjustments\r\nto any objections raised by the examiners, or to disagree with the\r\nexaminer's assessment of their claims, before proceeding to seek\r\na patent grant if they wish to. We had also decided then not to\r\ncommit to the substantial investment which would have been required\r\nto build domestic patent search and examination capabilities.
\r\n\r\n Over the past five years,\r\nthe proportion of Singapore patent grants based on fully positive\r\nexamination reports has climbed to over 90%. In 2011, 95% of Singapore\r\npatent grants were based on a fully positive examination report.\r\nWe feel it is now timely to make the move to the positive grant\r\npatent system.
\r\n\r\n Under the proposed positive\r\ngrant patent system, only patent applications which fully meet patentability\r\ncriteria can be granted. The positive grant patent system will, first,\r\nraise the overall quality of patents granted in Singapore; second,\r\nalign our patent system closer to that of established patent offices\r\nlike the European Patent Office, Japan Patent Office, the UK Intellectual\r\nProperty Office and the United States Patent and Trademark Office;\r\nand, third, strengthen business and investor confidence in our patent regime.
\r\n\r\n This is important because\r\nthere are many valuable inventions generated in Singapore today.\r\nFor example, a Singapore SME, Aurigin Technology, patented a soldering\r\ndevice used in semiconductor manufacturing. With its patent, the\r\ncompany successfully defended itself against an infringement claim\r\nby Hong Kong-based semiconductor manufacturing giant ASM Assembly\r\nAutomation and even managed to successfully revoke the ASM patent.\r\nIPOS runs an IP Management for SMEs programme to guide companies\r\nin implementing a viable and cost-effective IP management strategy.\r\nTo date, more than 250 SMEs have benefited from this programme.
\r\n\r\n The move to the positive\r\ngrant patent system will minimise the occurrence of weak patents\r\nbeing granted in future, enhance the standing of Singapore granted\r\npatents, and give increased assurance to companies and investors\r\nof the quality of Singapore-granted patents. Because investors have\r\nincreased assurance of the quality of Singapore-granted patent, local SMEs could\r\nfind it easier to raise funds on the basis of their Singapore-granted\r\npatents to take their patented inventions to market.
\r\n\r\n Clause 6 repeals and re-enacts\r\nsection 29, and inserts new sections 29A and 29B which provide for,\r\nfirst:
\r\nPage: 418
\r\n\r\n (a) a new supplementary\r\nexamination process for patent applications that rely on a positive\r\nforeign search and examination report, to ensure that such patent\r\napplications also comply with Singapore's requirements for patents;\r\nand
\r\n\r\n (b) a new process for the\r\nreview of non-positive examination reports, search and examination\r\nreports, and supplementary examination reports, to provide patent applicants\r\nwith the opportunity to address outstanding objections raised by\r\nthe examiner in these reports.
\r\n\r\n The move to the positive\r\ngrant patent system was strongly supported by practitioners and\r\nthe industry during consultation.
\r\n\r\n The second key change, Sir,\r\nis aimed at growing a more international patent agent industry in\r\nSingapore, by liberalising our patent agent sector.
\r\n\r\n Patent protection is becoming\r\nincreasingly globalised. Asian applicants are leading the way, and\r\nAsian companies are filing an increasing number of patent applications\r\nin multiple countries apart from their home country. With R&D\r\nexpenditure growing in many Asian countries, we can expect even\r\nmore patent applications to originate from this part of the world\r\nin the future.
\r\n\r\n As a result, we foresee\r\nthat there will be increasing demand in Asia for the services of\r\npatent agents and firms with expertise in the patent laws of key\r\nmarkets like the US and Europe. Our aim, therefore, is to attract\r\nfirms with such international patent expertise to Singapore. This\r\nwill grow the range of patent capabilities found here, and enable\r\nSingapore to better service the growth in demand for such services\r\nin Asia. By positioning Singapore as the \"go-to\" place in Asia for\r\nprocuring patent services, we aim to grow the overall market for\r\npatent services in Singapore. This will benefit all patent professionals\r\nin Singapore and create more jobs for Singaporeans.
\r\n\r\n The liberalisation of our\r\npatent agent sector will also expand the range of patent expertise\r\nacross different technology fields in Singapore, to better meet\r\nour industry's needs and support national R&D efforts. Today,\r\nSingapore-based inventors from the likes of A*STAR and the universities\r\ncontinue to have to look outside Singapore to procure patent services\r\nin certain technology fields.
\r\n\r\n Under the current patent\r\nagent regulatory regime, only registered Singapore patent agents\r\nwith a practising certificate (PC) or Singapore advocates and solicitors\r\nwith a PC can undertake patent agency work in Singapore. This is\r\nregardless of whether the patent agency work is performed under\r\nSingapore Patent law or the Patent law of other countries.
\r\n\r\n Clauses 21 to 24 amend the\r\nPatents Act to:
\r\n\r\n (a) allow the registration\r\nof foreign-qualified patent agents. These foreign-qualified patent\r\nagents can be registered at IPOS on the merits of their foreign\r\nqualifications and experience, and need not meet local qualification\r\nrequirements;
\r\n\r\n (b) allow foreign-qualified patent agents\r\nwho are registered at IPOS to undertake offshore patent agency work\r\nin Singapore; and
\r\nPage: 419
\r\n\r\n (c) allow foreign patent\r\nfirms to undertake offshore patent agency work in Singapore as long\r\nas at least one partner or director is a foreign-qualified patent\r\nagent registered at IPOS.
\r\n\r\n The scope of offshore patent\r\nagency work that registered foreign-qualified patent agents can\r\nundertake will be restricted to the following areas:
\r\n\r\n (a) applying for or obtaining\r\npatents at any place other than IPOS;
\r\n\r\n (b) preparing patent specifications\r\nfor filing patent applications, including PCT international patent\r\napplications, outside Singapore; and
\r\n\r\n (c) providing advice on\r\nother countries' patent laws.
\r\n\r\n Local patent agency work\r\nfor which knowledge in Singapore Patent law and procedures is required,\r\nfor instance, the drafting and filing of patent applications with IPOS\r\nwill continue to be only open to registered Singapore patent agents,\r\nand Singapore advocates and solicitors with practising certificates.
\r\n\r\n There will be conditions\r\nfor the registration of foreign-qualified patent agents. These will\r\nbe specified in the amended Patents (Patent Agents) Rules. These\r\nconditions will include:
\r\n\r\n (a) proof of qualification\r\nand proficiency to act before a foreign patent office;
\r\n \r\n\r\n (c) professional insurance;\r\nand
\r\n\r\n (d) compliance with a code\r\nof conduct.
\r\n\r\n The continued growth of\r\nthe local patent profession is also important. MinLaw, together\r\nwith IPOS, is studying how to better support aspiring entrants to\r\nthe profession. We are also working closely with EDB and IE Singapore\r\nto support local firms in growing their capacity to service offshore\r\nmarkets. Some of them already undertake offshore work today.
\r\n\r\n In response to industry\r\nfeedback, legislation will also be amended to formally allow individuals\r\nwho meet local or foreign patent agent registration requirements\r\nto use the title \"patent attorney\", in addition to the title \"patent\r\nagent\". The title \"patent attorney\" is widely used analogously to\r\n\"patent agents\" in established jurisdictions like Australia and Europe.\r\nThis move recognises the high professional standing of the patent\r\nprofession and has been strongly welcomed by our local practitioners.
\r\n\r\n Sir, we are also amending\r\nthe Patents Act, Plant Varieties Protection Act, Registered Designs\r\nAct and Trade Marks Act to support the streamlining and harmonisation\r\nof the processes of the Registry of Patents, Registry of Plant Varieties,\r\nRegistry of Designs and Registry\r\nof Trade Marks at IPOS. These amendments are presented in both the\r\nPatents (Amendment) Bill and the IP (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill.
\r\nPage: 420
\r\n\r\n The streamlining of the\r\nprocesses across the different Registries at IPOS will enable greater\r\nefficiencies, including cost-savings, which can be translated to\r\nusers. A new integrated Registries IT system will be launched later\r\nthis year. The new IT system will make it easier and more convenient\r\nfor customers to execute transactions and access information related\r\nto the different types of IP.
\r\n\r\n Clause 2(d) of the Patents\r\n(Amendment) Bill replaces the definitions of \"marketing approval\"\r\nand \"medicinal product\", and introduces a new definition for \"medicinal\r\nhealth product\", in section 2(1) of the Patents Act. This is a consequential\r\nchange resulting from the Health Sciences Authority's impending\r\ntransfer of the regulatory regime for pharmaceutical products for\r\nhuman use from the Medicines Act to the Health Products Act.
\r\n\r\n The remaining clauses make\r\nmiscellaneous, consequential and ancillary amendments.
\r\n\r\n The passage of these Bills\r\nwill underscore to the international community our commitment to\r\nstrengthen our IP infrastructure and regime, and expand our IP capabilities,\r\nso as to develop Singapore as an Asian IP hub. Sir, I beg to move.
\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill.
\r\n\r\n There is little doubt that\r\nintellectual property will grow in importance given Singapore's\r\ndetermined push towards a knowledge-based economy. This takes place against\r\nthe backdrop of the growing footprint of East Asia where the filing\r\nof patent applications in multiple jurisdictions is concerned. We,\r\ntherefore, need to ensure that we are well-placed to take advantage\r\nof this shift where intellectual property (IP) in the global economy\r\nis concerned.
\r\n\r\n The proposed amendments\r\nwill, I believe, contribute towards Singapore's aspiration to be\r\nan Asian IP hub. But to do so, we would need more than just a user-friendly\r\nand robust legal framework where intellectual property rights are\r\nconcerned. We need to nurture a viable intellectual property eco-system\r\nto ensure that the service providers in Singapore's IP sector can\r\nservice the growth of the sector – not just in terms of the growing\r\ndemand for the various IP services but also to widen the suite of\r\nIP services and expertise available here in Singapore.
\r\n\r\n Sir, the switch from a \"self-assessment\"\r\nto a \"positive grant\" patent system is long overdue. It is now 17\r\nyears since we first started our patent system. To continue with\r\nthe self-assessment patent system only stifles our development as\r\na key node of patent agency work. Pragmatism, which characterised\r\nthe 1995 patent regime, must now give way to greater ambition, meaningful\r\nsophistication in our legal framework, and hard work in developing\r\nour capacity and capability in the IP sector. Only then can Singapore become\r\na \"go-to\" Asian IP hub. As it stands, I feel that we are still very\r\nmuch in the periphery.
\r\n\r\n Sir, allowing patent applications to be\r\ngranted regardless of the outcome of their examination reports,\r\nwhich is the case in our current patent law regime, cannot be the game\r\nin town. The proposed introduction of the positive grant system,\r\nwhere only patent applications which fully meet patentability criteria\r\nwill be granted patents, will raise the standing of our patent regime.\r\nThe current system of patent registration is very much focused on\r\nform and procedure.
\r\nPage: 421
\r\n\r\n Sir, if we value IP rights\r\nand aspire to be an IP hub, then our registration system must also\r\nbe informed, characterised and driven by the substance of patentability.\r\nIn this regard, I would like to request the Senior Parliamentary\r\nSecretary to elaborate on the medium- to long-term plans to grow\r\nthe patent search and examination capabilities of our Intellectual\r\nProperty Office of Singapore (IPOS). Today, such work tends to be heavily,\r\nif not fully, outsourced to patent offices in other countries.
\r\n\r\n When can we expect IPOS\r\nto be fully equipped to undertake international standards search\r\nand examination capabilities beyond the specific technology classes\r\naligned with Singapore's main R&D thrusts? We should not be\r\nsatisfied to have a narrow range of patent-related capabilities\r\nand instead should aspire to be a one-stop, full-service patent registration\r\nhub. It may sound a little harsh but my sense is that our IP capabilities\r\nhave been subjected to somewhat benign neglect in the last two decades.
\r\n\r\n Sir, the key barrier to\r\nour IP aspirations is our human capital capacity. In my view, the liberalisation\r\nof the patent agent regime, to allow patent agents to register in\r\nSingapore to undertake offshore patent agency work, is but a pragmatic\r\nresponse in the short term. It is a stop-gap measure to ramp up\r\nour capability and certainly insufficient for our plans to be an\r\nAsian IP hub.
\r\n\r\n I sincerely hope Singapore-registered\r\npatent agents and law firms will rise to the challenge and upgrade\r\ntheir ability to handle both procedural patent registration matters\r\nas well as the substantive ones relating to search and examination.\r\nThis will mean that local patent agents and law firms can reap not\r\njust the pecuniary benefits arising from offering a broader suite\r\nof patent services but also attract patent owners to use Singapore\r\nas a base for furthering the protection and use of their innovations.
\r\n\r\n As such, I would also like\r\nto ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary about her Ministry's plans\r\nto encourage more Singaporeans, especially lawyers with science\r\nand technology background, to consider a career as a patent attorney.\r\nTo be an IP hub, the human capital dimension is crucial. As it stands,\r\nwhere the IP sector is concerned, this lack of an indigenous talent\r\npool for patent services is the missing link in our IP eco-system.\r\nWe must address this promptly or we will continue to seek the easy\r\nbut retrogressive step of outsourcing, or opening up the IP sector\r\nonly for others to reap maximum benefit. Sir, I welcome this Bill,\r\nand I look forward to a vibrant IP industry in the years to come.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade)\r\n :\r\nSir, it is indeed timely for a review of the Patents Bill, to enhance\r\nand strengthen our regime. This must also align with our efforts to promote Singapore\r\nas a centre for intellectual property transactions in today's global\r\nmarketplace. Companies and organisations competing at the international platform\r\nneed IP protection for their innovations and inventions. For inventors\r\nwho have to spend money and procure the patent, we need to ensure\r\nthat their investment of time and financial resources is worth it.
\r\nPage: 422
\r\n\r\n I feel that the proposed\r\namendment is in the correct direction, in us, first, changing from\r\na self-assessment to a positive grant patent system; and, two, the\r\nliberalisation of the patent agent sector to allow patent agents\r\nto register in Singapore. These steps will enable us to align closer\r\nwith international norms, moving towards patents which are novel\r\nand with the potential for industrial applications.
\r\n\r\n But how can we leverage\r\non the expertise and synergy brought about by the positive grant\r\nsystem to build a more vibrant patent agent and regulator eco-system,\r\nwhere it permits the regulator, that is, the Intellectual Property\r\nOffice in Singapore (IPOS), the chance to learn from the mingling\r\nand interaction with an added pool of expertise and experienced\r\npatent agents, instead of restricting them to local patent agents\r\nand licensed advocates and solicitors from the courts, as proposed.
\r\n\r\n I personally feel the experience\r\nand mutual understanding gained by both parties, for example, in\r\nthe defence or prosecution of a patent claim, can create some sparks\r\nand give rise to some degree of intellectual \"sparring\". This can\r\nonly be good for the IP industry. It will also be useful in building\r\nup our local patent profession and experience.
\r\n\r\n Further to this, why is\r\nthere a need to restrict foreign patent agents to only offshore patent\r\nagency work? Conceivably, by doing so, an investor trying to file\r\nin the USA, EU, Japan and Singapore will require two different patent\r\nagents, that is, one who is an expert in offshore patent laws and\r\nanother who can file with IPOS. My concern is that this will add\r\nto the cost of procuring the patent. I have had personal experience\r\nin this application process and feel that it can be very long drawn,\r\ncostly and requires much time coordinating with various parties\r\ninvolved.
\r\n\r\n The desired primary outcome\r\nof inventors is exploitation of their patent. To do this, they need\r\nto be cognisant of, first, which attorney, patent agent and law\r\nfirm drafted and filed the patent; secondly, which agency had carried\r\nout the examination; and thirdly, what claims have been accepted.
\r\n\r\n It is also necessary to\r\nknow if the claims are defensible in court after purchase, and often\r\nthe reputation and expertise of the grant agency dictates whether\r\nit is worth the investment and resources to file in that jurisdiction.\r\nTherefore, my suggestions are that: (1) we keep the costs affordable\r\nfor inventors and investors; (2) permit foreign patent agents to\r\nfile with IPOS as well; (3) continue to pursue continual alignment\r\nwith international norms; and (4) create the infrastructure which\r\ncan ensure budding investors and inventors are allowed to work with\r\nthe best patent agents they can afford and with a credible regulator,\r\nwho can start them off on the correct platform. With that, Sir,\r\nI support the Bill.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai (Moulmein-Kallang)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, earlier this year, we debated on the Budget. The\r\nBudget was the latest in a series of initiatives by the Government to raise\r\nproductivity and innovation in Singapore. Innovation has to do with\r\nthe development of new ideas, new products to reap better economic\r\nbusiness. New inventions and innovative ideas can be harnessed and\r\nput to use in improving the operation of the business or it can\r\nbe exploited by the innovator by selling the idea or invention or\r\nby licensing it to third party.
\r\nPage: 423
\r\n\r\n But in order to do so, we\r\nmust have an effective, strong and robust patent system. All local\r\nSMEs, in particular, have been encouraged to innovate and find new\r\nways to increase performance and productivity, and this has happened.\r\nAs Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sim Ann has noted, in the last\r\n10 years, Singapore's IP landscape has seen much progress. In the\r\nlast five years, the number of patent applications by local enterprises\r\nin Singapore had almost doubled.
\r\n\r\n The amendments which are\r\nbeing considered in this Bill to the Patent Act are not being made\r\novernight. In August 2009, a public consultation was held to invite\r\nfeedback for IPOS to consider changes to the regime, and how it\r\ncan be best calibrated. This has resulted in the present amendments\r\nto the Patent Act. These amendments seek to underpin what the Minister\r\nfor Law had said when the amendments were first outlined in March\r\nthis year. We aim to build a strong, vibrant IP marketplace with\r\na world-class infrastructure and capability, and, needless to say,\r\nI support that initiative.
\r\n\r\n A strong, robust and credible\r\nIP regime is vital to ensuring that Singapore's competitiveness\r\ncan be maintained. We must try to ensure that Singapore continues\r\nto be an attractive location for knowledge-intensive corporate entities\r\nto manage their IP asset and talent. This can only benefit our economy.
\r\n\r\n There are several amendments\r\nthat are being made to the Patent Act and to other IP-related legislation,\r\nand I will focus on the change from a \"self-assessment\" system to\r\na \"positive grant\" patent system. This is a significant change.
\r\n\r\n The system which we presently\r\nhave in place has been used since 1995. It is, as the title suggests,\r\na system which relies on the applicant seeking patent possession\r\nto ensure himself that it has met the patentability criteria. Thus,\r\na patent could well be granted regardless of the outcome of the\r\nexamination report and without necessary compliance with the patentability\r\ncriteria which are three things: novelty, inventive step and industrial\r\napplicability. Under the old system or the present system, the examination\r\nreports of the patent grant are made public and it is then up to\r\nthe interested party to apply to challenge it. This system was adopted\r\nin 1995 when Singapore started its own patent system because of\r\nthe then limitation in our domestic patent search and examination\r\ncapability. We also wanted to make it easier at that time to encourage\r\napplicants to apply for patents in Singapore.
\r\n\r\n But it is a system that\r\nremains unique in Singapore. The disadvantage, however, was that\r\npatent granted in Singapore was therefore less robust and, in some\r\nways, less recognised. With the increase in IP creation, particularly\r\nin Asia, this is no longer viable. We must enhance our patent grant\r\nsystem so that any patent granted in Singapore will be well recognised,\r\nrobust, reliable and have good standing. The amendments that this Bill\r\nseeks to introduce will achieve this by doing away with the self-assessment\r\nsystem. In its place, the Bill introduces the positive grant system.\r\nUnder the system, only applicants who have fully satisfied the patentability\r\ncriteria will be granted patents. This requires the applicant to obtain a clean\r\nexamination report, with no unresolved objections. If there are\r\nsuch objections, the applicant can apply under the proposed new section\r\n29B for an examiner to review the examination report.
\r\nPage: 424
\r\n\r\n Sir, there is no doubt that\r\nthese changes will enhance our patent system. A successful applicant\r\nwith a Singapore granted patent will hold the patent for which an\r\nexamination has been both thorough and rigorous. And more importantly,\r\na third party dealing with such applicant or patent will know that\r\nit has been granted only after a thorough examination. This can\r\nonly lend greater certainty and promote increased confidence in the\r\nquality of locally obtained patent. In addition, these amendments\r\nalso bring Singapore's patent system in line with many established\r\njurisdictions, such as the US, the UK, Australia, Japan and also\r\nMalaysia. If we do not make these amendments now, we will risk falling\r\nbehind.
\r\n\r\n Sir, I see this as a positive\r\nstep in the enhancement of Singapore as a regional or even global\r\nhub for IP services. We have to build our infrastructure and offer\r\na robust patent system and other incentives for global entities\r\nto set up shop in Singapore, develop manufacture and export their\r\npatents here. Much in the same way as the Government has successfully\r\ndeveloped Singapore as a leading arbitration hub over the last few years.
\r\n\r\n Sir, I therefore support\r\nthe amendment, but I would like to urge the Ministry to bear in\r\nmind that while we strive to ensure or enhance the robustness of\r\nthe system, that we do not unintentionally hinder our own local\r\nSMEs, our own local individual inventors from obtaining patent protection\r\nfor their own deserving invention. Sir, as the Minister for Law\r\nnoted in March this year, local companies are creating more IP,\r\ncan the Ministry elaborate on whether the new positive grant system\r\ncould result in a delay in the grant of deserving patents in these\r\ncases and whether the cost about filing such patents will rise and\r\nwhat assistance can be offered to these SMEs or individual inventors\r\nwho want to proceed to register their patents. With that, I support\r\nthe Bill.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Ms Sim Ann\r\n : Mr Speaker, Sir,\r\nI thank all the Members who have spoken in support of the Bills\r\nand for tracking the growth and development of our IP landscape.\r\nI shall start by responding to Assoc Prof Fatimah's point, as she\r\nhas been a personal user of the various IP systems. I agree with\r\nher that companies do need IP protection for their innovations and\r\nproducts to compete on the international platform. Indeed, we have observed\r\na trend for companies to file for patent protection in multiple\r\nmarkets outside of their home market.
\r\n\r\n With the liberalisation\r\nof the patent agents sector, we hope to attract more patents firms\r\nwith international expertise and build a larger pool of patent agents\r\nwho are capable of providing expert advice on the patent laws and\r\npractices across various jurisdictions, and this will benefit Singapore\r\ninventors.
\r\n\r\n As Assoc Prof Fatimah has\r\nalluded to, the presence of a wider range of patent agents in Singapore\r\nwould facilitate greater collaboration and knowledge transfer between practitioners\r\nwho are qualified to practise across different jurisdictions. I\r\nagree that this would help build our local patent profession and\r\nadd to the vibrancy of our IP landscape.
\r\n\r\n Allow me to elaborate on\r\nwhy foreign qualified patent agents are restricted only to offshore\r\nwork. Every national patent system is different and not all foreign\r\nqualified patent agents may be familiar with Singapore's patent\r\nlaw and practices. It would thus not\r\nbe in the interest of Singapore inventors or companies if patent\r\nagents who are not qualified in Singapore are allowed to file Singapore\r\npatent applications or advise on Singapore patent law.
\r\nPage: 425
\r\n\r\n However, we do know of a\r\nnumber of foreign qualified patent agents who have gone on to seek\r\nSingapore qualifications as well, and we hope this trend will continue\r\neven under the new regime.
\r\n\r\n I agree it is important\r\nto support SMEs in their IP protection and management needs. IPOS\r\nhas, over the years, assisted many SMEs across different areas of\r\nIP, like patents and trademarks, and we will continue to devote\r\nresources to this end.
\r\n\r\n Asst Prof Eugene Tan spoke\r\nabout the need to develop the local patent profession and grow a\r\nstrong pipeline of talent. This, indeed, has been an area of focus\r\nfor MinLaw and IPOS since the profession was started a decade back.\r\nOver the past five years, the Government has been running the Mentorship\r\nFunding Scheme to support local patent agent firms in hiring experienced\r\npatent agents to guide and mentor local patent trainees. We are\r\ncurrently reviewing the scheme, with the aim of enhancing the training support\r\nand building a bigger pipeline of local patent agents. In addition,\r\nwe are also exploring ways to support the continuing professional\r\ndevelopment of qualified patent agents. Foreign patent firms that\r\nhave spoken to MinLaw have expressed intentions of employing and\r\ntraining Singaporeans as patent agents. So, that is some news for\r\nAsst Prof Eugene Tan.
\r\n\r\n We are also working with\r\nagencies like EDB and IE Singapore to support local patent firms\r\nto grow their offshore markets. Taken together, what this means\r\nis that more Singaporeans will enjoy the opportunity to join the\r\npatent agent profession and be exposed to the patent laws and practices\r\nof different jurisdictions. In addition, IPOS is building up a new\r\nteam of patent examiners in-house and this new team will also help to\r\nenlarge the IP eco-system and provide an additional pathway to the\r\npatent agent profession, as we have observed in other countries.
\r\n\r\n Overall, as we develop a\r\nthriving IP industry in Singapore as part of our ambition to be\r\nan agent IP hub, we are confident that we will create more high-value\r\njobs for Singaporeans across the different IP professions. These\r\njobs are a good fit for the Singapore workforce as they require\r\npeople who are technically proficient and have a good command of\r\nEnglish. Indeed, I think it is very much the type of high value-add\r\njobs that Mr Gan Thiam Poh was speaking about just now during his\r\nParliamentary question.
\r\n\r\n Finally, but certainly not\r\nleast, I think awareness of IP as a good career to go into is also\r\nkey, and I would be glad to encourage Asst Prof Eugene Tan in raising\r\nawareness among his many students of this field as a very rewarding\r\nprofession possibly to develop into.
\r\n\r\n Sir, Mr Edwin Tong, as well\r\nas Assoc Prof Fatimah, have pointed out that we need to be mindful\r\nthat the new processes of the \"positive grant\" patent system do\r\nnot unintentionally hinder companies and inventors, particularly\r\nthose representing SMEs from obtaining patent protection for their\r\ndeserving inventions. I thank them for their observations and that,\r\nindeed, were amongst our key considerations.
\r\n\r\n We think that the impact\r\nwould be manageable. Under the \"positive grant\" system, only patent\r\napplications with a fully positive search and examination report\r\ncan be granted. The\r\napplicant may opt for the examination review step if the applications\r\nhave outstanding objections. However, 95% of patents granted already\r\nhave a fully positive search and examination report and would not\r\nbe affected by the changes. The new supplementary examination is\r\nalso only required for patent applications that rely on a foreign\r\nsearch and examination report. Patent applications that rely on\r\na local search and examination report will not require it. On the\r\nissue of potential delays and costs, while the examination review\r\nmay add a few months to the patent application process, this would\r\nonly affect the 5% of applicants who currently do not have fully\r\npositive examination reports. Nonetheless, it is important to note\r\nthat patent protection starts from the date of filing the application\r\nand not the date of grant of patent. There would be additional fees\r\nfor those who require these additional examination processes, but\r\nwe will ensure that the fees are kept reasonable.
\r\nPage: 426
\r\n\r\n Sir, I have covered the\r\nkey points that have been raised by Assoc Prof Fatimah, Asst Prof\r\nEugene Tan and Mr Edwin Tong. Again, I would like to thank them\r\nfor their suggestions which my Ministry will consider and also to\r\nthank them for their support of the Bills. These Bills will support\r\nour efforts to develop Singapore as an Asian IP hub.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song\r\n :\r\nI have two clarification questions for the Senior Parliamentary\r\nSecretary. First is that we have seen, in recent months and years,\r\nmany patent lawsuits in the US and Europe, most notably between\r\ntech companies, like Apple and Samsung. Many of these lawsuits deal\r\nwith very technical issues which even I, as an IT professional,\r\nsometimes have difficulty understanding.
\r\n\r\n My two questions are: first,\r\ndoes the Government expect more patent litigations in Singapore\r\nin the coming years, given our tilt towards expanding our patent\r\nservices? Secondly, while I appreciate that effort is being put\r\ninto attracting more patent attorneys and building up those capabilities,\r\nis our judicial system equipped to be able to deal with these patent\r\nlitigations and the very technical nature of it?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Ms Sim Ann\r\n : Mr Speaker, Sir,\r\nI thank Mr Gerald Giam for his questions. Indeed, as he has pointed\r\nout quite rightly, patent lawsuits can be very technically complex, sophisticated\r\nand very involved affairs. As to whether or not we expect to see\r\nmore patent or IP litigation in Singapore, I think this is also,\r\nto a large extent, linked to the size of our market. As with our\r\nefforts to expand the range of IP-related services – this may, for\r\ninstance, also include arbitration – we hope that the entire suite\r\nof services, including legal support for companies who need this\r\nrecourse in order to protect their IP, will grow and that our capabilities\r\nwill also grow in tandem.
\r\n\r\n As for building up the capabilities\r\nin our Judiciary for hearing IP cases, indeed, this is an important\r\nfocus for my Ministry, and we are working together with the Judiciary\r\nto ensure that our judges have the necessary exposure and awareness\r\nof the latest developments with regard to IP internationally.
\r\n\r\n Question put, and agreed\r\nto.
\r\n\r\n Bill accordingly read a\r\nSecond time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
\r\n\r\n The House immediately resolved\r\nitself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Sim Ann].
\r\n\r\n Bill considered in Committee;\r\nreported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.
\r\nPage: 426
\r\n\r\n Order for Second Reading\r\nread.
\r\nPage: 427
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Ms Sim Ann\r\n : Mr Speaker, Sir,\r\nI beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
\r\n\r\n This Bill is closely related\r\nto the earlier Patents (Amendment) Bill. In the debate we have just\r\nhad, I have explained the amendments proposed in both Bills and\r\nMembers have already expressed their views. Therefore, Sir, I beg\r\nto move.
\r\n\r\n Question put, and agreed\r\nto.
\r\n\r\n Bill accordingly read a\r\nSecond time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
\r\n\r\n The House immediately resolved\r\nitself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Sim Ann].
\r\n\r\n Bill considered in Committee;\r\nreported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.
\r\nPage: 427
\r\nPage: 428
\r\n\r\n \r\n 18\r\n Mr Zaqy Mohamad\r\n asked\r\nthe Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) in the last\r\nten years, how many Government and statutory board contracts were\r\nlinked to corruption charges or unethical conduct of its officers;\r\n(b) of these cases, how many had entailed the cancellation or withdrawal\r\nof the tender award and what were the reasons for the rest of the\r\ncontracts being allowed to continue; (c) what is the Ministry's procurement\r\npolicy with respect to reviewing the award of such contracts when\r\nit is found that the awarded party or a Government official involved\r\nin the evaluation and award of tender has been involved in corruption\r\nand unethical behaviour; and (d) under what circumstances will such\r\nvendors be blacklisted from participating in Government tenders.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam\r\n :\r\nThe Government takes a strong stand against corruption. Corruption\r\noffences are investigated by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau\r\n(CPIB). Decisive action will be taken against any individual found\r\nto be corrupt. Public officers convicted of corruption will face\r\nboth penalties under the law and staff disciplinary action.
\r\n\r\n Individuals and the companies\r\nthey represent will also face penalties if it is determined in Court\r\nthat they are involved in such corruption. Individuals convicted\r\nof corruption will be debarred from being awarded new Government\r\ntenders for a period of time. The debarment is also extended to\r\ncompanies or businesses on which these individuals serve as directors,\r\npartners or sole proprietors.
\r\n\r\n Between 2004 and now, there\r\nhave been eight debarment cases on grounds of corruption involving\r\npublic officers and Government contracts. In these cases, the individuals\r\ninvolved, including the public officers, were convicted and the\r\ncompanies or businesses involved were debarred for a period of five\r\nyears.
\r\n\r\n In addition to debarment\r\nwhich affects the contractor's eligibility for award of new contracts,\r\nif the contractor is found to have offered bribes in relation to\r\nan existing contract, the Government agency can terminate the contract\r\nas provided for under the Government's standard conditions of contract.\r\nWhere contracts have yet to be awarded, Government agencies will\r\nnot consider debarred contractors for award of new contracts.
\r\n\r\n As for public officers who\r\nare alleged to be involved in corruption cases, they can be suspended\r\nfrom all duties once investigations commence. If such officers are\r\ninvolved in the evaluation or approval process, Government agencies\r\nmay suspend further action on a tender or decide on a no-award and\r\nre-call the tender.
\r\nPage: 428
\r\n\r\n \r\n 21\r\n Mr David Ong\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for Health (a) what are the factors that have contributed\r\nto the current long waiting times of up to six months for some new\r\ncases for an appointment\r\nat the Specialist Outpatient Clinics of the restructured hospitals;\r\nand (b) what are the strategic approaches to minimise long waiting\r\ntimes so that it will not be the norm in the public hospitals.
\r\nPage: 429
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Gan Kim Yong\r\n : Specialist\r\nOutpatient Clinic (SOC) waiting times for new appointments vary\r\nacross hospitals and across specialties within each hospital. Fast-tracked\r\nreferral arrangements between polyclinics and SOCs have enabled\r\nour hospitals to keep median waiting times for subsidised patients\r\nwith urgent cardiac and suspected cancer conditions at eight and\r\nsix days respectively. For the emergency cases, they will be attended\r\nto immediately at the A&E departments.
\r\n\r\n For less urgent referrals,\r\nthe overall median waiting time for first appointment was 24 days\r\nin 2011. For these referrals, some specialties such as orthopaedic\r\nsurgery, gastroenterology and renal medicine, have longer median\r\nwaiting times of between one and two months. A small minority –\r\nabout 0.1% of subsidised patients waited six months or longer for\r\nnew SOC appointments in 2011. While such long waiting times are\r\nnot the norm in public hospitals, it is natural for these patients\r\nto be anxious as they would like to be examined by the specialists\r\nas soon as possible. We have thus been working actively with the\r\nhospitals to reduce waiting times at the SOCs.
\r\n\r\n Hospitals employ a multi-pronged\r\napproach to reduce waiting times. First, hospitals are taking steps\r\nto improve the efficiency of the appointment system by reminding patients\r\nof their appointments via phone calls and text messages and also\r\nenabling patients to make changes of appointments more easily through\r\ndedicated central SOC appointment call centres. In this way, they\r\ncan help reduce \"no-show\" rates, where appointments are made but\r\npatients fail to show up. Second, hospitals are also working closely\r\nwith Polyclinics and GPs to continue the care of patients who no\r\nlonger require specialist care at the SOC, and to minimise unnecessary\r\nreferrals to SOC in the first place if the patients can be adequately\r\ncared for at the polyclinics and private GP clinics. This way, we\r\ncan reduce the unnecessary patient load at the SOC and free up more\r\ncapacity for those who really need specialist care. Third, as announced\r\nduring the COS debate earlier this year, we are setting up more\r\nMedical Centres (MCs) in the community. In addition to Jurong Medical\r\nCentre which opened since 2006, more will be set up over the next\r\nfew years. MCs are designed to provide broad-based specialist care\r\nin a community setting. Patients who need specialist care in selected\r\nspecialties will be able to see specialists in an MC nearer their\r\nhomes. With the support of specialists in these MCs, GPs can co-manage\r\npatients with more complex but stable conditions in the community\r\nas part of shared care programmes. The MCs will also have diagnostic\r\nand support services to serve the patients and support the GPs.\r\nThe setting up of MCs will help to further ease the load at the\r\nSOC in our acute hospitals.
\r\nPage: 429
\r\n\r\n \r\n 22\r\n Ms Tan Su Shan\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for Health (a) how have the upcoming new private hospitals\r\naffected the public hospitals' ability to retain senior doctors;\r\n(b) what is the percentage of senior doctors who have left for private\r\npractice recently; and (c) how does this affect the public sector's\r\nability to train and mentor young doctors from medical schools.
\r\nPage: 430
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr\r\nGan Kim Yong\r\n : At the national level, MOH plans healthcare\r\ninfrastructural capacity and healthcare manpower staffing in tandem\r\nto ensure that there is sufficient manpower to meet service expansions.\r\nOver the years, we have been growing the supply of doctors (both\r\nspecialists and non-specialists) through increasing local medical undergraduate\r\nand postgraduate training pipelines. The medical school intake had increased\r\nfrom 230 in 2005, to 336 in 2011, between NUS Yong Loo Lin School\r\nof Medicine and Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School. With the Lee Kong\r\nChian School of Medicine opening in 2013, the three medical schools\r\nwill train 500 doctors annually, in the steady state. The specialist\r\ntrainee intake had increased substantially from 176 in 2009 to 451\r\nin 2011, with the roll-out of the Residency postgraduate training\r\nsystem in 2010. We are also attracting overseas Singaporean doctors\r\nand foreign professionals to work in Singapore.
\r\n\r\n We expect the two new upcoming\r\nprivate hospitals to draw some specialist manpower from the public\r\nhospitals as they are the largest employer of specialists. In the\r\nfirst half of 2012, the attrition rate of public sector specialists\r\nwho indicated 'joining private sector' or 'personal reasons' as\r\ntheir reasons for leaving the public healthcare clusters was 2.1%,\r\nwhich was slightly higher than the 2% average attrition over the\r\nsame period in the past five years.
\r\n\r\n Our public hospitals have\r\ntaken steps to minimise the impact of specialist attrition. Firstly,\r\nthey increased their specialist staffing by 34%, from 1,618 to 2,164,\r\nover the past five years. Secondly, we have enhanced the pay of\r\npublic sector doctors to be more competitive against the market.\r\nThirdly, the public hospitals also engage private sector specialists\r\nas Visiting Consultants to teach and supervise trainee doctors,\r\nalongside public sector colleagues.
\r\n\r\n These efforts will help\r\nto ensure sufficient capacity and capability within the public sector\r\nto train and mentor the future generations of doctors and provide\r\nquality healthcare for Singaporeans.
\r\nPage: 430
\r\n\r\n \r\n 23\r\n Er Dr Lee Bee Wah\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for Transport in light of the proposal to introduce\r\na six-day work week for SMRT bus drivers (a) whether the Ministry\r\nadopts a hands-off approach as far as the salary and welfare of\r\nbus drivers of the public transport operators are concerned; and\r\n(b) whether there are plans to ensure that there are sufficient\r\nbus drivers to service the additional 800 new buses under the Bus\r\nServices Enhancement Programme.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Lui Tuck Yew\r\n : Our regulatory\r\nframework allows flexibility for public transport operators (PTOs)\r\nto structure their operations as appropriate to meet the required service\r\nstandards. This includes the setting of bus drivers' salaries and\r\nterms of employment. Ministry of Transport does not directly intervene\r\nin these decisions. However, like all employers in Singapore, the\r\nPTOs have to comply with relevant workplace and labour requirements.\r\nOn salary and welfare matters, it is in the PTOs' interest to work\r\nwith the unions, as they have done consistently.
\r\n\r\n Under the Bus Services Enhancement\r\nProgramme (BSEP), the Government will fund 550 new buses to improve\r\nservice levels. This is in addition to the 250 or so buses that the\r\npublic transport operators (PTOs) will add at their own cost. As\r\na result, we expect that\r\nthe two PTOs will have to recruit about 1,600 more bus drivers in\r\ntotal. This is a significant increase in the manpower requirements\r\nof the public bus industry, and the PTOs will have to offer competitive\r\nterms to be able to attract sufficient new drivers.
\r\nPage: 431
\r\n\r\n As they announced recently,\r\nboth PTOs have adjusted the salary and employment terms for their\r\nbus drivers. We expect that both PTOs will closely monitor the impact\r\nof these changes on recruitment and retention trends, and be ready\r\nto make further adjustments as necessary so as to meet their commitment\r\nto operate the additional buses being rolled out under the BSEP.
\r\nPage: 431
\r\n\r\n \r\n 25\r\n Mr Teo Siong Seng\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts in view\r\nof SingTel's 3G service outage in September 2011, whether his Ministry\r\nwill consider imposing an obligation on SingTel to give rebates\r\nto subscribers who experienced major disruptions in their mobile\r\nphone usage for this service outage; and imposing a similar obligation\r\non all telecommunications companies for such service disruptions\r\nin future.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim\r\n :\r\nIDA currently regulates the quality of mobile telecommunications\r\nservices through the Code of Practice on Telecom Service Resiliency\r\n(Resiliency Code) and Quality of Service (QoS) framework.
\r\n\r\n The existing Resiliency\r\nCode ensures that operators adopt proactive measures to improve\r\nthe resiliency of their mobile telecommunication networks in order\r\nto prevent widespread service disruption. In the event that such\r\ndisruptions occur, it also ensures that operators take all necessary\r\nmeasures to restore services as quickly as possible. The QoS framework\r\nrequires mobile operators to meet certain performance measures,\r\nsuch as providing network coverage at outdoor and in-buildings areas,\r\nas well as in road and MRT tunnels, under normal operating conditions.\r\nIt also requires minimising dropped calls. Where operators fail\r\nto comply with the requirements set out in the Resiliency Code or\r\nfail to meet certain performance measures under the QoS framework,\r\nIDA is empowered to impose financial penalties. In the past year,\r\nIDA has penalised mobile operators that have failed to comply with\r\nthese Codes of Practice, with financial penalties ranging from $300,000\r\nto $400,000, in relation to mobile network outages.
\r\n\r\n In the light of these existing\r\nregulatory measures and taking into consideration Singapore's fully\r\nliberalised telecommunication landscape, we have left it to the operators\r\nto commercially determine how best to compensate their subscribers\r\nfor the inconvenience caused by a service disruption. The level\r\nof compensation is a commercial decision by operators for the purpose\r\nof retaining their customers' loyalty, which may be too subjective\r\nfor IDA, as a regulator, to determine. For example, in the case\r\nof M1's service disruption in May 2011, IDA understands that M1\r\nhad proactively and voluntarily offered free local calls, SMSes,\r\nand MMSes for a full day on 25 May to all its subscribers, including\r\nthose unaffected by the service disruption.
\r\n\r\n MICA and IDA would continue\r\nto monitor the service performances of the telecommunication mobile\r\noperators and review both the Resiliency Code and the QoS framework\r\nto ensure that they remain relevant in our liberalised telecommunications market.
\r\nPage: 432
\r\n\r\n \r\n 27\r\n Ms Sylvia Lim\r\n asked\r\nthe Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Manpower with regard\r\nto employers facing insolvency who have a mix of local and foreign\r\nemployees (a) whether the employer is usually required to settle\r\nall wage claims by foreign employees before they are repatriated;\r\nand (b) whether local workers' wage-related claims are thereby jeopardised\r\nas local workers typically file their claims only when the businesses\r\nare liquidated.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam\r\n :\r\nLaws are in place to ensure that employers resolve wage claims filed\r\nby any of their workers, regardless of nationality. Under the Employment\r\nAct, employers are required to pay the salaries of both their local\r\nand foreign workers within seven days after the end of the salary\r\nperiod. Workers with unpaid salaries may file their claims with\r\nthe Labour Court. The Court does not differentiate between local\r\nand foreign workers in the recovery of salary arrears.
\r\n\r\n Failure to pay salaries\r\non time, for both local and foreign workers, constitutes a serious\r\noffence. Errant employers may be liable upon conviction to a fine\r\nof up to $5,000, or imprisonment of up to six months, or both. In\r\n2011, 22 employers were convicted of salary-related offences under\r\nthe Employment Act. MOM will not hesitate to prosecute such employers\r\nin future, and help recover the salary arrears through the Courts.
\r\n\r\n In cases where employers\r\nhave become insolvent and their companies are undergoing liquidation,\r\nthe Companies Act provides for apportionment of the unpaid salaries\r\nfor workers. It does not differentiate between local and foreign\r\nworkers. Unpaid salaries of workers will be accorded higher priority\r\nover claims by other unsecured creditors. We advise local and foreign\r\nworkers alike who lodge salary claims with MOM to also file their\r\nclaims with the appointed liquidator, who is required to give such\r\nclaims priority.
\r\n\r\n MOM is committed to protecting\r\nthe employment rights and interests of workers, including ensuring\r\nprompt salary payment. The Ministry encourages all employees to seek\r\nassistance on unpaid wages, as soon as possible, before companies\r\nreach the stage of liquidation. From our experience, the majority\r\nof local workers do indeed file their claims before this happens.
\r\nPage: 432
\r\n\r\n \r\n 28\r\n Mr Pritam Singh\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for National Development (a) what is the current percentage\r\nof Malays, Chinese, Indians and others residing in all HDB rental flats,\r\non (i) a block-by-block basis and (ii) zone/cluster-by-zone/cluster\r\nbasis; (b) what is the current average waiting time for an approved\r\nrental housing application for all ethnic groups, for each zone/cluster;\r\n(c) what is the longest waiting time that an applicant from each\r\nethnic group has had to wait before a rental flat was allocated;\r\nand (d) how often has the Ministry changed its ethnic integration\r\npolicy (EIP) limits for rental housing since the introduction of\r\nHDB rental housing and what are the reasons for those changes.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Khaw Boon Wan\r\n : The Ethnic\r\nIntegration Policy (EIP) was introduced in 1989 to ensure a balanced\r\nmix of the various ethnic groups within HDB estates. The objective\r\nis to prevent the\r\nformation of ethnic enclaves. EIP limits are set at the block and neighbourhood\r\nlevels and they apply to both sold and rental flats.
\r\nPage: 433
\r\n\r\n The EIP was last revised\r\nin March 2010, when the ethnic limit for the Indian/Others ethnic\r\ngroup was increased by 2%-points. This was in response to Singapore's demographic\r\nchanges.
\r\n\r\n The limits are 87% for Chinese,\r\n25% for Malays and 15% for Indians/Others. These are at the block\r\nlevel. At the neighbourhood level, the corresponding limits are\r\ntighter by 3%-points. The current rental households comprise 62%\r\nChinese, 25% Malays, and 13% Indians/Others.
\r\n\r\n The average waiting time\r\nfor a public rental flat is about four months for Chinese, six months\r\nfor Indians/Others, and seven months for Malays. At the individual\r\nlevel, the waiting time would vary for different applicants and\r\nis a function of factors, such as the applicant's choice of rental\r\nzone, type of rental flat, and the EIP quota available.
\r\nPage: 433
\r\n\r\n \r\n 31\r\n Mr Zaqy Mohamad\r\n asked\r\nthe Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether\r\nthe current laws are adequate to protect Internet users from being cyberbullied\r\nand their private information being used for intimidation or embarrassment;\r\n(b) whether the Ministry will consider consolidating or introducing specific\r\nlaws to protect Internet users from cyberbullying and wrongful use\r\nof personal data for intimidation purposes; (c) what is the Ministry's\r\nposition on the current law enforcement capability and resources\r\nto enforce rules against cyberbullying; (d) whether the Ministry\r\nwill consider introducing Internet privacy laws and, if not, what\r\nare the limitations.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Teo Chee Hean\r\n : There are\r\ncurrently no laws that specifically target cyberbullying. However,\r\nthere are existing provisions under the Penal Code that can be applied.\r\nFor instance, cyberbullying that amounts to criminal intimidation\r\ncarries a jail term of up to two years and/or a fine. The maximum\r\nterm of imprisonment could extend to 10 years for serious threats.\r\nThese include threats to cause death or grievous hurt.
\r\n\r\n MHA, Ministry of Law and\r\nMICA are currently considering the need to target cyber bullying\r\noffences more explicitly. In addition, we are reviewing other criminal\r\nlegislation to ensure that undesirable acts perpetrated via electronic\r\nmeans can similarly be punishable as criminal offences.
\r\n\r\n Besides criminal sanctions,\r\na victim of cyberbullying may also obtain a civil injunction from\r\nthe Court to restrain the perpetrator.
\r\n\r\n There are existing general\r\nlaws that can apply to internet privacy infringement of a criminal\r\nnature, such as hacking and information theft. Separately, MICA\r\nis developing a general personal data protection law that will regulate\r\nhow organisations collect, use and disclose personal data in Singapore.
\r\n\r\n In tandem, MHA is looking\r\ninto how to overcome some of the enforcement challenges inherent\r\nin tackling Internet offences. These would include addressing how to\r\ntrack down perpetrators hiding behind the cover of anonymity, and\r\naddressing jurisdictional issues for cases where the perpetrator\r\nis overseas.
\r\nPage: 434
\r\n\r\n However, legislative changes and law enforcement\r\nare only part of the solution. Fundamentally, we should work together\r\nto foster a culture of responsible Internet use where each individual\r\nrespects the rights and views of others in the online community.
\r\nPage: 434
\r\n\r\n \r\n 32\r\n Ms Ellen Lee\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for National Development (a) what factors were considered\r\nin the differentiated resale levy rates imposed on HDB flats; (b)\r\nwhy was the resale levy policy revised in 2006; (c) why there is\r\nan interest rate of 5% imposed under the previous resale levy policy;\r\nand (d) whether the Ministry will consider reviewing the HDB resale\r\nlevy policy so that the levy can be paid in instalments at the same\r\ntime that the new housing loan is being repaid instead of it being\r\npaid in cash upfront.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Khaw Boon Wan\r\n : When computing\r\nthe resale levy, the main consideration is the type of the subsidised\r\nHDB flat. The smaller the flat-type, the lower is the levy. This\r\nhelps the lower income family who bought a small flat as their first\r\nsubsidised flat upgrade.
\r\n\r\n The resale levy policy was\r\nrevised in 2006 in response to public feedback. Before 3 March 2006,\r\nthe resale levy was based on a percentage of the resale price of\r\nthe subsidised flat. As this would vary with the market, it created\r\nan uncertainty for the HDB upgraders.
\r\n\r\n Following public feedback,\r\nthe HDB revised the resale levy policy. It is now a fixed quantum\r\nof between $15,000 and $50,000, based on the flat type of the first\r\nsubsidised HDB flat. This revision makes it clear how much levy\r\nis payable, and allows second-timers who are intending to buy a\r\nsecond subsidised flat from HDB to plan ahead.
\r\n\r\n I have explained in this\r\nHouse before why an interest rate was imposed on some resale levies.\r\nThose who opted to defer the payment of their resale levy did so\r\nknowing that interest would be charged.
\r\n\r\n For families who have financial\r\ndifficulties paying the resale levy, we will assist them on a case-by-case\r\nbasis. This may include payment via instalments.
\r\nPage: 434
\r\nPage: 435
\r\n\r\n \r\n 34\r\n Mr Gan Thiam Poh\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what has been the total\r\ntax revenue generated by the biomedical manufacturing sector for\r\nthe past five years; (b) what is the sector's percentage of tax\r\nrevenue contribution relative to other industrial sectors; (c) what\r\nis the total number of workers employed and the average wage per\r\nworker in the biomedical sector; and (d) what is the average wage\r\nper worker for each industrial sector.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Lim Hng Kiang\r\n : Total tax\r\nrevenue from the biomedical manufacturing sector for the past five\r\nyears amounted to about $2.8 billion, or about 28% of total tax\r\nrevenue from the manufacturing sector. In 2010, the sector employed\r\nclose to 14,000 people with an average annual remuneration of about\r\n$61,000, about 40% higher than the overall manufacturing average\r\nannual remuneration.
\r\nPage: 435
\r\n\r\n \r\n 36\r\n Mr Yee Jenn Jong\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for Education over the past five years, in terms of\r\nPrimary schools that are ranked according to their number of graduating students\r\nwith PSLE T-scores of 250 and higher (a) what percentage of the\r\ngraduating class in the top 10 Primary schools obtained PSLE T-scores\r\nof 250 and higher; and (b) what percentage of the graduating class\r\nin the bottom 10 Primary schools obtained PSLE T-scores of 250 and\r\nhigher.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Heng Swee Keat\r\n : MOE does\r\nnot rank our Primary schools by the number of students with a PSLE\r\nscore of 250 or above. Such a ranking would not be meaningful. In fact,\r\nmany Members, including Mr Yee, have previously voiced their concerns\r\nabout focusing too narrowly on academic success in education. The\r\nMinistry shares these concerns and is taking steps to broaden the\r\ndefinition of success, and to emphasise holistic education, with\r\ncharacter and values at the centre. Ranking schools based on the number\r\nof pupils with high PSLE scores will undermine these efforts, with\r\npotentially adverse impacts on our schools and our students.
\r\n\r\n In fact, a good school is\r\nnot measured by the number of top students that it produces at national\r\nexaminations. Instead, a good Primary school understands the profile\r\nand needs of its students, develops them holistically, in academic\r\nas well as other non-academic areas, and prepares them well for\r\nSecondary education.
\r\n\r\n As part of our emphasis\r\non holistic education, MOE funds the Programme for School-Based\r\nExcellence. This Programme enables Primary schools to offer niche\r\nprogrammes, thereby providing opportunities for their students to\r\ngrow in different areas and enrich their educational experience.\r\nThe niche domains span across sports, uniformed groups, aesthetics,\r\ninformation and communications technology (ICT), character education,\r\nand environment education. Through these programmes, schools also\r\nhelp their students to develop important life skills, such as teamwork,\r\ncommunication and creativity. We aim to develop niches of excellence\r\nin every school. There are now 83 Primary schools with the Programme\r\nfor School-Based Excellence, up from 76 last year.
\r\nPage: 436
\r\n\r\n \r\n 37\r\n Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for Health (a) what are the top five contributory factors\r\nfor healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) in our public hospitals;\r\n(b) whether the HAI rate is linked to the high bed occupancy rates\r\nin the public hospitals; and (c) what is the Ministry doing to reduce\r\nHAIs in our hospitals.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Gan Kim Yong\r\n : Healthcare-associated\r\ninfections (HAIs) are infections that patients acquire during their\r\nstay in healthcare facilities, like hospitals. Our hospitals take\r\nHAIs seriously as it could delay and complicate a patient's recovery.
\r\n\r\n There are various contributory\r\nfactors for HAIs. For example, HAIs could occur during surgery when\r\na patient's skin, the body's natural defence against infection,\r\nis breached. The use of in-body medical devices, such as urinary\r\ncatheters, can predispose a patient to infections arising from such\r\ndevices. Patients with conditions, such as diabetes and kidney failure,\r\nare also more susceptible to infections because of their lowered\r\nimmune status. Some treatments, such as chemotherapy for cancer,\r\nmay also lower a patient's immunity thus increasing the risk for\r\nHAIs. HAIs often occur as a result of a combination of factors.\r\nIt is therefore not conclusive that high bed occupancy rate (BOR)\r\ndirectly leads to higher HAIs. In fact, a recent study of BOR and\r\nMethicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) shows that there\r\nis a lack of consistent correlation between them.
\r\n\r\n To minimise transmission\r\nof bacteria and reduce HAIs, our public hospitals have instituted\r\nstrict infection control measures. These include stringent adherence\r\nto hand hygiene practices among healthcare staff, contact precautions\r\nto minimise physical contact and contact with medical devices, implementation\r\nof evidence-based infection prevention practices during treatment\r\nprocedures, and regular surveillance of HAI rates in special care\r\nareas, such as the intensive care units (ICUs). These infection\r\nprevention measures have reduced HAIs in our hospitals.
\r\n\r\n For example, in the medical\r\nICUs, through stringent infection control measures, the ventilator\r\nassociated pneumonias had decreased from 2.61 per 1,000 ventilator\r\ndays in 2004 to 1.04 per 1,000 ventilator days in 2010. Similarly,\r\nblood stream infection associated with central lines (these are\r\ncatheters inserted into patients' veins for treatment and monitoring)\r\nin these ICUs had decreased from 0.97 per 1,000 central line days\r\nto 0.58 per 1,000 central line days over the same period. However,\r\nit is increasingly challenging to stem the rise of bacteria that\r\nare resistant to multiple antibiotics - infections caused by these\r\nbacteria are difficult and expensive to treat.
\r\n\r\n To better tackle the problem\r\nof antimicrobial resistance related to HAIs, my Ministry set up\r\na national taskforce in 2009, comprising infectious disease specialists,\r\ninfection control experts, pharmacists, microbiologists and public\r\nhealth experts to develop and implement measures to reduce drug\r\nresistant HAIs in our healthcare institutions. These measures have\r\nbeen progressively implemented in the hospitals. One such measure\r\nis the setting up of antimicrobial stewardship programmes which\r\nwill be progressively rolled out to seven public hospitals over\r\nthe next four years to enhance the appropriate use of antibiotics\r\nthus reducing antimicrobial resistance in our hospitals. Some hospitals,\r\nsuch as Tan Tock Seng Hospital, have piloted innovative ways to\r\nbetter control HAIs. Measures that work and are cost-effective will\r\nbe rolled out across all our hospitals.
\r\nPage: 437
\r\n\r\n Finally, our hospitals have implemented\r\nmeasures to restrict the number of visitors in order to reduce the\r\nrisk of transmission of infections. We can also play our part in reducing\r\nthe transmission of HAIs by washing our hands before and after visiting\r\nour friends or relatives in the hospitals.
\r\nPage: 437
\r\n\r\n \r\n 38\r\n Mr Laurence Lien\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for Health if he will provide an update on the progress\r\nthe Ministry has made in promoting better chronic disease management since\r\n2008, particularly in getting Singaporeans to be more informed of\r\ntheir chronic diseases and to come forward to have their chronic\r\ndiseases managed regularly and treated consistently.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Gan Kim Yong\r\n : Since 2008,\r\nthe Ministry has been promoting early detection and better chronic\r\ndisease management through the Chronic Disease Management Programme\r\n(CDMP) and the Integrated Screening Programme (ISP). Through ISP, Singaporeans\r\nare encouraged to visit CDMP GP clinics to be screened for common chronic\r\ndiseases (diabetes, hypertension and lipid disorders), cervical,\r\nbreast and colorectal cancer, and we provide subsidies to lower\r\nincome Singaporeans. To date, over 48,000 persons have been screened\r\nunder ISP, out of which over half (53.2%) were detected with one\r\nor more chronic diseases. HPB is currently working towards improving\r\nthe screening programme through an Enhanced ISP, which will customise the\r\ntests to be taken based on the individual's age, gender and risk\r\nprofile, and also provide better follow-up.
\r\n\r\n Should individuals be found\r\nto have abnormal screening results, they can be followed up at the\r\nCDMP GP clinics or polyclinics. CDMP not only allows patients to\r\nuse their Medisave to reduce the out-of-pocket expenses for the\r\noutpatient treatment of their chronic conditions, but also ensures\r\na more systematic monitoring and treatment of these chronic conditions,\r\nin accordance with international best practices. CDMP coverage has\r\nbeen expanded from the initial three conditions (diabetes, hypertension and\r\nlipid disorders) to also include stroke, asthma, chronic obstructive\r\npulmonary disease (COPD), schizophrenia and major depression, dementia\r\nand bi-polar disorder), to benefit more Singaporeans. In January\r\n2012, we increased withdrawal limit for outpatient treatment of\r\nchronic conditions from $300 to $400 per account.
\r\n\r\n In 2011, 131,000 patients\r\nbenefited from the use of Medisave under CDMP. Patients on CDMP\r\nhave shown positive outcomes. For example, diabetes patients staying\r\n12 months on the programme had a lower rate of disease-related hospitalisation,\r\nthan those staying less than 12 months.
\r\n\r\n In addition to being able\r\nto use Medisave, Government subsidies are also made available for\r\nSingaporeans who qualify for the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS)\r\nat CHAS GP clinics for the management of their chronic conditions.
\r\n\r\n MOH has recently expanded\r\nthe CHAS eligibility criteria to cover those 40 years and above\r\nand having a per capita monthly household income of up to $1,500,\r\nthus benefitting more Singaporeans.
\r\n\r\n To help Singaporeans to\r\nbe more informed of their chronic conditions and seek treatment,\r\nHPB has introduced community initiatives, such as Health Ambassadors (HAs), at screening\r\nevents, Health Promoting Community Clubs, Health Promoting Malls.
\r\nPage: 438
\r\n\r\n Through HPB's community\r\ninitiatives and MOH's programmes, we aim to help Singaporeans to\r\nbe more informed of their chronic diseases and to encourage them\r\nto come forward to have their chronic diseases managed regularly\r\nand treated consistently.
\r\nPage: 438
\r\n\r\n \r\n 40\r\n Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad\r\nFaishal Ibrahim\r\n asked the Deputy Prime Minister and\r\nMinister for Home Affairs (a) if he can expedite the implementation\r\nof the Community Policing System for the whole of Singapore; (b)\r\nwhat proportion of HDB blocks and multi-storey car parks will be\r\ncovered in the programme; and (c) when will the system be implemented\r\nin Yishun and Sembawang housing estates.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Teo Chee Hean\r\n : Commencing\r\nMay this year, the Police has been implementing the Community Policing\r\nSystem (COPS) progressively across different parts of Singapore.\r\nWhile I can understand the Member's desire for implementation to\r\nbe expedited, let me explain why we need as many as three to five\r\nyears for the full rollout.
\r\n\r\n First, as part of COPS,\r\nPolice will be increasing its manpower by 450 new posts. We should\r\nnot rush the recruitment and training of such a significant number\r\nof police officers. Otherwise, the quality of recruitment could\r\nbe compromised.
\r\n\r\n Second, a phased rollout\r\nwill allow Police to methodically plan and deploy the resources\r\nneeded for the new Crime Strike Force and other key components of\r\nthe reorganised Neighbourhood Police Centres (NPCs). It will also\r\nallow Police to progressively build upon lessons learnt in the earlier\r\nphases of implementation.
\r\n\r\n Third, the installation\r\nof Police Cameras is a large-scale initiative that will cover all 10,000\r\nblocks and multi-storey car parks in HDB estates. The installation\r\nof such a large number of police cameras across diverse HDB precincts\r\nwill also take time.
\r\n\r\n Police have already installed\r\nPolice Cameras in about 300 blocks in the pilot phase of this initiative.\r\nCameras will be installed in another 700 HDB blocks island-wide\r\nbetween the fourth quarter of this year and the end of next year.
\r\n\r\n All Town Councils, including\r\nthe Sembawang – Nee Soon Town Council, will have some blocks installed\r\nwith Police Cameras by the end of next year. In identifying specific locations\r\nto deploy the Police Cameras, Police will consider their operational\r\nneeds and also take into account inputs from the Town Councils.\r\nThe same basis will be adopted for the deployment of subsequent\r\nbatches of Police Cameras.
\r\nPage: 438
\r\n\r\n \r\n 42\r\n Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar\r\n asked\r\nthe Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Manpower if the Ministry\r\nwill consider extending the Workfare Income Supplement to grandparent\r\ncaregivers who help look after their grandchildren and hence reducing\r\nthe need for childcare services or help by foreign domestic workers\r\n(FDWs).
\r\nPage: 439
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr\r\nTharman Shanmugaratnam\r\n : It is very encouraging that\r\nmany older Singaporeans care for their grandchildren while their\r\nparents are away at work. This is a reflection of our strong family\r\nties, and is also a good way for older Singaporeans to keep active.\r\nMeasures like the Grandparent Caregiver Relief, which is a $3,000\r\ntax relief, given to working mothers, provide recognition for grandparents\r\nwho play the role of caregiver and help the mothers take care of\r\ntheir children.
\r\n\r\n The objective of the Workfare\r\nIncome Supplement (WIS) scheme is different. WIS was designed to\r\nsupplement the incomes and CPF savings of lower income Singaporeans,\r\nand to encourage them to enter and remain in the labour market.
\r\n\r\n Allowances received for\r\ncarrying out family support roles, such as babysitting and care-giving\r\nfor dependents, are considered transfers within the family. They\r\nare not external sources of income derived from employment, and\r\nhence it would not be appropriate to consider these transfers for\r\nWIS.
\r\nPage: 439
\r\n\r\n \r\n 43\r\n Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar\r\n asked\r\nthe Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Manpower if the Ministry\r\nwill consider making it mandatory for employers to continue employing\r\nfemale employees who are pregnant, throughout their pregnancy, and\r\nnot just within six months before the birth of their child.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam\r\n :\r\nThe Government does not condone the discrimination of female employees\r\ndue to their pregnancy or maternity. The Employment Act (EA) today\r\nalready allows any employee, including female employees in any stages\r\nof pregnancy, to appeal to the Minister for Manpower if they feel\r\nthat they have been unfairly dismissed. If the Minister finds that\r\nthe employee has been dismissed without just cause, he may then\r\nreinstate the employee or order compensation to be paid to her.
\r\n\r\n Recognising that some employers\r\nmay be tempted to dismiss their pregnant employees before their\r\ndue date, the EA further requires an employer who dismisses a pregnant\r\nfemale employee without sufficient cause within the last six months\r\nof her pregnancy to pay her the maternity benefits that she would\r\notherwise be entitled to under the Act.
\r\n\r\n While the Government protects\r\npregnant female employees against unfair dismissals, we must also\r\nbe mindful that employers will be less inclined to hire women of\r\nchildbearing age if we over-prescribe the protection of pregnant\r\nemployees in our laws. This ultimately affects the employability\r\nof a wider group of workers.
\r\n\r\n MOM last reviewed the protection\r\nfor pregnant female employees in 2008, when we extended the protection\r\nperiod for female employees from the last three months of pregnancy\r\nto the last six months of pregnancy. In our current review of the\r\nEmployment Act, we are consulting our tripartite partners on whether\r\nthere is scope to further extend the protection period, without\r\ncompromising female employability.
\r\n\r\n At the same time, we acknowledge\r\nthat legislation cannot be a complete solution to achieve fair employment\r\noutcomes. We need to work with our tripartite partners to change\r\nmindsets and ensure that we build an inclusive society that recognises\r\nfair treatment and\r\nequal opportunities. To this end, MOM has been working closely with employers\r\nand unions through the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices (TAFEP)\r\nto promote fair, responsible and merit-based employment practices.
\r\nPage: 440
\r\n\r\n \r\n 44\r\n Ms Sylvia Lim\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for National Development (a) what criteria does the\r\nGovernment use before granting approvals for single-house land plots\r\nto be redeveloped and sub-divided into multiple-unit developments\r\nsuch as condominiums; (b) how does the Government ensure that such\r\napprovals for new developments do not adversely affect the liveability\r\nof estates by creating strains on the local infrastructure such\r\nas traffic congestion or parking place shortages along the local\r\naccess roads; and (c) for the Kovan/Hillside/Rosyth estates, how\r\nwill the Government manage redevelopment so as to alleviate the\r\ncurrent traffic congestion and parking crunches along local access\r\nroads and minimise such problems in the future.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Khaw Boon Wan\r\n : There are\r\nplanning rules governing such development. Briefly, only single-house\r\nland plots in estates not safeguarded as Landed Housing Areas but\r\nare zoned for non-landed residential use, can be developed into\r\nflats and condominiums. In addition, the allowable development intensity\r\nof these estates, which is reflected in the Master Plan, will have\r\ntaken into account the capacity of local infrastructure and potential\r\namenity impact on existing residents.
\r\n\r\n More recently, the URA has\r\nintroduced additional guidelines to evaluate redevelopment proposals\r\nfor non-landed housing. Since last November, proposals for new flat\r\ndevelopments must have a minimum site area of 1,000 square metres.\r\nThis requirement ensures that there is sufficient space for landscaping\r\nand communal facilities, such as car parks, to meet the needs of\r\nresidents. This requirement also facilitates the design of more\r\nopen spaces within and between developments.
\r\n\r\n In addition to having a\r\nminimum site area, the URA will also examine the height, bulk and\r\nintensity of a proposed development to ensure liveability of the\r\nestate. The URA will guide developers if necessary to improve their\r\nproposals before planning approval is granted. In some cases, developers\r\nmay also be required to carry out detailed traffic impact studies\r\nand adopt traffic improvement measures to avert potential congestion.
\r\n\r\n For low-density residential\r\nareas, the URA has found it necessary to also cap the maximum number\r\nof units that can be allowed for flat and condominium developments. This\r\ncap ensures that the redevelopment will be at a pace and density\r\nthat the local road infrastructure can accommodate. The URA and\r\nLTA are studying whether an even more stringent cap is needed specifically\r\nfor the Kovan, Hillside and Rosyth area, similar to what was done\r\nfor Telok Kurau.
\r\n\r\n We will monitor the situation\r\nand update the guidelines where necessary to ensure that new flats\r\nand condos can happily co-exist with landed houses in the area.
\r\nPage: 441
\r\n\r\n \r\n 46\r\n Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon\r\nEugene\r\n asked the Minister for Education (a) whether\r\nany further action has been taken by the National University of\r\nSingapore in connection with a NUS student religious group's posters\r\nand website that were deemed disrespectful and insensitive to Buddhism\r\nand Islam, and to other countries; and (b) whether the Ministry\r\nand the institutes of higher learning (IHLs) have plans to engender greater\r\nrespect and sensitivity for religious and non-religious beliefs\r\namong students, staff and faculty in our IHLs.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Heng Swee Keat\r\n : MOE and\r\nour Institutes of Higher Learning do not condone any action or behaviour\r\nthat disrupts religious harmony or disparages any community in Singapore\r\nor in other countries. When NUS management was alerted to the posters, they\r\nimmediately counselled the students involved and explained to them\r\nhow others could be offended by their actions. The students promptly\r\nremoved the offending materials from campus and their website, and\r\napologised for their actions on their website. The activities of\r\nthe NUS Campus Crusade for Christ have since been suspended, and\r\npolice investigations are still ongoing. NUS management also took\r\nthe occasion to remind the wider NUS community of the importance\r\nof being respectful to others' beliefs and views.
\r\n\r\n Our MOE schools and IHLs\r\nregularly emphasise the importance of social cohesion, tolerance\r\nand sensitivity, through both the formal and informal curriculum.\r\nMOE schools emphasise these values through their Civics and Moral\r\nEducation programme; and build appreciation of the cultural diversity\r\namong the various ethnic communities in Singapore through subjects\r\nlike Social Studies and History. Our IHLs create opportunities for\r\nstudents to discuss and imbibe the values of respect and the importance\r\nof racial and religious harmony in Singapore through their various\r\ncharacter and citizenship education programmes. These include not\r\nonly academic-based modules on Singapore, but also co-curricular\r\nplatforms that bring students from different backgrounds together\r\nin natural settings, to foster deeper interactions and friendships.
\r\n\r\n The \"Inter-Faith\" Group\r\nin NUS has members who are representatives of the various NUS student\r\ngroups that are religion or ethnicity-based, eg, Varsity Christian Fellowship,\r\nBuddhist Society, Hindu Society, etc. This \"Inter-Faith\" group organises activities,\r\nsuch as talks, seminars and civics tours, to promote harmony among\r\ndifferent religions and faiths.
\r\n\r\n Maintaining racial and religious\r\nharmony is critical in the context of a multi-racial, multi-religious\r\nSingapore. This incident reminds all of us not to take racial and\r\nreligious harmony for granted, and that we must be sensitive and\r\nvigilant on matters of race and religion.
\r\nPage: 441
\r\n\r\n \r\n 49\r\n Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad\r\nFaishal Ibrahim\r\n asked the Minister for National Development\r\nover the last three years what is the debt service ratio (DSR) of Singaporeans\r\nwho purchased new and resale HDB flats and how do these DSRs vary across\r\nthe different room types.
\r\nPage: 442
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr\r\nKhaw Boon Wan\r\n : From 2009 to 2011, the average Debt\r\nService Ratios for first-timers buying new flats, in both mature\r\nestates and new towns, were 25%, 22%, and 24% respectively. Excluding\r\ntransactions in mature estates, the corresponding figures for purchases\r\nin new towns were 21%, 22% and 24%.
\r\n\r\n For resale flats, the average\r\nDSRs for first-timers from 2009 to 2011 were 24%, 24% and 25% respectively.\r\nIf we exclude the mature estates, the corresponding figures were similar,\r\nat 24%, 24% and 25%.
\r\n\r\n DSRs for smaller flat types\r\nare generally lower as more grants are given to the lower income.\r\nFor example, in 2011, the DSRs for 2-room and 3-room new flats were\r\n17% and 23% respectively. This is lower than the DSRs for 4-room\r\nand 5-room flats, which were 26% and 25% respectively.
\r\n\r\n The DSRs indicate that first-timer\r\nhouseholds are prudent in the selection of their homes. The various\r\nGovernment grants have also eased their debt burden, allowing them\r\nto service their monthly installments using their CPF contributions,\r\nwith little or no cash outlay.
\r\nPage: 442
\r\n\r\n \r\n 50\r\n Mr Zainal Sapari\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for Education (a) what is the current total value of\r\ncleaning contracts for schools and the total amount of liquidated\r\ndamages imposed on cleaning service providers under their immediate\r\npast term contracts; and (b) what are the reasons cited for the\r\nimposition of liquidated damages.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Heng Swee Keat\r\n : MOE outsources\r\ncleaning functions in the 380 schools under its purview. The current\r\ncontracts for cleaning, which took effect from 1 February 2011 are\r\nvalued at $63.5 million per annum and were awarded to six contractors.
\r\n\r\n The contracts provide for\r\ndeductions to be made on progress payments to the cleaning contractors\r\nfor non-delivery of work, as specified in a schedule of the contract. Examples\r\nof non-delivery include failure to meet agreed cleaning performance standards\r\nand the failure to carry out the committed cleaning plan.
\r\n\r\n Cleaning contractors have\r\ngenerally met the performance standards and fulfilled the cleaning\r\nplans. Non-delivery of service is uncommon. In the course of the\r\n14 months since the start of the current contracts, a total of $21,700\r\nin deductions was made for non-delivery. This amounted to $18,600\r\nper annum or 0.03% of the annual contract value of $63.5 million.
\r\n\r\n With regard to the previous\r\ncontract term, the contracts ran from 1 August 2006 to 31 January\r\n2011 with an annual contract value of $60.3 million. Total deductions\r\nfor non-delivery of service amounted to $48,000 per annum or 0.08%\r\nof the annual contract value.
\r\nPage: 443
\r\n\r\n \r\n 1\r\n Mr Zainal Sapari\r\n asked\r\nthe Prime Minister whether the Government will consider increasing\r\nthe quantum of medical subsidies for civil servants under the Medisave-cum-Subsidised\r\nOutpatient (MSO) Scheme which is currently capped at $350 a year\r\nfor outpatient treatment.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Teo Chee Hean (for the Prime Minister)\r\n :\r\nThe Civil Service reviews its medical benefits periodically to ensure\r\nthat they are adequate. The latest review will be completed in the\r\nsecond half of this year and we will make adjustments, if necessary.\r\nI had informed the House of this during the Committee of Supply\r\nDebate earlier this year.
\r\nPage: 443
\r\n\r\n \r\n 2\r\n Er Dr Lee Bee Wah\r\n asked\r\nthe Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what\r\nmeasures is the Ministry taking to tighten laws to bring cyber bullies\r\nto book; (b) how many of such bullying cases were reported to the\r\nMinistry over the past two years; (c) what actions were taken against\r\nthese offenders; and (d) what is the Ministry doing regarding the\r\nrecent case of a grassroots volunteer whose personal particulars were\r\nposted in online forums and websites after he engaged some netizens\r\non Government policies.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Teo Chee Hean\r\n : Current\r\nlaws do not target cyberbullying specifically. However, there are\r\nexisting laws that can apply against cyberbullying. For example,\r\ncyberbullying may amount to criminal intimidation under the Penal\r\nCode. This is an offence which carries a penalty of imprisonment\r\nand/or a fine. In cases involving serious threats, such as threats\r\nto cause death or grievous hurt, the penalty is more severe, with\r\na longer term of imprisonment. Other offences, such as extortion\r\nor insulting the modesty of a woman, can also apply.
\r\n\r\n My Ministry is working with\r\nthe Ministry of Law and MICA to consider whether cyberbullying needs\r\nto be targeted more explicitly. In addition, we are reviewing other criminal\r\nlegislation enacted before the Internet age to ensure that undesirable\r\nacts perpetrated via electronic means can similarly be punishable\r\nas criminal offences.
\r\n\r\n Given the viral speed at\r\nwhich offensive material can spread on the Internet, we are also\r\nexploring whether to legislatively provide for a wider range of\r\njudicial injunctions to offer victims relief prior to the conclusion\r\nof criminal proceedings.
\r\n\r\n In addition to criminal\r\nsanctions, a victim of cyberbullying may also obtain a civil injunction\r\nfrom the Court to restrain the perpetrator. MHA and the Ministry\r\nof Law are also reviewing whether the existing civil remedies need\r\nto be enhanced to address acts of cyberbullying.
\r\n\r\n I do not have the details\r\nof the specific case you have mentioned. Nonetheless, in a scenario\r\nwhere the personal particulars of an Internet user are disseminated\r\nover the Internet by other parties, this may or may not amount to\r\nan offence, depending on the specific facts and circumstances of\r\neach case, such as whether the particulars were disseminated in\r\nconjunction with a threat.
\r\nPage: 444
\r\n\r\n As there is no specific cyberbullying offence,\r\nPolice do not keep statistics on cyberbullying per se. The\r\nproblem appears small at present but may be an emerging issue given\r\nthe high Internet penetration in Singapore.
\r\nPage: 444
\r\n\r\n \r\n 3\r\n Mr Zaqy Mohamad\r\n asked\r\nthe Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what\r\nis the current number of foreign drivers who are licensed to drive commercial\r\nand goods vehicles in Singapore; (b) what measures are in place\r\nto ensure that they are sufficiently competent to drive on Singapore\r\nroads; (c) what initiatives are in place for them to understand\r\nour local road behaviour and norms; and (d) over the last five years,\r\nwhat is the percentage of foreign drivers who have kept clean and accident-free\r\ndriving records and how does this compare with local drivers.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Teo Chee Hean\r\n : There are\r\naround 9,000 foreign workers who are drivers by occupation as of\r\nMay 2012. Most of them drive commercial and goods vehicles for work purposes.
\r\n\r\n A foreign driver is required\r\nto pass the Basic Theory Test (BTT) before he can convert his licence.\r\nThe BTT ensures that foreign drivers are acquainted with the Highway\r\nCode, including our traffic/road signs and signals. In addition,\r\na foreign driver is also required to take and pass a practical test\r\nbefore he is allowed to drive heavy vehicles.
\r\n\r\n The Traffic Police (TP)\r\nworks closely with dormitory operators, corporate partners and organisations\r\nthat employ a large number of foreign workers and drivers to educate them\r\non road safety. Road safety advisories and penalties for common\r\ntraffic violations are uploaded on TP's website and included in\r\nthe Ministry of Manpower's (MOM) orientation materials for the foreign\r\nworkers.
\r\n\r\n In all, of the approximately\r\n370,000 foreign drivers with converted Class 3/3A driving licences,\r\nabout 0.1% of them contributed to traffic accidents that resulted\r\nin a fatality or injury over the past five years. In comparison,\r\nthe accident contribution rate of Singapore drivers holding valid\r\nClass 3/3A licences over the same period was 0.3%.
\r\n\r\n The Ministry of Home Affairs\r\nand MOM are reviewing the framework for drivers who ferry workers\r\nin the course of their work. For such drivers, a stricter standard\r\nis being considered. We will announce details of these changes once\r\nthe review is completed.
\r\nPage: 444
\r\n\r\n \r\n 4\r\n Mr Zaqy Mohamad\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry will consider\r\nCOEs for vehicles of business or commercial use that are separate\r\nfrom vehicles for consumer use in view of the high COE prices that\r\nimpact upon business costs; and (b) what are the measures being\r\nconsidered to help businesses manage their vehicle purchase costs\r\nin the short-term, especially those businesses that are highly dependent\r\non transport vehicles.
\r\nPage: 445
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Lui Tuck Yew\r\n : Businesses\r\ntypically bid for Category C COEs to register commercial vehicles.\r\nThey do not have to compete with other private car buyers who bid\r\nfor Category A and B COEs. In addition, owners of commercial vehicles\r\nenjoy significantly lower vehicle taxes. The Additional Registration\r\nFee (ARF) for all types of goods vehicles (except goods-cum-passenger\r\nvehicles\r\n 1\r\n ) is set at 5% of the vehicle's Open Market\r\nValue (OMV), instead of the 100% OMV applicable for cars.
\r\n\r\n In May, LTA announced measures\r\nto ease the transition to a lower vehicle growth rate. The combined\r\neffect of these measures is that in the coming months, almost 50% more\r\nCategory C COEs would be made available than before the measures.\r\nThis should help relieve some of the upward pressure on COE prices\r\nfor commercial vehicles during this period.
\r\n